Teaching Jazz Options

[Violinia]

It's dawning on me that the AB's jazz courses are often seen (and used) as a preparation for teaching jazz. What do the posters here think about the idea of classically trained musicians going to a couple of AB workshops and taking jazz exams up to, say Grade 5 and subsequently teaching other pianists to play jazz piano but without ever have played a jazz gig in their lives?

By my use of italics I expect you can guess my views on the subject but I'd like to know what others here think.

[TSax]

I've been lucky over the last 5 years or so, partly living in London means that there's a wealth of great jazz musicians around, but all the teachers I've had over that time have been first and foremost gigging jazz musicians. They've all been good teachers, and a few of them have been truly excellent teachers. I don't honestly believe that a predominantly classical musician with some jazz training could have helped me progress in the way these teachers have.

Another thought I've had quite frequently which is probably a bit controversial for these boards, is that I'm not at all sure that following the ABRSM jazz syllabus is necessarily going to result in a decent jazz musician. I think that it could do - if used with care by a teacher who knows what they're doing, but I think there's quite a high possibility, especially when taught by someone with a limited jazz background, that a student could reach grade 5 jazz distinction but still not be in a position to play in a group situation at the sort of level you would expect from the qualification.

[Suepea]

If you read the descriptions, the AB courses are definitely intended as a preparation for teaching jazz. I have done the Intruduction to Jazz course and found it very useful, giving me an understanding of the basics, enough knowledge to improve my teaching of jazz-style pieces and lots of ideas which can be used in non-jazz situations. I definitely wouldn't teach jazz piano to grade 5, though, as I'm not really a jazz person. I might consider a grade 1, as a taster, but would suggest that they go elsewhere if jazz is what they want. The course also gave me enough confidence to attend a weekend of jazz playing (though I took my cello for that!) It was good fun, but not something I want to do that regularly. However, for some teachers the course may ignite their enthusiasm to participate in the real thing on a regular basis and learn about playing "real" jazz.

[bevpiano]

I'm a classically trained pianist & went to one of the 1st seminars for piano teachers when the jazz exams started. It was obvious to me then that a few days training would not turn me into a competent jazz teacher & I would need to immerse myself in the subject & have a lot more tuition myself if I was to do it properly. I just don't have time to do that, so I haven't entered pupils for jazz grades.

The music service I work for were quite keen to get us to teach the syllabus. When I said I wasn't good enough at jazz, the head of piano said, "oh, but you are good enough". I find it quite insulting to skilled jazz musicians to suggest that it only takes a few days to become a competent teacher. I have suffered from pupils coming to me from a jazz teacher, having been taught the classical syllabus badly, & I'm sure it must happen the other way round. Which doesn't mean somebody can't teach both well, of course, but they need to have put the time & effort into learning both styles well. I do know people who are very good at both.

[pianodub]

I don't think people should teach genres of music in which they are not fluent. My other half is a jazz musician and his training, his ear and his outlook are so different to mine. In the same way that he doesn't teach classical music on his instrument, I wouldn't claim to be able to fluently teach other styles of piano.

I don't see that there is anything wrong with saying that you are a classically trained musician and therefore teach exclusively in that teaching style (not meaning that the student will never learn a 'jazzy' style piece, but that I wouldn't be the one to teach them to actually play jazz and improvise). I get the feeling sometimes that admitting this is seen as a sign of weakness, but in my opinion it takes so long to really know what's what in one area that venturing into unknown territory like that sounds like spreading oneself too thinly. I have so much to learn about classical piano, teaching technique and exploring more repertoire that I don't feel I would do myself any favours by taking on another subject.

Jazz teachers should be jazz musicians, who either gig or have gigged regularly. Classical teachers should be people who have studied their instrument to a high level and know their rep or are on their way to doing so.

[Violinia]

I'm very relieved to see all the responses the question. I do get the distinct impression that these seminars aren't just to give teachers a taste of jazz but also to prepare them to teach the jazz syllabus, and like the rest of you, I think it's a very dubious idea. Like one of the posters said, perhaps one of these non-jazz performing teachers could get their students up to Grade 5 jazz at distinction level but it would give these students a very unrealistic idea of their actual abilities in a jazz performance situation.

