The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Posts 1 to 25 of 25
  1. #1

    User Info Menu

    How important is the study of classical music for an aspiring jazz musician? I can see that there could be all sorts of benefits in studying classical music for any type of musician but is it mandatory?

    Can one become a competent jazz musician without studying classical music? What aspects of classical music should be studied by jazz musicians (if any)? What aspects of playing jazz can not be learned by studying jazz music alone?
    Last edited by Jazzpunk; 02-02-2011 at 11:21 PM.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #2

    User Info Menu

    Well the two are different theories, classical inform jazz. The more you know, as NBC says.

    I think the best thing classical music can give is discipline and precision.

  4. #3

    User Info Menu

    Take into account the effect that harmonies derived from classical music have had on this music and I think you'll see how beneficial it can be to delve into it at least a little bit. If it's not your thing then so be it, but I would say it's only beneficial to start exploring that world from a listeners standpoint as well.

    Brahms, Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Ravel, Debussy, Bartok. All of these people have heavily influenced the way music is conceived today. Check 'em out.

  5. #4

    User Info Menu


  6. #5

    User Info Menu

    I think that the command to study classical music and its traditions can impose a limiting obstacle in front of developing jazz musicians. Reading notated music is, of course, a practice that comes from classical music, but I think that nowadays you can learn to read without learning to play classical music. Certainly, the guitar is an odd case, but classical guitar reading is a completely different thing than jazz guitar reading. (Classical training also often gives players some habits that work well for Romantic expressive interpretation that can be very limiting for jazz, as can often be easily heard in classical musicians' and vocalists' jazz crossover attempts). For adapting classical guitar technique to jazz, a la Charlie Byrd or Gene Bertoncini, I think that most players could simply work with Scott Tennant's Pumping Nylon for a year or two, and develop the necessary chops: this would still be an encounter with "classical music," of course, but not a full-blown submission to the conservatory mentality, wearing tuxedos, calling people "Maestro," etc. (as you might be able to tell, I find the hierarchical and authoritarian aspects of classical music culture very off-putting...).

    But-- it certainly helps to do 2 things to compensate for the lack of a classical music immersion experience:

    1) Get a musician's dictionary: there are a few hundred Italian words that are useful, that come from the idiom of classical music, and that other musicians throw around. There is no good reason to come up with new terms for "obligatto," "ostinato" or "tessitura," etc., so we might as well use the old ones. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with new terms either, especially if "vamp" or "minor line cliche" etc. expresses something unique to the jazz vocabulary.

    2) At some point, do a Gregorian Chant to twelve-tone music listen-a-thon, and a simultaneous history of music read-a-thon.

    Understanding the gradual "emancipation of dissonance" and expansion of chromaticism is very helpful to grasping jazz harmony, and it doesn't hurt to get a sense of the development of sonata form, etc.

    But-- and here, I am going to advance a somewhat controversial thesis: a lot of what people talk about when they talk about "classical music" is the art music of Europe between Beethoven and Schoenberg, and I would argue that you do not necessarily need to get deep into (or care much for) this music, or its theory, to be a jazz musician.

    On the other hand, a lot of Early Music and Baroque music are certainly close relatives of (and of course historical antecedents of) jazz, and listening to/studying/playing through the music from the Chantilly Codex to Bach is intensely rewarding. Not necessary, but most of jazz's melodic virtuosos, from Johnny Smith to Evan Parker, spent a lot of time on Bach.

    Similarly, getting into the music that came after Wagner and Mahler is also really useful for playing modern jazz. There is no question that many of the inventors of bop listened closely to Stravinsky, Schoenberg, and Webern. Serialism (despite many pronouncements of its death over the 20th century) seems to be increasingly interesting to younger jazz composers, and I think that Bruce Arnold and Juampy Juarez, for example, are doing wonderful things in a 12-tone or post-12-tone modality.

