How much classical training is necssary for non-classical(jazz) pianists?

[etcetra]

When I was a jazz major at university, I noticed that most schools had very demanding classical training in the curriculum.  Some require 2 yrs of classical piano, some even require a junior recital  in classical piano.  I think junior recital in classical seems excessive, considering the fact that you are spending most of that time up to that point practicing classical piano at performance level.. which only leaves you 1 year after the junior recital to actually immerse yourself in jazz piano. 

I also hated the fact that the teachers told students to learn classical piano because its good for your "technique".. I thought it was bogus, there are good and bad teacher both in jazz and classical piano.. and learning classical piano does not guarantee a good technique.  I also think that if one is to learn classical piano, you are learning for the sake of the music, and not use it as a means to the end.  It seems like one is doing grave injustice by learning Beethoven just for the technique.

When I read about accomplished jazz pianists, the accounts of their classical background varies tremendously. Some like Kenny Kirkland are said to be 'cocert pianist level".. while  A lot of people like George Shearing switched early on because they didn't like classical that much.. When I read about Oscar Peterson, he did learn classical piano.. but he had exceptional ear and he learned it mostly by ear.   

I am not dismissing the importance of learning classical music, and playing beethoven can be a very rewarding experience.. but if the music that you love is funk, or blues or jazz, or whatever it is, is it right for me or anyone to say to them that they should learn classical piano first?  Why not learn music and build your chops around the music you enjoy doing, rather than taking a detour to this music you don't care about?.

from what I've read from the forums, most jazz pianists will not be able to satisfy the critical ears of the people in this forum... so I am guessing its not necessary for a jazz pianists to play classical music at a respectable level.. and yet a lot of schools seem to insist that you do.  I may be wrong about my assesment, but it's seems like the notion that you should do classical piano for technique is bogus and it seems like there are a lot of politics/bias against jazz or other form of music in the academia sometimes.

[etcetra]

I wanted to write a brief background about this post..I am not dissing classical piano education in general.

I remember when I started at this school, I had a classical piano teacher and no jazz teacher. and she basically told me "You will be doing mostly classical here, so that when you graduate you will be ready to do jazz" .. that statement really ticked me off. 

I met some pianists there studying jazz, they were about to graduate.. and frankly I was not impressed at all with their playing.  They had good technique, but their time, their swing feel was not there, and most of all, their improvisation just didn't sound very jazz at all.. they were not playing the idiom.. the language.  They probably learned all the "abersold stuff" like playing this scale over this chord.. and that was the extent of their jazz education.  They knew very little about licks, reharmonization, the kinds of stuff working jazz pianists know.

It was surprising to see that the same kind of mentality existed in a lot of other schools..there were a lot of technically profficient musicians that sounded good in big bands but they really could not solo.  There were jazz saxophone players who were playing crazy classical etudes, but have never worked on a stan getz or sonny rollins transcription... they couldn't even play the blues.

It's very unfortunate because most of these people ended up doing something else for their career.. a lot of them are teaching or doing accompanying, but very few of them actually play jazz after they graduate. 

[rc]

Where I plan on going, I think they've hired their first fulltime jazz teacher this year, and before it was something of a ramshackle affair.

My teacher is currently going in depth on my technique, and this sort of work isn't at all genre-specific - it's just being more effecient.  So I don't see any reason why it HAS to be taught in a classical context.  My only guess is that maybe classical music has a longer tradition of going into it, but that's only a guess, I don't have much experience with jazz teachers.

That's definitely misleading for them to call it a jazz program and then have you learn classical most of the time.

One thing I know is that if I want what the school offers I will have to play by their rules.  Even if they make no sense.  Right off the bat I have to take another math class before I can become a student.  Nevermind that this math has nothing to do with music, nevermind that I got honors every year in highschool math.

Something else that bugs me is the 'general liberal education requirements' - everybody has to take 3 classes/year that have nothing to do with their program.  It's under the pretense of giving the students well rounded education, but I'm sure it also rounds out their finances   I want to go there for one reason, and it's not to take random classes

So far as I can tell, it's taken some time for academia to accept jazz, and could be some time before they figure out how to teach it.

I remember reading how Miles Davis had to go to Julliard, and how lame he found it.  He couldn't wait to get out to the jazz clubs and learn what he was really interested in.  (sidenote: I question the integrity of an institution that would put their name in a movie like 'August Rush')

[etcetra]

Yea, its frustrating, for both students, and players... A lot of jazz musicians are required to do classical, but classical musicians are encouraged but not required to know anything about jazz.  They  dont say they are biased, but what they do and say don't really match.

