Improvising - Or Not - In Jazz Exams Options

[Violinia]

It's come to light in another thread today that some people who sit jazz exams prepare their solos and play them pretty much note for note as prepared, give or take the odd slight variation. Does anybody know what the AB's official view on this is?

I'm really surprised, as I thought you'd be expected to genuinely improvise - ie play something you hadn't worked out beforehand. Yes obviously you base it around certain scales you're already familiar with, and you can work out certain licks etc but surely there's a line you shouldn't cross? And that line is actually working out a solo and pretty much or even entirely reproducing it to order?

One poster said they got Grade 5 distinction playing a pre-prepared solo! Another poster said 'how would the examiner ever know anyway?' or words to that effect.

I'm seriously quite shocked. What do others here think?

Also, how does the quick study work, and what proportion of the marks does it take up?

[SueHM]

Obviously it is perfectly possible to work out a solo in advance and play something you have learned. The examiner may well have their suspicions, as this is unlikely to sound very spontaneous, and presumably this is reflected in the marks. I am sure that a lot of people do this, at least to some extent. However, there are other sections of the exam in which you have to improvise, so it is impossible to get through the whole exam without improvising.
I am teaching a boy who tends to get stuck on one version of his 'improvised' solo and it is very difficult to shift him away from that version to try something different. I am changing the parameters every week to try and keep him moving along, rather than getting stuck in a rut, but it is a challenge!
The Quick Study - you can either read or choose to do it entirely aurally and have the examiner play the opening phrase for you to copy and respond to.

[TSax]

I'm probably with you Violinia, but a little more relaxed about it!

I've had my doubts about the usefulness of the jazz grades in preparing jazz musicians for quite a while unless they are used by teachers who really know what they are doing. But since I'm very unlikely to take a jazz exam, or rely on someone telling me they have grade 5 jazz as an indication of their playing ability I'm not going to get too upset about it.

If people want to take jazz exams "for fun" (although it beats me why anyone would take an exam for fun), or to add to their certificate collection then that's up to them. If they really love jazz, listen to it, find out about how to play it and try playing with others then they should reach their own conclusions on the usefulness or otherwise of the exams soon enough. If they don't then the desire to play jazz probably isn't really there.

[Violinia]

I'm probably with you Violinia, but a little more relaxed about it!

I've had my doubts about the usefulness of the jazz grades in preparing jazz musicians for quite a while unless they are used by teachers who really know what they are doing. But since I'm very unlikely to take a jazz exam, or rely on someone telling me they have grade 5 jazz as an indication of their playing ability I'm not going to get too upset about it.

If people want to take jazz exams "for fun" (although it beats me why anyone would take an exam for fun), or to add to their certificate collection then that's up to them. If they really love jazz, listen to it, find out about how to play it and try playing with others then they should reach their own conclusions on the usefulness or otherwise of the exams soon enough. If they don't then the desire to play jazz probably isn't really there.

Nice to see your calm attitude, Tsax! I find it harder to stay phlegmatic about these sorts of things, and am aware of my tendency to go off the deep end on occasion (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blush.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif).

One thing that does bother me about all this is the effect that some of this jazz education may be having, in that it may well be creating a generation of formulaic players. I've been to several jazz gigs over the last few years that leave me cold in a way I can't quite put my finger on. The notes are correct, the solos well constructed, but there's a lack of passion that sends me virtually to sleep.

Unless jazz educators do their utmost to persuade their jazz students to 'play from the heart' and express something truly of themselves, jazz education may well carry the risk of killing the genre off altogether and that's what worries me. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

[Violinia]

Obviously it is perfectly possible to work out a solo in advance and play something you have learned. The examiner may well have their suspicions, as this is unlikely to sound very spontaneous, and presumably this is reflected in the marks. I am sure that a lot of people do this, at least to some extent. However, there are other sections of the exam in which you have to improvise, so it is impossible to get through the whole exam without improvising.

