So what are people's thoughts/experiences of the jazz grades?

Whilst the books are a good resource and opportunity for young players to play 'jazz', my personal opinion is that a student can quite easily pass these exams without actually needing to learn a whole lot about jazz at all. I'm talking about harmonic knowledge, voice-leading, understanding the changes fully and history.

I've found that, too often, the jazz grades are seen as something light and easy to do as a change from the serious stuff and also an easy alternative to the grade 5 theory.

Studied properly, the jazz grades are a much harder option to the grade 5 theory, but often they are not studied properly.

That's my view. What do you think??

But surely if you don't study them properly then you won't do very well?

I'm a beginner on clarinet and am planning to do a jazz grade exam in the next year. My understanding from what I've read on this forum is that the jazz grades are often more challenging than their classical equivalents, mainly because of the need to learn to improvise - so if you're, say, Grade 5, you might take jazz grade 2 or 3 to start.

But I've no experience myself yet. Would also be interested to hear what others think.

I have to agree with Bobilleg. My son did a jazz grade and got a really good mark but I don't feel he learnt very much about jazz. He didn't really improvise, he just learnt something to play in the improvised section. I suppose it may have had a beneficial effect on the jazzier pieces in the normal syllabus but it would be very marginal. The higher jazz grades are probably more demanding (he did grade 2). My son has learnt more from doing general jazz stuff with his teacher. The AB grades, at least the lower ones, are fairly formalised, and formulaic, jazz.

I think the jazz grades might be nice if you want to try something a bit different to your usual classical playing and still pick up a few certificates along the way.

I think that if you're serious about wanting to learn to play jazz then there are better ways of doing it than using the jazz grades as some kind of syllabus. I have no doubt that an experienced jazz teacher could incorporate taking the exams into a more thorough jazz education but it's perfectly possible to work through the exams, get good marks and have very little idea of how to really play jazz, the fact that you can get to grade 5 without ever having to play with another real person seems completely ludicrous to me. I can easily imagine someone with a distinction at grade 5 jazz turning up to a workshop and getting the shock of their life.

I think a player should be at least G5 standard before starting at JG1. Some students and teachers look at the heads and think, "That's too easy to play, we'll go to a higher grade." This misses the point that the head isn't what the judgement should be based on. The important thing is the improvisation.

I've come across students who are complete beginners, yet they are going in at JG2! They are not nearly well-equipped enough theoretically nor technically to be making a proper job of it.




My point exactly!

I've spoken to pupils who have passed JG5 (with good marks) but have never heard of Bird, Miles or JJ which I found astounding at the time! In the age of YouTube, young jazzers have never had it so good for resources and inspiration. Why don't they use it?

Rant over...for now!

I agree completely. My response is often "if you think it's too easy go and listen to X, Y or Z play itand then say it's easy". And if you're not prepared to go and listen then you're not going to get anywhere with jazz.

Please don't get me started though, or I'll be joining you in the ranting!

My daughter has done several Jazz grades and got a really good result for G5. I don't think this makes her a Jazz expert by any means. She did learn to improvise properly although at a fairly basic level. She didn't just learn something to fit in between the head in the way some people might nor did she do a "free" improvisation.

The positives it's given the the confidence to improvise in various situations, she has explored call and response and is able to listen when playing Jazz with another musician. The Jazz Grades opened up this area of music for her and gave her the appitite to listen to Jazz.

Like everything else people will take what they want from it. For some it will be a dodge of Grade 5 Theory others will discover a whole new world of music.

I haven't done any exams yet (jazz or classical) on sax, but my teacher has given me the AB Grade 3 jazz books as something to use as an introduction to jazz. His comment as he gave it to me was that I would be improvising at Grade 1 level; I think we may just be using the grade 3 book because he personally likes the particular selection of tunes when playing as an accompanist and if I decide to actually go with doing any jazz grades I would certainly start at Grade 1.