I remember being at a workshop.. and some of the players were frustrated about how the music is taught, because thats not how they or other players learned.  I remember one of the classical saxphone teacher even told Kenny Garrett that if kenny stopped playing ofr 6 months, he can teach him how to play the saxophone.

What really baffles me is that if I do the math, less than 25% of my courses are actually related to jazz.  About half of the classes I took are general education classes.. and good portion of my music education was classical.. I had to take 3 semester of classical history, 4 semester of theory.. etc so it left me very little time to actually do jazz.  Its funny because you have to be a music major in order to classical history, but jazz history course can be taken by any major to fullfill liberal arts requirement.. which means that no musical knowledge is necessary for you to take the classes here. there is a bias here

I went to this school for the reputation it used to have.. a lot of great players came out of there, but it was funny none of them really was happy about their education.. I am just wondering how its like in other parts of the world.

[etcetra]

RC,

At least they didn't put their name on 'school of rock'

The liberal arts requirement is bogus, its another way of them telling you that you didin't learn squat in highschool, so were are making you do it all over again.  I know some of the private music college are a lot  less stringent on the liberal arts requirement, which makes more sense.

In my school it was a nightmare for string and horn players.. they have to go on tour 2-3 times a semester, and they have really busy performance schedule .. and a lot of them fail their general education classes because they just dont have time to study between practicing, rehearsing and working a part time job.

[rc]

I had to google Kenny Garrett, it looks like he's already got a lot of experience with sax...  That's kinda funny actually, telling someone who's been an active musician for 40 years, nominated for 11 grammies, how to play his instrument

Well, so far as I can tell the school I'll be going to doesn't pretend to have much of a jazz curriculum.  It's one thing to have a weak program, but where you went seems like they were plain dishonest.  That's a counterfeit education!  You ask for jazz, they say they'll give you jazz, and in the end what you got was not jazz.

But, did you at least walk away with more skill?  It may not have been the shortest path, but if you at least got something out of it and are further ahead than before, then you're now free to apply it to what you really want.

By the way I'm still enjoying dabbling in jazz, I found a copy of Nachmanovitch's book and it was an inspiring read!  Got a copy of my own on order, along with Werners book and some Bill Evans disks.  I love the idea of being able to competently improvise.

RC,

At least they didn't put their name on 'school of rock'

I haven't seen School of Rock so I can't really compare   All I know is that August Rush was a godawful movie, I would never have even noticed it on the rental shelf but a friend recommended it - last time I trust his tastes!

The liberal arts requirement is bogus, its another way of them telling you that you didin't learn squat in highschool, so were are making you do it all over again.  I know some of the private music college are a lot  less stringent on the liberal arts requirement, which makes more sense.

In my school it was a nightmare for string and horn players.. they have to go on tour 2-3 times a semester, and they have really busy performance schedule .. and a lot of them fail their general education classes because they just dont have time to study between practicing, rehearsing and working a part time job.

Funny thing about not learning enough in highschool, one piece of wisdom a highschool teacher gave us in our last year is that anyone would be lucky to retain 5% of what they learn in highschool but what we carry the rest of our lives is social skills.  That takes some rare honesty!

The way I view liberal arts requirements is knowledge I don't intend on using, trivia.  I get curious about things, but I would rather pay $10 for a library card than hundreds for the courses.

That's another thing that concerns me, that these liberal arts classes will eat into time I could otherwise be spending on music!  My plan is to see if I can simply not register for any of them.  If I can do that, they probably won't give me any sort of diploma, but that's fine.  If somewhere down the road I need a diploma I guess I could go back and take 12 random classes, but otherwise I'm only interested in learning music.

[etcetra]

The best thing to do with school is actually talk to the teacher and see who really cares about the students and who doesn't// because most of the teacher in my school didn't really care about the students that much. .they were concerned with thier reputation..  The biggest thing I learned in school is what I shouldnt' do more than what i should.. i guess thats a step in the right direction.. but its funny because I hear from so many players about how they got really good "after" they finish school..

anyways I am glad you are getting into jazz more.. its fun.. its a totally different way of thinking and playing the piano.. I just wish there were more respect and understanding towards each other though.. because its easy to go through school doing jazz and not really learn to appriciate classical music and vice  versa.

[etcetra]

yea Kenny is a jazz legend, which makes it even more silly that this sax teacher, who is nobody was audacious enough to give him an advice like that.

I also remember that not long ago a very talented bass player was auditioning to get in.. my school required classical audition for all bass players.. and this guy has never played a single classical piece.. so the school did not accept him.. well now he is touring all over the world, he has played with stevie wonder, herbie hancock, played at the grammys..

