A chronological approach for learning Jazz

[charlieparker]

One typical approach to learning Jazz is to learn some blues first and then transition to jazz blues and then to non-blues jazz tunes.

I was wonder if anyone has thought about a chronological approach to learning jazz. Specifically, I am referring to studying the swing idiom first and learning to solo in that style before progressing to say bebop.

It seems that most of us move from blues to some form of modern jazz, but many of the artists that I am most fond of spent a lot of time studying masters from the swing era like Charlie Christian and Lester Young.

I also think that the chord changes there are a bit more diatonic and simpler so it might be an easier place to start.

Thoughts? Is such an approach a waist of time if learning to play swing isn't your end goal?

[frankhond]

I thought that the swing approach was a common chronology already. I had a teacher start me with shell voicings and swing Freddie green style through autumn leaves, my funny Valentine etc. Didn’t work for me at all because it felt like I was playing old Disney movie music. But I think he was following a common playbook that works for a lot of people.

[charlieparker]

I thought that the swing approach was a common chronology already. I had a teacher start me with shell voicings and swing Freddie green style through autumn leaves, my funny Valentine etc. Didn’t work for me at all because it felt like I was playing old Disney movie music. But I think he was following a common playbook that works for a lot of people.

Didn't know that. I have seen piano method books for kids that have a lot of swing stuff. I didn't think guitarist and general jazz instructional material was really structured that way.

[princeplanet]

Depends how much Blues you wish to have in your palette. I spent 20 years trying to reduce my Blues influence, FWIW...

[Little Jay]

While not stricly learning jazz styles like that chronologically by playing through the style, I had a teacher (Dutch Olaf Tarenskeen, a monster player) who explained the harmonic development of jazz in that chronological way to me and it was very enlightening to me. Pointing out the time frame of a certain song or artist (like Dixieland is only 7ths, later the alterations were added, modal playing was introduced and then Coltrane comes along with his changes to summarise it very very simplified).

I can imagine learning jazz that way - style by style in a chronological way - brings a thorough understanding of jazz but it’s perhaps more time consuming and more difficult to execute the discipline to stay in one style before moving to the next one? Dunno…..

[Christian Miller]

I’ve kind of gone of backwards and then forwards again with a while in the middle where my gigs were mostly swing (and I still play a lot of that stuff)

I definitely think that learning pre war jazz helps with bebop. The repertoire for example… I notice none of the good American straight ahead players seem to sleep on the pre war guys…

[Lionelsax]

One typical approach to learning Jazz is to learn some blues first and then transition to jazz blues and then to non-blues jazz tunes.

I was wonder if anyone has thought about a chronological approach to learning jazz. Specifically, I am referring to studying the swing idiom first and learning to solo in that style before progressing to say bebop.

It seems that most of us move from blues to some form of modern jazz, but many of the artists that I am most fond of spent a lot of time studying masters from the swing era like Charlie Christian and Lester Young.

I also think that the chord changes there are a bit more diatonic and simpler so it might be an easier place to start.

Thoughts? Is such an approach a waist of time if learning to play swing isn't your end goal?

I would say "fractal".

[Jimmy blue note]

If early jazz moves you, study it. If it doesn't, don't study it because it came first, start when what moves YOU. The more you immerse yourself in what is relevant to you the deeper you'll dig. Once you get into the depths of your own influences and influencers, there's no way to avoid the road back to swing, and you can approach that with a very personal investment.

My own feeling is, when you study something because of some perceived obligation, it doesn't take as truly or deeply as when you study it out of love.

I didn't really "get" swing music when I was younger. It seemed like the music that Loony Tunes was played to. I took a course in college and it was historical chronologically based. I didn't really take any interest until we got to the last weeks of the class and the music became familiar.
Of course that's just me, but that's how it went with me.
Then one day, in the midst of listening to a John Abercrombie record, I happened to hear a radio station playing Fletcher Henderson with Coleman Hawkins. BANG! Connection. Energy. Swing. Timeless kinship and relevance.

It was always most important for me to feel moved and maintain a curious and open mind. I learned an extremely comprehensive and useful historical perspective this way, and I grew as a musician with each opportunity.

