-
Hi,
Sorry if this post seems a little naive.
I am revisiting the guitar after a break of 6 years. I only know the real basics. I am thinking about learning classical guitar right through the grades and then making the switch to Jazz (my passion). I think I have found an excellent guitar school in London which is swaying my decision a little.
I enjoy the classical guitar and prefer finger style to using a plectrum so will have no problems with motivation. I think learning classical in lessons is best for me because I will learn all the theory and enjoy having the guidance and structure that comes with lessons.
Do you think this will serve as a good foundation for learning Jazz in 5/6 years time? Are classical and jazz too different making learning classical a waste of time?
Cheers
-
05-25-2010 04:21 PM
-
To me personally, it seems odd to set jazz aside for 5 or 6 years. That would be like marrying a beautiful woman and not wrinkling the sheets until she grew her hair down to her ankles!
-
If jazz is your passion, do it now. My father waited until his retirement to do so many things that he had wanted to do all his life, unfortunately he died after driving into a cement truck 2 months before he retired. He never did get to do any of the things he really wanted to do.
There is only the present in which to do things.
Not that I'm trying to depress you
-
Classical and jazz are very different. If you want to learn jazz, study that. If you want to play fingerstyle on nylon strings, then learn jazz and play it fingerstyle on nylon strings. I have a degree for classical guitar, and trust me, if you want to do jazz, do jazz. You need to learn how to voice chords, improvise, substitute chords, re-harmonize, and so on and so forth. I wouldn't call learning classical "a waste of time," but to play jazz you don't need to know the difference between a Baroque trill and a Classical trill. You also don't need to make the decision whether or not to use Segovia's edition of the 20 Sor studies or use a facsimile edition with the original notes and fingerings. See where I'm going?
-
however, if you want to play 'fingerstyle' (hate that word) on nylon strings, learn proper technique from a classical guitar teacher who has a nice tone. you won't learn it on your own, and you won't get it from one who plays steel strings with a pick.
-
I'm glad you said that BK, it's what I was thinking, but as I have no classical training I kept my mouth shut.
Originally Posted by bkdavidson
Classical and jazz are very different. If you want to learn jazz, study that. If you want to play fingerstyle on nylon strings, then learn jazz and play it fingerstyle on nylon strings. I have a degree for classical guitar, and trust me, if you want to do jazz, do jazz. You need to learn how to voice chords, improvise, substitute chords, re-harmonize, and so on and so forth. I wouldn't call learning classical "a waste of time," but to play jazz you don't need to know the difference between a Baroque trill and a Classical trill. You also don't need to make the decision whether or not to use Segovia's edition of the 20 Sor studies or use a facsimile edition with the original notes and fingerings. See where I'm going?
-
Thanks for throwing that in there, randalljazz. You definitely want to have good technique, and definitely good tone. Get some help with that, and also listen to a few classical players. John Williams (no, not the Star Wars composer) is a great place to start, as is David Russell (my personal favorite) and Pepe Romero. On the jazz side of good tone on nylon strings, start with Charlie Byrd. Do not start with Joe Pass's "Unforgettable," at least not for tone. Fantastic playing, though.
-
you said it yourself. jazz is your passion. learn jazz.
both classical and jazz demand some dedication. There's no reason to dabble in something that isn't your passion when you know what you want.
-
just order books on amazon or ebay..you know what you want.
-
I wonder if someone out there is wondering if he should study jazz for five or six years to lay the foundations of his classical guitar study?
-
Classical and jazz are two completely different beasts... Different language different theory, harmony etc... but most of all a different way of looking at music. Very few become great jazz players and learning classical guitar is only going to hold you back from being a jazz player... jazz is not memorize and perform... if you practice that style... that's what you'll become proficient at. Classical guitar is beautiful and an art form in it's self, and very few become great. Or maybe you don't mean jazz guitar... ? To think you could spend five or six more years away from jazz and as you said, you are a beginner is extremely naive at best. Best Reg
-
depending on how young you are i would say - yes - it can work, and has worked for many musicians. but you may want to consider 3-4 years instead of 5-6.
and you don't have to quit classical when you dive into jazz, you can just de-emphasize it.
-
To learn to play golf I suggest practicing baseball for several years first.
Work on bunting.
-
Once, at a jam session, over Rhythm Changes, I did this funky tremolo single note then slipped some chickun pickun underneath it, Chet Atkins style. Afterward, someone complemented me on the nice "Recuerdos de la Alhambra" lick. Say what? Originally Posted by Tony Santodonato
-
As for the learning theory part - you will learn far more about music theory in jazz than you ever will in studying the classical guitar. I know this because I studied classical guitar for several years before transitioning over to jazz.