But you can get a distinction in a non-jazz Grade exam without passing all the subsidiary sections - in fact you could get 127 - a high merit - whilst failing all the other sections! I wonder if you could get a good mark in a jazz exam without actually improvising at all? After all, you could prepare your solos for the three tunes so cleverly and fool the examiners that you were improvising, and fail the section where you had to genuinely improvise - the quick study.

Lets do the maths. Can you get a high mark for a jazz exam without doing any improvising at all? If so, the AB needs to look at these exams again and make it essential to pass the quick study to be able to pass the exam as a whole, seeing as candidates can be clever enough to fool the examiners with pre-prepared solos. Jazz isn't jazz without improvisation, and it's plain daft to be awarding high marks in a jazz exam to a candidate who didn't actually do any improvisation at all.

[TSax]

One thing that does bother me about all this is the effect that some of this jazz education may be having, in that it may well be creating a generation of formulaic players. I've been to several jazz gigs over the last few years that leave me cold in a way I can't quite put my finger on. The notes are correct, the solos well constructed, but there's a lack of passion that sends me virtually to sleep.

I don't think you can blame that one on the ABRSM jazz grades. I suspect their introduction is to recent for those who are currently gigging to have taken them.

I have to say that I have seen some amazing, passionate, inspirational and truly cutting edge playing from those graduating from the Guildhall, RAM and Trinity jazz courses in recent years.

Oh, and I've been lucky enough to have lessons both from graduates of those courses and professors for those courses and feel assured that jazz education in the UK, at least at the highest levels, is just fine.

[Violinia]

I don't think you can blame that one on the ABRSM jazz grades. I suspect their introduction is to recent for those who are currently gigging to have taken them.

I have to say that I have seen some amazing, passionate, inspirational and truly cutting edge playing from those graduating from the Guildhall, RAM and Trinity jazz courses in recent years.

Oh, and I've been lucky enough to have lessons both from graduates of those courses and professors for those courses and feel assured that jazz education in the UK, at least at the highest levels, is just fine.

I wasn't blaming it on the ABRSM jazz grades - i was blaming it on jazz education in general. Before jazz education was conceived, jazz was doing just fine since its inception, and was played by musicians who'd usually been taught their instrument from an early age and learnt jazz as sidemen, learning on the job, so to speak. Jazz education began to flourish in universities in the 50s and 60s and coincided with the decline in the development of jazz, probably as an attempt to keep jazz going as a genre. There was a sudden leap in UK jazz audience figures in the late 80s as the result of people like Courtney Pine and Andy Sheppard coming on the scene, but right now it would be fair to say that in general jazz audiences aren't healthy.

Andy Sheppard and Courtney Pine - both truly exciting, inspirational players - were both self-taught as jazz musicians.

I agree with you that some amazing players have graduated from the conservatoire jazz courses in recent years, but are any of them making their mark in quite the way Andy Sheppard and Courtney Pine did? And if not, why not?

[TSax]

I don't think you can blame that one on the ABRSM jazz grades. I suspect their introduction is to recent for those who are currently gigging to have taken them.

I have to say that I have seen some amazing, passionate, inspirational and truly cutting edge playing from those graduating from the Guildhall, RAM and Trinity jazz courses in recent years.

Oh, and I've been lucky enough to have lessons both from graduates of those courses and professors for those courses and feel assured that jazz education in the UK, at least at the highest levels, is just fine.

I wasn't blaming it on the ABRSM jazz grades - i was blaming it on jazz education in general. Before jazz education was conceived, jazz was doing just fine since its inception, and was played by musicians who'd usually been taught their instrument from an early age and learnt jazz as sidemen, learning on the job, so to speak. Jazz education began to flourish in universities in the 50s and 60s and coincided with the decline in the development of jazz, probably as an attempt to keep jazz going as a genre. There was a sudden leap in UK jazz audience figures in the late 80s as the result of people like Courtney Pine and Andy Sheppard coming on the scene, but right now it would be fair to say that in general jazz audiences aren't healthy.

Andy Sheppard and Courtney Pine - both truly exciting, inspirational players - were both self-taught as jazz musicians.

