Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Is the Keyboard Technique for Jazz and Classical the same?

I am a woodwind doubler considering taking up piano as a second instrument. I play mainly jazz but I was wondering if I take jazz piano lessons would the keyboard technique be applicable to classical, or are other keyboard techniques necessary for classical?

For example, if I decide to practice a classical piece would I be able to work out the fingerings etc based on my jazz piano lessons?

Thanks

I'm a classical pianist, so perhaps I'm biased, but I do think that learning classical technique can help in any style of music. You learn how to play difficult passages which requires not only dexterity but the connections made in the brain. It is the same instrument, and it works the same way. You can cause injury to yourself in the same way with poor technique. It is my understanding that jazz piano lessons may not contain technique work, but mainly working on improv, scales (modal), and chords, but I could be wrong. Most of the jazz piano teachers in this area won't touch anyone who hasn't had several years of classical piano. They don't want to bother with teaching someone how to read music, technique, etc. Again, I'm just speaking about those jazz piano teachers I know of.

Be sure to find a teacher that will give you what you need (technique, theory), but also give you some of what you want (jazz) so that you don't get frustrated or disinterested.

I'm classically trained- wish I was trained in jazz, too (someday!). Anyways, I think that the mechanics of executing notes and passages would be the same. You use the same instrument with the same body parts, you'd just be playing a different style of music. Good hand position, posture, etc. should be the physical base of any style of piano playing.

I'm an amateur classical player who works on
some jazz/popular piano on my own out of books,
and I see no difference between them.
The only distinction is that in classical
you play exactly as written on the sht.
music, never adding a single note or leaving
one out, except if your handspan cannot
reach a note. When performing classical
repertoire, you're expected to play
note perfect, and preferably from
memory. Moreover, there is no
classical improvisation and almost no
classical composition--the classical piano
world considers the field to be essentially
closed to new work. But of course in
jazz/popular, improvisation is expected
and composition is encouraged. The technique
is, however, the same.

If you take jazz piano as a complete beginner,
that might be a little unusual, as jazz students
typically would be expected to have
some classical training, but this should
be possible, and the jazz teacher would
have you doing the basics that you get
in classical, like scales and so forth.
I see no reason why you couldn't play
classical repertoire after only jazz piano
training, as long as you realize what
the standard in classical piano is: note perfect,
exactly as written on the score, and
from memory, if possible.

I find this opinion very troublesome as a teacher who teaches the importance of composition and improvisation in the "classical" vein (I wrote my master's thesis on the subject!). Most of the greatest composers were great improvisers. And if we do not teach our students to improvise and compose, then how will they learn to do it? Only once in a great while will you find someone who can naturally do that. But there are many who have a talent for it, but one that needs to be cultivated with encouragement and good techniques, just like anything else. I don't blame you for having this opinion, as that is how it appears to many. I was not encouraged as a child to compose, and so I thought I wasn't any good at it, that's why. When really, my teacher just didn't address it, most likely because she didn't know how. She probably wasn't taught and encouraged herself, therefore, she didn't feel capable of teaching it to her students. It's incredible how a teacher's *neglect* of something can have such a lasting impact! At some point, teachers have to take the onus upon themselves to learn how for the sake of carrying on the tradition of what has produced the most beautiful music in all of history.

I started piano lessons at age 32 (for about two years) after playing trombone since age 10. I found a great teacher, a jazz pianist, who was willing to take me off on all sorts of directions w.r.t. jazz theory, while still trying to fill in the technique gaps (I knew scales, of course, but needed to learn them on piano...that was about ten total minutes of instruction, and a lifetime of practice ever since!).

So my musical ability always exceeded my piano technique, so I think he'd mess with me. Two months after starting lessons, I was starting on the 1st Bach Two-part Invention (in C), which was a humbling experience (what? independent voices in different hands!). At my recitals, I worked up arrangements of very nice pieces from my jazz world that worked nicely as novice pianist recital pieces (for example, I did Abdullah Ibrahim's "The Wedding" and Coltrane's "Naima").

What's written down is of very little use in classical music - it's the knowledge in your head and sensitivity in your heart that matter. That takes many years to acquire and none of it is 'on the sheet'.

Thanks, that was helpful.

I'll make sure that the jazz teacher can teach beginners.

Isn't that sad? I mean...why the heck should classical music be any different from jazz? It should be just as accessible from an improvisation perspective as jazz is. I know several people who explore "classical" improvisation (including myself). And I know OF many more. I hope some day academic classical music world will wake up from its creative hibernation and start teaching improvisation again. Then hopefully the worlds of classical and jazz will again merge and we will simply talk of "music" rather than coming up with arbitrary dividing lines of very specific sets of harmonic or rhythmic rules.

