Learning classical guitar to eventually play jazz?

[JohnRoss]

Doesn't the right hand classical technique also translate well to playing with 'fingerstyle' on steel strings?

Not as much as you might think. The various kinds of finger alternation you learn are useful, of course, but the actual finger movements are slightly different, partly because most of your RH effort when you're learning classical goes into getting good tone, which doesn't translate into anything much on a steel-string, and partly because the distances, angles, etc. are different on a narrow-necked guitar.

(That said, anyone who is serious about learning music should begin with classical rather than jazz, for a solid base.)

[Reg]

So maybe a good idea would be to make a list of what are those details that are learned from a study of classical guitar actually are.... While we're at it what details from classical guitar study are useful and which are a liability when trying to play jazz guitar.

Just a thought... Reg

[Guitarzen]

I started out self taught, first the blues, and then jazz. Later on, I decided to go to college and study music. I learned a ton of "classical" music from different periods etc...And it for sure made me a better musician over all and has influenced my jazz playing. So I would say for sure, do both.

But, I want to add that I have never seen a classically trained musician (i.e. they started out with classical training) able to play jazz with the right feel. Yes I have heard some musicians who had a classical background and could play all their scales and arpeggios at the virtuoso level, but still they were missing something in their jazz playing, to my ears anyways. It's like you hear former metal guitarists trying to play jazz - you instantly can tell they are metal guitarists trying to play jazz, no matter how hard they try. Same thing with classically trained musicians - they always sound like classical musicians trying to play jazz.

So I would say to the people who have suggested that classical training is the route to jazz playing, they are flat out wrong. This should be of course evidenced by the majority (if not all) of the greatest jazz musicians not having been classically trained.

In my opinion, classical training only helps your jazz playing if you do jazz first. Not last. And you have to already be deep into jazz --- an advanced jazz player, before it will really work out that way. You need to already have trained your hands & your ears to swing. It just doesn't work the other way around. I'm sure there may be some special cases, but in general my statements are true more often then they aren't.

[Space Pickle]

I would love to study classical someday.

[pkirk]

One more point while this topic is resurrected (Although I didn't read the entire thread, so I'm probably repeating the obvious, but I've been listening to some harpsichord music this week so this has been on my mind). In my opinion, groove and pulse is much more important in jazz than technique or melodic or harmonic sophistication, in spite of the fact that most discussions about playing jazz focus on melody/harmony. But it's not jazz if you can outline the changes in clever ways but you can't swing. It it's not jazz if your chord voicings are awesome but all you can do is play rubato. etc.

For the most part, in classical music, a deep groove and constant pulse are unimportant. To the contrary, breaking the time and changing the pulse is one of the ways that classical musicians can introduce expressiveness to their performances, whose note choices are dictated by the sheet music. So at least as I see it, studying classical music will do little for your groove, is probably counterproductive as preparation to become a jazz musician. Once you have your jazz playing reasonably under control, then looking to classical music (or any music that moves you) for inspiration/material is great.

Of course, there are many examples of great jazz players who started in classical, but for the most part, they made the transition early, i.e. in their teens.

[ChrisDowning]

Take a look at Martin Taylors book The Martin Taylor Method and start from what he says you need and the perhaps uses it as your core source work, adding to it with other books to fill out what Martin teaches.

He says before you start his book you need the basics - asa a teacher I'd say that puts you at about Grade 4 asaca way of measurement. He also refers to some of the classical culture being better in some ways to jazz where being handed a chord chart of a song might have seemed adequate. So I think you'd find Martin happy if you arrived at G4 either from a steel string culture or nylon.

Personally I have changed in the last couple of years and I'm back with some basic music reading which gives students some grounding in reading and also something else to concentrate on as well as where the fingers go and which string tp play. TAB somewhat rushesthem into playing only. So I'm pretty much only using the Trinity Plectrum syllabus for teaching basics. If you follow that AND play ALL the pieces in the recommended books, you'll be fine. Here's the link again - you could do the classical version or the plectrum on steel strings.
http://www.trinitycollege.co.uk/resource/?id=4694

[ColinO]

The word "unimportant" is perhaps poorly chosen, but I think his point stands. I'd challenge you to find a single example of a standard classical piece performed by a well-respected classical guitarist that maintains a steady pulse throughout the performance. It's almost anathema to the classical tradition to do so, especially amongst guitarists.