Btw I don't know where you are going to school.. but if you are going to school in US, you can try taking your non-music classes at a community college during the summer and have your credits transfered there.. the classes are easier and you dont have to spent as many weeks getting credits for them as you would if you took them during the regular school season.

[Petter]

 Have you watched the documentary about Frieridch Guldah? I think he has alot of interesting things to say about this subject. Heīs slightly ( ) selfcentered but I imagine thatīs a synthesis of breaking new land.
 Anyway itīs a fun watch 

&feature=related

[thierry13]

The best you are in classical, the more your jazz playing will improve. What is necessary? It depends on how necessary it is for you to be good! Sadly, the opposite doesn't work. Living proof : Keith Jarrett (and every other jazzer who tried his hands at classical).

[Petter]

Shut the *** up

[etcetra]

Petter,

everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how deluded they are.  Some people just want attention  .  You can just ask how many people here graduated with a degree in classical piano or consider themselves a good classical pianists and see how many of them will say they are also good at jazz.

All I know is that I talked to concert pianists who said they wish they know how to play jazz.  I haven't really heard of any classical pianists who is also highly respected as a jazz pianist. I was thinking about other jazz pianists who had very little or no classical training.. Michel Pettrucianni, Red Garland, Makoto Ozone.. to name a few

[rc]

Etc, I heard a podcast about some critics of the educational system from the 60's and 70's, that still seems relevant today.  Interesting to hear in any case.  I tried to put it into my own words but it wasn't working, so here: https://www3.telus.net/caswelro/01%20Rewind-%20July%2025,%202008-%20Education.mp3

[lostinidlewonder]

If you want to do Jazz don't do classical. If you want to do Classical don't do Jazz. That seems pretty simple doesn't it? The thing is a complete pianist can do all genres. We do not hide in little areas that we are comfortable in. I consider myself a classical pianist but I can pull out Jazz and play cocktail lounge music. It is not that Jazz was my full interest but I thought if I am a musician I should be able to do it.

A good jazz musician should be able to submit themselves to classical, however whether it is necessary or not is personal preference I think. I think you should be able to do it, if you can't there is something missing in your ability. However some people are so interested in their one area that they don't want to look outside of it, they want to specialize and completely immerse themselves only in what they have complete interest in.

[etcetra]

lostinwonder,

I think the question at this point is.. how much should one be able to do the other?  Most great jazz pianists who can play classical music but, most classical pianists will probably find their classical playing unsatisfying.. and most classical pianist can 'fake' jazz but if someone with critical ears listen to it, they will probably say that that's not real jazz.. in either case, people might find the performance lacking in stylistic understanding of the music.. the best you can do is fake the other genre, but you won't have the depth and experience of someone who specialize in it.

A lot of people in the forum seem to agree that the ability to play jazz and the ability to play classical is completely different things..  I guess my main concern is more on how we are taught to think we have to be competent classical pianists to be respectable.. Like I said some schools require classical audition/recital for all jazz majors, but classical majors are encouraged, but not required to take any jazz/improvisation courses.  I personally would like to be able to play more classical music, because I like the music, but I don't necessary agree with the academia or the kinds of people who forces their students to learn classical piano.

And it's not just classical vs jazz.. I've lisened to a lot afro-cuban music.. tango music, and their piano playing is very different, even though they are often categorized into the jazz genre.  A lot of them can't play a solid bebop line but they are great at what they do.  They can do a lot of things that a more mainstream jazz musician can't do and vice versa. 

I just think any music is fine, as long as you are driven and are passionate about what you are doing.  Some people can only play certain kinds of music, but that's just how they are.. i I don't think its matter of staying only in comfort zone, narrow minded.. because for them to do anything else, would be insincere, disingenous to them.

[lostinidlewonder]

lostinwonder,

.. how much should one be able to do the other?  Most great jazz pianists who can play classical music but, most classical pianists will probably find their classical playing unsatisfying.. and most classical pianist can 'fake' jazz but if someone with critical ears listen to it, they will probably say that that's not real jazz.. in either case, people might find the performance lacking in stylistic understanding of the music.. the best you can do is fake the other genre, but you won't have the depth and experience of someone who specialize in it.

The reality is however that most classical pianists don't even try. They stay in their comfort zones. Whether what they do is at a masters level or not is subjective and unimportant in my opinion, that they can do at an acceptable standard is important.

