| LearnJazzPiano.com archives: Art Tatum Or Oscar Peterson | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/01/2005, 20:45:46 -- #14403 | |
| And more specifically- Who had the greatest tehnique out of these two world class pianists? I thought I knew the answer to this once upon a time. But a friend of mine gave me something to think about and listen to. But first I would like to get everyones opinion. Of course i know this sounds like kid stuff, but post your thoughts anyway. M' | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/01/2005, 22:58:29 -- #14409 | |
| ? | |
| Dr. Whack -- 06/01/2005, 23:21:12 -- #14412 | |
| Oscar would tell you himself that it is definitely Art. We will probably never see or hear anyone like him again. Oscar is probably a little more enjoyable to listen to (at first) but the stuff Art did was mind boggling and way ahead of his time. | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/01/2005, 23:36:19 -- #14413 | |
| Yea, deep down inside i know that. And to tell you the truth I never liked oscar peterson solo stuff as much as his trio. But tatum was the ultimate in solo piano. Then again if you listen to peterson instructional cd it's absolutley amazing. I used to get the slight subtle impression that Oscar was just a tad bit jealous of Art, he even claimed that he swung harder than art.(I love oscar but humble he is not). Here is Oscar Peterson's tribute to Art Tatum: http://www.oscarpeterson.com/op/journal30.html JV' | |
| Scot -- 06/01/2005, 23:49:57 -- #14414 | |
| There's a story of Oscar when he was a teenager. He would stay after school and practice piano in the band room or something. His Dad didn't want him to do that, but Oscar was thinking he was a pretty good pianist after all. So his Dad took him one day to the city, wherever he was (Toronto?) and found an old smoky bar where there was this guy playing piano. It was Art Tatum and Oscar was completely blown away. So I guess Oscar was inspired to practice harder, eh? I'll look around for the full text of the story as it's a lot more interesting and factual than my rendition. | |
| Mike -- 06/02/2005, 06:07:38 -- #14418 | |
| Oscars solo stuff is about as mind boggling as it can get without getting to Tatum. I bet there are people who like Tatums trio work better as well. | |
| Barry_UK -- 06/02/2005, 08:30:59 -- #14425 | |
| Can Cziffra and Horowitz be compared? Personally, I'm not sure what there is to compare. Improv ability? Number of notes per nanosecond? Above a certain level of mastery, any technical comparison becomes pointless and ultimately boils down to aesthetic and personal preferences. Art was Art and Oscar is Oscar. Both are giants. I can listen to Oscar for hours, but I can't say the same about Art. My loss, I guess. | |
| sid -- 06/02/2005, 09:02:05 -- #14426 | |
| Since the Human Race has been blessed with both, luckily we don't need to choose, just listen and marvel. sid | |
| marksdg -- 06/02/2005, 09:14:19 -- #14427 | |
| I think everyone would agree that technical mastery does not equate to enjoyable music, but even in terms of technical mastery the definition is difficult. Who is more technically proficient, the person who can play fast or the person who can place just the right chord at the right time? Art is known for fast playing, but his technical skills certainly went beyond just playing fast runs and licks. In classical piano, technical proficiency is easier to define (speed, evenness and dynamic control). | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/02/2005, 11:21:50 -- #14434 | |
| Yep. all good points so far. Thanks for posting your thoughts everyone. JV' | |
| Mike -- 06/02/2005, 12:02:51 -- #14436 | |
| Blasphemy my brethren. On your knees all of you and beg forgiveness from the God of our Trade. repeat after me... our father who is ART in heaven. | |
| Scot -- 06/02/2005, 13:00:15 -- #14440 | |
| However, it should be noted, that Oscar's technique and Art's technique are not exactly the same. For example, Tatum primarly used fingers 1, 2, and 3 for his right hand runs, and they were all very similar kinds of runs. Tatum was almost always a somewhat light player as well. I think Oscar has a bit more meat to his playing and is/was a bit more well rounded in his total technique than Tatum was, but then again, it could be because of how Tatum learned as someone who was blind. I don't like to compare the two, because their playing is at the top of the technical pyramid, together. There are others who are just as technically proficient, quite a few others, but Oscar and Art are the ones we really know about. | |