    Most of the heavy jazz folks I have met who deal regularly with classical music have either Baroque or Twentieth-Century scores, or both, on their music stands. They all tend to know the history of classical music backwards and forwards (simply because the best jazz musicians are musically curious people, and most musically curious people have a kind of obsessive compulsion listen to everything), but their relationship to 19th century classical music--the thing we name most of the time when we say "classical music"-- tends to be pretty arms-length.

    My 2 cents, mileage vary-age, etc.

  7. #6

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JEdgarWinter
    I think that the command to study classical music and its traditions can impose a limiting obstacle in front of developing jazz musicians.
    Since when was knowledge a limiter of creativity? I usually find that it's ignorance that is a greater hindrance. Most of the very creative people that I've met have a voracious appetite for all knowledge, especially that connects with their field of study (even tangentially.)


    But to the OP's question.

    I don't think that you need to study classical music in depth. But I think that first two years of theory are invaluable to any musician - almost all jazz theory comes from classical. A basic survey course in music history is a good - it's really our history too. Maybe an ethnomusicology course. But this is the stuff that most jazz majors take as part of their degrees.

    Everything that you learn after that is great too. It can really open up your ears. We like to think that jazz is more harmonically adventurous than classical, but really it's the other way around. I think that any advanced music that you listen to and study (even just a little) opens up your ears to new possibilities - it can be Wagner or Ornette or Hindustani raga or African drums. Miles and Evans listened to a lot of classical (especially Impressionist) composers. Miles and Diz used to go down to the library to read through Stravinsky scores, Trane was heavily influenced by raga. Other examples abound. Never stop trying to open up your ears and mind to new possibilities.

    I agree with JEdgarWinter that there is no big benefit that comes from studying classical guitar - it really is a different instrument. I learned a few musical ideas from it, but nothing I couldn't have picked up directly on jazz guitar. It isn't like sax or trumpet where classical stuff is an important technique and tone builder.

    I think that you can be a "competent" jazz musician without studying any of this. But I don't think that you can reach your full potential.

    Peace,
    Kevin

  8. #7

    User Info Menu

    Thanks for the thoughtful responses guys!

    Are there any plectrum based classical guitar studies for noob/intermediate level players you guys would recommend?

  9. #8

    User Info Menu

    The Berklee classical studies for pickstyle guitar book is great. Probably all you need. There is a good Bach single note/for electric guitar book with tab floating around that seems pretty good. The old Johnny Smith and Sal Salvador books are very worth looking into as well-- I recall that they have some helpful single note etudes from the classical literature.

    And don't fear going to the library and getting some flute and violin books.

  10. #9

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JEdgarWinter
    The Berklee classical studies for pickstyle guitar book is great. Probably all you need. There is a good Bach single note/for electric guitar book with tab floating around that seems pretty good. The old Johnny Smith and Sal Salvador books are very worth looking into as well-- I recall that they have some helpful single note etudes from the classical literature.

    And don't fear going to the library and getting some flute and violin books.
    Excellent, thanks!

  11. #10

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
    How important is the study of classical music for an aspiring jazz musician? I can see that there could be all sorts of benefits in studying classical music for any type of musician but is it mandatory?
    It's certainly not mandatory.
    But jazz harmony derives from classical harmony, so a study of (at least) the basic principles of counterpoint and 4-part harmony is worth doing. (And some study of Impressionism and other 20thC "classical" music would help too.)

    As long as you keep an ear open for how jazz adapts and deviates from (or simplifies) those principles, you can't go wrong. (The mistake would be to think classical is "right" and any jazz usage is "wrong" if it differs.)
    The "problems" JEdgarWinter mentions only arise in anyone totally wedded to the idea of classical music as the ultimate "true" kind of music. This is a common attitude in some classical critics, but only if they don't like jazz (or any kind of popular music). And that obviously doesn't apply to anyone who is pursuing jazz in the first place!