[paulkogut]

It's a mixed bag. I agree with David that studying out of love is ultimately the way to go, but I've also benefited from dealing with styles of music that wouldn't have been my first choice to play...

Here's an interesting article by Ethan Iverson on the subject of learning jazz chronologically
A “New” (meaning “Old”) Approach to Jazz Education | DO THE M@TH

PK

[charlieparker]

Depends how much Blues you wish to have in your palette. I spent 20 years trying to reduce my Blues influence, FWIW...

I find a lot of swing to have a less blues influences than hard bop say. For instance, Charlie Christian doesn't sound that bluesy to me.

I think the typical approach for a guitarist is to spend a lot if time playing blues, then jazz blues, then hard bop.

Hence, studying swing may lead to a less bluesy style.

[charlieparker]

If early jazz moves you, study it. If it doesn't, don't study it because it came first, start when what moves YOU. The more you immerse yourself in what is relevant to you the deeper you'll dig. Once you get into the depths of your own influences and influencers, there's no way to avoid the road back to swing, and you can approach that with a very personal investment.

My own feeling is, when you study something because of some perceived obligation, it doesn't take as truly or deeply as when you study it out of love.

I didn't really "get" swing music when I was younger. It seemed like the music that Loony Tunes was played to. I took a course in college and it was historical chronologically based. I didn't really take any interest until we got to the last weeks of the class and the music became familiar.
Of course that's just me, but that's how it went with me.
Then one day, in the midst of listening to a John Abercrombie record, I happened to hear a radio station playing Fletcher Henderson with Coleman Hawkins. BANG! Connection. Energy. Swing. Timeless kinship and relevance.

It was always most important for me to feel moved and maintain a curious and open mind. I learned an extremely comprehensive and useful historical perspective this way, and I grew as a musician with each opportunity.

Fair enough. Personally, I love some swing. Lester and Charlie of course. Duke Ellington.

And it seems like it is a bit simpler harmonically and a good style to dig into to develop things like time feel.

[mr. beaumont]

Charlie Christian doesn't sound that bluesy?! My head just exploded. I hear the blues all over his playing...and he was probably the biggest single influence on one of the most bluesy jazz players of all time, Herb Ellis. Maybe I have a different idea of what blues is.

I think there's real benefits in starting a generation or so ahead of the music that you like best...because that's what the folks who created the music you love cut their teeth on.

There's that swing approaching bop era that I think is critical for getting the "jazz sound" that's persisted ever since. So many of the innovations that are still used in the music today were made during that time.

I suppose, if I were still writing my "How to not suck at jazz in 10 grueling years" pamphlet, I'd push for going from melody, to embellished melody, to outlining chords with enclosures and chromatic approaches, to a more "macro" approach based on key centers and I/V tension/release...which in a way, is sort of a chronological approach...

I think it's also really important to understand how to play off a melody. Lester Young is the fountain, I suppose. Wayne Shorter was a master of playing off the melody.

[mr. beaumont]

It's a mixed bag. I agree with David that studying out of love is ultimately the way to go, but I've also benefited from dealing with styles of music that wouldn't have been my first choice to play...

Here's an interesting article by Ethan Iverson on the subject of learning jazz chronologically
A “New” (meaning “Old”) Approach to Jazz Education | DO THE M@TH

PK

That's a really good article from Iverson, who I normally regard as a bit of a shitstarter. But then again, some of my favorite people are shitstarters.

You'll also notice he mentions the importance of the clave...not that I've been harping on that here for years (and being told I'm nuts) or anything.

[charlieparker]

Charlie Christian doesn't sound that bluesy?! My head just exploded. I hear the blues all over his playing...and he was probably the biggest single influence on one of the most bluesy jazz players of all time, Herb Ellis. Maybe I have a different idea of what blues is.

I'm not saying there are no blues elements in his playing but I don't here out front and center as much as in hard bop guys like Burrell, Grant Green, and even some Wes.

[mr. beaumont]

I'm not saying there are no blues elements in his playing but I don't here out front and center as much as in hard bop guys like Burrell, Grant Green, and even some Wes.

I agree- though I think that's a product of the tunes and the overall feel of the bands too.