| Dr. Whack -- 06/02/2005, 13:28:29 -- #14444 | |
| Amen - repent! Forgive them Lord for they know not what they say! | |
| ziggysane -- 06/02/2005, 14:58:34 -- #14450 | |
| It should be noted that Oscar Peterson's teacher (who if I am not mistaken was a student of and/or got to see Franz Liszt perform in person) said before he died that Peterson was practically the reincarnation of Liszt. *Noted by Peterson in his Autobiography. | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/02/2005, 15:34:21 -- #14455 | |
| "For example, Tatum primarly used fingers 1, 2, and 3 for his right hand runs, and they were all very similar kinds of runs. Tatum was almost always a somewhat light player as well. I think Oscar has a bit more meat to his playing and is/was a bit more well rounded in his total technique than Tatum was, but then again, it could be because of how Tatum learned as someone who was blind." To me though thats the beauty of it all. Oscar Peterson had the great fortunante to study with a reknowed teacher and was able to gleam alot through him. While, tatum primarliy studied and learned through piano rolls. But, both had amazing ears-perfect pitch etc. I will be the devils advocate here. Scott you always claim other pianists who were their equivelent, please name some for us. I could name only two or three who i think if they push themselves they would have been right up there as well. 1. Phineas Newborn 2. Chick Corea 3. Bud Powell (he had an amazing technique and did a nice art tatum impersonation) 4. Monty Alexander(scotts choice) Theres also a latin jazz pianist thatis really awesome but I cant think of his name right now. | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/02/2005, 15:34:32 -- #14456 | |
| "For example, Tatum primarly used fingers 1, 2, and 3 for his right hand runs, and they were all very similar kinds of runs. Tatum was almost always a somewhat light player as well. I think Oscar has a bit more meat to his playing and is/was a bit more well rounded in his total technique than Tatum was, but then again, it could be because of how Tatum learned as someone who was blind." To me though thats the beauty of it all. Oscar Peterson had the great fortunante to study with a reknowed teacher and was able to gleam alot through him. While, tatum primarliy studied and learned through piano rolls. But, both had amazing ears-perfect pitch etc. I will be the devils advocate here. Scott you always claim other pianists who were their equivelent, please name some for us. I could name only two or three who i think if they push themselves they would have been right up there as well. 1. Phineas Newborn 2. Chick Corea 3. Bud Powell (he had an amazing technique and did a nice art tatum impersonation) 4. Monty Alexander(scotts choice) Theres also a latin jazz pianist thatis really awesome but I cant think of his name right now. | |
| Dr. Whack -- 06/02/2005, 16:07:48 -- #14459 | |
| That was my question, but I didn't want to stir things up too much (but I'm glad you did:) The above mentioned players are of course, great players, but they don't come even close to Art IMHO...the more you listen to him, the more amazing he is - it takes a while because so much is going on, but man, the guy was a phenomenon:) Horowitz was also amazing, but Art was making the stuff up on the fly:) | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/02/2005, 17:35:09 -- #14463 | |
| "Horowitz was also amazing, but Art was making the stuff up on the fly" Yep, i think you hit the nail on the head my friend! The things that sets Art apart from Oscar Peterson, Horowitz and all the other greats (collectively, not just jazz) isnt necc, his technique, per se, but he seemed to posessos a natural god given talent that seemed to go beyond what most any other player was given. I think he was a once in a lifetime musician. The kind that comes along once every hundred years or so. | |
| hepcatmonk -- 06/03/2005, 03:02:35 -- #14479 | |
