Classical "Techniques" for Jazz

[paul secor]

I was reading an interview with Hal Galper in the new (newest issue & new format/price) Cadence, and the interviewer posed a question based on a statement from a Branford Marsalis interview (have to say that something smelled funny right away):

"Branford Marsalis had this to say: 'My father (pianist and educator Ellis Marsalis) used to say people learning technique through learning Jazz exercises is the reinvention of the wheel. He says classical music has one thousand years of established pedagogy in teaching technique so what do we need Jazz technique books for? They are pointless. All they do is teach regimented performance techniques.'"

In his (quite lengthy) answer, Hal Galper basically agrees with Ellis Marsalis' statement. He ends with:

"Those who would make a case that you can learn instrumental technique from a Jazz book haven't experienced the disciplined training of a classical teacher, don't know what true technique is or are making a case for ignorance. As far as that is concerned, I agree with Marsalis."

I assume that Ellis Marsalis and Hal Galper are speaking strictly about the piano - not other instruments. I'm not a musician, merely a listener, but my first thought after reading this was that I was happy that Thelonious Monk probably never thought this way, and that if this were the way to learn, we'd have a helluva lot of Ellis Marsalis and Hal Galper influenced players. As I say, I'm not a musician, so I don't speak with any authority, but I can't say that I hear much similarity in the piano sounds/tones of Ellington, Monk, Bud Powell, or Cecil Taylor and the sounds of the (admitedly few) classical pianists I've heard. And I don't know to what extent the jazz musicians I've mentioned use classical "techniques" learned from lessons with classical teachers. (I have to admit that I don't like the term "technique".)

I don't know about jazz books on "technique". I don't think that I've ever read or heard a jazz musician I respect say that they learned from books, though that might not be the case.

This is a complicated topic - more complicated than I have the background to discuss intelligently - and it's been touched upon in another thread recently. I hope that others - musicians and more learned listeners than I - will have comments/opinions. I'm looking forward to learning some things.

[relyles]

I am not sure I have anything substantive to say. I read the Galper interview as well and overall thought it was pretty interesting. As for the subject of the post, although he seemed to agree with a portion of the Marsalis sentiment, I thought that overall (in his long response) his thinking was not entirely consistent. I will have to take a look at that part of the review again.

[Joe G]

I'd say most jazz pianists have studied at least some classical music/theory/technique, for sure. I've read about a few (Geri Allen, Michael Weiss) who practice primarily classical music during free time.

Technique is what a musician has to deal with everytime he/she starts to play. No way around it. Which techniques someone uses depends on what they are going for. And the same basic technique can be used to achieve very different results (both Roscoe Mitchell and Kenny G use circular breathing, as an extreme example).

As far as books go, there are a lot of them out there now. You can find some nuggets in there if you look. Branford advocates listening over book exercises though, and actually neither he, Ellis, nor Galper mentioned learning from books in the quotes you gave. Though most people do learn classical music (or etudes) from the written scores.

Edited November 26, 2007 by Joe G

[Teasing the Korean]

Are we talking strictly technique? There isn't even agreement on classical piano technique, let alone jazz technique. Different approaches work for different players. Lots of classical pianists got into trouble with all of that "lift the fingers high" and "turn the thumb under" stuff in the Hanon books, which were the main classical piano technique books for decades. As someone who plays jazz piano and has also studied classical piano, I can say that there are situations in jazz that the classical technique books don't truly prepare you for. On the other hand, if you're a jazz pianist, spending a lot of time with the classics won't hurt you.

[Epithet]

As someone who plays jazz piano and has also studied classical piano, I can say that there are situations in jazz that the classical technique books don't truly prepare you for.

Like?

[Teasing the Korean]

For starters, situations where your thumb is on a black key (a no-no in classical, but one that happens for practical and/or accidental reasons when improvising).

Also, in classical technique, you are told to descend on the natural minor after ascending on the melodic minor. There are few practical applications for this in jazz playing.

[Teasing the Korean]

Double post.

Edited November 27, 2007 by Teasing the Korean

[Joe G]

I have to admit that I don't like the term "technique".

I'm curious about this. What don't you like about it?

[Teasing the Korean]

Just to clarify my previous posts, I do not mean to diminish the value of a solid classical background when playing jazz.

[paul secor]

I have to admit that I don't like the term "technique".

I'm curious about this. What don't you like about it?

Part of my problem with the term "technique" is just a matter of semantics. I don't know how many times I've read that Oscar Peterson has great/tremendous technique. Generally, the writer is referring to what I call facility or, perhaps, dexterity. For me, Jimmy Yancey had greater technique than Oscar Peterson, even though Jimmy Yancey couldn't (or at least didn't) play at fast tempos and had pretty much one ending to everything he played. But what Jimmy Yancey did play, he played beautifully and completely uniquely.

I have no problem with your statement in your earlier post - "Technique is what a musician has to deal with everytime he/she starts to play." To me, that includes every facet of a musician's being. As I say, for me it's a matter of semantics. I have a problem when technique is used as a synonym for facility.

[Joe G]

Yep - that's how I think of it as well.