In jazz, you have to think and understand what it is you're doing, at least in order to improvise. And you know the underlying harmony because the chords are written out on a lead sheet. In classical guitar, it's 95% rote - you are given a piece of music that has already been composed, and you just learn the notes. You are expected to reproduce the exact same song every time, as perfectly as you can. Unless you already know the theory behind the notes, you will not understand what it is you are playing...you're essentially a parrot.
It was not until I enrolled in university-level music theory classes that I started to understand what it was that I was actually playing.
-
I agree with the point of learning other things can't really hinder, but I hesitiate on the classical thing for our OP for two reasons... Originally Posted by Tony Santodonato
1. he said his passion is jazz
2. this sounds like a pretty serious classical teacher he's got the chance to hook up with. I'm a strong opponent to "dabbling" in something like jazz or classical, while you can get a lot out of just a few classical lessons about technique, building repertoire and getting a true hold of that technique take a lot of time and dedication. 5-6 years of that time and dedication will be a pretty dang good start on being a classical guitar performer, and it won't teach you much about jazz.
As for the studying of older art forms, that's not unique to the artists of the orient, we were required to look at and study our precedents in art school as well to see if our "new" ideas were "new."...but those of us who were painters spent most of our time looking at painters.
-
Lenny Breau:
How much classical music did he study? (Note the thumb pick!)
-
Some, but he was more into flamenco than straight classical. Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
Lenny Breau:
How much classical music did he study? (Note the thumb pick!)
-
This being a jazz guitar forum, it isn't surprising that the weight of consensus is coming down in favour of your learning jazz instead of classical. So I'm going to play devil's advocate.
I could be reading this wrong, but it sounds a little as if your taste is still a little unformed, by which I mean it could well change over the next five or six years. If I'm right, you're definitely better off with a solid classical grounding. Originally Posted by learningguitar
Be swayed, then. I'm sure almost everyone here would agree that, in terms of making progress, a good teacher for one year is worth several years without one.I think I have found an excellent guitar school in London which is swaying my decision a little - (http://www.spanishguitarcentre.com/tuition.php).
Perfect. The only problem with the classical guitar is that the repertoire is a little limited compared with other instruments, but that is true ten times over for the jazz-on-nylon-string-guitar repertoire. Classical it is, then.I enjoy the classical guitar and prefer finger style to using a plectrum so will have no problems with motivation.
I think it's best for you, too, though I have to admit that jazz theory is almost as taxing as classical, perhaps even more so (in fact, music theory of whatever kind is as infinite in scope as music itself, you can just keep learning for ever). Jazz theory is more eclectic, though, and there is an awful lot of it that you don't need (much) in other walks of music. When it comes to dipping your feet into other waters - other genres like folk, flamenco and other eclectic things, pop, rock, even blues (that'll be controversial I expect), doing accompaniments for singers or vocal groups; learning another instrument; writing arrangements - classical is the best way to go. Or the way to start.I think learning classical in lessons is best for me because I will learn all the theory and enjoy having the guidance and structure that comes with lessons.
They're only genres, music is music, so why not? Julian Bream used to be known for playing some quite mean jazz, he often said his jazz experience gave his classical performances insight.Do you think this will serve as a good foundation for learning Jazz in 5/6 years time?
I don't think there's any such thing as a waste of time in learning music, it's an accumulative process. And what's your goal, if you have one? Perform? Teach? Take a degree? If you want to perform, you want to be thinking about performing arts courses (probably not even specifically jazz ones), but if your ambition is to teach or to use your music studies academically in some way, you're definitely better off getting grades and a diploma under your belt. And I do think you should bear in mind that of all the possible career moves involving music you could make, becoming a jazz musician is one of the worst.Are classical and jazz too different making learning classical a waste of time?
Plus, there's nothing to stop you learning jazz at the same time. Join - or form - a band and learn on stage, there is no better way, you might even make a bob or two along the way.
-
My experience has been almost identical to Jeff's... Originally Posted by FatJeff
I went thru:
-Frederick Noad's Solo Guitar Playing I
-Frederick Noad's Solo Guitar Playing II
-Richard Provost's Classical Guitar Technique Volume I
-Richard Provost's Classical Guitar Technique Volume II
-And several books of classical guitar pieces (maybe about 6 books)
-And a bunch of sheet music handed to me by my instructors
Those books did teach me to read music, play scales, ornamentations applicable to certain periods. But that's not what people are talking about when they are referring to music theory. That's learning to play and read, not music theory.