As to how good they are as a means of learning jazz, I'm happy to defer somewhat to the opinion of more expert players, but my own limited experience has been that, actually, they aren't bad, provided you get decent input from a teacher as well. The big plus for me (apologies to purists!) has been the CD, which has given me the opportunity to do lots of practice when, realistically, I don't have anyone else to play with. [Hmm - that sounds like a comment from a primary school kid, but you know what I mean.] With the CD, I can put the part of the backing track for the improv section on repeat, and just keep trying different things until I start getting a feeling for what - to me - sounds good. There isn't any other way I could get that volume of practice; and the end result has been that I have far more confidence in improvising than when I first started, which surely has to be a positive?

I can't decide, also, whether all the jazz theory is actually worth learning (don't shoot me!!). There's all this stuff about modes and progressions etc etc etc - but did "the greats" learn it that way, or did they just learn by trial and error, and listening to others? The whole idea of "learning" to "improvise" just feels like a contradiction in terms, sometimes....

That's great! All credit to your daughter, but also to her teacher for using the resources correctly and taking her through it properly. I'm sure this is what the JG people envisioned when they first put their heads together. Not always the case though...




I won't shoot you! You talk to any good jazz musician (not even a 'great') and they'll tell you that it was a mixture of all three. However, you'll soon see that they have a tremendous theoretical knowledge which they swear by. Learning to improvise is like learning to talk. The more vocabulary you have the better you are at communicating. Knowledge is most definatley power in this case!

An interesting topic.

My 11 year old has passed G5 traditional clarinet exam and is working for jazz G3 - but his teacher is making sure he knows and understands the scales etc from JG1 and progressing through. He is most certainly not looking at jazz as an easy option - as he is also learning his theory in order to G5 later in the academic year, whilst also starting on G6 pieces. Added to which he played in an adult jazz band during his summer holidays.

Surely you will only get out of it what you are prepared to put in? As with most things in life.

I couldn't agree more. I also find it very odd that anyone can go to an AB jazz workshop having never played jazz before in their life, take a Grade 1 jazz exam at the end of it and then start teaching jazz having never done a jazz gig in their life! It just seems all wrong to me..... I didn't even consider starting to teaching jazz till I'd been performing in jazz bands at clubs and festivals for years....

it seems to me that you could learn that just as well without doing an exam on it; and while the standard AB exams have actual value (they're well respected, can be used for university entrance, etc), from what i've heard of the jazz exams on here, they seem pretty worthless. how does it demonstrate any jazz-specific skill or ability when you can just write and learn your "improvisation" beforehand and recite it in the exam?

i also wonder what someone would actually need such a qualification for; are there many jazz opportunities which are only open to people who have done AB jazz exams?

Yes I was pretty fed up a few months ago to read that a number of AB jazz canidates couldn't see any problem with composing and memorising a solo for their performance in the exam. On some occasions the examiner was fooled and they got a distinction which in my view makes a mockery of the whole idea of jazz exams.

Far better to play a backing track twice, then give them a chord chart, play the track again and see what they can do! With no opportunity in any part of the exam to play a prepared solo...

If I'm not mistaken one of the aural tests requires an improvisation.

I agree with you that it's pointless if solos are learnt and then repeated parrot fashion in the exam.

It is odd that the teacher's course offers an introduction, Grade 1 and then churns people out as "Jazz" teachers.

For the higher grades, part of the test should be a voice-leading exercise. A short, simple but unfamiliar chord sequence is placed infront of the candidate who is then asked to negotiate it using 7ths dropping to 3rds, or II-V-I patterns etc. This would demonstrate that they have an understanding of chordal structure and how to play over it meaningfully.

Also, I don't think it's right to require the scales to be swung. Often, what results is the 'rinky tinky' triplet feel that is actually all wrong and doesn't swing at all! Instead, why shouldn't the candidate play the scale with an improvised rhythm instead?

Yes quite. Can you imagine the idea of jazz players who've never played classical music or perhaps even listened to it before going on a weekend workshop, taking Grade 1 and then being encouraged to go and teach classical music?

If anyone can't imagine that but can easily accept the idea in the case of jazz, then they must have a very trivial idea of what jazz is.

I think part of the problem with the jazz grades is that they've been shoe-horned into the well known format for classical exams i.e 3 pieces plus supporting tests, rather than starting with a blank sheet of paper and seeing what (if anything) would work best for examining developing jazz musicians.