[RLetson]

Not that there was anything systematic about how I learned my tiny smidgen of jazz-ish guitar, but the repertory I started on as I struggled to get beyond folk material was '20s pop/dance music--I recall working out "Has Anybody Seen My Gal" and similar tunes. It took a while--including a couple of workshops on shell chords and such--to get a handle on playing swing rhythm, even though swing had been in my ears forever (my parents were swing-era kids). So my progress was accidentally historical/developmental, which suited my generally academic way of thinking anyway.

And while I would not call myself a bop player (I will never have the chops), the guys who let me sit in are, and I hear the blues all over the place, even though to my rural-blues-trained ear Parker & Co. don't sound all that "bluesy."

And hey--I always enjoyed cartoon music--Raymond Scott, Carl Stallings, all the jazzy material in the Fleischer cartoons. Cartoons also supplied some of my earliest encounters with classical music.

[Christian Miller]

It's a mixed bag. I agree with David that studying out of love is ultimately the way to go, but I've also benefited from dealing with styles of music that wouldn't have been my first choice to play...

Here's an interesting article by Ethan Iverson on the subject of learning jazz chronologically
A “New” (meaning “Old”) Approach to Jazz Education | DO THE M@TH

PK

somehow I hadn’t seen that. Bloody great that is.

Ethan has his uses!

[Christian Miller]

It seemed like the music that Loony Tunes….

And then a few years later you revisit Looney Tunes with your musician’s ear and are like…. How????

I was listening to the Tom & Jerry cartoons my daughter was watching and noting the constant crazy tapestry of classical motives and popular tunes of the time… kind of reminded me a bit of Charlie Parker lol.

And that’s before we get into Raymond Scott…

[mr. beaumont]

Listen at 1.5 speed

[digger]

I happen to really like early swing, through to Django, then George Barnes. Charlie Christian was my first favourite jazz guitarist. I listen to a lot of Django now, but all that ornamentation and those bends and that cool timing doesn't come naturally to me - so I keep studying it. I listen to loads of early clarinet music, too, and Louis Armstrong and Sidney Bechet and Lester Young, too(*). So yes, I think it's good to start at the beginning, chronologically-speaking, but I suspect for someone with my (lack of) ability, doing it this way means we never make it to bebop, let alone beyond.

Derek

(*) Love loads of later players, too, I don't only listen to the early players, but I do find it the only manageable style for me to get through a tune, and so it's fortuitous that I like that style.

[StringNavigator]

One typical approach to learning Jazz is to learn some blues first and then transition to jazz blues and then to non-blues jazz tunes.

I was wonder if anyone has thought about a chronological approach to learning jazz. Specifically, I am referring to studying the swing idiom first and learning to solo in that style before progressing to say bebop.

It seems that most of us move from blues to some form of modern jazz, but many of the artists that I am most fond of spent a lot of time studying masters from the swing era like Charlie Christian and Lester Young.

I also think that the chord changes there are a bit more diatonic and simpler so it might be an easier place to start.

Thoughts? Is such an approach a waist of time if learning to play swing isn't your end goal?

Learning the Tradition. Many have done it that way. Running through the eras is always a good thing at any point. Excerpts from classical music, classical guitar, rags, stomps, blues, boogie-woogie, stride, New Orleans marches, banjo tunes, Minstrel shows, swing, ballads, Broadway showtunes, British Music Hall, British Pubs, the Big Band era, jump-blues, all the vocalists in the American Songbook, Torch songs, music of the Caribbean and South America, Americana/folk, waltzes, polkas, bebop, organ-trios...

But you may have more luck starting with Mel Bay. If one learns to read music, then all the Charlie Parker transcriptions are available to read, play and learn. Add in some CD's and determination and your success is assured. Read AND write it our in your own hand. Pause every phrase or so and dig in.

Personally, I've learned some guitar from listening to Coleman Hawkins and Lester Young. Their style is more open to developing a signature sound. Learn Bird and you will be caught out for it when you play it, but there's much to be learned in the process. Learning from other guitarists is often less melodic and more about fretboard geometry and finger tricks. Not always the case, but something to watch for. Learning from pianists is a must. Playing a touch of keyboard is beneficial in understanding guitar.

