Hello everyone,

I was just browsing for some info on the jazz curriculum and hoping that we'll be able to have some discussion about it. Looking at the exam materials and the sample page, I was wondering if students should play exactly as written or should they improvise over the written music? Because if they should play as written, then, isn't this a sure way to kill jazz?

I sincerely believe that the heart of jazz is improvisation, not merely playing written music that sounds jazzy. And what does the curriculum actually teach? "theoretized" improvisation that makes everyone come up with the same style?

Just a thought...and wondering if jazz will have grounded standards someday, won't be jazz anymore

Jaz

I like the new jazz syllabus it makes jazz very approachable for say a 10 year old student who is totally new to the concept of jazz and improvisation. It really works too. I've had great results.

JazmineChan you are being far to critical in my opinion, the jazz syllabus is designed to be an introductory education into the basics of jazz and improvisation and it is well grounded not only on sound theory but the very spirit of jazz.

The syllabus allows room for personal intrepretation of both the written heads and the improvisation sections. So far my students have done really well and really enjoy the backing CD's and being able to play around with the tunes.

For what the new jazz syllabus represents i think the Board have done really well and i look forward to the higher grades being published as well as extending the instruments that can play in the syllabus.

In most jazz, the tune is played by somebody (often the 'leader') and then various members of the band as well as the leader get the chance to improvise over the chord changes. The pieces in the jazz syllabus are the tunes! You learn how to improvise over the changes and are examined on your ability to play interesting and creative improvised solos as well as playing the tune (head).

I think you must have misunderstood the point of the tunes being there in the syllabus books.

Violinia

The AB does not publish a Jazz curriculum - it is an examination syllabus. The two are very different things and even among other Jazz musicians I work with there is this misconception that the Board has prescribed what Jazz musicians are "supposed" to play.

There are certain elements of the examination which require accurate yet flexible reproduction of the 'given material', but as TenorClef and Violinia state that's certainly only the starting point.

This is quite different to the kind of pieces such as Christopher Norton's MicroJazz or the Joseph Makholm Impressions (in the current diploma syllabus) which more or less have to be played as written when they are placed in the AB examination environment.

To me the AB jazz exams are an optional independent assessment which could form part of a much larger overall jazz teaching curriculum (which involves theory, blues, standards, technical exercises, improvisation, aural work, transcription, critical listening to CDs, going to gigs etc.) and should be viewed in that context. Hope this is helpful.