Learning Jazz Phrasing

You know, speaking with some Jazz pianists, I have gathered my own overall vision of the matter. In my opinion, a comparison between the jazz pianist and the classical pianist cannot exist, simply because one does one thing and the other does something else. Certain statements seem unintelligent to me when they are not aimed at a productive discussion but rather at pulling water to one's own mill. "Studying hard in classical is like laying a brick; in jazz, it is a grain of sand." I believe it is the same thing: you study hard in classical to make grains, just as in Jazz, those who study hard and obtain the brick in classical are people who merely strum; they are certainly not pianists. One never finishes the labor limae on pieces. A sonata by Beethoven or Mozart hides within itself a great spiritual meaning that must be uncovered and interpreted beneath the notes—that is the real work! Playing classical music does not mean putting down the sheet music and playing the notes.... perhaps, or maybe fortunately not!!! Otherwise, everyone would be great pianists. In classical, there is an immense work of researching sound, proportions between parts, the meaning of the piece, research into the purposes of the piece, knowledge of the period in which the author composed it, technical difficulties (sometimes terrible: see Liszt, Scriabin, Chopin's studies themselves, etc.), the style of the piece, analysis; all this study put together makes the difference between a strummer and a pianist. Chopin spent days changing melodic positions of chords to ensure that the piano could sing, creating a mental glissando on an instrument that is not bowed and therefore cannot glissando from one note to another. Mozart, who is the undisputed genius of music, wrote impulsively and was able to reproduce any melody after hearing it only once: it is said that while traveling by train returning from an opera by another author—whose name I do not recall at the moment—he rewrote the complete work for all instruments without missing a single note. Beethoven often returned to his steps, erasing and rewriting entire pages of his works. And he is the one who invented the new "Large Orchestra" with more than 100 elements. Debussy moved completely away from classical harmony, producing new harmonic relationships. In short, everyone was a genius in their time and in their way of composing, and when we talk about classical, we cannot disregard certain observations. It seems to me that it is quickly demonstrated that classical is not pure execution of notes... The study of an author's masterpiece can take years. Reducing classical to a mass of notes to be played and memorized seems very foolish to me. In Jazz, on the contrary, fantasy comes into play, harmonic rules, synchronization with other instruments, understanding with other instrumentalists, rhythmic difficulties, etc., etc. In short, they seem to me like two worlds so different that they cannot be compared. Rather, I am not here to say that to play Jazz you only need to know harmonic progressions and have a shred of fantasy. That would be foolish; jazz, like classical, has many other nuances to care for. If you listen to other instrumentalists around, they all pull water to their own mill, but then in my opinion, the Musician, the real one, transcends the instrument and the musical genre... A good musician is one who knows how to do... A universally recognized milestone is that classical is certainly the maximum inspiration of music; we can say it is the highest, namely that branch of music that more than others manages to approach the metaphysical. These lines represent my idea, shareable or not, so let us wait for other opinions as well...

Given these debatable ideas of mine, I still don't see why you cannot continue to do classical even while playing Jazz...

Regards

I am a follower of yours....or my teacher.......and therefore I also share [this] because classical music is by definition art music that requires ACADEMIC preparation, and is therefore a "model" from which other musical forms and expressions branch out.

Regards

saverio

By now Simone anticipates all my ideas or most of them.... I'll close up shop!!! (Just kidding, because everything we do is free!!).

I would like to add some considerations formulated in my own way.

I am a supporter of the "gradual" and the "preparatory".

Too many times I hear: "enough with this drawing" or "enough with classical music" or "enough with the classical and traditional theater of the past".... in short.... let's move on!

Ok. Looking ahead has always been the ultimate aspiration of man. However, I feel that in this inspiration one cannot skip steps. Even Einstein learned the four basic operations, and then algebra... and then derivatives and integrals... and so on. I have heard the great Keith Jarrett play Bach truly well, as well as Mozart's concertos. I believe that for him they are highly understandable not because he is a Jazz musician, but because he studied Bach and Mozart extensively... and he is a great musician.... now his way of expressing himself is jazz. Gulda, in his life, played everything and never abandoned Classical in a concert.

I find it to be a very serious error to abandon classical study, and I believe that the "pinch of fantasy" necessary for jazz does not come after a while. Instead, in my opinion, it is the result of great maturation and artistic culture. Jazz represents one of the "distillations" of Music, a great synthesis of musical ideas. Synthesis, as in drawing, cannot come from the "repetition of synthesis". Drawing a postcard is the repetition of a synthesis. Drawing that landscape from life means finding the synthesis. Synthesis requires great "material at hand" and, in this case, a great musical cultural background.