A lot of people in the forum seem to agree that the ability to play jazz and the ability to play classical is completely different things..  I guess my main concern is more on how we are taught to think we have to be competent classical pianists to be respectable.. Like I said some schools require classical audition/recital for all jazz majors, but classical majors are encouraged, but not required to take any jazz/improvisation courses.  I personally would like to be able to play more classical music, because I like the music, but I don't necessary agree with the academia or the kinds of people who forces their students to learn classical piano.

I think that the classical/jazz genres overlap each other. I play a lot of Latin music which has classical roots as well as jazz, also improvisation and selection of notes has theory which is similar in both disciplines. I am also using the definition of classical and jazz very loosely though. Jazz to me is essential a rhythmic study of music.

Some people can only play certain kinds of music, but that's just how they are.. i I don't think its matter of staying only in comfort zone, narrow minded.. because for them to do anything else, would be insincere, disingenous to them.

I think that we have a natural tendency to a particular style or even composer, but everything can be learned. A professional pianist for instance should have the capability to study any form at the piano. Some musicians don't like to take risks in fear of being belittled by others thus only ever study a very small microcosm of music (which is still a great deal of music, enough for a lifetime) and remain in it.

I think of music like art. An artist should be able to create with all type of tools. At least experiment and try out the other art forms. Afterall we are professional artists for that reason, to explore our art fully! How can we say we play bad another genre if we don't even try.

[etcetra]

Lostinwonder,

I do agree with you on most of the points you are making.  For any musicians of any genre, it's natural that they take interest in other types of good music.  I personal would feel like I am missing something in my piano playing if I never had the experience of playing the for example, Waldstein sonata,  in my life.  It's like being a writer and not knowing Dante's.  

I am just arguing that if you are starting piano from scratch and if your first love in music was latin music, or jazz, and not classical, I don't think they should necessary do classical music first, just because it's the "proper thing to do".  They can learn the ability/technique to play the instrument through the music they want to learn, even if it's not conventional.  Hopefully they will take interest in classical music later on, when they have a better grasp of music, but i will not want to force them, just because its "good for them".

I guess I am saying this mainly from my experience, because in schools and other institutions,  a lot of students are forced to do what is "proper", but often times it suppress their individual uniqueness and personality.  They find their personal exploration of music as unworthy or somehow inferior.. which is very unfortunate.  It's ironic that in schools, the most creative music making happened outside of school curriculum, when students created ensembles and bands themselves.

RC,

I really enjoyed the podcast... the last paragraph i wrote above summarize my school experience.. its funny how that first part of the podcast described my experiences in college.  It's funny how schools work.. Very few people continue music after school, and the one's that were successful did not need to go to school in the first place... they were already good before they started school..but schools take credit for somehow educating them.

I really didn't learn anything in school that are useful in what I am doing now, and that's how most people feel about their musical training.. esp. in jazz.  Frankly I am upset about it, because right now I am practicing a lot, mainly learning things I should have learned in school, but I had to discover them on my own.

Like I said, a lot of great jazz musicians are concerned about how jazz is being taught, because it's not anything like how they learned, and it's out of touch with the reality of the music.   I think I did most of my learning outside of school, from playing with older experienced players, and listen to what they have to say.  i am glad i did, because a lot of people didn't and their first gig outside of school was completely shock for them..

[richard black]

Given that perhaps the greatest non-classical pianist ever (Art Tatum) had little if any classical training, the answer to the original question would appear to be 'No'. But you can't know too much about different styles and after all music is music. Apart from that, some of the freedom of improvisation is extremely useful for the classical musician - becoming horribly hidebound is a big risk

[thierry13]

Like I said some schools require classical audition/recital for all jazz majors, but classical majors are encouraged, but not required to take any jazz/improvisation courses.

You see, I didn't make up the whole thing. And they tell me to shut the **** up  By the way, classical majors are far from being encouraged to take jazz/improvisation courses. We barely hear about them, and those who take it are not in performance major, most of the time.

[Petter]

No I told you.

[thierry13]

No I told you.

Go tell this to the people who design audition requirements in universities. 

[Petter]

Iīll leave that to my friend Jack Nicholson

[etcetra]

I don't  know how schools are like outside of US, but a lot of piano major (jazz or classical) are required to take choir as major performance ensemble.. it's supposed to improve your musicianship and it's total waste of time.  There are a lot of things that are wrong about how university teach music, and a lot of people very misunderstood when it comes to jazz education. 