In fact, one of the biggest criticisms of John Williams as a player is that his technique is so good that he can play through pieces without altering the time significantly (he's often described as "robotic").

Baroque music (Bach) may be an exception, and that exception (along with the harmonic features) might be why Bach is so popular with jazz musicians.

I think that depends on a lot of things...style of music being played, whether playing solo or with a group being probably the biggest factors. Think of any other style that is similar - Oh I don't know - solo jazz chord melody? I've seen one or two CM performance which take liberties with the concept of steady pulse throughout, have't you?

The fact is that steady pulse is essential in classical music. There may be times during a peice when the player might take liberties, particularly when playing solo or in a small group(jazz too, no?) but to suggest that it is unimportant (or even less important) is simply wrong.

[ecj]

Personally I have changed in the last couple of years and I'm back with some basic music reading which gives students some grounding in reading and also something else to concentrate on as well as where the fingers go and which string tp play. TAB somewhat rushesthem into playing only. So I'm pretty much only using the Trinity Plectrum syllabus for teaching basics. If you follow that AND play ALL the pieces in the recommended books, you'll be fine. Here's the link again - you could do the classical version or the plectrum on steel strings.
http://www.trinitycollege.co.uk/resource/?id=4694

This is a pretty awesome syllabus. It appeals to my OCD, and I'm thinking about picking up the books and working through it.

What is the fingering/picking system like? Is it mostly alternate picking and CAGED?

[pkirk]

The fact is that steady pulse is essential in classical music. There may be times during a peice when the player might take liberties, particularly when playing solo or in a small group(jazz too, no?) but to suggest that it is unimportant (or even less important) is simply wrong.

Hi ColinO

Thanks for being polite in your disagreement :-) I'll take one more (long winded) shot at it, since I don't think your objection addresses my point . My apparently offending comment was "For the most part, in classical music, a deep groove and constant pulse are unimportant." I intended to tie "deep groove" and "constant pulse". Of course all serious musicians work on having a steady pulse. Classical musicians (like jazz and other serious musicians) work with metronomes, playing complicated rhythmic material, etc. from their early training on. You can't play Messiaen if you can't keep time!

But, *for the most part*, keeping a locked in *groove*, i.e. all performers contributing to the overall constant and complex rhythmic profile of the piece as the over riding intent and source of tension and release (as in jazz), is just not part of the standard tradition of classical music. As ecj says it is anathema to the idiom. Soloists are expected to flex the time and the accompanists to follow. As far as I am aware (and correct me if I'm wrong), very few pre 20th century composers even wrote music in which a groove is allowed to develop (at least as the music is played now). The primary focus in classical music is elsewhere: mostly sound and dynamics, flexing the time, and other ways to put a personal stamp on the composition.

The importance of groove and constant pulse is (in my opinion) the main distinguishing feature of the African-American tradition from the European, much more than the improvised content.


In forums like this beginners are mostly told about what harmonic/melodic theory to use to learn jazz, and lot of it ultimately is the same things classical (and the romantic) composers knew and used long before jazz came along. In the context of this thread why not say "sure, study classical music, you'll learn most of the theory you are likely to use in jazz, and a bunch of technique too". This misses the point, as it took me many years to realize, and I'm still trying to catch up. A deep groove is very hard to do well and has to be focused and worked on very specifically, mostly on the bandstand but also in the practice room. Hal Galper talks about this a lot, and says it took a year of playing with Cannonball before he could understand the control over time and groove that Cannonball expected of his band. Metheny in clinics always makes this point, and he does the thing with the metronome where he places his notes on, before, after the beat with a precision and intent that must have take a huge amount of work, and which completely changes the groove as he moves through it. Their personal take on time/groove/pulse is what makes the greats of jazz great, more than their choice of melodic material. In classical music, this is just not important (for the most part, in my opinion, having listened to a lot of it, etc, etc.)