As someone who plays both classical and jazz styles, I've found technical demands to be similar, with a few exceptions. For example, fingering for blues scales is different than for major or minor scales (jazz pianists often "slide" a finger from one key to another, which is a no-no in classical technique). And notation can mean something quite different in a jazz piece (what looks like an appoggiatura is meant to be played as a "crush"--all notes struck at the same time, with the little note released as the others are held).

And then there's the matter of rhythm. Jazz pianists "swing" eighth notes (except for such styles as latin & ragtime), and put the beat emphasis on "two" and "four". I sometimes have my students practice scales and Bach inventions that way, just for fun.

Ideally, a "good" pianist should be comfortable performing jazz as well as classical styles, although we all have personal preferences!

Well... The biggest exception is playing a Bach fugue. Holding on to notes without using pedal. You don't do this in jazz piano.

I feel jazz and pop piano playing is much more forgiving than clasical playing in regards to technique and interpretation, etc...

There is no right or wrong way to play jazz per say.

But there is with classical.

Classical piano is far more demanding technically, with having to develop an ability to play different articulations, different dynamics, balance between hands, playing three or more voices, etc...

I would say develop your ability (technique) by playing classical first, with a good teacher, and then move over to jazz; technically you will have a much easier time.

With that said, Art Tatum was a phenomenal techinician as well as Oscar Peterson... did they study classical piano? If not, disregard everything I posted and just find yourself a really good jazz teacher that can teach you proper technique so you can play well.

Good luck and have fun!

Right on Zom! I very much agree.

As a jazz student that has studied technique with a classical teacher, I'm noticing some differences.

I've learned classical technique from the arm weight/relaxation school. The immediate impact of this training was I lost my swing feel.

At least in this school of technique, there seems to be differences in focus. For whatever reason, jazz improv lines seem to require more finger strength combined with arm weight and I cannot relax fully like in classical playing. Since most lines are fast and every other eight note is accented, there is little opportunity for me to relax (just like you can't really relax playing nothing but stacatto notes).

I discussed this in detail with my jazz teacher and he agrees.

I think the foundation is still classical playing and my teacher and many great jazz artists came from classical piano education (witness Keith Jarrett and Brad Mehldau for example).

But the actual focus is different in each style. While classical seems to have few high speed sustained lines, Jazz is full of them. Jazz is less prone to play with dynamics. It does but usually for brief moments.

While Classical has more use of the LH, Jazz is more RH oriented.

Technically speaking, both genre's have awesome exhibits of talent on each side. I think it is incorrect to say that Jazz is less technical. It is quite full of technique but just so different.

In any case, the basic lessons and fingerings are the same. The need to practice scales are the same. Actually we practice more scales in jazz (as we do modes and non-traditional scales).

There are just different demands because in jazz, you are not planning what you are going to play so there's no opportunity to practice perfect fingering. In fact, some jazz teachers teach every possible combination of fingering on scales like 1212 or 123123 or 4545 or 3434 etc. Most things are planned from just good habits and are unscripted. I don't think it's uncommon in jazz to be watching the keyboard, something not recommended in classical music.

It is in jazz where new piano techniques are being developed constantly, like new approaches to swing. What some jazz artists do still baffle me.

And to think, I always enjoy hearing the performer's take on the movement when it comes to the cadenza, and going to contemporary music recitals with fresh music written by local composers. Well, since you guys think classical music composition and improvisation is dead...

I believe that there is no technical difference
between jazz and classical piano. Sometimes
you'll see jazz players playing in what seems
to be a very "homespun" style, like they
were self-taught, but I think this is more for
stage effect than anything else. The
technical demands are the same in both styles.
As for the "finger slide," this is something
I as a classical player just love to do. I
like using the same finger on successive
notes, like Bb to A with 4 4 instead of
4 3. And I work on the most difficult
classical repertoire. This in fact might
be considered an "advanced" classical
technique: novices would have to use 4 3
on Bb to A, lacking the technique to do it
any other way, while a more advanced player
has the technical proficiency to play it in
more than one way. And there are "swing
eighths," so to speak, in classical if you
play the old-style tempo rubato (r.h.
only).

In any case, I believe that all's fair in
piano playing, whatever the style; if it
works for you, and sounds good, you do it.
For example, Glenn Gould (I've seen another
top concert pianist also doing this) used to
sit with keyboard at chest level.

My jazz sax teacher reckons I should go to a classical teacher first to get basic keyboard technique. As a second instrument with limited time to practice it is better to concentrate on one thing at a time. After that then go to a jazz teacher for whatever jazz specific aspects you want to work on.

Morodiene, IMO the monkey-see, monkey-do nature of classical training results from exalting the requirements for managing large symphony orchestras while ignoring that Bach, Beethoven, and Chopin all loved to improvise.