There are a lot of really good musicians who gets turned down from schools because they couldn't do a classical audition, and they end up touring and playing with the greats.  either way a lot of the requirements and stuff make it very difficult to for anyone who are doing jazz majors.. I did the mass and less than 20% of the classes I took were jazz related, and it's like that in a lot of the schools

[rc]

I'm glad you liked the podcast, it's nice to hear from somebody who'd made a study of education and had a lot of info to support his stance.  Other than that, I've heard stories similar to yours since I was a kid - of people not getting much from their schooling.  My Dad has an engineering degree, which he went on to never use.  At work I met a painter who had some sort of neuroscience degree.  My previous piano teacher was bitter about there being no bridge from academia to the 'outside world'. 

Just this year I'm seeing a batch of friends unleashed from 16 years of nonstop school, searching for jobs.  One tells me it feels weird not going to school, like summer didn't end this year, I thought it was weird that she thought it was weird

Yesterday I was at a presentation and at one point the guy mentioned that he quit university after a year.  Everybody seemed to think that was failure, but since the guy seemed to be doing well I have no doubt that it was the right choice for him.  I met a very successful businessman who was a highschool dropout...  Failing the classical audition may have been the best thing for those musicians that went on to tour and have careers!

So I go in with suspicion for the institution, knowing that if doesn't work for me there are other avenues.  I'm very much against wasting my time and money on 'liberal education' classes, what a scam.

I'm told they require students to take choir here (or at least it's strongly encouraged).  The idea being that learning to sing is useful in developing a musical conception, and singing in a group helps understand harmony between voices.

[rc]

Oh to go on a tangent again: I got Wener's 'Effortless Mastery' in the mail the other day and just finished giving it a once-over.  It's an interesting approach!

I like his idea of always working from 'the space'.  I used to call it 'the zone' when I played guitar, and I think most classical musicians would call it deep concentration, what was new was the idea of refusing to play when ego interferes to train that state to be on whenever we sit at the bench.  I think I'm able to induce a pretty decent space at the bench, but I know that sometimes it degrades, and the ego really tries to interfere in performance.

What also struck me was letting the hands roam free, I've never tried that, I always try to work from some sort of form.  I believe that Ted learned to improvise in the same fashion:  freedom first, then add form.

I don't think I'm ready to jump into such a stringent approach, while I'm in the middle of a path I've committed to...  But the idea is very appealing.  What are your experiences with his method, Etc?

[etcetra]

RC,

I am glad you liked Kenny's book.. he has a website

https://kennywernerlive.com/

he write about his method and does online seminars and stuff. I know its not for everyone, but I think its a good place to go if you feel stuck.  I heard that Kenny started teaching this by accident, its something that he knew without having anyone taught him, and he was surprised to hear how much people don't do it.  It's very refreshing, and certainly unlike most of my experiences in school


As far as choir is concerned.. it would be nice if it did actually improve your musicianship.. but I remember how most singers had didn't have good musicianship so I am not sure. The problem I saw in choir was that if you get into the begginer group, you spend most of the time just learring to sing the right notes.. and peoeple just keep on making the same mistakes.. if its a piano leasson, you would fire the teacher for teaching it that way.. and if you get into the better group.. it becomes such a big time commitment that it gets in the way of your practicing.  I just think there is a better way to learn musicianship.. rather than singing in a crappy choir.. but most of the time the whole choir requirement is politics/bureaucracy in my opinion.

[thierry13]

I don't  know how schools are like outside of US, but a lot of piano major (jazz or classical) are required to take choir as major performance ensemble.. it's supposed to improve your musicianship and it's total waste of time.

Performance majors actually have to take one year of large ensemble here. For pianists, the only possibility is choir since you can't get in the orchestra. I personally hate it, but I do not think it is a waste of time if you can appreciate it. You mentionned in your other post that you could get into "beginner groups". Such things doesn't exist in my university, and you can't even get in if you do not have a good aural training. I am actually beginning my first year in university, and we are singing chichester psalms by Bernstein wich is far from an easy piece. Everybody manages even if it's easier for some people. It's the level you have to be when you enter university, and I don't think it's a waste of time at all.

[etcetra]

In my school we had different groups...I got into the choir that you had to audition for, but that group was made for vocal majors.. they did 5hrs+ of rehearsal and they performed regularly, like twice a month . It just became too time consuming for me and I wanted to spend that time practicing so i switched to the non-auditino choir.  we had to do this for the whole 5 yrs.

I know schools a different in Europe.. but where I went, a lot of people complain about how they can't find time to practice between their general education courses and their ensembles.  Jazz saxophone players had to do wind ensemble, saxophone quartet, jazz combo and big band.. combined its probably 20+hrs of rehearsal a week.  A lot of groups just don't sound good because students are forced to do too many things at once.