[ecj]

pkirk - my own opinion is that "feel" and "time" are two different things that more often than not get wrapped up in the term "groove". I think you are absolutely correct that jazz prioritizes "time", or a stable and steady pulse, far more than classical music. In fact, in its modern incarnation classical music tends to eschew carrying a steady pulse through an entire piece almost entirely.

"Feel" is what I think of when I think of great players in both traditions. That thing Metheny talks about, getting behind the beat and in front of it, is not so different from what great classical players do. The classical guys tend to mix their "feel" with rubato techniques and a more fluid time concept. The jazz guys have to maintain their "feel" against a steady, often merciless, pulse. I'm not sure that one is more difficult or better than the other, but I think you are correct in that they are very different.

Listen to a recording of Segovia - IMO the master of classical guitar "feel" - versus almost anyone else. Segovia has perfect note placement, he never rushes, he is relaxed and effortless, his lines flow. It's not so different from Wes Montgomery - IMO the jazz guitarist with the best feel. They both share similar traits of phrasing and placing notes in such a way that the listener feels comfortable and locked in.

But their approach to "time" is very different. Montgomery will play a tune through with a steady pulse the whole way through. Segovia will let the time ebb and flow with his phrasing.

Most of the great classical artists I've heard play in other settings have had no trouble handling a locked in tempo. Similarly, I've never heard a great jazz guitarist who couldn't play a rubato intro. I have heard a lot of classical guys who can't, for the life of them, swing.

[ronjazz]

I started with classical lessons; fortunately, my teacher was also a pretty good jazz player and a pretty good bass player. Classical technique combined with learning tunes was an excellent background for becoming a jazz player on nylon strings. Guitarzen, above, is entirely wrong, at least in my experience. Jazz is all about listening, and listening to lots of jazz, as I did when young, gives you the feel that you need. Combined with a good solid classical technique on ANY instrument, jazz becomes easier to play, if you have LISTENED and absorbed the sense to swing and looseness in the time that is the hallmark of good jazz. If you don't get to listen to jazz, a lot, then you will indeed not benefit much from classical training except technically. I would suggest very strongly that those of you with classical guitar backgrounds get into the Bill Leavitt books and go through them with the classical techniques, all the while working on the swing feel. That way, you'll get a good foundation in the necessary theory, as well as a feel for the way chords move and lines are developed in jazz. But, above all, listen!. Certainly many of the very best jazz pianists had lots of classical training, there is no reason that the guitar needs to be any different. Take a listen to Gene Bertoncini, Romero Lubambo, Charlie Byrd or Rafael Rabello, all classically trained and all fine jazz players.

[ronjazz]

The idea of classical music lacking groove and pulse is really not based on anything but anecdotes so far. For the past 500 years, most music (classical included) has been written for dancing. Waltzes, minuets, mazurkas, gallops, etc., etc., all written to be played in time for dancers. The development of individual interpretative performances is relatively recent, and the introduction of "rubato" (Italian for stealing) was the result of the post-classical, romantic era, where the individual performers and conductors started becoming stars, and started making the music more "expressive" by taking liberties with the pulse. If one looks at scores from the Baroque era and before, there are no markings for rubato or even for dynamics; in the classical era, composers started indicating dynamics, and, but by bit, began making tempo changes as well, trying to separate their "listening" pieces from dance music. There were various styles of interpretation from different countries and cultures as well, including different ways of reading the 1/8 notes, just as we jazzers read 1/8 notes in swing time quite differently from the equal time that is written. Also, jazz players and groups speed up and slow down, quite noticeably. So the differences, I think, are smaller than we might perceive.

