Hi I am taking the g3 exam on jazz piano next year. Just want to know where to get resources for learning improvisation? There are several parts of the score in the exam that requires players to play freely (ie., improvise). Do you know if there is a standard for improvisation? Or else where should I found books regarding improvisation?

Thanks

(i.e., do you have to memorize how to play? or just improvise freely at the time of the exam?)
Thanks

Im not sure if you or your teacher has teh Jazz Piano from scratch book (called something like that) not quite sure but that may have some advice in it.

It is important that your improvisations have some sort of structure and develop as they go along. For example you should start with relatively few notes and increase the range as you go on. You can also change from single notes to more complex textures.

A very helpful technique which I got from my jazz piano teacher is to plan the shape of your improvisations by writing key notes at the start of each bar. If you play these key notes in their order they should sound melodically sensible. In the early stages it is helpful to write your improvisations out.

One of the best books on the market about improvisation are the two books called Exploring Jazz Piano
by Tim Richards published by Schott. They come with a CD which demos improvisations.

In the exams you are supposed to do your improvising spontaneously which is very difficult for the inexperienced. At the very least I would recommend that your key notes are penciled in and you stick to a structure that works. You can learn your improvisation but you need to make it sound spontaneous!!

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.

I would stongly recommend that you find a teacher who performs jazz on a regular basis. I was lucky to live near such a teacher from the RNCM.

Klavierboy

That method may work in terms of helping you to pass an exam. I would query whether it is a useful method to use if your goal is to become a decent jazz pianist.

I'd recommend taking grade 1 first as it's a totally different set of requirements from the regular exams.
The idea is to learn how to improvise. I did exactly that for G1 and worked on getting the skills to let me go with where it took me on the day. OK I didn't get a distinction, or a merit, but my improvisation was for real and I developed the tools to look at grade 2.

I do wish they'd rename these exams and call Grade 1 "grade 3" to put them in line with the classical grades in terms of skill. LCM had no worries about calling the first Composition exam "Grade 2".

I can see what you mean about the reclassification for Piano but the head of the woodwind exams is much easier than there classical equals. Emsoboe found the Jazz Piano more difficult relatively, she did Grade 2 after already having experience of G5 Jazz FLute and G4 Jazz Sax.

I just think that there is no need to follow the grade system if you know the basics...

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.

Perhaps it is different for grades 4 and 5, but up until now I've just done it by ear, simply following the suggested notes/chords for the impro sections and playing around until I've got something I like the sound of.

This makes me feel despair. A good examiner should be able to tell whether the player is really improvising or not. If you got a distinction by carefully planning out what you were going to play and just making minor changes each time, then it pretty much makes a fallacy of the whole idea of jazz exams.

I'm not saying you're not a good player - I'm sure you are. But is this primarily about learning to improvise and do something truly spontaneous? Or about getting high marks through some kind of pretence?

I speak as somebody who teaches jazz violin at university level. I wouldn't dream of telling my students to plan out what they play. Near their recital times I give them ideas for varying their solos, ways to build solos, harmonic awareness and obviously they know their jazz scales and have understood the chord sequences of the tunes they're required to play. But I tell them not to plan their solos because the examiners will know and also because it's completely against the spirit of jazz improvisation!

In fact this last semester one of my students asked me if she could write a solo, learn it off by heart and play it at the recital and I said an emphatic 'no!'

Up till now my students have achieved firsts at every single recital and improvisation test they've done, which is evidence enough that they don't need to prepare their solos in order to do well.

If the AB want to create genuine improvisers they should put far more emphasis on improvisation tests, where you have to improvise over a chord sequence you've only heard once or twice. Klavierboy illustrates only too clearly how jazz students can fool examiners and get high marks when they're not really improvising at all.

The problem with this approach is this:

If you learn jazz by planning your solos, how are you going to turn into a genuine improviser once you take the stage? You won't have developed the skills to be able to do so, neither will you feel much inclination to do so, becoming instead a mechanical player who is unable to fly free and 'enter the zone' where totally new ideas genuinely flow through you. This is as far from real jazz as it's possible to be and I strongly believe would-be jazzers should be taught to improvise in a genuine sense right from the very start.

I've heard it said that too much jazz schooling carries the risk of mechanical playing and I've certainly been to jazz gigs where all the players have been schooled in jazz and get a funny feeling that everything sounds a bit robotic and formulaic. Is there a danger that we're creating a generation of pre-prepared, formulaic players? It's a possibility if the AB and other examining bodies don't make sure their candidates can really improvise, not just reproduce solos they've worked out pretty much note-for-note beforehand.

I agree with Violinia.

I don't think there's anything wrong with learning phrases and licks and inserting them into solos in appropriate places - in fact pretty much every jazz teacher I've had recommends this as an approach to learning. And if you make up your own licks, or transcribe them from a recordng rather than getting them from 101 licks for jazz beginners so much the better, but never a whole solo.