| Hm...I love them both. But Art Tatum was definitely technically the best one...and frankly I like him a lot more. Think of how ahead of his time he was! All his harmonic ideas, and the way he played solo piano...damn. No pianist can play solo piano without coming to terms with what Art Tatum did for this medium. I'm not sure that the same is true of Oscar Peterson. I also think Art was a better improvisor than Oscar Peterson, but I mean...we're comparing two people at the top of the stratosphere. Charlie Parker's ideas of harmonic substitution and reharmonization were influenced a lot by Art Tatum...he even took up a job cleaning dishes so that he could listen to him perform nightly. Bottom line...even a lot of common devices that we credit to other performers actually were first born in Art's playing. Art was using "rootless voicings" in his playing before Evans did. Not to discredit anything Evans did for the piano, either. I'm just saying...a lot of those ideas we consider "hip" or "modern" can be found in Art's playing. I have a solo recording of his...don't remember the title of the LP this second, but he plays Body and Soul. And during the bridge, he quotes "Nobody Knows the Trouble I've Seen..." but with his left hand underneath, he's playing polytonally! MAN, that is some hip shit! It sounds like Messiaen. Man, that was SO ahead of its time. Now personally, I'd put Phineas Newborn above Oscar Peterson...I think he swings much harder, and is technically almost as brilliant as Oscar, although perhaps not as perfect. The difference is that his technique was employed in a MUCH more tasteful way, and his lines are a lot more interesting. That to me is what makes the pianist. | |
| JayBrooks -- 06/03/2005, 09:23:26 -- #14486 | |
| Ok - so now to stir up some controversy: What do you guys think is so great about Tatum anyway, besides his ability to play really really really fast? Dr. Whack, you said it took you a while to see his merits, and I think maybe I'm at the point where you were where I just don't get what all the fuss is about. I mean, sure he's got monstrous technique, but to me, everything he plays is extremely one-dimensional -- always fast, incredibly dense/active, constant pentatonic runs all over the place (even in his comping, which I personally think is especially atrocious and self-indulgent). I can understand why pianists would worship this ability, but I can't see why any other musicians would want to listen to more than 10 seconds of it. Can somebody please edify me? Thanks, Jay | |
| 7 -- 06/03/2005, 10:53:02 -- #14489 | |
| Keeping in mind that Tatum said that Fats Waller was his source, the leap from Waller to Tatum is a huge step. Tatum's harmonies are light years beyond Wallers, using thick clusters as well as alterations unheard of in the world of Jazz at that time. In addition, Tatum had an unerring sense of time and could go off into amazing rhythmic forays playing way out and then at the blink of an eye just pick right up where he left off. Speaking of playing out, he was probably one of the first musicians to ever do that. However, if one analyzes his harmonies you will always find that there is a solid grounding in theory to support his excursions into the outer limits. Even when he went to places that no one had even dreamed existed, he was never bullshitting (like so many players when they play out). For some he might be seen as overly busy, but it was just that he saw so much inside the music and was compelled to play that way. | |
| Dr. Whack -- 06/03/2005, 11:19:35 -- #14491 | |
| Wow, this has turned into a lengthy thread - hehe I don't know if I could add any more to what my esteemed colleagues have already said, but I'll try to answer JayBrooks' question. I have some friends who speak in unfamilar dialects. When I first met them I could not understand them at all. After many conversations, I find that I understand them just fine:) Same with Art Tatum. The more you listen to him, the more you'll understand (hopefully) what he was doing. I am a total Oscar Peterson fan, and I didn't care for Tatum when I first heard him 30 years ago. I thought it was just a bunch of fast runs as you said. Oscar, Bill Evans, Herbie Hancock and others, seemed to move me in a way that I was not moved by Art. But, after hearing so many folks rave about the genious of this man, I continued listening in hopes of understanding...and wow...it started hitting me! Some of those seemingly senseless runs were actually perfectly in time and harmonically relevant! the chords, the voicings, his incredible technique and left hand stuff - truly a phenomenon (the guy never missed:) | |
| onimousomnibus -- 06/03/2005, 11:44:28 -- #14494 | |
| I think the point is mute because Bud had better technique than both... I recently have been moved toward the lighter Ahmad style. Stompin at the Savoy from Ahmad's Blues would be so sweet if it wasn't for that damn intro...i guess it still is | |
| Dr. Whack -- 06/03/2005, 13:19:26 -- #14496 | |