As far as Segovia goes, his distortion of rhythms and much of his rubato was to hide his lack of technique; he was always very concerned about tone, and often sacrificed groove and pulse for the sound of a note or chord. His interpretations come squarely out of the Romantic tradition, where the performer was king, and the music somewhat secondary. Bream and Williams were able to "stand on Segovia's shoulders", as it were, and learn from him is a way that made their music much more rhythmic and, in my opinion, more faithful to the composer's intent. There is still a lot of Romantic influence in today's classical players and conductors, but other influences, including jazz, are becoming part of the classical performances now. Take a listen to Paco de Lucia's version of the Concierto de Aranjuez to hear some vicious grooves in classical music.

[ecj]

The idea of classical music lacking groove and pulse is really not based on anything but anecdotes so far. For the past 500 years, most music (classical included) has been written for dancing. Waltzes, minuets, mazurkas, gallops, etc., etc., all written to be played in time for dancers. The development of individual interpretative performances is relatively recent, and the introduction of "rubato" (Italian for stealing) was the result of the post-classical, romantic era, where the individual performers and conductors started becoming stars, and started making the music more "expressive" by taking liberties with the pulse.

That's why I said, "In fact, in its modern incarnation classical music tends to eschew carrying a steady pulse through an entire piece almost entirely."

Take a listen to Paco de Lucia's version of the Concierto de Aranjuez to hear some vicious grooves in classical music.

Paco de Lucia is not a classical musician. This is like telling me to listen to Branford Marsalis play with his classical group as an example of classical players who care about groove.

[ronjazz]

A yes, Paco is not a classical musician. Right. So, where does he apply for a classical musician license? And what of Wynton Marsalis's several classical recordings and concerts? And, by the way, in its modern incarnation, classical music has indeed moved back towards a firmer pulse throughout the piece. How are you defining modern? Not Segovia, I hope, and, since he started out as a flamenco player, how is it that he's a classical musician? He never went to conservatory, you know, he has no pedigree. And you didn't bother to address the rubato in jazz, and, by the way, Wes Montgomery uses a LOT of rubato in his playing, or he would sound like a machine, which he decidedly doesn't.

It's the 21st century, I don't think we can stick to the old musical divides any more. I am a professional guitarist for over 40 years, playing jazz, classical, flamenco and Latin music, in a variety of contexts, from concerts and recordings to weddings and restaurants. I have no difficulty adapting to each style when called upon. The divisions into categories were created by marketers, not musicians. There is no good reason to separate everybody into little boxes, nor to generalize about definitions.

[ecj]

A yes, Paco is not a classical musician. Right. So, where does he apply for a classical musician license?

The OP is asking about whether or not "learning classical guitar" will help him be a better jazz player. Paco de Lucia is one of my favorite musicians, but I don't really think the OP is going to be taught to play like him in his classical guitar lessons.

My opinion is to just learn whatever you're interested in and let things sort themselves out. There are a million guys out there playing 100% jazz-nazi-approved archtop (myself included), and probably an equal number playing classical guitar in a very traditional manner. You're not hurting anyone if you mix styles, so do it as long as it's fun for you.

[ronjazz]

Classical guitar training can be integrated with jazz at the same time, easily. Just add some modern theory and jazz guitar books to your studies, I recommend the Modern Method for Guitar by Bill Leavitt, Berklee Publications. You can play all of the exercises and tunes fingerstyle, with classical technique, and learn chord voicings and altered scales and the language of jazz guitar, all while working on classical repertoire as well. I did exactly this, including studying with Leavitt himself, and I found myself working a lot because of the versatility and wide range of styles i could cover. Solo gigs I did classical pieces and my own arrangements of jazz standards, and I still do, over 40 years later. Gene Bertoncini and Charlie Byrd came up the same way. Just don't get stuck in the classical world of snobbery and discrimination. A decent classical technique and some cool chords will make you a fine bossa-nova player.

[RonD]

I was about to reply to the OP when I realized that this was posted over two years ago, by someone who no longer contributes to this forum.
Now the thread seems to be a reason to debate the merits of "classical" technique.
Will it help you play jazz? Don't know. Haven't tried.
Will it make you a better guitar player? Absolutely.
A few significant jazz guitarists have been mentioned.
None of them are personal favorites.
By this train of thought, would studying CG help me to play jazz?
I don't think so. At least not the way I like to hear it.