    Eg, the famous (or notorious) meeting of Stephane Grappelly and Yehudi Menuhin. Menuhin, classically trained to the highest degree, had no idea about jazz at all. He was intrigued by it, but was hopeless at playing it - had no feel or swing. Grappelly walked all over him - at least when playing jazz.
    But as I say, that's not because Menuhin was classically trained. It's because he'd had no interest in or exposure to jazz earlier in his life. He'd been immersed in the classical world, and approached jazz like he would a foreign ethnic music - trying to learn it from scratch, on top of all the classical habits he'd acquired. He may have understood (intellectually) what jazz required, but he couldn't get out of the habits of a lifetime.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
    Can one become a competent jazz musician without studying classical music?
    Yes. (But what you learn will contain elements of classical heritage anyway.)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
    What aspects of classical music should be studied by jazz musicians (if any)?
    Basic harmonic theory.
    And maybe instrumental technique - that might depend on the instrument.
    Eg, for piano I guess it would be recommended. And maybe for horns. Not sure about guitar. Classical guitar technique won't do you any harm - it just won't address certain techniques that are common on steel string and electric guitar.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
    What aspects of playing jazz can not be learned by studying jazz music alone?
    None, IMO. You would, of course, need to study jazz right back to its origins, the earliest recordings. But then jazz musicians should do that anyway, whether or not they also study classical.

    IOW, what I'm saying is you don't NEED to study classical music as such (either theory or technique). But - if you have the time - it can't do any harm, and will probably help. It would certainly give you a secure grounding in harmony - but then so would any properly run jazz theory course (or book), because that would begin with classical principles.

  12. #11

    User Info Menu

    I don't have enough experience to comment on how useful it is since I'm really 'green' to this stuff but for me, its fascinating to look at most any type of music & see what the composer did to make it work.

    Just last night I was looking at the melody to 'In the hall of the mountain king' which once I hear it or play it stays stuck in my brain for hours. I like how the accidentals add so much distinctive color to it. It's not the hippest tune but it definitely is interesting to dissect a bit and nice to listen too.

  13. #12

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
    Are there any plectrum based classical guitar studies for noob/intermediate level players you guys would recommend?
    In addition to the Berklee/Leavitt thing mentioned, Galbraith has an edition of the Bach two-part inventions too. It even comes with a split CD so you can play a duet with him. There was a guitar player that actually gave concerts doing classical on a plectrum guitar, but I can't remember his name. There is a lot of stuff if you look. Solo violin stuff are good too - Bach, Kreutzer, etc.

    They are a great way to build technique.

    Peace,
    Kevin

  14. #13

    User Info Menu

    I tend to think as most, the study of music includes traditional periods such as classical etc... I do notice classically trained players, not traditional study of music or theory but players do have a problem making the transition to jazz. I don't really know why, I played classical guitar for five or six years, at least at a level of performance... not very accomplished, but could cover many of the simple compositions. Actually sill enjoy Villa-Lobos Preludes, covered the 1st four... Bream was one of my childhood rock stars. But back to the point... I always come back to the point that to become a jazz player you still need to put in the time on your instrument. You can balance that with education... the education is not going to make you a jazz player. It might help you become one who can play a few jazz tunes. It's definitely not going to hurt your playing. Most of the great players I know have a music education, my Thesis was Development of Concerto 1st Mvt. Form. That was back in late 70's but if anything I believe the research helped my playing... I'm having a little problem internal backing that up... maybe my thought process when improvising.
    I think it all come down to how much time and drive one has. If you know yourself and how you work best, and have a vision or goal and know how much time you have to invest realizing that goal... it's basically almost a mechanical process. But is enjoyable to dialect or debate about... Best Reg

  15. #14

    User Info Menu

    I wonder how much Miles got out of Juilliard.

  16. #15

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
    I wonder how much Miles got out of Juilliard.
    One of my favorite Monk anecdotes:

    When saxophonist Sahib Shihab told him that he was going back to the Juilliard School to study, the largely self-taught Mr. Monk remarked, ''Well, I hope you don't come out any worse than you sound now.''

  17. #16

    User Info Menu

    there is value in everything you learn. The last Jazz theory class I took was by and orchestrator who had a Classical training. What I liked was how he took all the Jazz theory and showed the similar thing form Classical POV. So just the labels are different and how you apply the info.