I strongly believe that no one should teach jazz until or unless they've become seasoned jazz performers themselves, with good reviews and extensive performing experience over a number of years. Anything less would be selling their students very short indeed.

Anybody else like to comment? Anyone disagree?

[bevpiano]

Certainly, when I went to a seminar, they did seem to be suggesting that classical teachers could teach the jazz syllabus after very little training or experience. I thought it was wrong then & I still do. But you also get people teaching the classical syllabus who know very little about it & have never played in a concert in their lives. I've had pupils whose former teachers only taught up to grade 5 because that's as far as they'd got themselves.

[pianodub]

Certainly, when I went to a seminar, they did seem to be suggesting that classical teachers could teach the jazz syllabus after very little training or experience. I thought it was wrong then & I still do. But you also get people teaching the classical syllabus who know very little about it & have never played in a concert in their lives. I've had pupils whose former teachers only taught up to grade 5 because that's as far as they'd got themselves.

I suppose that might be the difference, that people would not really teach jazz, but just the syllabus. Not unlike those classical teachers who slavishly drag their pupils from exam to exam with very little growth in between! They don't teach music, they teach exam syllabi.

As for teachers who only teach to grade 5 because they've only done grade 5...well that's another day's work! I have a music degree and while I haven't passed a diploma my misses have been very near ones (1 or 2 marks) and I get worried about teaching people grade 5 level properly! I know exams are expensive but you don't need to do each one at grade level and frankly if you're teaching you should be able to take grade 8 and pass it. (Little bit off topic there, sorry!)

[Tickled Ivories]

I'm very relieved to see all the responses the question. I do get the distinct impression that these seminars aren't just to give teachers a taste of jazz but also to prepare them to teach the jazz syllabus, and like the rest of you, I think it's a very dubious idea. Like one of the posters said, perhaps one of these non-jazz performing teachers could get their students up to Grade 5 jazz at distinction level but it would give these students a very unrealistic idea of their actual abilities in a jazz performance situation.

I strongly believe that no one should teach jazz until or unless they've become seasoned jazz performers themselves, with good reviews and extensive performing experience over a number of years. Anything less would be selling their students very short indeed.

Anybody else like to comment? Anyone disagree?

Perhaps it slightly depends on the pupil's objectives/expectations. Some pupils might just do the lessons and the playing at home for pure enjoyment - never intending to become a performing jazz musician. In these cases, a reasonably good teacher who has never performed jazz, might be able to provide perfectly well what these pupils are looking for. On the other hand, if a pupil is looking for a bit more than that, and wants a specialist, it would be better to pass them on to someone who specialises in jazz.

[jinxi]

... but I think there's quite a high possibility, especially when taught by someone with a limited jazz background, that a student could reach grade 5 jazz distinction but still not be in a position to play in a group situation at the sort of level you would expect from the qualification.

I kind of got this feeling after doing grade 2 jazz, which is why I now have a jazz teacher.

The problem is, I think, that lots of 'proper' jazz teachers don't think much of the ABRSM syllabus and exams in general. My jazz teacher has agreed to work on the impro sections with me for grade 3 in lessons, but I can tell he is wondering why the ###### I'm doing it because, I guess, essentially I'm still learning pieces in one key, reading from the music.

All the same, I'm not against classical teachers teaching the ABRSM syllabus as long as everyone is clear that having jazz grades maketh not a jazz musician!

[pianodub]

but I can tell he is wondering why the ###### I'm doing it because, I guess, essentially I'm still learning pieces in one key, reading from the music.

An excellent point I hadn't thought of!

[Violinia]

... but I think there's quite a high possibility, especially when taught by someone with a limited jazz background, that a student could reach grade 5 jazz distinction but still not be in a position to play in a group situation at the sort of level you would expect from the qualification.

I kind of got this feeling after doing grade 2 jazz, which is why I now have a jazz teacher.

The problem is, I think, that lots of 'proper' jazz teachers don't think much of the ABRSM syllabus and exams in general. My jazz teacher has agreed to work on the impro sections with me for grade 3 in lessons, but I can tell he is wondering why the ###### I'm doing it because, I guess, essentially I'm still learning pieces in one key, reading from the music.