| I forgot to mention the most important part; Art thought of it:) I think if th point had been mute we wouldn't have heard it:) (if I can make fun of my tupos, I can make fun of yours too:) | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/03/2005, 15:34:21 -- #14499 | |
| "Bud had better technique than both" Actually nope. But yes he did possesos an incredible technique much more than people actually realize. Bud Powell technique was underated and he before his mental collapse could play and mesh a seemingly endless supply of melodic ideas, runs, phrases, embellisments etc. There is one recording where he shows and displays this virtuoso technique more than any other. But I have to looks for it, believe me you will be amazed! JV" | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/03/2005, 16:47:39 -- #14503 | |
| Here's the link for some bud powell stuff on amazon: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000005GYC/103-6563842-4794239?v=glance&s=music&n=507846&vi=samples#disc_1 | |
| 7 -- 06/03/2005, 23:24:35 -- #14509 | |
| I also have to disagree that Bud Powell was "better" than either/both Art Tatum and Oscar Peterson. While Powell was obliged to study Tatum's solo work, he took a route that was ideally suited to the ensembles that he was playing with. Powell's LH operated much like a rhythm guitar punching and stabbing chords while the bass player took care of the low end. When soloing, Powell's RH was basically fast single note horn lines (inspired very much by Bird). When comping, Powell's RH was pretty much like a second rhythm guitar in a higher register pumping out chord shapes. Tatum's LH was an orchestra unto itself, and his RH more often than not was involved in complex complementary rhythmic and harmonic juxtapostions to the LH. Powell's style was designed for ensemble work, and Tatum was a solo performer. It has been said that Tatum was incapable of playing in an ensemble. And I agree with that. Tatum's ensemble work is typified by him cleaning all the other musicians' clocks, and he never shuts up enough to hear any one else's solos. Do I see that as a detriment to Tatum's art? Not in the least. As I mentioned before, he was compelled to play that way. He couldn't help himself. And who could keep up with him anyway? To compare Bud Powell to Art Tatum is really comparing apples to oranges. Their styles are so completely different that any comparison is just plain stupid. The only thing those two had in common is that they both played piano. | |
| Mike -- 06/04/2005, 01:43:29 -- #14518 | |
| or they were both radical that type of radical can only come two ways either from a God who says "let there be light" and then there is. or from someone who is insane and just does not have enough sence to not do things completely differently than everyone else and do it damn well that way. Well Tatum was a God, he said "let there be amazing shit happenin on this piano" and there was amazin shit happenin. Powell was insane and damn good at it. | |
| sdm -- 06/04/2005, 18:13:50 -- #14546 | |
| Mike! What a way with words. I agree completely, FWIW. | |
| Styles -- 06/04/2005, 20:01:04 -- #14552 | |
| As far as sheer ability(speed, stamina, appregio difficulty, etc) I contend that either Chick or Phinneas are equal or very close to Art. However I seriously doubt any jazz musician can match his coordination. | |
| Mike -- 06/04/2005, 21:17:10 -- #14553 | |
| Chick being alive would let you know that he is not close to Art in the catetories you outline and being a spiritual man would also let you know of the sacriligious nature of your comments. Phinneas in those categories was unique but thats ridiculous to compare him. | |
| onimousomnibus -- 06/05/2005, 11:44:17 -- #14563 | |
| Yeah I guess better's not really the right word...Art Tatum was a scientist when it came to that old Left Hand. I just watched a movie yesterday about Miles' carreer, and there is some footage of Herbie at 22 in the Shorter, Williams group. Now there is a goooood player | |
| MRuth -- 06/05/2005, 12:30:39 -- #14569 | |
| Hi Everyone, I am wondering how one person's way or style can be compared with another person's way? Every individual is unique, and brings something that we each can explore. As a jazz piano beginner, I've listened to each of these people(Tatum, Peterson, Williams, Donegan, Hancock, etc. and find it fascinating that sounds have come through them in a distinctive and particular way. How would those of you (professional players and teachers)give advice on listening and absorbing from the "Masters", but yet not become overwhelmed with hero worship.....and perhaps the feeling of "will my fingers ever work?" Thanks for all the interesting ideas and commentary. MRuth | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/05/2005, 13:07:07 -- #14570 | |