Of course developing jazz musicians may not be the target market. It may be classical musicians who feel like a bit of a change and who would feel more comfortable in the standard exam format. That's quite possibly a larger and easier market to develop.

I think the conclusion I reached in a similar thread a while ago was if a student was keen and interested enough in jazz they would probably reach their own opinion as to the usefulness or otherwise of the exams fairly quickly.

Yes quite. Can you imagine the idea of jazz players who've never played classical music or perhaps even listened to it before going on a weekend workshop, taking Grade 1 and then being encouraged to go and teach classical music?

If anyone can't imagine that but can easily accept the idea in the case of jazz, then they must have a very trivial idea of what jazz is.
[/quote]

I am a non-musical parent who has just recently found someone to teach my daughter jazz piano. I completely agree that teachers should have more than a simple introduction course to jazz and start teaching: they should have much more interest in it, listen to it, and play it regularly to teach.

Whilst we may agree that a simple weekend course or a few months of playing do not provide enough experience to teach the subject: I think it is a bit unrealistic to expect every jazz teacher to be performing regularly in gigs before they are qualified to teach (in the same way you can't expect every classical teacher to be performing regularly in concerts before they are qualified to teach). If such is the case, most people will be unable to have access to any music teaching. It was hard enough for me to even find a jazz teacher who has vacancy to teach my daughter. Whilst I would have prefered a regular performer to be a teacher, they are all too busy to take on students, or they only perform and do not teach.

Re assessments: to avoid the problem of memorisers rather than improvisers, perhaps one could expand the short study component of the test, giving it a higher proportion of marks, allowing less marks for the pieces. Violinia's suggestion of a random backing track, and spontaneous improvisation is excellent; though it may be a bit mean for early grades eg Grade 1.

I thinik that is exactly the audience they are trying to reach.

Emsoboe definately opted to do her first Jazz grade by way of a "change". If you look at her Flute results, pretty much go it alone, they were reasonably good. Not as good as her Sax results, mainly due to having a teacher who understands improvisation and what Jazz is about.

The Flute exams did give her the desire to listen to Jazz which she might not have done otherwise.

Perhaps the exams will have a positive effect in getting prople started with Jazz and there maybe more Jazz musicians in the future as a result.

In response to the original post:-

I'm a teacher of Jazz who regularly puts pupils in for the ABRSM Jazz Grades.

You could apply exactly the same theory to the classical exams. I regularly get pupils who have studied classical music and took ABRSM exams under 'highly qualified teachers' and wish to learn Jazz.

Upon assessing their abilities it's often the case that they have been taught nothing except to sit at a piano and forced to look at notation for half an hour a week with little input from the teacher. So their knowledge of harmony, dynamics, improvisation, etc. is absolutely nil and they pretty much hate playing piano as a result.

Music is music, and whether it's Classical, Jazz, Pop or Bhangra! people are only going to learn well if you teach them well!

I actually think it's different with jazz. A classical student can have tip-top classical lessons, spend countless hours practising and become an excellent teacher in the process. In fact I know an excellent piano teacher who is a wonderful player, yet hated performing so turned his talents to teaching with fantastic results. I just can't see the same thing happening with jazz, however, because jazz just isn't a solo art and needs performance in order to mature. For this reason I feel a little bit of boiling in the blood department (weird anaology I know but it's how it feels) when I think of someone who's never played a jazz gig in their life going in to teach jazz!!!

I actually think it's different with jazz. In fact I know an excellent piano teacher who is a wonderful player, yet hated performing so turned his talents to teaching with fantastic results. I just can't see the same thing happening with jazz, however, because jazz just isn't a solo art and needs performance in order to mature.
[/quote]

No disagreement with you again, Violinia. But reality is: not everyone have the personality to enjoy performing in public, and not everyone can find opportunity and groups they can work with.

I am just being a devil advocate, and doing a reality check:
Are you thus saying: if you don't have the personality that enjoys playing in public, forget about learning (and teaching) jazz no matter how much you love listening to it?
As I have mentioned in certain locations, it is REALLY difficult to find someone who can teach jazz. Also many jazz giggers do not teach, often those who do teach have no availability, or live 2 hours away.
Do you therefore advocate people in my predicament: "Don't learn jazz; you will never be good in it. You are simply confined to enjoy listening to it. Pursue no further."