I agree with you that some amazing players have graduated from the conservatoire jazz courses in recent years, but are any of them making their mark in quite the way Andy Sheppard and Courtney Pine did? And if not, why not?

I don't think I'd put Andy Sheppard and Courtney Pine in quite the same category. I don't doubt that Courtney Pine brought in a new jazz audience but I'm not so sure about Andy Sheppard - I don't know how many people who aren't really into jazz (or possibly saxophones) will have heard of him. Courtney Pine is a showman, that's what sells tickets for his gigs. Incidentally, the last time I went to one of his gigs the star of the show for me was violinist Omar Puente. Certainly for the last 5 years or so I don't think there's been anything terribly innovative in the material he's released, it's edging towards commercial (nothing wrong with that).

Recent conservatoire graduates who have made an impact include Gwilym Simcock being invited to compose and perform at the Proms, Ingrid Laubrock being awarded an Arts Foundation fellowship for jazz composition.

In terms or increasing jazz audiences you'd probably find that the more formulaic approach would be more successful - after all the most popular forms of music are decidedly formulaic. The most creative, innovative jazz isn't easy to listen to and I can't see it ever having a huge audience. I remember before it's demise theJazz having a top 500 jazz tracks - a ludicrous number were Jamie Cullum, because that's were the popular vote lies.

[Violinia]

don't think I'd put Andy Sheppard and Courtney Pine in quite the same category. I don't doubt that Courtney Pine brought in a new jazz audience but I'm not so sure about Andy Sheppard - I don't know how many people who aren't really into jazz (or possibly saxophones) will have heard of him. Courtney Pine is a showman, that's what sells tickets for his gigs. Incidentally, the last time I went to one of his gigs the star of the show for me was violinist Omar Puente. Certainly for the last 5 years or so I don't think there's been anything terribly innovative in the material he's released, it's edging towards commercial (nothing wrong with that).

Recent conservatoire graduates who have made an impact include Gwilym Simcock being invited to compose and perform at the Proms, Ingrid Laubrock being awarded an Arts Foundation fellowship for jazz composition.

In terms or increasing jazz audiences you'd probably find that the more formulaic approach would be more successful - after all the most popular forms of music are decidedly formulaic. The most creative, innovative jazz isn't easy to listen to and I can't see it ever having a huge audience. I remember before it's demise theJazz having a top 500 jazz tracks - a ludicrous number were Jamie Cullum, because that's were the popular vote lies.

In his heyday Andy Sheppard was virtually a household name at least around middle class circles. I agree that Courtney Pine has gone a more commercial route lately - I was really talking about back then and making the point that they both made an enormous mark at the time and were both self-taught in jazz.

I doubt you'd find many people outside the jazz or classical worlds who would have heard of either Gwilym Simcock or Ingrid Laubrock or anybody else on the contemporary British jazz scene for that matter. Thejazz made the mistake of trying to please everybody and ending up pleasing no one very much. They should have been far more specialist and tried to attract a cult audience in the way Charlie Gillett did/has with world music. Cult audiences take a while to build but are often far more successful in the long run. None of the jazz radio stations have ever really done it right - Jazz FM was sort of good for a while but also tried to please too many people and ended up failing. I agree with you that Thejazz featured far too much Jamie Cullum and it didn't save them in the end, did it?

I think a radio station that featured world music and jazz could do really well by catering to both audiences. Like an all-day Late Junction - talking of which I'm at a loss to understand why they cut Late Junction back so much. I've lost count of the people who've told me how disappointed they are - which should tell us something about what a probably growing number of people want.

[briantrumpet]

Before jazz education was conceived, jazz was doing just fine since its inception, and was played by musicians who'd usually been taught their instrument from an early age and learnt jazz as sidemen, learning on the job, so to speak. Jazz education began to flourish in universities in the 50s and 60s and coincided with the decline in the development of jazz, probably as an attempt to keep jazz going as a genre.

I think that this hits the nail on the head. It's hard to imagine now the musical scene back in the 1930s when jazz/swing was THE popular music in America, and was all around. That's how a language is learnt.