Just my 2 cents. YMMV
Cheers, Ron

[ronjazz]

Well, I'm not recommending that anybody study classical guitar, just pointing out that it is entirely possible to become a good jazz player with classical techniques.

[ecj]

Classical guitar training can be integrated with jazz at the same time, easily. Just add some modern theory and jazz guitar books to your studies, I recommend the Modern Method for Guitar by Bill Leavitt, Berklee Publications. You can play all of the exercises and tunes fingerstyle, with classical technique, and learn chord voicings and altered scales and the language of jazz guitar, all while working on classical repertoire as well. I did exactly this, including studying with Leavitt himself, and I found myself working a lot because of the versatility and wide range of styles i could cover. Solo gigs I did classical pieces and my own arrangements of jazz standards, and I still do, over 40 years later. Gene Bertoncini and Charlie Byrd came up the same way. Just don't get stuck in the classical world of snobbery and discrimination. A decent classical technique and some cool chords will make you a fine bossa-nova player.

Excellent advice.

I always kind of wished that I'd started out on classical for the wider range of solo guitar possibilities. I've worked through a few books and developed some basic classical technique, but could never get into it for very long due to the nails situation. I'd always break them playing sports and just file them down and go back to the archtop.

Mad respect for anyone who has the time, patience and dedication to master both artforms. Guys like Fareed Haque blow my mind.

[vsaumarez]

Say "Hi" to my home town for me. Classical would certainly help you with technique, reading, aural, some theory, and discipline, but isn't necessary for learning jazz IMHO. Jazz theory is a little different, and some classical players have difficulty making the switch. Jazz is almost the antithesis of classical because it breaks the rules and spontaneity is it's MO. It sounds like you are into classical anyway, so why not do that and it won't do any harm if you want to take up jazz later.

[jazzman1021]

An important skill I learned from classical training was listening. True you are at the mercy of the composer as far as note selection, dynamics,relative pace and the like. But once the technique is learned, then you must listen and try to make the piece your own. We are indeed fortunate that modern composers are composing works which draw on a variety of styles. This is where listening comes in. Case in point A piece, which is possibly my favorite in the classical literature.Benjamin Britten wrote it especially for his friend Julian Bream. The piece is Nocturnal opus 25. Classical, yes, but what a listen!!

JM1021

[vsaumarez]

Take a look at Martin Taylors book The Martin Taylor Method and start from what he says you need and the perhaps uses it as your core source work, adding to it with other books to fill out what Martin teaches.

He says before you start his book you need the basics - asa a teacher I'd say that puts you at about Grade 4 asaca way of measurement. He also refers to some of the classical culture being better in some ways to jazz where being handed a chord chart of a song might have seemed adequate. So I think you'd find Martin happy if you arrived at G4 either from a steel string culture or nylon.

Personally I have changed in the last couple of years and I'm back with some basic music reading which gives students some grounding in reading and also something else to concentrate on as well as where the fingers go and which string tp play. TAB somewhat rushesthem into playing only. So I'm pretty much only using the Trinity Plectrum syllabus for teaching basics. If you follow that AND play ALL the pieces in the recommended books, you'll be fine. Here's the link again - you could do the classical version or the plectrum on steel strings.
http://www.trinitycollege.co.uk/resource/?id=4694

I did up to grade four of Trinity College plectrum guitar ...years ago. Glad to see it's still going. Has it got any jazzier? Very good grounding.

[ChrisDowning]

I did up to grade four of Trinity College plectrum guitar ...years ago. Glad to see it's still going. Has it got any jazzier? Very good grounding.

I think there is enough jazz material to keep you playing jazz numbers all through the exam grades. If you bought all the recommended jazz orientated songs in the books they are found in, you'd certainly have a very good grounding in jazz materials. I have the list somewhere - I'll post it later.