    Also from an instrumental standpoint they have hundreds of years of refinement in teaching instruments and music so a lot can be learned from playing through classical studies. In fact most are a lot more musical than most guitar exercises. Remember compared to other instruments guitar is a baby of an instrument so people are still learning/refining how to teach it.

  18. #17

    User Info Menu

    It's interesting that many who formally train on a classical instrument receive no training in theory. They will know what to play, but they won't know why. It's mostly reading and performance technique. Theory would be for composers and arrangers, or someone taking broader music studies. With jazz, we want to know why things sound and work the way they do. We are composing in the moment.

  19. #18

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
    It's interesting that many who formally train on a classical instrument receive no training in theory. They will know what to play, but they won't know why. It's mostly reading and performance technique. Theory would be for composers and arrangers, or someone taking broader music studies. With jazz, we want to know why things sound and work the way they do. We are composing in the moment.
    I took a couple music courses in Uni as electives (Math major, me ), but they were mandatory for music majors. Piston was one of the texts. I also remember the Voice majors were as thick as two short planks.

  20. #19

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
    I wonder how much Miles got out of Juilliard.
    It seems that he didn't get that much out of it. Probably because Juilliard was very racist back then and Miles was not exactly known for putting up with that kind of shit. He seemed to take advantage of its library however:

    "I would go to the library and borrow scores by all those great composers, like Stravinsky, Alban Berg, Prokofiev. I wanted to see what was going on in all of music. Knowledge is freedom and ignorance is slavery, and I just couldn't believe someone could be that close to freedom and not take advantage of it." (p. 61, Miles: The Autobiography)

  21. #20

    User Info Menu

    Great thread! I can't play a lick of classical to save my life; I have wondered about what I am missing... not that classical music has "licks" exactly...

    Two of my heroes represent opposite sides of eduction... Bill Evans and Thelonious Monk... Both wonderful and creative visionaries.

  22. #21

    User Info Menu

    I seem to remember Miles complaining about the racism at Julliard, etc, but later looking back and admitting that he had learned some valuable things that helped him later - even in the short time he was there. But it's been a while since I read his auto. (Which is a must read for anyone who hasn't, btw.)

    Peace,
    Kevin

  23. #22

    User Info Menu

    From what I remember, Miles said he didn't get much out of Juilliard. Miles moved to New York in 1944 because he wanted to be immersed in New York's jazz scene, where all the big names were playing (Bird, Diz, Coleman Hawkins, Lester Young, etc). He said that he really only went to Juilliard because it was a good excuse to move to NY, and it would also give him something to do while he was there. At the same time that he attended the school, Miles was hanging out with Bird and Diz on a regular basis and would jam with them at clubs every week. He learned more from them than he ever could at Juilliard, and eventually he realized that attending the school wasn't a productive use of his time and money. So he dropped out.

  24. #23

    User Info Menu

    Yeah, I remember all that. But I also seem to remember somewhere he talked about some of the positive things that he learned in the whole classical experience (besides being a lifelong fan of classical music.) Sorry, I can't find the quote at the moment - I'll come back if I find it.

    Miles was a fairly opinionated guy with a hot temperament, so it wouldn't surprise me for him to contradict himself out of hyperbole of the point he was trying to make at the moment, or the mood of the day.

    Peace,
    Kevin
    Last edited by ksjazzguitar; 02-04-2011 at 03:22 AM.

  25. #24

    User Info Menu

    "Before I quit Juilliard, I did take Dizzy's advice to take some piano lessons. I also took some lessons in symphonic trumpet playing that helped me out with my playing. Trumpet players from the New York Philharmonic Orchestra gave the lessons, so I learned some things from them.
    When I say that Juilliard didn't help me, what I mean is it didn't help me as far as helping me understand what I really wanted to play. I figured there was nothing left for me to do at the school" (p. 74)

  26. #25

    User Info Menu

    Cool, I thought I remembered an even more positive statement. It may not have been in the auto. I'll have to root around when I get a chance.

    Peace,
    Kevin