There are young musicians around - and I'm fortunate to work with several - who immerse themselves in the sounds of the language they are learning. But the world where jazz was ubiquitous has gone. We ought to be grateful for the work that the Colleges are doing - even if they cannot replace a world that has gone.

[Nick Cook]

I don't deliberately learn the improvisation bit - it just seems to happen after practising the same piece over and over.

It always surprises me that my teacher knows when I've learnt what I'm playing. So presumably the examiners would know too!!

[Violinia]

I don't deliberately learn the improvisation bit - it just seems to happen after practising the same piece over and over.

It always surprises me that my teacher knows when I've learnt what I'm playing. So presumably the examiners would know too!!

Well, in another thread, a poster said this:

I recently did Grade 5 and planned out the improvisations carefully just making the odd changes each time I played it. The method worked because I got a distinction.

which tells us that the AB examiners can't always tell!

And another poster said this:

I'm not sure you are 'supposed' to improvise spontaneously in the exam. I mean, how would the examiner know anyway??? I've just done jazz piano 1 and 2 and am doing 3 this term too. For grades 1 and 2 I worked on the impros (and embellishments of the head) over a number of weeks/months. By the time it came to the exam it was in my head, so no need to write on score. I agree that this is not the way you would do it in a 'real' situation e.g. jamming sessions and ultimately isn't the way to move your jazz skills forward, but unless you are already really good/know what you're doing (by 'you' here I mean 'one') I wouldn't fancy your chances hoping it will all come together on the day.

I'm seriously quite baffled by this whole attitude because I thought you were supposed to improvise in jazz exams otherwise the whole idea of jazz exams makes little sense. Yes you could show demonstrate your knowledge of jazz theory I suppose, but jazz is first and foremost about improvisation so without improvisation there's no jazz!

[jinxi]

So what did the exam board say?

[TSax]

I don't deliberately learn the improvisation bit - it just seems to happen after practising the same piece over and over.

It always surprises me that my teacher knows when I've learnt what I'm playing. So presumably the examiners would know too!!

Are you constantly practising with a backing track?

I find that practising a lot with the same backing track makes me get stuck in a rut. I hear exactly the same thing over and over again so I respond in the same way.

Ways to get out of the rut that I've found to work include:

Do more practice without the backing track. You've still got to keep to the correct number of bars/chord changes etc. This is hard - because it's hard it forces you to play something simple with a structure, otherwise you lose your place. Believe it or not something structured and simple sounds a lot better than something complicated and waffly.

When you do use the backing track set yourself constraints such as, this time I'm only going to play the notes C, Bb and G for the whole solo (forces you to be rhythmically interesting), this time I'm going to base my solo around a particular rhythmic idea, this time I'm not going to start any phrase on beat 1, or use only chord tones, or draw yourself a "map" to follow e.g. start a phrase on beat 1 bar1, finish on beat 2 bar 3, start next phrase on and of 4 bar 3 and take through to bar 6 etc.

Sticking to the constraints again gives your solo a structure, and varying the constraints means you can't stick to the same old ideas.

[Dulciana]

I'm probably with you Violinia, but a little more relaxed about it!

I've had my doubts about the usefulness of the jazz grades in preparing jazz musicians for quite a while unless they are used by teachers who really know what they are doing.

These are my thoughts too - as a teacher who gave it a go, but doesn't really know what I'm doing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif) There was really no mission of most of my 'jazz' students improvising on the spot, though some were very good at coming up with good music after some preparation. As such, we all decided to forego the actual exam and just learn a bit more about basic improvisation (prepared or otherwise, if the former isn't a contradiction in terms), harmonic progression, rhythms and so on. But while I really got nowhere in preparing 'jazz musicians', we all learnt from the experience and are continuing to do so. They were all existing pupils who agreed to come together as a group for for a while for very little money so that we could all see what we could do. But I seriously doubt if very many will be improvising on the spot in the exams; an unseen piece should make it clear, though! But then - does it matter in the early grades?