Just for the fun of it

[timothystevens]

In light of the Melbourne (American) Model having been discussed in another thread, what are readers' thoughts about education in jazz/improvised music? Let's say we were to inaugurate a new four-year course in performance for school-leavers, to be delivered in Australia, what shape should it take? What should be included? What sort of objectives should detemine form and content? What should we expect from the graduate? (and please don't say 'a Big Mac and large fries' or anything).

[mim]

A fuckload of aural training. Compulsory piano classes for at least 2 years for all instruments. Weekly performance opportunities, at least in front of classmates. Comprehensive history of both American and Australian jazz. Composition and arranging class. Weekly instrument specific masterclass.

As for what should be expected from the graduate, not sure.

[captain]

The really tricky part is alot of people believe music courses should be mucher broader than just 'Jazz', or any other idiom.

As far as having a course in Improvisation, I think thats absolute bollocks, because improvisation is just one element of all types of music. It's like having a degree in rhythm, or a degree in Bflat minor.

Having the moniker of 'Contemporary' music is in my view, much better (I think Hobart has this, and some other Uni's), if you want to have a degree that covers a wide range of music.

But If we're talking Jazz, there's got to be a really heavy emphasis on learning the length and breadth of the history, not leaving out any gaps. I think students will benefit more from keeping the focus on one idiom, they'll have all the time in the world to discover other music. During the degree, keep it focused - its only 3-4 years, and as we all know, our listening tastes will stretch far beyond such a small time period.

I like how Monash combines all the Jazz and classical students for theory and aural classes though - because if you teach it right, its easy to see how its all the same shit, just with different labels and lingo.

I saw a talk by a Brazilian guy who's school in Brasilia has a similar model.

[ironguts]

I think the most important thing is to show people how to practice. You wont necessarily become that good in a 4 year course, it'll take that many years of 6-8 hrs a day practice. Hopefully the course may show things they need to be able to play. It's one thing to have good ears or good knowledge of harmony but it's the application in performance thats important, at least if you're improvising, if composing it's different.
Hopefully a graduate would have an idea of how they're going to get better, some sort of work ethic that will set them for life. It seems now that students have all this work to do but don't practice. I don't know whether its laziness or what but surely it's about being able to play. Maybe the whole thing is set up more now to show people how to teach rather than to play. Students get all this info to pass on but they can't actually do anything with it.
The idea of learning be-bop lines to learn how to play a 3-6-2-5- is just shit. I think students need to be shown tools for developing their own ideas and being able to negotiate rhythm and harmony in a strong and individual way.
Really the bottom line is why have a course anyway, and why give someone a piece of paper saying they can play or not. If you want to learn how to play all the information is available on CD and so so many books. The best thing to do if you really want to be good is not waste time sitting in a class room but do some wood shedding.
A friend of my once said " if you have a shit student there's no point teaching them cause they'll never learn and if you have a great student there's no point teaching them as they'll find out anyhow, so fuck teaching".
Sorry, Sunday hangover rave,,,,

[alimcg]

A little aside to guts comments: One of my old teachers had the philosophy of "teaching students to teach themselves." I know it sounds obvious, but so many teachers across disciplines and varying standards don't think like that at all. I guess a teacher should help a student see the bigger picture while focusing on specifics. My teacher at uni was great at teaching the fundamentals, so no matter what field you became interested in you could adapt and grow. You certainly couldn't accuse him of turning out a heap of guys who sound the same. They could all cut the stuff required in that kind of course, but his teaching style was never aimed at getting guys to pass some exam.

[sb]

It's true Alimcg, but I can also tell whose learnt from Col by the sound they produce, the way they use brushes, and the general approach to striking a cymbal or drum. He really is a great teacher who allows the student to be open minded while still making sure the necessities are there. One of the great drum teachers in Australia.