There was no theory related of interval definitions, how to spell chords, voice leading, rules of counterpoint, part writing rules, arranging, composing, analysis. There's not even a mention of the concept of how chords tend to progress, or what the I, ii, iii, IV, chords are. Look through those books, you won't find any significant discussion of music theory.
And those are very popular classical guitar books, the Noad books are how many classical guitarists went from beginners to intermediate players (like me )
So my experience was I didn't learn theory at all studying classical. I've had two Jazz guitar teachers and one rock/blues teacher, my jazz studies were heavy on theory and the rock/blues teacher taught theory also.
Studying classical guitar is great for many reasons, but learning music theory is not one of them.Last edited by fep; 05-26-2010 at 12:43 PM.
-
You read the wrong books for that, those aren't theory books. And you seem to have had the wrong instructors for that. The OP is talking about doing his grades, in London. That probably means Trinity or ABRSM. The Trinity theory syllabus is here. The ABRSM theory syllabus is here. They include all the things you mention and a whole heap more. The ABRSM Grade 8 theory requirements read: Originally Posted by fep
"As in preceding grades. The harmonic vocabulary expected will include all standard diatonic and chromatic chords. Questions will cover:
1 Continuation of a given opening of a passage from a Baroque trio sonata for two treble instruments and basso continuo. The basso continuo part will be given throughout and fully figured (but a realization for keyboard will not be required).
2 Completion of an outline of a short passage for keyboard. Some knowledge of the styles practised by composers from the time of Haydn onwards will be assumed.
3 Continuation of a given opening of a melody for a specified instrument (a choice will be given).
4 Questions on short extracts of music written for piano or in open score for voices or for any combination of instruments and/or voices, designed to test the candidate’s knowledge of the elements and notation of music, including the realization of ornaments, the identification and notation of
underlying harmonic structure, phrase structure, style, performance, and on the voices and instruments for which the works were written."
I could understand someone arguing that that was too much theory, but I'm b******* if I can see how it could be not enough. So if he wants theory, doing his classical guitar grades is probably the best course for him to follow.
-
Oh well, as you like. Why not just learn jazz theory? Or is it better to learn Baroque theory first?
-
If he's going to actually follow through with the ABRSM grading (which I'm familiar with), then yes, he will be required to know theory. I won't dispute that. That would be very valuable.
But I will say this. Other than being able to read music and having a general familiarity and facility with the fretboard, studying classical guitar for 4+ years did nothing for my jazz playing. I still contend that playing classical music amounts to digesting and then regurgitating on demand.
If his love really is jazz, as he says, he's not going to be harmed by classical studies, but he will still have a lot of work to do if and when he decides to make the transition (especially improvisation). That's the learning curve I'm attempting to surmount at the moment. I've been seriously going after jazz guitar now for about a year and a half, and I'm just now getting to the point where I'm starting to feel competent enough to play standards.
-
Are we suffering from some sort of jazz guitar inferiority complex here?
On another angle, some classical musician can play jazz well, others try and fail. I'm thinking of Yitzhak Perlman here. He played with unimpeachable classical technique, but swinging? Not so much.
-
He would get some jazz theory, not a lot, admittedly, but at least he would have modes explained to him properly (which is more than a lot of jazz students seem to be getting). And the trouble with a lot of jazz theory is that it is not extrapolatable. The top threads on the first page of this forum's theory subforum are: Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
Harmonic minor scale mode names.
How important is knowing music theory to being a good guitar player?
Play what you hear
and
Does anyone of you use the Coltrane Changes ?
Two of those are of general interest, OK, but two are so eclectic as to be almost entirely useless to anyone ouside jazz. As far as I can tell from that particular thread, there isn't even consensus among the cognoscenti about the harmonic minor mode names - and do they really matter, even to jazzmen? And, be honest, who on earth gives tuppence about the Coltrane changes, which are, pardon me for saying, not just abstruse but obsolete, apart from as a show-offy technical exercise?
At least Baroque theory includes solid basics like harmony and counterpoint which are of considerable interest when you come to doing arrangements, even orchestrations - theory you can use. If OP gets a good grounding in classical theory, he can build on it in a host of diifferent ways - it's harder to work backwards from jazz to classical theory than the other way round.
Reply With Quote
Loar Vs. Samick (Tone Examples)
Today, 12:29 PM in The Songs