More than 1,000 years ago, the Imperial Chinese wrote down rules for performing. Preeminence was given to the song, within the song preeminence was given to melody, and the soloist - most likely a qin player (our Dulcimer) - was expected to improvise. Repeat, expected.

IMO the most likely result for most people of strict classical training is to crush the creative impulse that I believe is in all people.

That doesn't mean that those who wish to be creative shouldn't study some classical. Oscar Peterson and Bill Evans both did. (Early on, Evans had to choose between classical and jazz. Obviously he chose jazz. When Peterson was asked if he played classical he replied, "Only for myself.")

Many of the better jazz piano teachers can also teach technique. And yes there are some differences between the techniques of the two styles, but of course there is much in common. Classical technique does not include the essential technique of lilting eighth notes with an accent on "+". Classical pianists can't phrase that way, it's never in classical literature. They also don't learn the essential technique for the jazz quarter notes: detached and slightly bounced, again not in their literature. Many of the greats in jazz piano never had classical training. Of course one needs to know some fingerings but that does not require playing classical pieces.

pianobuff,

It is not at all uncommon in some solo jazz piano styles to hold a note or two while playing others with the same hand, although usually not to the extent found in a Bach fugue. This technique most frequently occurs when there is a long melody note and the pianist wishes to fill the time with inner voice movement, but really the only limit is the skill and imagination of the improviser.

In regards to broader topic, I know that as a jazz player I have benefited enormously from working on classical pieces. Besides the obvious technical advantages gained from being required to find a way to play a particular passage there are a great many ideas and melodies that can be lifted from classical literature and put in a jazz context with only minimal adjustments to the rhythm and accents. The works of Chopin in particular are fertile grounds for improvisational inspiration.

As a student and a teacher I would say that certain elements of technique are more emphasized and others less so when working on jazz vs. classical. For instance left hand passage work is much less common in jazz than classical and when it does appear it is usually as a doubling of the right hand line. On the other hand, rhythmic subtleties often receive quite a bit more attention. For example the concept of playing in front of or behind the beat in an ensemble context is crucial to establishing any of a wide variety of swing feels that are exclusive to jazz music.

I know several jazz pianists and from what I've seen, the left hand technical proficiency does not need to be as good as the right hand. As a result, jazz players tend to not require the same level of piano technique as a classical pianist.

While it's true that jazz pianists don't often play melodies with the L.H., some jazz bass patterns are quite challenging.

For example, "stride" piano involves the L.H. jumping across two or three octaves, often keeping the beat steady as the R.H. syncopates (as in ragtime). And L.H. boogie-woogie patterns are difficult enough on their own, before adding the R.H. melody.

I totally disagree that there is no "lilt"
or "hitch" in classical music. This in fact
is the essence of all music and what
differentiates it from, say, the quasi-rythmic
noise that a stamping press makes in a factory.

Take, for example, the Minute Waltz. In the
first measure you have an Ab quarter and then
G Ab C Bb eighths. You can play it evenly, like
a machine, but there is actually a slight
"lilt" or "hitch" where there is a rise and fall
pitch, the C. This is fundamental musical
technique and is univeral in music,
whatever the style.

The "lilt" is different in jazz phrasing than the "lilt" in classical. It's a swing in jazz.

piano technique is piano technique is piano technique. What style of music you play, and what types of sounds you get out of the intstrument are a very different matter.

Oscar Peterson and Glenn Gould had a very similar, if not identical approach to the physicality of playing the instrument.
It may not look the same to you but it is.

Being a classically trained pianist and also having learned to improvise over many years, of course classical piano technique can give you speed, expression, and power for playing jazz. That being said, jazz is mainly improvised, which means the hand can move in any direction at any time. I would advise thinking of balanced hand position fingerings for jazz piano technique that would help you to move quickly in any direction. Personally I've devised fingerings for the major and minor blues and pentatonic scales to acheive this.

Keith
http://www.keithphillips.net
http://www.keithphillips.net/AdvancedPianoSecrets.htm
http://www.freepianoresources.com

Timing and accenting are parts of technique requiring a learned muscle control. The timing and accenting in jazz are very different than in classical.

