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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!)

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.

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!

An excellent point I hadn't thought of!

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.

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.

You make some good points, as does Tickled Ivories: - 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.

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...?

I think it's likely that an awful lot of thought went into it. I don't know about other instruments, but the panel of musicians who contribute to the piano syllabus is made up of some of the foremost composers, educators and performers in the world of jazz.

Absolutely. The AB jazz exams really shoehorn jazz into the classical exam format, and although there are some 'worthy' ingredients in there, I'm not at all convinced of their real value in the AB format. This is partly because I think that it is fiendishly problematic to assess improvisation - I'd be interested to know the examiners' exact criteria. Wrong notes? One person's wrong note is another's 'spice'. Whereas in 'classical' exams, you have a performance model (the score) against which the examiner can assess the performer's faithfulness to what they are 'supposed' to be playing, there is no such 'model' for jazz.

The key aspects (IMHO) of jazz improvisation and playing are those for which it very difficult to give an objective assessment - including, for instance, sense of swing and swing phrasing, as well as the 'choice of notes'. I think it is for this reason that the academic exam boards - Edexcel and OCR, for instance - do not allow candidates to do just improvisation for their AS & A2 'recitals'. Although this is grossly unfair on the jazz specialists, I can see why it is like this. What would they do if faced with an Ornette Coleman to assess?

Yes, but one of the main points about jazz is that you're listening to and responding to other musicians in real time, creating a one-off piece of music between you. You can't really do that on your own, unless you're Keith Jarrett of course.




I've been thinking about this since you raised it, and whether I agree or not. As I said earlier, living in London there isn't exactly a shortage of highly experienced, gigging jazz musicians who are willing to teach -but that may not be the same everywhere in the country. Having said that, I can't comprehend a decent jazz musician who wouldn't want to perform and play with others - if you've got the necessary skills and love of the music than surely you're itching to put them into practice? So I wouldn't necessarily say that a good jazz teacher would have to have a professional gigging career, I'd expect them to be playing or have played regularly at e.g. decent jam sessions, to be enthusiastic about the music, to be able to pull together a list of several good recordings of most jazz standards (and be able to play them, of course), to be able to create an essential listening list, recommend gigs and guide a student through the repertoire.




I don't know. Of course with the exams being so new most of today's jazzers haven't gone through the system themselves so don't see jazz exams as being as much of an essential part of musical education as most classical musicians in the UK, who will more than likely have gone through the grade system themselves.



Without wishing to be unduly cynical the jazz exams are a commercial opportunity both for the ABRSM and those advising them.

Having said that I think that it's perfectly possible for a decent jazz teacher to incorporate the exams into their teaching. There's quite a nice list of standards, a blues at every grade - if students/parents want to see exam progress than why on earth not? I think that if you're spending more than a few weeks working specifically and only on the jazz exam pieces and scales you've probably missed the point though, and the idea of being able to get to grade 5 only ever playing with playalongs seems completely absurd.




You could always mollify him by learning your pieces in all 12 keys...Isn't one a blues anyway?

I can't see very much point in wanting to learn to play jazz just for yourself. Unless you're a pianist you're going to need someone else to play the chords at the very least, unless you're happy to sit around in your bedroom playing along to pre-recorded backing cds for years on end, going through grade after grade, and who in their right mind would want to do that? To get some sort of bizarre satisfaction out of passing grade exams - right up to Grade 5 even - or even Grade 8 - but without having done a single gig? So you could tell yourself you were a good jazz player when you hadn't ever sat in on an actual jazz session? Very weird indeed.

Jazz is a shared experience - it's meant to be a shared experience. It's about playing with other people - perhaps just for yourselves but hopefully eventually to play in front of others to give them pleasure. It's about bouncing ideas of each other in solos through musical communication - how can you possibly do that without anyone to communicate with except a dead backing cd which plays the same stuff every time you play it? Sure you can get better and better using a backing cd but you do that so you can go out and play with others and hopefully in front of an audience!

Now if you're a pianist I suppose you could learn to play jazz and do a whole lot of jazz grades for your own entertainment but I don't see how it would have any credibility to it unless you took it out of solitude and played with others, either as an audience or as fellow musicians. Jazz is about telling a story, about creating ideas, it's about communication - and how can you communicate if there's no one there to communicate with? Practise on your own for sure but practise for a purpose other than passing exams or for your own private pleasure otherwise I don't see how you can really call it jazz at all.



Very good point. What if they'd had to assess Miles Davis before anyone had ever heard of him, or Charlie Parker at the birth of bebop? They'd fail them because they'd broken all the rules!

I think many real jazzers are very happy to teach jazz both as a way of supplementing their usually paltry income as jazz musicians and also for the opportunity to share their love of jazz with and awaken improvisational skills in young people. Or old people for that matter! I think the only thing stopping a lot of jazzers from teaching jazz is not having a tried-and-tested method to work from. As there's no jazz violin syllabus (and no sign of one in the near future) it didn't occur to me to teach jazz violin for many years as a violin teacher and performing jazz violinist. It only occurred to me when it was suggested to me on the CTABRSM course, after which I spent a considerable amount of time creating my own jazz violin method and then trying it out on my pupils. After the CTABRSM I researched it more and added other methods to my own, and now use a myriad of methods, adapting and changing as I go along.

I've given lessons to a number of classically trained violinists including a number of violin teachers, and find they usually have problems of swing, style, idiom etc not to mention departing from the printed page. They've rarely spent much time listening to jazz so they're all at sea at first. I make them compilations of jazz violinists to get them listening and slowly, slowly they begin to absorb the idiom and start sounding a bit more like jazz. I come to this as a seasoned jazzer who's been out there performing for 25 years and teaching jazz violin for the last 8 years and I'm afraid it makes me quite cross to think of classically trained violinists - the type I often teach jazz violin to - going to a few workshops and then setting themselves up/advertising themselves as jazz violin teachers, which is what would inevitably happen if there was a jazz violin syllabus, much as I would welcome a jazz violin syllabus. However, to my mind the only people qualified to teach the jazz violin syllabus should be jazz violinists - those of us who talk the talk and walk the blooming walk!

That made me laugh. I can just see him saying it! Actually the blues piece I'm doing for the exam would be perfect for that purpose.

This gets to the crux of the matter. How do childrem learn to talk and to communicate through language? By gabbling away with people who talk the language they are learning - by interacting with other human beings, and finding out how to use words and language to make sense of the world, and maybe how to change it.

The other interesting question for those learning jazz, is how do learners assess their own achievement in practice? This comes back to the exam assessment dilemma - how, without the relatively 'rigid' model of a fully notated 'model', does the learner know whether what he/she is doing in practice is good or otherwise? If they don't know if what they are doing is on the right track, how can they know how to improve? Of course, there are some reasonably obvious assessment criteria (e.g., 'right' notes being used for the chords, keeping 'in time' with the accompaniment), but so much relies on understanding of and comparison with good role models, and that slippery little so-and-so, 'taste'. Not straightforward at all. You need to know a lot to realise how little you know.

Here we go again. The latest Libretto came though my letter box today and there's an article about the jazz courses and how they prepare you to teach jazz. I know Tim Richards is involved, and I have a lot of respect for him, but I do have a big problem with the idea of people teaching jazz who've never actually done a jazz gig in their lives. It's a big enough step to start teaching jazz when you do go out and do jazz gigs, even when you've been doing them successfully for years - but when you've only just done a bit of AB jazz syllabus yourself and have no serious grounding as a jazz musician....

AAARRRGHHH!