| "Now personally, I'd put Phineas Newborn above Oscar Peterson...I think he swings much harder, and is technically almost as brilliant as Oscar, although perhaps not as perfect. The difference is that his technique was employed in a MUCH more tasteful way, and his lines are a lot more interesting. That to me is what makes the pianist" Man, nobody swings harder than Oscar Peterson. And thats an understatement. Nobody that I've listened to even comes close besides of course A.T. Concening Chick Corea, if there was a pianist that I could choose to play like he would be it. JV' | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/05/2005, 13:13:15 -- #14571 | |
| Oh Yea i almost forgot here is a most amzing pianist: 5.Gonzalo Rubalcaba | |
| hepcatmonk -- 06/05/2005, 15:47:57 -- #14577 | |
| jazzvirtuoso- Perhaps we may just have different ideas about what swings. Oscar Peterson swings hard, but I think phineas swings harder. But of course, Erroll Garner swings harder than both of them put together. In my opinion, nobody swings harder than him. | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/05/2005, 16:28:01 -- #14580 | |
| No, I am the final authourity on these matters. I get the last word since its my post. :) Nah, I'm just joking with ya... Your right everyone has their opinion on who's good and whats not etc. Hey maybe theirs a misguided soul in my neck of the woods who thinks Im as good as somebody like art eh? Nah wishful thinking I guess. LOl Peace' JV' | |
| Styles -- 06/05/2005, 18:02:07 -- #14584 | |
| Well JV maybe you could enlighten me? I concede that my knowledge of Art Tatum may not be as extensive as yours... That said, from what I've heard of both Art Tatum and Chick I am pretty sure that Chick could hold his own- in a purely physical sense, "my fingers move as fast as yours" sense. Now many people sleep on Chick because his piano playing is akin to Miles Davis's melodic philosophy- playing the right notes at the right time and keeping long runs to a minimum. He is also primarily recognized for his electric work- which undermines his guised harmonic, melodic, and rythmic capabilities; I strongly recommend his acoustic Concerto album. The orchestral version of Spain is just....damn. And his avant-garde classical compositions are a great vehicle for his ideas. His old stuff with some singer(forgot his name), ecspecially "I ain't mad at you", shows what I mean. I'm no notation pedagogal professor, but I think at one point his is ripping out a solo of 32nd notes or triplets in sexteenth notes on a song whose tempo demand alot of a player just to make a good solo with sixteenth notes without "rambling". There's my piece. I like Art, though definately not as much as you guys. Stride is just not my thing. If you have a specific song title of Tatum's that physically separates him from Chick, Phinneas, and Hancock in the sense that "Hey, those guys could never play what Tatum did even if they had sheet music", then feel free to point it out. I have no problem admitting I'm wrong. | |
| WhatamItalking -- 06/05/2005, 19:05:16 -- #14589 | |
| This thread as it started out has absolutely nothing to do with what pianists you "like better" or which pianists "swing harder" those are entirely different subjects from which pianists had the most advanced technicque. How can you argue for Chick Corea when Chick himself has said in countless interviews that it is Art Tatum without any contest who is the "God" in this category. That would be like betting on Rock to beat Ali in a boxing match when Rock comes out of the corner saying "you are stronger, you are better, you are the God". It has nothing to do with whether you like listening to Chick more than you like listening to Art Tatum. I was confering to an icognito forum member who communicates with me only thru private messages named "Ass +" He said "Why dont people think before they post?" | |
| Styles -- 06/05/2005, 19:22:06 -- #14591 | |