The whole thing is the journey of a lifetime, and delaying the playing of the music you want to play is a bit pedantic and you may never get there in this lifetime. Spending months and years bending blue-notes out of a guitar will never help you to play Misty or A-Train. I have a great jazz guitar method by Roger Edison in two volumes, Rhythm and Melody. Go through it and you can play any jazz tune to a high degree. You could skip the few pages on 12-bar changes and it would not affect your ability to play jazz if that's all you wanted to do. Blues is its own reward.

However the blues may help you improve once you already have something in your line to work with and apply it to. Perhaps it's better to take time out here and there to assimilate other music into your act after you have spent time in the style you want to end up playing. Sometimes too much preparation is wasted when you find that the target you had in mind is no longer your desired goal. Sometimes an obsession with preparation is merely angst.

Dig in. Go for what you want. It also depends on whether you want to be an amateur or make a career of the guitar. If you want a family, marriage, kids... STAY AWAY FROM THE WORLD OF THE GUITAR MONK. Forget about learning a bunch of styles you're not interested in just to perfect your knowledge of Jazz Guitar - which will keep you poor forever. Spend your time on school. Learn, Earn, Save, Invest... Play guitar to relax at the kitchen table in your own home after a hard day's work to show your wife that you are not just a pay-cheque and impress your kids.

But that's just me...

::

[Lionelsax]

Personally, I've learned some guitar from listening to Coleman Hawkins and Lester Young. Their style is more open to developing a signature sound. Learn Bird and you will be caught out for it when you play it, but there's much to be learned in the process. Learning from other guitarists is often less melodic and more about fretboard geometry and finger tricks. Not always the case, but something to watch for. Learning from pianists is a must. Playing a touch of keyboard is beneficial in understanding guitar.

The whole thing is the journey of a lifetime, and delaying the playing of the music you want to play is a bit pedantic and you may never get there in this lifetime. Spending months and years bending blue-notes out of a guitar will never help you to play Misty or A-Train.

Absolutely true, I 100% agree.

[Alter]

I think it's a very sound way to study jazz, as everything falls in place, and you are able to follow the music as it develops. It is going from less to more complicated in most aspects, and it's easier for students to be gradually introduced to complexity.

I also think you get a deeper understanding of the music and what it meant to the world if you approach it this way. Read a bit about the players, their lives and the era, so you get a sense of how and why the music language developed as it did. I enjoy all that stuff.

[Jimmy blue note]

Might it be that our approach to learning a chronological perspective also changes with our own seasons and where we are in life? As was pointed out in StringNavigator's post, it's a journey of a lifetime and so too do our priorities change depending upon what we need at any particular point in life.
The mix of perspective, patience, gratification, deference, relevance, physical engagement, hearing and statement... we need this as a six year old (there are brilliant young kids playing music -with the engagement of their peers playing video games. It's amazing), as much as we need this as a 30 year old (who may be starting to see beyond jazz as an excuse for exotic gear collecting and now wants to know how to actually play), but HOW it mixes and what we need to enjoy, that equation changes with time.
I know the way I learned and how history played into it changed as I grew older, and as I became aware of history as a part of my own growing years.
Maybe that's not the point of this thread, but I do see the disparate natures of perspectives when I often see teachers giving their own 'wisdom' and knowledge to a student who literally doesn't have the ability to receive it.
We all have that which we love, that which moves us, that which inspires us, and we all see the scope of history in some limited way. I just think it's wise when teaching history to be aware of the perspective of the student or the person who's asking question.
I haven't followed the Marvel movie franchise from the beginning. It's a complex conglomeration of time lines, explosions and earth shattering deaths of characters I don't care about. Come a time when I care about some aspect of it, I won't need anyone's urgings, I can immerse myself then. I know it's there, I'll find it and enjoy it.

[Christian Miller]

Tbh for me it was mostly about getting regular paid playing work.

these days I think I know myself better. The problem with doing a style of music for the gigs is that you have to play the gigs which means you have to be invested in the music. So as a long term thing it wasn’t so good.

not to say I don’t like the music - I love it and often enjoy playing it. But it’s not the be all and end all for me, and it really is for some people, and they are the ones that should be doing it.

Learned a tremendous amount though! I see it as an apprenticeship.