You simply don't understand how hard I have tried to find a gigger as a teacher for my daughter; at the moment I simply got to be content with a teacher who simply loves jazz, plays and improvise on piano really well, but rarely if ever do gigs.

I've been thinking about this and trying to formulate my opinion since Violinia posted but haven't got round to replying yet. First things first - imo Violinia's absolutely right - you can't be a decent jazz musician if you don't (or haven't in the past) play with other people regularly, it's so fundamental that there's no getting around it (lack of opportunity may be a reason, but it's not an excuse). The "you must have played jazz gigs to teach" may sound quite arrogant (sorry Violinia) at first. But getting jazz gigs and playing regularly is quite different to getting regular classical gigs. I'm nowhere near playing at a level where I'd feel competent to teach, but I do play probably at least once a month in a live performance situation. You don't have to have a regular band and play paid gigs - but there are jam sessions where you get up and play in often very informal situations (such as a bar where the fruit machine is more of an attraction than your playing!) - the point is you're playing with other people. If you don't have the personality to be able to do that then you don't have the personality to be a jazz musician.

Also, over the years I've got to know a lot of jazz musicians, some of them very successful and well known names on the scene. I can't think of one who doesn't do some teaching, and pretty much any one of them would be prepared to work with a student who showed some enthusiasm. You probably wouldn't get a regular slot at the same time each week, but if you're prepared to be flexible then tuition is available. Oh, and if it's jazz you're interested in learning rather than instrumental skills then your teacher doesn't have to play the same instrument as you. I've learnt a lot from pianists, drummers, bass players and trumpeters.

You're absolutely right, Tsax. Chickenfingers - does your daughter want to learn jazz piano? It's quite true there could be jazz musicians in your area whose first instrument is something other than piano but know enough jazz piano to be able to teach it far better than a classical pianist who has taught themselves a bit of 'jazz' from a book. I would suggest you try your nearest music shop - they would know the names of jazz musicians living within a 10 mile radius - there must be some! And out of those there must be some who know some jazz piano!

Going back to Tsax's point, would you take acting lessons frome someone who'd never acted? Cooking lessons from someone who'd only ever cooked for themselves? Jazz is a performance art, not a theory - and one of its most important aspects is the ability to play with others - there really is no way round this!

You're absolutely right, Tsax. Chickenfingers - does your daughter want to learn jazz piano? It's quite true there could be jazz musicians in your area whose first instrument is something other than piano but know enough jazz piano to be able to teach it far better than a classical pianist who has taught themselves a bit of 'jazz' from a book. I would suggest you try your nearest music shop - they would know the names of jazz musicians living within a 10 mile radius - there must be some! And out of those there must be some who know some jazz piano!
[/quote]

My daughter despite being very shy, really enjoys learning jazz. She declared it so proudly, I couldn't help but shared it in another thread.

I have called local shops, I have called various jazz pianist (around my area who were not available), and asked them if they know of others who are available to teach. I have spoken to the keyboard player and piano player after gigs. I have looked up on the internet and e-mailed teachers who gigged. I stood outside a club that have regular jazz events and looked up the notice boards. I have tried all sorts. After a while I found this lovely teacher who did jazz piano at Uni, unfortunately he is doing teaching mostly and rarely do gigs.

What I do know is she is really enjoying her music practice now, compared to what she was doing before her classical exams. Have I done the right thing for her, I don't know. Like I said I don't disagree with any of you that a teacher who does gigs is better, but I had little luck.

I have sent you a PM

I've done Grade 2, 3, 4 and 5 Jazz Piano. The Grades are great and I enjoy them SO much more than the Classical Grades.
I'm really into Jazz. I listen to Jazz all the time and I'm pretty much addicted to the Piano. Perhaps that's why I enjoyed the Grades so much and found them informative.

I would have liked to see some more Jazz theory as the current format is a Head, followed by a solo, in which they give you a scale to work on, which isn't exactly what Jazz is all about.
Some more emphasis on Jazz chords, inversions and voicings for the Piano grades and whole song improvisation and compositions would benefit the course somewhat.