Therefore, my idea is to continue experimenting with jazz forms, but parallel to classical study, which, as Simone rightly says, offers infinite insights that certainly go beyond "reading the sheet music".

When there is a piano, it means nothing if the jazz musician sits down first. We must be careful not to become presumptuous about what "we have to say in Music". Perhaps the classical pianist is just more prudent and, above all, more conscious!!! They must not feel like the jazz musician the "absolute creation of ideas", but rather a musician who fits well into the great History of Music, for having invented new languages.

@Simon

If I am not mistaken, the author of the work transcribed by Mozart was Antonio Salieri, who had dedicated it to the Pope, not publishing the score precisely in honor of him.

@Demetrio

In my experience, they are two different musical worlds, with different skills and abilities exercised.

In the same way, the sensitivity and knowledge required to practice Oriental, Arabic, or Indian music are different.

Music is not a small world, quite the contrary!

And what TheSimon says is also true: being a pianist does not consist merely in putting your fingers on the piano.

It is also true that improvising (well) can be an innate talent (in this sense you are a Mozart, different, but a Mozart); but it can also be the result of extensive and profound study that has nothing to envy classical study; quite the contrary!

In one thing I disagree with TheSimon, in the sense that it is not at all said that classical music is the highest musical expression and requires the best talents; I personally believe there are excellent peaks in much popular and jazz music.

The same TheSimon said it: a musician is one who knows how to do! (I even think they are also one who knows how to understand for themselves, even if they don't know how to do for others!)

Whoa! We're all really here this morning!

Greetings to my great friends from this festive Romania, beautified by a very sweet snowfall!

Hi Paolaccio, Hi Simonaccio.

And excuse me if I go a bit more off the beaten track! (Don't throw snowballs at me!)

Jazz phrasing: complicated, simple, where is the swing, I'll add syncopation, no maybe staccato fits here, wait, fast scale here then... 😳

Speaking from my experience: to become a good jazz musician, one must listen to many records of all musical genres.

The color of music and all its rhythmic facets are learned over time and through listening, as well as by trying to transcribe some piano solos. One way to start adding color could be learning blues scales, perhaps major and/or minor pentatonics, and trying to play over chords with a triplet rhythm. But you will realize that you are then limited, and you will always want to expand further. This is where the search begins.

Classical musician vs Jazz musician vs Rock musician vs Folk musician vs ..... Metal musician vs .... dosknfdfnjgsjrk musician vs ...

For me, only one thing exists: music... which in the end, if you think about it, is just a triplet. 😉

I absolutely agree, both conceptually and musically, with Andrea.

Affectionately remembering a formidable duo of comedians (musicians), I would say: Bravo, 7 + 😳

@Gennarino

that requires the best skills

But I don't think I ever said something like that; on the contrary, the meaning of my speech referred to something else entirely. I said that classical music is the highest expression of music and I confirm this, it is my idea: everything comes from classical music—opera, styles, musical aesthetics, harmonic rules, etc., etc. But I don't think I added that it requires the best skills; precisely because I stated that it is impossible to make a comparison...

@TheSimon

"A universally recognized milestone is that classical music is certainly the ultimate inspiration of music; we can say it is the highest, namely that branch of music which, more than others, succeeds in approaching the metaphysical." and it is the phrase that I have summarized with "that requires the best qualities".

I recognize that you did not utter my summary, but enthusiasm carried you away without you noticing it.

The problem arises from two concepts: "ultimate inspiration" and "highest".

Both presuppose a hierarchy in music, as if it were necessary and, within the hierarchy, a predominance of one form over another.

It seems to me that we simply do not agree on the immanence of the hierarchy, since:

1) it is all to be proven, for example, that the inspiration of popular music is different from that of classical or jazz or ..... or ..... and that a hierarchy must necessarily exist.

2) even if we accepted the existence of a hierarchy, it is all to be proven that writing and formalizing (classical music) is better than thinking (music).

To me personally, it seems that classical music, which I also love very much, is just a variant (species) of music (race).

In other words, I agree with the fact that everyone can try to represent their own enthusiasm to others, but no one should try to pull water to their own mill.

Dear Gennarino, your intelligence and culture are certainly vast, but you simply cannot help but schematize or "mathematize" every argument presented to you; I too often express myself in a schematic way... But here, nothing fits at all!

