2 things I want to know about Jazz exams...

The first is: are the grades meant to be the same as the grades for the normal exams? I've got my grade five saxophone but my teacher has put me onto grade 3 jazz saxophone... I don't get it.

The other thing is: If you played exactly the same improvisation in your exam as the one on the cd, would you be penalised for it? I find improvisation really easy, but my friend, who doesn't, has bought the cd and is learning the improvisations that have been recorded. Would this be a problem?

Thanks

The grades are supposed to be at the same level for jazz and classical - but they're testing different disciplines. Grade 5 violin is supposed to be the same as grade 5 saxophone, but if you just started playing violin you wouldn't expect to enter at grade 5 because you had grade 5 sax. Admittedly there's more similarity between jazz and classical saxophone exams than there is between violin and sax exams, but you get the idea.



If she played exactly the same improvisation as on the CD then she wouldn't be improvising, so yes, she would be penalised, I imagine quite heavily, for it. Having said that copying the improvisation from the CD is a really good thing to do in terms of training your ears and getting the right harmonic and stylistic feel. Using small snatches of the recorded improvisation, or a rhythmic idea as a basis for her own improvisation would be appropriate.

As TSax says, this is a big no no. The improvisation part of a jazz exam is the place for a candidate (perhaps with the help of a teacher) to shine creatively. What can the candidate put in to the piece that the examiner has never heard before? Can you play something unexpected yet still within the flow of the music?

Copying someone is a useful art that a musician needs to practise. It isn't being tested in this part of the AB jazz exams though and shouldn't be used.

My daughter started at G3 on Jazz Flute already having G5 Classical. The head isn't as technically difficult but the improvisation is what the examiner is testing. Grade 3 was a good starting point particularly as she more or less had to go alone. She's since done G5 Jazz Flute and G4 on Jazz Sax. With experience it does get easier.

If your friend can't cope with improvising maybe she should look at something like Jazz Zone James Rae or a book of Jazz riffs and start at a lower level.

No, I mean is grade five jazz sax the same as grade five classical sax? And grade four jazz flute the same as grade four classical flute etc...

They're not the same no, one is jazz and the other is classical. They're the same level though.

If you want to do a G6 classical practical, you need G5 in theory, practical musicianship or any JAZZ subject. That tells me that G5 jazz has something different in it to G5 classical. So in some way it must be testing those other skills which are used in PM or theory, but are outside the classical syllabus. So it's definitely something different.

Is G5 sax is the same as G5 jazz sax? As TSax says, they are the same level, but they are different (albeit complementary) subjects. Is A-level physics the same as A-level maths? No, but they are related. Knowing one will help you with the other. But if you had A-level maths and wanted to do some physics (which you had never previously studied), you might start with GCSE physics rather than jumping straight in to A-level. It's a bit like that. G5 classical gives you a headstart with jazz, because of the instrument familiarity, but you won't necessarily be ready to jump straight in at the exact same level, because it is a different set of skills. It just looks very similar

I recently completed the ABRSM introductory course in jazz teaching. All the participants were experienced and practising instrumental teachers from the classical tradition. We ended the four day course by all taking Grade 1 Jazz in our instrument.

The syllabus for flute has two things in common with the classical syllabus: the range of notes expected for the grade and the basic structure of three pieces, scales, quick study/sight reading and aural. There are a few overlaps between the syllabuses with the scales required and some of the aural tests. However, there the similarity ends. The ABRSM Jazz Flute syllabus requires very different skills from the classical syllabus, and is designed so that candidates learn to play jazz rather than jazzy pieces.

In my opinion it is well worth treating jazz as an entirely different subject from classical, and doing it thoroughly and properly from the beginning with a teacher who knows what he or she is doing.

I have a performance diploma in classical flute and a distinction at Grade 1 jazz flute, and I am equally proud of both.

I suspect we are all assuming you are talking about AB Jazz and people who know more than I have answered your question. Trinity is a little different as it's more about playing pieces in a Jazz style than improvising and LCM is a bit of both. My daughter likes the format of the AB syllabus as it is about improvising.

ok. that makes slightly more sense. thanks

While I think it's great that you did the four-day course and that it exists at all, I have to admit to finding it a bit weird that non jazz performers whose only training in jazz is a four-day course are going out there and teaching jazz.

Can you imagine a jazz performer and teacher taking a four day course in teaching classical music, passing Grade 1 with distinction and then going out and teaching the classical syllabus? If not, and if you consider it fine to teach jazz after just a four day course, then you must have the view that jazz is a much less serious tradition (therefore much easier to teach) than classical music. Which isn't the case, hence my disquiet at the idea of non-performers teaching the jazz syllabus.

I guess the problem is that there aren't enough jazz performers out there available to teach the jazz syllabus, but that doesn't make it OK. I'm not suggesting you aren't teaching jazz to the best of your ability, or that your distinction at Grade 1 jazz wasn't hard-earned or well-deserved - I'm sure it's both. But is it really enough?

I agree.

Firstly, you have made the assumption that I am actually teaching jazz. I am not. I am learning a new discipline through the best means available to me.

The course equips us with more knowledge than is actually needed for a Grade 1 so that we have the fundamentals in place to begin exploring improvisation and jazz playing with our pupils if we want to. It doesn't give me the licence to call myself a jazz teacher.

It has given us a new set of tools to work with, suggestions for books/CDs to use (like the Jamey Aebersold series) and new ideas to invigorate our teaching.

It has helped me feel I have a basic knowledge of jazz terminology, and very basic understanding of the history of jazz, and a means of getting started.

Too many of us are put off exploring jazz because we think we will be dismissed as classical 'dabblers'. The AB course makes it a tiny bit more accessible to those of us who have little knowledge of jazz. I was delighted in the skill, patience and understanding of the course tutors, who were both teachers of jazz at the very highest level. I was delighted to be given some instruction into how to find my way into this exciting and for me, new discipline.