I've also been encouraged on occasions to prepare and write out a "sample solo". This I've found especially useful for tunes where I've struggled with the changes. Somehow the task of writing things out and making sure I get in the flat 9, change from major to minor, resolution etc in the right place helps to cement the structure in my head. But this is just an exercise - I'd play the solo for my teacher, we'd discuss what was good about it, how it could be improved etc then put it to one side and never play it again. After the sample solo exercise the real improvisations start to get easier though.

To be honest, the whole "learning the solo" thing is one of the reasons why I don't feel the jazz exams are that helpful in producing a jazz musician. It's probably evern worse for horn players - continual practise with the same backing track promotes you to play the same thing over and over again. I've know doubt that a good jazz teacher who knows what they're doing could incorporate the exams into their teaching, but I'm not sure it would give any better results. And what a blow for student A who does a proper improvisation in the exam and comes out with a merit whereas student B who planned and learnt everything gets a distinction.

I couldn't agree with you more, Tsax, and think this subject is worthy of a whole thread of its own. I was already become sceptical about a system that encourages classical teachers to go on a 4-day workshop and then start 'teaching jazz'. Now we're hearing about candidates getting distinction at Grade 5 playing almost wholly prepared solos. What's all this about?

I know very little about the AB jazz exams as they haven't introduced them for strings yet. Do they contain an 'unseen improvisation test' where the candidate has to improvise over a previously unheard chord sequence, or a chord sequence they only hear once before having to perform? If not, how can they guarantee that they're not continually awarding high marks for prepared solos, if their examiners are presumably unable to tell the difference?

This whole thing is beginning to make me very cross indeed, especially the blatant cynicism of some of the posters in this thread who've said 'how will the examiners ever know anyway?' etc.

Well yes, I agree that this is the not the way to turn into a genuine improviser. I'm now taking care of that side of things with a jazz teacher. But like many people doing the ABRSM exams, I'm being taught by a classical teacher who (by her own admission) wouldn't really know where to start with teaching 'genuine' improvisation. I think spontaneous impro in an exam situation on all pieces, certainly at the lower grades, is a big ask from someone who, most likely, is not being taught by a 'real' jazzer. IT really leads back to the debate we had a few weeks back - should non jazz specialists teach ABRSM jazz exams at all?

I'm at the very earliest stage of learning jazz but I would feel very unsettled at the thought of going into an exam and doing an unprepared impro on the day of the exam. I wouldn't necessarily feel like in a 'jam' situation in or a class. While I would be strongly opposed to anyone writing out a solo, going in there with something you've worked on - can't really see what's wrong with that. Certainly the feedback I've had has suggested the examiner is looking for evidence of creative musicianship. By the time I get to the exam situation I've played with so many ideas and licks, disregarded many of my initial ideas - so I don't feel as if I'm offering something mechanical/robotic. I'm offering the 'best' of the ideas I've had over a period over several weeks/months. And surely there is some value in that process?

There IS a place for spontaneous improvisation in the exam, remember - the quick study, which seems to be at an appropriate level to the corresponding grade (if that makes sense). I agree, perhaps this is not the best way of going about things in the long run, but I guess it boils down to whether you think it's better for someone to have the opportunity to try some jazz with a non-specialist teacher (which might, ultimatately lead them to getting 'proper' tuition) or not having the opportunity at all...

How utterly bizarre to be taught jazz by someone who by her own admission 'wouldn't know where to start with teaching genuine improvisation'. Should non jazz specialists teach ABRSM jazz exams at all? Personally I think not, and I'd go further and say the early jazz grades should therefore be called 'jazz preparatory' exams, if they're mostly being taught by non-jazzers who've gone the route of these workshops where you take a jazz exam at the end of the four days.

As for the possibility of trying some jazz with a non-specialist teacher leading one to get proper tuition, why not go straight to a proper jazz teacher instead of learning how to prepare solos with a classical player and therefore starting out all wrong?

I've taught jazz to children as young as 8 and heard them play really imaginative solos, all completely improvised, proving the point that very young beginners in jazz at Grade 2-3 level (or even less) on their instrument can genuinely improvise. I wished for a long time that there were jazz exams for violin so I could put some of my students in for them, but after hearing today on this forum that candidates are getting high marks for prepared solos I've started to lose faith in the whole idea of jazz grade exams. I'd be horrified if I was putting students in for grade exams in full knowledge of the fact that the examiners couldn't tell if the candidates were genuinely improvising or not.

So how does the quick study work? Are you given a chord sequence you've never heard before? If so, what proportion of the marks does it take up?

You said: but surely this is the whole point of jazz exams - to be assessed on your ability to improvise in the jazz idiom under exam conditions?

So are you saying you should learn the head in preparation but not look at the solos in advance - at all?! If that's what it's all about, then the current format is surely all wrong?! Perhaps the whole exam should be based on pieces the candidate hasn't seen before? I think if that was what was intended the ABRSM would have structured them like that, surely?

I'm now studying with a 'proper' jazzer and we've looked at the solo sections for grade 3 together - we've talked about playing around with different licks, tried out different lines. Now I've gone off to see what I can come up with by myself. I'm still playing around with different ideas at the moment, but eventually I'll settle on the ideas I like the best (probably a week or so before the exam) and stick with that for the exam. I won't have learnt it off by heart, it will just be 'there' because I've gone through that creative process. That doesn't mean that every time I play that piece in future, I will use exactly the same solo...! In the quick study, I WILL improvise completely off the cuff, because that's what that section of the exam requires. I hope all the prep work I'm doing on the three pieces will stand me in good stead for that.