A universally recognized milestone is that classical music is certainly the greatest inspiration of music, we can say the highest, that is, the branch of music that more than others succeeds in approaching the metaphysical.

3 Keywords -> All three have to do with the spirit, which I don't believe can be synthesized as "requiring the best qualities"...

A prayer can have a very profound meaning despite not having been written in poetic Italian; it always remains a prayer.

The church (which I do not particularly love nowadays) has played an extremely important role in the development of classical music; in particular, the early music that can be called classical actually belongs to sacred chants, and from there all other musical forms developed (forms understood both as classical forms and as current styles). In short, like all things, what can be called music must have started from somewhere. When I say "the highest," by high I mean that which is spiritually closest to God, i.e., that whose contents are more spiritual. Bach practically composed only for the church. Mozart, after his father's death, lived with a continuous obsession with oblivion. Beethoven, on the contrary, despite also being obsessed by various factors, not least social ones, instead lets a great hope for humanity shine through in his compositions. I am speaking, therefore, of the contents of the compositions. Contents that, more than other styles, approach God, precisely because they were conceived for spirituality. If we speak of qualities, even technical ones, well, the most difficult piece for piano is called "Circus Galop," practically unplayable by anyone, and yet it is certainly not classical music. Just to demonstrate that when I speak of greatest inspiration, I do not mean to speak of something physical but of the metaphysical, of the spiritual.

With respect and esteem...

Dear Simone,

first of all, I reiterate the observation that you did not use my "summary phrase."

That being said, the keywords of your sentence are, as you yourself say, maximum inspiration, highest, and approaching the metaphysical.

Since I, despite having spent a lot of time with the Salesians and despite believing that religiosity is a useful value, think that the world of ideas does not exist "outside of things" and, as you know, I even have healthy doubts about what "the real" is, imagine if I dared to speak of the metaphysical! (if I don't well know what is physical, what the hell can I ever understand about that which is beyond the physical?).

In reality, there was also another keyword, which was "universally"; again, for reasons similar to the previous ones, I did not consider it (who is the universe that asserts this thing?).

Therefore, in my intervention, there was no intention to scold or argue with anyone (let alone you), but only to moderate opinions by remembering that there can be more than one.

That being said, let's try to see what meaning we could give to your sentence.

I must resolve the problem that One tells me: It is universal (truth), it is the maximum (inspiration), it is the highest (music), and it is beyond the physical (matter) and at the same time denies that these keywords carry a judgment of superiority; I am told here, because what is stated is not a comparison, but an affirmation about the spirit.

Have I understood so far, or not?

If I have understood, then, personally, I would not use the expressive form used, as I would risk providing an incorrect idea of what I am expressing.

To clarify in a way I hope is playful, someone could say that the sentence: "It is universally known that the maximum inspiration of man is to bring a beautiful babe to bed, as it is the highest form of exercising one's physicality" is not an evaluation (which could depress someone who married a woman for her human and not physical qualities), but only something extremely close to human nature and profound, even if written in an Italian that is not exactly most elegant.

If you would not like to hear the previous sentence in case you had opted for human qualities, you should then understand why the incriminating summary of your sentence was made by me.

Instead, let us imagine asserting the following: "I am deeply religious, although not Catholic; classical music brings me closer to the perception I would like to have of God more than anything else among those I practice."

I think perhaps this was your thought, if I understood correctly.

Stated this way, one mentions one's own opinions, without entrusting them to something immanent that must be valid for everyone.

And this is the meaning of my response; no mathematics, no schemes, just an innate antithesis with truths that must be valid everywhere and for everyone, even if they happen to be expressed unintentionally.

Besides, you yourself in your post on the 22nd at 19:39 - surely without realizing it - continue to assert: "everything comes from classical music, opera, styles, musical aesthetics, harmonic rules etc. etc.", while all that which you assert comes from classical music is, in reality, classical music itself!

I, on the other hand, say only that a certain thought creates a certain aesthetic and that this creates a certain form of art, not art!

Furthermore, in the previous post you assert that music, although starting from somewhere, you make it start (or at least take off) with the Church and with religious thought.

I would not want to seem polemical or mathematical to you, but I do not believe we can deprive prehistoric men nor even historical ones (Sumerians, Phoenicians, Arabs, Greeks, etc...) of a form of art that perhaps is born with a mother's call to her infant or, perhaps, even before, when the infant sings while sucking the maternal breast!

In short, music as we know it today is not the only possible one, exactly as the gas engine is not fire!