All the same, I'm not against classical teachers teaching the ABRSM syllabus as long as everyone is clear that having jazz grades maketh not a jazz musician!

You make some good points, and I hadn't thought of the possibility of people wanting to do jazz exams but without actually intending at any point to go out there and play jazz in public. Seems like a weird idea to me - can you imagine wanting to learn to dance but without intending to put your dancing shoes on and actually dance with or in front of anyone? It would be a bit bizarre, surely!

I think the problem is that the AB and TG (or former Trinity and Guildhall) syllabi have been classical since whenever, so now they're making the foray into jazz, they may not have completely thought it through. I must admit that whenever I hear the idea of classically trained teachers going to workshops that seem to be designed to get them teaching jazz pretty sharpish, but without any necessity for them to actually go and play any jazz gigs themselves, my hackles start to rise! This because I teach jazz myself and have done now for a number of years, privately, in workshops and at a university.

I got there the route of falling in love with jazz a good 25 years ago, teaching myself to play jazz, playing in a number of jazz bands for years and years, doing endless gigs in pubs, clubs, private functions and eventually jazz festivals up and down the country until I could virtually do the whole thing in my sleep. Well not really but you know what I mean. And even then I hadn't considered actually teaching jazz - until I did the CTABRSM and my string mentor suggested I did a 'jazz teaching' project because she could see my main musical interest was jazz. So then I did the project, worked out a method, found and made backing tracks etc etc, then started trying it out on my students. They loved it, it seemed to work, some of them going on to join jazz bands and do gigs themselves. Then I got into workshops and finally I got offered the uni job, which is wonderful. So it's been a long but natural journey, fired up all along by a passion for jazz, a love of performing and a real enjoyment of teaching and enabling people to improvise.

I'm not saying it should be a 25 year journey for all - of course not - that was just my journey. But I do think a certain amount of groundwork should be a given - particularly the longstanding love of jazz, plus of course a longstanding history of listening to jazz and going to countless jazz gigs. And I think the jazz performance should be a given. The thought of someone teaching jazz when they've never done a jazz gig themselves makes me almost lose my breath - think of the analogy of someone teaching dance and putting people through dance exams when they've never danced outside their own room themselves. That is how ridiculous it would be, to my mind.

[sbhoa]

You make some good points, and I hadn't thought of the possibility of people wanting to do jazz exams but without actually intending at any point to go out there and play jazz in public. Seems like a weird idea to me - can you imagine wanting to learn to dance but without intending to put your dancing shoes on and actually dance with or in front of anyone? It would be a bit bizarre, surely!

Why?
I certainly never had any thoughts of playing in front of anyone when I started to learn piano. It's somethnig I've only come to very recently.
I'm sure lots of people want to learn just for themselves.

[Violinia]

... but I think there's quite a high possibility, especially when taught by someone with a limited jazz background, that a student could reach grade 5 jazz distinction but still not be in a position to play in a group situation at the sort of level you would expect from the qualification.

I kind of got this feeling after doing grade 2 jazz, which is why I now have a jazz teacher.

The problem is, I think, that lots of 'proper' jazz teachers don't think much of the ABRSM syllabus and exams in general. My jazz teacher has agreed to work on the impro sections with me for grade 3 in lessons, but I can tell he is wondering why the ###### I'm doing it because, I guess, essentially I'm still learning pieces in one key, reading from the music.

All the same, I'm not against classical teachers teaching the ABRSM syllabus as long as everyone is clear that having jazz grades maketh not a jazz musician!

You make some good points, as does Tickled Ivories:

'Some pupils might just do the lessons and the playing at home for pure enjoyment - never intending to become a performing jazz musician.

- I hadn't thought of the possibility of people wanting to do jazz exams but without actually intending at any point to go out there and play jazz in public. But on the other hand, it seems like a weird idea to me - can you imagine wanting to learn to dance but without intending to put your dancing shoes on and actually dance with or in front of anyone? It would be a bit bizarre, surely!