[gator]

I agree with Guts even though hes hungover.... Courses are flawed because they are courses.
I also agree with Mim - more listening, more playing, more experiential learning.
*I dont agree with the notion of improvisation being just an element of music or that prescribing playing exercises is shit...its shit if its played like shit - but if the material reaches the ears through playing - it may show a pathway through something previously unheard - or reinforce something partly learned.
*Playing well and thinking philosophically and musically are intrinsically linked- the ability to play(anything) substantiates and empowers the ability to think and find solutions.Philosophy can be useful to those who are competent and literate - and generally useless to those who aren't.
*Music is Improvisation - regardless of the style. To teach stylistically in any genre is to weight some elements over others - one should appreciate the history of the genre and the role of improvisation as the core and the ideal to keep perspective on that.
* Jazz and classical students together? It works as long as everyone gets what they need - but the main problem with aural classes and theory classes is that they are separate.
*Jazz pedagogy in this country generally starts at uni - not good enough...we need more competent musicians in more schools - and this is slowly happening
*Much of jazz pedagogy per se is crap..it started badly and hasnt been addressed as yet - because everyone believes that they have the answer..
*Music is a phenomenon - improvisation is a phenomenon - people are phenomena - is there a pattern emerging here?

[alimcg]

sb said:

It's true Alimcg, but I can also tell whose learnt from Col by the sound they produce, the way they use brushes, and the general approach to striking a cymbal or drum. He really is a great teacher who allows the student to be open minded while still making sure the necessities are there. One of the great drum teachers in Australia.

True. One of those great lessons in sound: "hit through the bloody thing!"

[captain]

Getting students to regurgitate bebop exercises not only has nothing to do with music, it has nothing to do with Jazz.

I think in general most lecturers are going to highlight that you should be learning the shit off records, not the page. I think often there is a requirement from those 'higher up' that there are some quantifiable exams, and writing out voiceleading tech exams is an easy way to get everyone to do this.

I like the 3rd and 4th year program in Canberra where you have to learn a bunch of solos and perform them, (from a performer of your choice) which if nothing else forces the student to spend some serious time getting aquainted with a section of the canon.

[gator]

Interesting that you mention canon...In the "canon' of most musics, there are rudiments and exercises...regurgitating a transcribed solo is an evolved exercise, beyond the scope of your average 1st year. As for having bop exercises having nothing to do with jazz -I guess you could say the same for Slonimsky....

[captain]

Sure - technical work is technical work. I would recomend a classical technical work over a written out bop line any day. Bringon the Slominsky, or Arben's or whatever.

Jazz education must be pulled away from the 'plug this line in over these changes' mentality. Technical work should be covered in a students private instrumental tutoring, and left out of a general curriculum.

An unfortunate element of bebop is that it lends itself to codification very easily. Best to aviod any codification of alleged 'Jazz' language and just make sure there is plenty of listening been done.

[gator]

Ok -agreed , but classical etudes are a codification of classical music - arpeggios, scales, tonal exercises and atonal structures- they develop the ear as well as the technique- do you think Bebop or swing remains sacred from codification? If you have to teach this music you have to of course encourage a sort of virtual(from recordings) aural tradition where students listen alot and learn - but to be honest the perception of many students needs a jump -start, particularly harmonically. Taking a phrase - learning it, and eventually developing it is a valid part of the canon... these exercises are all contrived from styles of music - so whats the difference?

General curriculum technical work is a malaise brought on in part by individual teachers who can't/won't teach technique or approaches to practicing rudimentary theoretical concepts......thats jazz for ya.

[captain]

I still think using classical technical works would be more beneficial. Make it clear to first years the difference between learning your instrument and learning music.

Do you teach at a tertiary level Gator? I'm aware we may know each other but I don't have the intellect to decode your pseudonym.

[gator]

I study at one...Are you really serious about separating technique from music? - somehow reminds me of one of those shredder guitarist videos... but theres gotta be some other perspectives on this than mine and Captain...

C'mon Dr Tim , you started this....

[captain]

My point is deal with technical work seperately to reportoire and idiom. That way improving your technique doesn't involve licks that you can plug into songs later.