Reminder: While you are waiting for an audio file to download, you can move around anywhere in the website and read other material.
A few days before I submitted this lead-in to Part II of my interview with Rob Parton, I got a phone call from a prospective new piano student whom I'll call Nora. She said she was fifty-one years old (same age as myself), and had started off her piano life as a child with several years of "chord-based instruction" (sounds interesting, I thought). Then the hammer came down: "After that, I had the misfortune of studying piano with a classical pianist, and that did me in."
Nora went on to explain that even after several more years of nitty-gritty instruction in how to play early-level classics, she still couldn't play "Happy Birthday" by ear when asked at a party. More importantly, she couldn't develop the original musical ideas that persistently swirled around in her head. She was never encouraged to do so, nor to try doing anything that involved the ear. As piano teachers, we know that Nora's situation is unfortunately not an isolated one but is common.
She was frustrated with all of this as a child, and was still frustrated with it as an adult-now she wanted to do something about it. Nora already knew that I am a composer and arranger, but when she found out that much (but not all) of my piano background and experience involved classical music, she politely but firmly declined a trial lesson with me. Instead, she asked me to recommend a local jazz teacher so that she could better learn how to develop her own musical ideas (not necessarily to learn how to play jazz).
Hmmm . . .
In this issue we offer the continuation of the conversation that began in the Winter 2002 issue with jazz educator and trumpeter Rob Parton. You will find more thought-provoking ideas about how learning jazz helps a person's growth as a rhythmic being. I believe that the ideas discussed in these two conversations give us even more than that: they suggest a different frame of reference that invites us to re-think what we are doing, and how we are doing it. It is my hope that when the Noras call us for lessons years down the road, that they are not only happy with being able to play the notated classics, but also are satisfied that their past piano lessons helped them to become more expressive, musical, and creative individuals.
And now we continue our conversation . . .
Article by Rob Parton and Bruce Berr
More on the difference between timing and rhythm
BB: I want to extend our conversation from the first half by examining rhythm even a little deeper. I have been to a few college student piano recitals in which there was an air of spontaneity, a spark of life-the rhythm sparkled and breathed! It was similar to what I experienced when listening live to Barenboim or others like him - it's difficult to sit still in the seat during the concert because the rhythm is so vibrant.
But unfortunately, it's possible for a person's rhythm to be accurate, and yet still not sound alive and communicative. And in fact, I've also been to many more college piano recitals in which everything was in place, everything was accurate, and yet my body felt inert while listening. The rhythms may have been accurately executed but they still sounded flat and inanimate; you might say the rhythm was executed-it was dead on arrival! And this was in some of the most rhythmic repertoire for the piano. Despite all the accuracy, it didn't hold my interest more than a few minutes.
In further contrast to this, when I attend college student jazz concerts, I almost always hear rhythm that is alive and compelling. This has nothing to do with the drumming thing you talked about earlier, because the rhythm was accurate in both the classical and jazz playing I'm recalling here. It seems to me that, at least when it comes to playing rhythm that is real and evocative, jazz students generally have a step up on classical students.
And I'm not alone in what I've perceived. Abby Whiteside, in Indispensables of Piano Playing, made pretty much the same observation decades ago. She remarked that pianists who hadn't had a piano teacher but who had heard jazz and taught themselves how to play the instrument had more accurate and exciting rhythm (and better technique!) than their classical counterparts who had had instruction. Do you agree with all of this? And if so, what do you think is missing in the rhythm of these classical students? Why is it so common for the rhythm of so many classical piano students to sound so two-dimensional?
RP:
I do agree. Jazz is an embracing of an aural tradition, whereas
European western classical music, at least in our time, is based
more heavily on scores and notation, although it didn't always
used to be this one-sided. I think part of the problem with the
kind of playing you just described is that there
has been way too much emphasis on reading the printed page before
the person has heard and experienced the music. Also,
students are probably not listening to themselves in anything
but a superficial way. When there is accurate but unmusical playing
that is not really rhythmic, the student's mindset is probably,
"OK, I can play this fine now-I'm playing all the notes right."
To avoid this, some teachers occasionally record their students' playing at a lesson, and then say, "Now listen to it." The teacher might ask, "What do you think of that?" The student might like it at first. Then the teacher can perform it, and then ask "Which one of these two CDs-yours or mine- would you buy, and why?" This really helps them hear what possibilities the music has, and what they're actually playing. The more the student can listen and compare, the more they start to hear, and the more likely they'll ask, "How can I learn to do that? How can I get there?" To do that, they have to start listening to themselves on more levels.