I am looking forward to taking the intermediate course when I can. That will enable me to take a Grade 2 or 3 at the end of it.

My point in posting the above was in no way to lay a claim to anything other than a Grade 1, but to point out, in my opinion, that Grade 1 is the place to start for anyone who has no previous experience or knowledge of jazz. I am sorry if it gave any other impression.

I made the assumption because you said you completed the ABRSM introductory course in jazz teaching. This made me assume you were interested in teaching jazz. If you had said you completed the introductory course in jazz performance I would have assumed you were interested in becoming a jazz performer.

I'm sorry if I offended you - what I'm questioning is the whole idea of classical teachers teaching jazz without going through the whole process of becoming accomplished working jazz musicians in their own right before contemplating becoming teachers of jazz. I'm not blaming you at all - you're just taking up the AB's offer of interesting jazz courses.

OK, a question - are you interested in teaching jazz and if so, when would you contemplate beginning to teach it? After the intermediate course, after the advanced course? Would you consider it at all important to go out and work as a jazz musician before starting to teach jazz? Or not? I'm genuinely interested to know what you think.

Or are you just investigating jazz without any thought of teaching it in the near future? You can hardly blame me for thinking you might be intending to teach jazz when you attended a course called 'Introductory Course in Jazz Teaching', can you?

Again, it's not you personally I'm querying - I'm querying the whole idea that anyone should be able to set themselves up as a jazz teacher when they're not a working jazz musician themselves!

It is billed as an introductory course. Not a course that qualifies participants fully.

If you have a gripe with the course and its content, I suggest you take it up with the Associated Board and the tutors, not with those of us who have taken the course.

I have a gripe with the idea that non-working jazz musicians should be encouraged to teach jazz, and yes you're right that I should take it up with the board, not the people who take the course.

I've pmed you.

The question of how experienced a teacher should be in a related discipline which is not their principal study before teaching it is an interesting issue. I have never had any tuition in jazz but have taught myself most of what I know. I am not a jazz performer, although I have played in a jazz group, have composed jazz and accompany a choir which sings pieces in a jazz style. I have so far taught jazz to six pupils, five of whom I have entered for exams (grades 1, 2 and 3), four of whom got merits (the other did practically no work, but did still pass).

Whilst I realise that exams are not the be-all-and-end-all, the results my pupils have achieved give me confidence that I am leading them in the right direction.

Incidentally, I'm not saying that one should be self-taught, or should do courses - or indeed should not.

I think what has annoyed me is the name of the course: The AB Introductory Course in Jazz Teaching. This makes it look as if you can go and do these four-day jazz courses (introductory, intermediate, advanced) and then set yourself up as a jazz teacher. Twelve days and you're a jazz teacher, perhaps? In my view these courses are great for pursuing and furthering an interest in jazz, and all power to the people who do them for those reasons, but to teach jazz without having had the experience of being a working jazz musician? I don't think so, and I don't think the AB should be encouraging people to think this is a good idea; unfortunately the title of the course would suggest that they are.

I'm not meaning to put anyone off in the slightest - just being realistic about what it means to teach jazz, which should be about enabling someone to go out and become a credible jazz performer, and which in my view isn't really viable unless the teacher is an experienced jazz performer themselves with many years of interest in and enthusiasm for jazz behind them.

Unless what the AB means is: teach people to pass the AB's jazz exams? I suppose what needs to be thought about here is: does passing the AB's jazz exams enable you to go ahead and become a credible jazz performer? Perhaps non-working jazz musicians can teach the early jazz grades but after Grade 3 I wouldn't like to think of a non-working jazz musician being involved in teaching jazz. For example my son took Grade 5 jazz sax and did really well but I don't think he could have done so well if his teacher hadn't been a hard-working, experienced jazz performer himself and I wouldn't have expected a jazz teacher at this level to be anything less.

Cool Its good to see all these classical teachers becoming fully fledged jazz teachers in 12 days

Well quite.

Whether it would be in the exam situation I have no idea, but it should be, and if the examiner has listened to the CDs then it surely WILL be. If this is not the case then the examiner in question can't know their stuff well enough to be taking the exam!

It beats me why anyone who doesn't like/can't do improv is taking the exams, as a huge chunk of the exam is based on improvisation. Best to actually do some work and learn how to improvise freely; the result of your friend's exam will be rather devalued if she does this.


^ I agree 100% with Andante, as a fellow dabbler/still newbie to jazz. I'm sure it's entirely possible for an accomplished musician to dive it at grade 5 jazz and do quite well. But personally the jazz exams/syllabus, and the other areas of jazz which I have explored since I first had a go at it (which was with Violinia and Janexxx, and actually on violin and viola, not flute) have been a means to exploring jazz, attempting to learn some of what it's about, some of the theory, getting used to improvising, and all the other areas which jazz is about... NOT "being able to say I have G5 jazz". If that was all I cared about I'd've started there, but like A-I-C I preferred to start from the beginning (although I haven't done the course) and try to learn as much as I can and gain as much knowledge as I can from the start rather than just get through an exam.

The exams have been useful to see if I was along the right lines, to give structure to my exploration etc, but (as it should be with the classical exams as well IMO) the bits of paper one obtains are in many ways the least important bit (even though I am, yes, quite proud of both the certs I've got so far )

I guess the AB as an examining board who produce the materials for the exams and run other teaching courses want to get teachers involved in having a go at jazz and the course is aimed at teachers, hence the name, though I do see why experienced jazzers might find it a little annoying in its implication. From what those who've been on the course say it seems it's more of a way of teachers bringing jazz into their existing lessons in a small way than trying to send them off as "real" jazz teachers.