To come back to the point about being taught jazz by a non jazzer, I'll just repeat a point I've made several times, which is basically about supply and demand. Are there enough jazzers who (a) can and (b) would wish to teach the syllabus? (my feeling is that lots are quite sceptical about them).

I did grades 1 and 2 jazz just to get me back into playing again after a long break and discovered (quite unexpectedly) a love of that style of music. I worked out for myself that going up the ABRSM grades wasn't going to get me where I wanted to be...so I got myself a specialist teacher. Had I not tried out those grades, I doubt I'd ever developed that enthusiasm for jazz and I think that's what's important. How many parents would just 'know' their child had an interest/flair for jazz and get them a specialist teacher? Not many I imagine. If doing a few grades with a non jazzer sparks that initial interest, I'm all for it.

Why not have a look at the syllabus/some examples of the scales/quick studies etc and see what you think?

The other point to bear in mind is that most of the solos (at least in the early grades) are just 8-12 bars long - another 'problem' with the way the exams are structured. If I didn't do any planning, I rather suspect that by the time I'd 'entered the zone', the solo section would have ended! Part of the challenge, surely, is giving your solo shape and a sense of progression - I think any beginner would find this a real challenge in 8 bars (as would the examiner to mark the result.)

I agree that the title of the exams may be misleading. I see them more as introductory grades, 'tasters' if you like. Sounds like you are unhappy with the structure/format of the exams as set out by ABRSM. If that's the case, why not raise your concerns with the people who set the exams? To my mind, criticising the students who take them and suggesting the results they get are worthless doesn't seem like the most productive way forward.

Of course I'm not saying you shouldn't look at the solos in advance! I suggest to my jazz students what scales to utilise and where, and teach them various licks that sound good in certain contexts. I encourage them to play rhythmically, bring out certain chord tones, create 'inner melodies', use a different style in each chorus, how to create tension and release, and how to build a good, interesting if not exciting solo. But in the end I'm giving them the tools to create something spontaneous and as new as possible on the day - I want them to fly! They certainly get marked down for sounding too careful, and if the examiners pick up that they've pre-prepared a solo they'd lose an awful lot of marks! Really what I'm trying to do with my jazz students once they've learnt the basics is to express something of themselves, to develop their own unique voice and create their own unique style. Otherwise what are we really teaching?



All that sounds fine, except for when you say you're going to settle on the ideas you like best and stick to it -sounds suspicioualy like a prepared solo to me.



No, you're right there - there probably aren't enough. But does that mean non-jazzers should be teaching jazz, even at the early stages? Would you want non-dancers to teach dance? Jazz musicians with no real understanding of classical music to teach classical music?



You may have a point, but what if someone stays with a non-jazzer right up to Grade 5, preparing solos in advance, unable to improvise off the cuff and create something truly original in real time?



I will, but nobody's told me yet what percentage of the marks they take up! For instance, can you fail the quick study, or get very low marks in it, yet get a high mark for the overall exam?



The only student I'm criticising is the one who said they pre-prepared their solo virtually down to the last note. I think this is totally wrong. I'm also very unhappy about the poster who said it's fine to set out to fool the examiners that a solo is improvised when it isn't.



If most of the solos in the early grades are only 8-12 bars long, then I find it utterly incomprehensible that anyone would feel ready to sit a jazz exam yet still be feeling the need to prepare just one solo as short as that to any serious extent. Work on a number of ideas beforehand, yes - but surely on the day of the exam be prepared to let your ideas flow freely? Otherwise I'm sorry but it just isn't jazz at all! And look, the poster who said the examiners wouldn't notice whether a solo was prepared or not gave the game away - surely you're supposed to be improvising on the day - otherwise the poster wouldn't have mentioned fooling anyone!

As I say, I think you have issues with the existence of the exam itself, so I'm not sure how productive the debate about how to go about it is. But...the quick study carries the same marks as sight reading in classical, which I think gives an indication of where the ABRSM are coming from re: improvising in the exam.

Also worth adding that improvisation is required in the aural tests (carries same marks as in classical). I am not saying it is the right way to learn jazz, but the assessment criteria does not stipulate spontaneous impro in the 3 pieces, only in the aural/quick study, so the suggestion about 'cheating' the examiner if you prepare is off the mark. Why not have a read of the guidelines/exam content?

Sorry but I think some of you are missing the point here bigtime. I've just been looking at the AB's description of their jazz exams and see this:

(i) Three tunes from the list for your grade
A blues, a standard and a contemporary tune. All include improvisation.

Of course they mean you to improvise when you play the tunes! How on earth can you think otherwise? And no, my suggestion about cheating the examiner by preparing solos is not off the mark. I would be amazed if this is what they want you to do - prepare solos and reproduce them out virtually if not entirely note for note!

OK I've decided to call the AB on Monday morning and ask them for some hard evidence - I'll report back.