I think the problem is that the AB and TG (or former Trinity and Guildhall) syllabi have been classical since whenever, so now they're making the foray into jazz, they may not have completely thought it through. I must admit that whenever I hear the idea of classically trained teachers going to workshops that seem to be designed to get them teaching jazz pretty sharpish, but without any necessity for them to actually go and play any jazz gigs themselves, my hackles start to rise! This because I teach jazz myself and have done now for a number of years, privately, in workshops and at a university.

I got there the route of falling in love with jazz a good 25 years ago, teaching myself to play jazz, playing in a number of jazz bands for years and years, doing endless gigs in pubs, clubs, private functions and eventually jazz festivals up and down the country until I could virtually do the whole thing in my sleep. Well not really but you know what I mean. And even then I hadn't considered actually teaching jazz - until I did the CTABRSM and my string mentor suggested I did a 'jazz teaching' project because she could see my main musical interest was jazz. So then I did the project, worked out a method, found and made backing tracks etc etc, then started trying it out on my students. They loved it, it seemed to work, some of them going on to join jazz bands and do gigs themselves. Then I got into workshops and finally I got offered the uni job, which is wonderful. So it's been a long but natural journey, fired up all along by a passion for jazz, a love of performing and a real enjoyment of teaching and enabling people to improvise.

I'm not saying it should be a 25 year journey for all - of course not - that was just my journey. But I do think a certain amount of groundwork should be a given - particularly the longstanding love of jazz, plus of course a longstanding history of listening to jazz and going to countless jazz gigs. And I think the jazz performance should be a given. The thought of someone teaching jazz when they've never done a jazz gig themselves makes me almost lose my breath - think of the analogy of someone teaching dance and putting people through dance exams when they've never danced outside their own room themselves. That is how ridiculous it would be, to my mind.

[jinxi]

... but I think there's quite a high possibility, especially when taught by someone with a limited jazz background, that a student could reach grade 5 jazz distinction but still not be in a position to play in a group situation at the sort of level you would expect from the qualification.

I kind of got this feeling after doing grade 2 jazz, which is why I now have a jazz teacher.

The problem is, I think, that lots of 'proper' jazz teachers don't think much of the ABRSM syllabus and exams in general. My jazz teacher has agreed to work on the impro sections with me for grade 3 in lessons, but I can tell he is wondering why the ###### I'm doing it because, I guess, essentially I'm still learning pieces in one key, reading from the music.

All the same, I'm not against classical teachers teaching the ABRSM syllabus as long as everyone is clear that having jazz grades maketh not a jazz musician!

You make some good points, and I hadn't thought of the possibility of people wanting to do jazz exams but without actually intending at any point to go out there and play jazz in public. Seems like a weird idea to me - can you imagine wanting to learn to dance but without intending to put your dancing shoes on and actually dance with or in front of anyone? It would be a bit bizarre, surely!

What I was going to add (before my three-year-old came in demanding my attention) was that if doing ABRSM exams gives learners an insight to playing jazz that might not otherwise have, I'm definitely for classical teachers giving it a go.

I did grade 1 jazz as a way of getting back into piano after a very long break. I absolutely loved it, so I did grade 2 the following term. My classical teacher said she felt a had a natural flair for jazz, which was backed up by the examiner's comments...so (with the help of TSax) I got myself a jazz teacher. Although I've always liked jazz, I really don't think it would have entered my head otherwise! The way I see it...if it sparks that initial interest then it can only be a good thing.

I'm unsure whether I'll do past grade 3 jazz (might start another thread about this) as I feel it might be holding me back developing 'proper' jazz skills but the pieces are fantastic and I find having short-term goals keeps me motivated. I think it's so easy to feel overwhelmed when you're learning jazz, especially if you're from a classical background. I'm four months into lessons with a jazz pianist and I feel as if I'm having to relearn everything I've ever known. I'm not sure everyone (particularly kids) could hack that, so maybe the grade structure helps a bit? It's interesting thought as I see the ABRSM work (which I'm mainly doing with my classical teacher) as quite separate to the work I'm doing my jazz teacher.

The point I was making re: my teacher's fairly negative attitude to the ABRSM exams is: would that many 'real' jazzers want to teach it anyway...?