Finally, I did not understand the reference to "Circus Galop" by Hamelin; probably even I have not managed to explain it well to myself.

Explain it to me when we see each other again in the warmth of Rome!

Ciao, once again an affectionate wish for your great Concerto!"}

I give up... I'm running away with Magda! 😎

When I was little, my brothers used to make fun of me, telling me that I was in love with "Genoveffa"! 😳

Which, by any chance, is Magda's mother? 😍(having never known Genoveffa, I don't know where she ended up!).

No, it's Furio's wife 😆

hey guys I had asked for some advice on how to learn jazz phrasing!! and here I see that you are philosophizing and discussing at very high levels!! Jokes aside, is there anyone who can give me an 'opinion? mmmhhh it seems to me that the forum is populated by classical pianists (like me, for that matter). Maestro Ferrarelli, The Simon where are you? Try to challenge yourselves with a jazz score(??) and you will feel embarrassed. It's a completely different way of playing; what I would like to be discussed here is how to learn these new sounds.

Let the music play!

Exactly right. Arthur Rubinstein, who often found himself in Venice, listened to the great Oscar Peterson in a concert and stated that he could not be capable of doing what that pianist did. The languages are completely different and those who are "native speakers" ... can be felt. Of course, the musician grows breathing the air of their own music. The greatest Jazz musicians were born and raised playing. Others, for example Goodman, came from deep classical study. Hearing Gulda play both styles in the same concert was moving for me in the past. I remember a first movement dedicated to Debussy!!!! In the second, more aggressive rhythms and sounds emerged from his fingers....with his Jazz trio. A great and perfect splitting. Like someone who speaks English perfectly, but finds themselves integrating with the Maori language without raising suspicions of being a "foreigner". I have never dedicated myself to Jazz and do not consider it congenial to me. I hear it, I perceive it, I follow the language, but I recognize my distance from this magnificence. I cannot, however, disavow the classical training, which allows one to acquire an important background.

So much meat in the fire! And yet, what is missing in society and particularly within the Catholic "community" itself is precisely the spirituality mentioned by TheSimon, as a key to interpreting the world around us and the inner world, and therefore as a source of inspiration—which I believe is no small thing in the art world.

Some statements from both sides (classical and jazz), especially from teachers, are recorded as being somewhat meager.

In our Italy, I don't know about abroad, we should educate people in listening, in preparing oneself to listen, in the "capacity" to be moved, whereas instead one often limits oneself to the search for easy personal satisfaction, greatly driven by producers of ephemeral trivialities... but that would open up a complex discussion.

It is true, however, that there has been some inattention or aprioristic closed-mindedness in the world of "learned" 20th-century composers toward the world of Jazz (I particularly remember an interview with Cecil Taylor in which the problem was explicitly addressed).

Regarding phrasing, as someone who is not a pianist, I can humbly suggest much listening, gradually selecting the musicians who strike you most, if there are any, and who will surely serve as an initial reference. You can learn a lot of technique, but then, as you yourself observed, everything must come from within. I have said something banal, given that you are a Jazz enthusiast, but Jazz is vast and perhaps you haven't yet found something that strikes you enough.

I would suggest, for example, for this specific case of meeting between classical and jazz, the great (in my opinion) Enrico Pieranunzi, or Danilo Rea, whom I remember listening to in a seminar where he was explaining to conservatory piano students exactly how to approach classical compositions with jazz phrasing, using Beethoven's 109 as one of the examples!

Happy Listening

I would like to add that the jazz musician is not just playing randomly; the phrasing they do is studied and combined together at the moment of playing "improvising".

That is to say, they have also built themselves a repertoire by memorizing it like classical pianists.

Where is the difference?

Premising that from now on I will speak of an intermediate level for both pianists, the classical pianist has difficulty improvising by composing parts of what they have studied because they studied it as if it were a single block. How many of us classical players know an entire piece by heart and yet, if asked to start from a certain measure, we cannot do it?

The jazz musician, on the other hand, has a more fragmented repertoire.

Another difference: the jazz musician is more used to catching the keys/tonalities; the classical one much less so.

lozappatore123 wrote:

... How many of us classical players know an entire piece by memory, yet if we are asked to start from a certain measure, we cannot do it?

The jazz musician, on the other hand, has a more fragmented repertoire.

I hope that the "classical" players you are talking about are not truly trained pianists, but rather students of even low level.

They cannot play from memory starting from a certain measure? Bad, I'm sorry, but it means they haven't truly assimilated that piece!