A teacher could accomplish this in the same way by playing a CD of an unbelievable artist at the lesson, but I usually prefer playing my instrument for my students. As a person, I always get more out of it watching someone do it. Why? Because then I know it was really done. When I was in high school, I didn't get to see that many jazz players (even though I heard many on recordings), and I was always curious, "How did they do that? Are they really doing that?" Consciously, we know they're doing it. But subconsciously, we're asking, "Are they really doing that, or is there some trick that I don't know?"
BB: So for exciting rhythm, students need a constant reminder of how musical something can be: how much rhythm relies on breathing, how much movement there is, how much involvement is needed between the notes, how much dynamic range . . .
RP: Yes, and that's why the teacher has to be able to play convincingly at the lesson. If students never hear really musical playing of their repertoire, how can they know what is possible? Most students are not going to hear a Clementi Sonatina played on the radio, so what is their frame of reference? I'm an aural learner. I'd much rather learn it by hearing it than by your explaining it to me. So that philosophy is reflected in my teaching.
BB: So how important do you believe it is for young players to listen to recordings at home?
RP: I believe it's extremely important. Whatever they listen to is what they are going to become, whether it's a classical or a jazz person. As a classical player, I've listened to many different trumpet players. Hopefully, young and upcoming piano students have heard Barenboim and all the great pianists. They should be able to immediately recognize each one. I can do that with trumpet players. You put on a recording of a trumpet player, and within a measure or so, I'll know who it is, because I know their sound, and how they play rhythm. For instance, how does the player place the 8th notes? I'm not actually thinking that consciously, but I certainly notice it.
BB: Let's say you were teaching a master class, and you had a group of classical students who were playing written-out jazz pieces (not improvising) with the swing rhythm written into the score-they've got these triplets with ties. But let's say they're not playing with the right feel. In that case, you would likely demonstrate for them, to help them bridge the gap between playing "accurately" versus doing it in the style?
RP: Yes, that's right. And that actually happens when I'm playing in pops orchestras. Let's say we're going to play "In the Mood". Most of the players in pops orchestras are primarily classical musicians, so it's not uncommon to hear the winds and violins playing with an "accurate" rhythm that really doesn't have the authentic feel of swing rhythm. Those of us in the orchestra who do play jazz end up influencing the final result through the sound of our playing in the rehearsals.
BB: Can you think of any other causes for students' rhythm to be accurate and yet not vibrant? Sorry to be so persistent about this, but I do believe it's a widespread problem.
RP: It could also depend on the teacher. If the teacher is on their 64th student that week, they might not make the necessary effort to make sure that that student knows musically what the possibilities really are, even though there is a very important and timely need for the teacher to perform the piece musically for the student.
Also, the teacher needs to invest a certain amount of time and energy doing lesson planning so that there is sufficient, unhurried time to spend on aural activities. Without these, I don't think the student's rhythm will ever reach its full potential. Unfortunately, most teachers are still doing thirty minute lessons, right? So you probably spend about ten minutes on technique activities, then maybe ten minutes on prepping a new piece or hearing a review piece. This leaves the final ten minutes for aural activities, like imitative-playbacks or something similar. Even if you don't play jazz, you can find something simple to work with. Let the student know that no score is going to be used. And if the teacher is uncomfortable improvising something, just memorize something. What you play can be simple in structure and texture, but it should have a dynamic feel to it, and have a resolution, and therefore have some kind of meaningful overall shape to it. If it's the first time you've done this with a classical student, you might hear, "Well, I need the music to play that." And I say, "Everything you need is in the sound."
BB: Isn't it interesting that classical students do call a score "the music", even though it's not the music and just a symbolic representation of it (and not a very good one at that). They're so dependent on that printed page for whatever music comes out of them! Jazz students call it a "chart." I think that's a much more accurate name for it - more in line with its limitations.
Let's go back again to the student whose rhythm is accurate but not rhythmic. Other possible causes?
RP: It might actually have nothing to do with the rhythm per se- it may be a lack of emotion on the student's part. If that's the case, I again would demonstrate for the student, not so they can imitate me, but so they get an idea of what kind of emotion could be conveyed in the music. I like to use analogies for this, too. Maybe we'll pretend it's a love story: these people haven't seen each other for ten years, and they have suddenly re-discovered each other. Playing has to convey emotion; when it does, the rhythm is usually alive as well.