| Of course Chick would say that. ANYBODY who has a brain would never disrespect one of the sole innovators of their art form. Of course Chick wouldn't come out and say: "Oh I'm better than Art Tatum." Chick may come out and say I'm not better than Art Tatum and believe it. That's fine. But through observation of his work beside of tatum's, I still say that in a physical sense Chick is comparable. NOT in the full arrangement quality of Tatum, he's like a whole band on the keyboard. Jelly Roll Morton is also one of the sole innovators of jazz. Because of his arrogance, his name is on nearly noone's lips today. From what I've heard, I'm pretty sure he could also hang with Tatum. Anyway I said I like listening to Chick and not Tatum to emphasize the fact that my knowledge of Tatum is not very large. Consenquently, I left a space open to learn about him. If you have a Tatum song reference, then tell me. pz | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/05/2005, 19:36:11 -- #14593 | |
| Try listening here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00000473S/qid=1118014493/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-6563842-4794239 | |
| Styles -- 06/05/2005, 19:58:15 -- #14595 | |
| That totally sucked Nah just joking But on a more serious note: holy shit. | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/05/2005, 20:16:47 -- #14596 | |
| Holy shit is right! JV' | |
| Mike -- 06/05/2005, 21:12:55 -- #14598 | |
| Maybe you should really learn more about Tatum then before you speak. Because you are really quite ignorant. | |
| Mike -- 06/05/2005, 21:14:20 -- #14599 | |
| I mean why try to speak authoritatively on a subject that you admit every time you speak you know nothing about??? | |
| Mike -- 06/05/2005, 21:15:23 -- #14600 | |
| I'd really like to hear more from this "ASS +" guy who ever he is. | |
| Styles -- 06/05/2005, 23:06:20 -- #14604 | |
| I was wrong and learned something new. So what? Maybe you should try reading a grammar book, because your reading comprehension skills are at the level of the crust on the back of a sea sponge. I never tried to be a know all about anything. I gave my account and EXPECTED a learning experience because I had heard nothing but Fats Waller esque stride from Art Tatum. Where was the genius? You could've just said, "your'e wrong. Here is what's right" , and the matter would've been dropped. So if you don't have anything productive to say about it, then what worth do YOUR ignorant comments carry? I can't even believe I'm arguing with an internet entity. Let me sum it up for you: GO FUCK YOURSELF | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/06/2005, 00:13:25 -- #14609 | |
| Wow, this seems to have gotten a bit out of hand. Hey guys lets just agree to disagree here no need for the snide comments though. Lets all get together and have a drink sometime. JV' | |
| betogar -- 06/06/2005, 00:39:31 -- #14610 | |
| ˇWOW! What can I say? I can spend many ours listening either of them... I think they are piano giants (and musical, arts giants). Have you ever try to compare who is better as a classical composer, Bach or Chopin? Even though they belong to diferent periods in music history, I think Bach is better tahn Chopin... if I've been listening to the Goldberg Variations. But after you listen to Chopin's scherzos or C-sharp minor waltz, you may change your opinion. I couldn´t live without the two of them... so you make the choice about who is better... it's alright. | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/06/2005, 00:48:22 -- #14611 | |
| Well said Betogar! Excellent! JV' | |
| Mike -- 06/06/2005, 01:24:33 -- #14614 | |
| this thread was never about who was better. It was about technique. That is different and a much more quantifiable subject. It would be difficult to compare Bach and Chopins technique becuase there are 1.) No recording of their playing available. 2.) They played entirely different types of music, unlike Chick Corea and Art Tatum for example who are both well recorded playing often the exact same compositions. As for Syles if your obscenities are directed at an internet entity I suppose that is fine, but if they are directed at me or someone else speaking in this thread, personal attacks like that are not allowed nor necessary in this forum. | |
| Dr. Whack -- 06/06/2005, 10:09:16 -- #14632 | |
| Yeah, I'm wondering who Ass+ is too. I've gotten a couple of private messages as well - and very insightful I might add. Makes me wonder who is really hanging out here. many folks like Scot, Mike, 7 etc have made their true identities known, which in my opinion gives their input here more credence...so I'm wondering who folks like mynameis and Jazz+ really are??? another thread perhaps | |
| Dr. Whack -- 06/06/2005, 10:10:43 -- #14633 | |
| sorry...how could I leave out Barry, sid and the maby others? I guess thave haven't been around as much lately -hmmm wonder why?? | |