The question of the presence or absence of a specific jazz piano technique originated long ago - together with another question: "Is there a special jazz harmony, if in jazz is used chords borrowed from classical music ?" Since then , the question of jazz harmony was finally settled, and she took pride of place in an academic framework .
With piano technique that has not happened yet, because - in contrast to the harmony - involved in it piano teachers , who are not aware the specifics of jazz performance and can not be compared.
Even when we talk about the art of piano of Grieg compared with Mozart, we are referring to the historical changes in the approach to the piano, that create the inevitable differences, and now someone wants to convince us that between the technique of classical and jazz piano difference does not exist!
As can be seen, is not always clear what is attributed to piano technique. Keyboard of jazz and classical piano the same, scales in jazz and classical are the same,chord technique is the same, the same arpeggios. However, the sound and the sound production is quite different - the aesthetics of sound is not based on the Italian bel canto, but on American scat singing; there ghosts notes that do not exist in the classical; basis technique is not legato - as in the classics, but non legato; deep key punch down confronts the with a bottom, brings to general piano sound element of drumming ; is there articulation and accentuation of swing, which also does not exist in classics .
The difference in the technique of playing the piano can be seen, if we judge by the playing movements . This can be easily verified by looking at the hands of a pianist in the TV without hearing the sound; movements in jazz is always different. You can even compare when K. Jarrett played jazz or Mozart concerto; can then be understood with the eyes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io1o1Hwpo8Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuMzOCpQRt0

However, aforesaid does not negate the need to study classical piano; this instrument was created for baroque and classical music. Classical piano base is the best platform for learning jazz pianism.

[quote=jazzwee]As a jazz student that has studied technique with a classical teacher, I'm noticing some differences.

I've learned classical technique from the arm weight/relaxation school. The immediate impact of this training was I lost my swing feel.

. [/quote]


This is an interesting case. If You own a swing feel , You will not lose it under any circumstances. Maybe You have learned swing as a kind of finger technique (which is not), and with its change lost the ability to perform swing . Something like that, as I remember, it was Andre Previn, who played on jam in Leningrad in 1969 - after a long break, how he played jazz. In his performance was missing absolutely swing feel .

[quote=Ken.]if I take jazz piano lessons would the keyboard technique be applicable to classical, or are other keyboard techniques necessary for classical?

For example, if I decide to practice a classical piece would I be able to work out the fingerings etc based on my jazz piano lessons?

[/quote]

Ken,

Playing the piano is playing the piano and styles have all kinds of nuances. But you're looking for skills that you hope have some transferability.

So to that goal: Find a teacher who can help you with that–which is how to take lessons learned in one domain (or style) and apply them to another. They're out there. You'll probably find along the way that there's a lot more to technique–tons and heaps more–than issues of fingering about which you asked.

To give two interesting examples: Abbey Whiteside, an influential teacher on the classical side of things has written that fingerings really aren't the main point at all–on the jazz side of things Barry Harris, also a great teacher, has said exactly the same.

But neither of those points of view mean AW and BH have a monopoly on the answer. Because they don't.

The thing is technique–the acquisition of efficient technique–goes way past fingers alone. The "way past" of it includes using the mechanisms of the body (physical and mental) to efficiently control the physical mechanisms of the piano.

Find the right teacher, develop an efficient technique, and everything else will follow. Including answers to "which fingers" to use and when to use them.

You realize that this thread has been dormant for 6 1/2 years? Many of the posters have long since departed PW. Often, it's better to begin a new thread on a topic, even if it's been visited before.

Thanks John for pointing out what I now see is obvious. It's not the first time I've missed a date, Probably it won't be the last time. In any case, regardless of the age of the thread, Nahum made some good contributions earlier today. And the thread will show up in searches on PW. So things here began several years ago but they're worth reading/revisiting now. ... Ummmm ... You could follow up on your own advice and start a new thread on the same topic. Would be interesting to see if/how anyone's views, including the OP's, have changed.

Mark, it's not so much a criticism as a realization that your contributions are going to reach an entirely different audience then intended. We have Phoenix threads all the time; sometimes it makes sense to continue the thread, other times not. My sense was that Nahum didn't realize the age of the thread.

I surely seen date of last reply here; however, this issue   interest to many pianists; and it must be lighted from different angles, not just from the almost religious belief . This question has always taken me as a teacher of jazz piano; ;   especially since my past includes 13 years of study viola and piano in academic frame work , 11 years in chamber and symphony orchestras and 33 years of teaching jazz piano at Jazz department of the Academy of Music .
In addition to this I would like to hear from jazzwee, how he solved his problem.

I haven't seen jazzwee in a very long time. You might try sending him a private message (PM).

Thanks, John v.d.Brook !

I have encountered many times with cases where the pianist learns a piece first as a completely perfect classic , and then introduces an element of swing . This gives very good results.

Nahum, you might be interested in Drumgenius . It's a great app (runs on iOS and Android) for practicing and exploring different jazz feels–and swing in particular. I recommend it for all sorts of things: play Charlie Parker or other transcriptions, Bach, sightread, improvise, play scales with it. How anyone uses it comes down to being creative with it and what you'd like to accomplish.

I'm not affiliated with it in any way except that I'll always mention it as a great tool for practicing.

Thanks, Mark, very interesting, and it sounds good!