This is what studio musicians do all the time in sound tracks for movies. You've got a fifty piece orchestra showing up, you've got the parts on the stands (and you've never seen them before), and they have a movie screen behind the players, so we can't see it, but the conductor can. But sometimes, the conductor will stop the orchestra and ask them to turn around to watch what's happening in the movie during a certain scene. Maybe it is a love story, but maybe it's a love story about a very dark and warped character! So instead of using a pretty vibrato, we're instead going to use a slower, almost-tremolo effect. Those are the scores that end up winning awards-the ones that are actually working with the programmatic content. And for that to work, the performance has to successfully convey a wide range of emotions.
A lot of young classical musicians seem to think a lot about their playing; everything is measured ahead of time. But in jazz, not everything is measured. So maybe some more of that feeling in jazz-the emotion, that feeling of being "outside of the lines"-needs to get into the playing of more young classical players. Like with playing Rachmaninoff - let's hear someone get all over that, open their heart up and PLAY, instead of just reading it off the page. They have to listen more and feel more emotion. Great rhythm can result from that.
Helping students ease into improvising with the use of sing-backs and play-backs
BB: I think it's finally becoming a more widespread idea that improvisation can be an excellent tool for enhancing a person's sense of rhythm, as well as reinforcing other musical and physical skills. Plus, it's great fun! What are your general thoughts about improvisation?
RP: It's a natural part of living. The best analogy is conversation. What we're doing here right now is actually an improvisation-just talking. I have no idea what we're going to say, and the "tunes" we're improvising on are your questions.
But students do need some time to grow into improvising as a form of communication. It's like babies. Do they come out talking right away? No, but they realize that when they cry, they get attention. Then they get a little older and they do a loud scream-they get a different kind of reaction from you. (Editor's note: Rob currently has three very young children at home!) In a sense, their vocabulary has grown. It's the same thing for little trumpet players-if they do a loud "scream", everybody goes "wow." The more "words" they start learning-the more things they learn how to play - the easier it is for them to put together a "sentence." That's true in their playing and in their improvisations.
BB: I think it's likely that there are still a fair number of piano teachers who wonder if improvisation is just for people who know a lot about jazz.
RP: It is true that classical pianists seem to be reluctant to improvise. My wife's mother is a very fine pianist with a performance degree and a lot of experience performing, but she won't play anything that isn't written. But really, the improviser can be anybody. For instance, you can do "Hot Cross Buns" on piano, and then improvise a different rhythm to it-that's also improvisation. Is that jazz? Probably not, but that doesn't matter. One of the reasons why improvising in any style is so important is that you're dealing with just sound. If you want to really develop rhythm head-on, don't look at any scores. Everybody gets so locked into the notation of music, it's easy to miss the point then. What's wrong with just sitting down and playing some sounds? It's a very important part of a person's rhythmic development because it has to come from inside you.
If students have not yet done any improvising, you usually have to ease them into it. One basic plan that works is to first have students just hear and imitate some good musical rhythmic stuff before asking them to make up some material of their own. And once again, just like with tightening up students' rhythm, singing can be a very important tool.
For instance, I might say, "I'm going to sing something, and I want you to sing it back to me." (He snaps his fingers) There's the equivalent of the metronome going. I'm snapping on beats 2 and 4 - I automatically do that. So I'm going to do:
He scats a rhythmic pattern
But when they sing it back, they might do it flat,
like this:
He scats the same pattern but dead-sounding
No, imitate this!
510k, 16-bit WAV sound file
{To jump to the next audio clip, click here}
I point out to them that it's not the same. At first the student might get a little flustered, but after a few minutes, the feeling of self-consciousness is gone, and then they can pretty much imitate whatever you ask them to. And with more advanced or older students, I might even have them notate it, even if just a measure or two.
Then you can follow all of this up with playbacks on their instrument. I start with something simple, like one note, then move on to something a little more complex:
They'll probably miss something the first time, so you do it again if you have to. The more you can get them imitating, the better.
Then after we get some momentum going, I'll add a play-along,
just like the CDs you talked about earlier that you use with piano
method books. I usually start with a recorded blues accompaniment
that has piano, bass and drums. Then we do more playbacks, only
now we have this rhythm section going.
