Jazz vs Classical Lessons

[Jeffrey]

I am a 4 month beginner.  The way my lessons have developed is that we are doing a fair bit of modern blues and jazz basics, but less simple classical.  For example, 12-bar blues shuffle with simple improvisation, fake book chords with voice leading, and chord voicing etc. (Moon River, A Fine Romance, starting Take the A-train).  This also comes with a fair bit of theory about modes, chord progressions etc.  I really enjoy this.  However, we are doing less classical, and I wonder if my techique will suffer in the future if I continue with this and don't do more classical.  Do other adult hobbyist beginners start with lessons this way?  I ask because it always seems that people start with classical and then move on to jazz, but I am doing it in reverse.

[bernhard]

This will depend to a large extent on the teacher.

The sad truth is that most classical teachers cannot improvise, and as a consequence they will not teach it. (And in some case they will be desultory towards it).

However improvisation (especially free improvisation) is a wonderful tool to acquire – and a very pleasant way to approach the piano.

I think you are very lucky in having found a teacher that has this particular bias towards improvisation. It is far easier to acquire technique later on, than to acquire improvisational skills later on.

Also, consider this: Most satisfying classical pieces may be too difficult for you at the moment. By focusing on improvisation first, your teacher is providing you with a way to play things that sound pretty advanced (even though they may be simple). The alternative could well be to trudge through some unbelievably dull silly classic pieces.

In any case, technique is the same be it applied to improvisation or pieces. (You may also think of pieces as someone else’s written down improvisations ).

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[Jeffrey]

B - My teacher said one reason he taught adult beginners like this (assuming they like modern styles of music), is that they find it more interesting than ultra-simple classical.   He teaches children the traditional way (simple classical and some Disney tunes), because they can't understand the theory.  I have done some simple classical - Bach's Minuet in G (both parts), a simplified Fur Elise, he gave me Mozart's Theme and Three Variations (Twinkle, Twinkle) last week as well.  After doing the 12-bar blues progression, he pointed out that there was an even simpler "chord progression" in Fur Elise (with the chords broken up).  He plans next to show how Mozart's "Variations" is just improvisations, written down in permanent form, but that the principals are the same.  (We haven't gotten there yet, but that is the next few lessons.)  Typical assignments are: to play the 12-bar blues while doing "triplets" in the related blues scale with the right hand (any triplet I want and think sounds ok).  For a fake book piece (say, Moon River) I will play it with what I think are the best chord inversions, then at the lesson he suggests better ones, and we discuss why they are better.  He is also showing me some "schmaltzy" improv techniques to spice up "Moon River".  Most of our pieces are still in C, but we are slowly adding others (Take the A-train, next).

   I must say I really like this way of learning piano, it is even more fun than I imagined when I started.  I have asked him about the traditional way of learning piano (lots of scales, finger techniques, simple classical etc.)  He said that he doesn't feel adults learn best that way, and it is less interesting.  He does teach classical, and said we can go "back to Bach" anytime I want.  (I told him that I do want to do the 2-part inventions, by my second year of playing.)  He said that I will understand a lot more of what Bach was doing, after having had the blues/jazz theory, than if I just learned to "type" the notes blindly without understanding the theory.

The only reason I am wondering what I am doing, is that every friend of mine who is taking or has taken piano, has not done it my way.  They have all had traditional lessons as children, and they can in fact play much better than me (since I have only played 4 months).  Some of them have said I will be missing essential fundamentals of playing technique if I start with the fake book/ improv stuff, and it will limit my playing in the future.  My teacher disagrees and says that I will understand even classical better, having had the theory in nice fun, moder doses.  I like what we are doing, and want to continue with my current teacher, but want to make sure I am not making a mistake for later.  Sorry for the long post, but your replies are so accurate, I hope to get a good answer.  Best.

[xvimbi]

Here are my two cents:
As an adult you already have a lot of music knowledge accumulated through the years. You probably have a good idea how certain pieces should come out if you could play them. You can grasp the theoretical fundamentals of music mutch faster than most any 13 year old. You know what emotions are and how they are expressed through music. I bet you, right now, you can play any basic piece much "better", i.e. much more emotional, with meaningful phrasing, dynamic changes, the things that turn notes into music, than most any 13 year old who has the technical prowess to master Liszt's La Campagnella. The "problem" with adults, I think, is that they know that there is so much in music (technique, theory, posture, emotions, history, etc.), and they know those aspects are needed to make meaningful music. So they get easily overwhelmed and frustrated, because there is simply no way to learn all those aspects at the same time.

This was a long-winded intro to what I'd like to say. There is soooo much to learn, but one has to start somewhere. It doesn't matter wether you start by learning theory through Jazz/Blues and then later expand to classical music or the other way around. It doesn't matter wether you learn technique, i.e. the mechanics of pressing the keys and eliciting sound, through Blues first, because it is the same for any style of music. The only thing you have to watch out for is that theory and technique are properly taught. What music you play is secondary.

Give yourself a couple more years and then compare to your friends. I think you'll find the result rather pleasing  

[bernhard]

I completely agree with xvimbi and with your teacher. It seems like you are in good hands.

However, there is no reason for you not to learn a classical piece you like in paralell, is there?

There is no magical"method" in the sense of a book written by someone. Every method is simply the written down version of what a particular teacher did. Because different teachers do different things there are always new methods. Usually teachers who accpet only one kind of student are the ones who end up writing methods. Teachers who accept a variety of students know that adaptability is the key and that no method can be equally effective in all circumstances. Teachers who insist that only this or that method will do are simply too lazy to figure out their own method. (Nothing wrong with following a method - it is the dogmatism that I dislike).

"Tradition is sloppiness" (Gustav Mahler)

Best wishes,
Bernhard

[Jeffrey]

Thanks guys.  The way my teacher is doing it makes a lot of sense to me, and I enjoy it.   (I am also reading some theory books on the side that Bernhard recommended.)  I'll stay with it, but also tell my teacher that over the first few years, I also want to do some Bach fugues as well.  I can't do some classical things friends of mine regard as basic (e.g. most classical scale fingering), but they (still) can't improvise from a fake book or know chord progressions and inversions really work (with 13-chords etc., which I can already do little bits of).  I feel better that I am not "missing" anything, but will have to learn more stuff over time.  Best.