This works as a good first step to improvising because you're
actually thinking for them. You're supplying that little musical
voice in their head, which they need anyway whether they're playing
notated music or improvising.
But it also helps a lot with correcting any small flaws in their rhythm. When you do "reciting" back and forth with students (short playbacks conversation-style done quickly), they're likely to realize for themselves that their eighth notes or their syncopations are not quite right, because they just heard you play it. Then it's easier for them to correct it and internalize it. The proof is that when they see that same pattern in a notated piece, it really means something to them - they can do it more accurately and more musically . This is better than a teacher needing to correct it over and over in a reading situation. I use this recitation method a lot-it jump-starts students' rhythmic awareness.
How to help students improvise with their own ideas
BB: In terms of getting students started in actually improvising, how do you push them out of the nest? The sing-backs and playbacks you've discussed have loosened them up and turned on their ears, but now how do you get them to actually making up stuff of their own?
RP: One good way to sneak into that is to turn the tables after doing some playbacks: "OK, now I want YOU to play something, and I'm going to imitate YOU." And they usually say OK and give it a try.
So now we've turned it around-now they have to be the thinker; they barely realize that they are now going to be the one improvising. They usually start with something I played before, or something pretty simple. Then they try something a bit more complicated, because they're actually trying to stump me by playing something more involved. And so their licks get longer. Then I point out, "You know, you just thought up all this stuff!" That's when we talk about and assess what they just did.
BB: Interesting how you segued from playbacks to improvising without their realizing it. And I would think that it also really helps to have that recording of the rhythm section going on in the background. It provides a nice, warm (cool!) musical environment in which to be doing this experimenting.
RP: Yes, it really is an inviting sound to play along
with - it inspires them to go out on a limb. It's also teaching
them about things they haven't thought about yet, like which notes
sound good with which chords, for instance. We haven't even talked
about chords yet - no sense confusing them. But it works because
there is time happening - there's your metronome. Let's
be real here: all music that you hear has time to it. In certain
kinds of classical music, the time is somewhat flexible, but the
majority of music you hear on the radio and even lots of classical
music has straight-ahead time to it.
MTNA's Jazz Curriculum & coda
BB: To wrap things up, I want to mention something that I think bodes very well for the inevitability of classical and jazz instruction becoming more intertwined in the near future in mainstream music teaching in America. About two years ago, Music Teachers National Association (MTNA) instituted a starter jazz curriculum for music teachers; it facilitates the introduction of jazz basics to young students. Tony Caramia, a piano and pedagogy professor at Eastman, and who like yourself plays both classical and jazz, was one of several folks who helped create this new project for MTNA. Even though it's true that most teachers in MTNA are not seasoned jazz players, this seems to me to be a step in the right direction.
RP: It is. Jazz is everywhere now, it's everywhere you look. Whether people notice it or not, jazz is a huge part of what music is today in America. In fact, no other kind of music is more American in its roots and heritage than jazz-it really is our culture. Rigid distinctions between classical music and jazz have been on the wane for some time now, starting way back in the earlier part of the 20th century. Aaron Copland loved jazz, and he's an icon of American classical music; George Gershwin loved jazz and played jazz, but he was also a wonderful classical player. The two art forms' moving closer has accelerated even more in our age. There may even come a time when professional players are expected to be able to do both. So whether someone likes it or not, jazz is here to stay for a while; nothing anybody can do is going to keep that from happening. There is going to be a lot more of it.
|
Hear another segment
from one of Rob Parton's CDs: |
|
ROB PARTON is one of Chicago's most active and versatile trumpet players and educators. He has played with Doc Severinson, Mel Torme, Natalie Cole, and Maynard Ferguson, to name a few. He has also appeared in many European jazz festivals, including the Umbria Jazz Festival in Italy. He has performed with the Milwaukee and the Chicago Symphony Orchestras and with numerous regional orchestras. As a studio musician, he has played on hundreds of local and national radio and TV commercials. Parton is Chair of Jazz Studies at Roosevelt University, and frequently directs All-State jazz bands and guest-conducts at college jazz programs. He has presented concerts and clinics at the International Association of Jazz Educators and many other jazz and music educator conventions. His JAZZTECH Big Band and its four CDs on the Sea Breeze Jazz label are known nationally and have received glowing accolades from audiences and the jazz press. |
Read and hear Part I
of this conversation (has 9 audio clips)