| Dr. Whack -- 06/06/2005, 10:11:02 -- #14634 | |
| *many, not maby | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/06/2005, 10:31:15 -- #14641 | |
| "this thread was never about who was better. It was about technique. That is different and a much more quantifiable subject. It would be difficult to compare Bach and Chopins technique becuase there are 1.) No recording of their playing available. 2.) They played entirely different types of music, unlike Chick Corea and Art Tatum for example who are both well recorded playing often the exact same compositions. As for Syles if your obscenities are directed at an internet entity I suppose that is fine, but if they are directed at me or someone else speaking in this thread, personal attacks like that are not allowed nor necessary in this forum." --------------------------------------------------------------------- So true just goes to show you that some people don't know and understand the difference between fact and opinion. Jv' | |
| Scot -- 06/06/2005, 10:33:16 -- #14643 | |
| Too much to read :) I love it. Some players I think have that virtuostic technique. The ones you mentioned, Jazz+, are great, but I don't think they have that "Tatumesque" technique we're talking about. I would name some players like the following. I'm only talking about their solo playing. Walter Norris Peter Nero (well, with orchestras and such) Phinneas (you mentioned him) Alan Broadbent Dick Hyman | |
| Scot -- 06/06/2005, 10:45:53 -- #14644 | |
| Too much to read :) I love it. Some players I think have that virtuostic technique. The ones you mentioned, Jazz+, are great, but I don't think they have that "Tatumesque" technique we're talking about. I would name some players like the following. I'm only talking about their solo playing. Walter Norris: Walter plays like he has three hands. There are so many inside melodies surrounded by the rest of the notes he is playing that it's sometimes hard to figure out what is going on. Peter Nero: an acclaimed classical pianist back in the mid part of the century, he started getting into jazz and started out with written out arrangements with orchestras. He could do a fingered chromatic scale from the bottom of the piano to the top before you even realized he started. I believe he still plays in Las Vegas with a trio, but it's not really that good apart from the fact that he still has monster technique (last I heard). Phinneas: What's to say about him? Great technique. Alan Broadbent: this guy has more technique than anyone has a right to have. Perhaps more than Peterson and Tatum in my opinion because he is extremely well rounded, virtuostic, and very very creative in his harmonies and melodies and ideas. Check out the maybeck recital hall recording. Denny Zeitlin: I heard him in a duo with Davis Friesen doing Oleo. I'm not kidding when I say a person couldn't play it any faster and cleaner than Denny did. He also put out an incredible solo recording in the 80's (his debut I think). Dick Hyman: he can play stuff that you wouldn't know wasn't Tatum in one song, in the next you'll swear Oscar is playing. Dick can also emulate just about any other player out there. You would think Chick is sitting there playing Spain. Dick is one of the most versatile pianists alive today in my opinion. He also has his own sound which is a more traditional stride sound. Don Pullen: lesser known player, made a few recordings and then died. A latin player with groove tendencies has some whacky technique and did some strange things on the piano, but he has some fingers that dropped your jaw., Adam Makowicz: Another "three handed" style player with runs as fast if not faster than Oscar and Tatum. Plus a left hand that can do it all as well, but Adam does not rely on his technique. He's just as pleased to be simple in his playing as he is to be complex, so it's a real pleasure hearing stuff to settle you in your chair then pop you right out again. Plus a lot of amazing multivoiced lines... jazz inventions almost at times. Brad Mehldau: I think he has it in him but he is so intensely focused on his melodies and harmonies that he doesn't bust out his chops very often. | |
| Scot -- 06/06/2005, 10:46:43 -- #14645 | |
| (that last message goof up was my fault, not the system's by the way :) | |
| sdm -- 06/06/2005, 13:25:10 -- #14655 | |
| I had a chance to see Broadbent with Charlie Haden recently. He did a solo thing that was simply amazing in both its technical virtuosity and it musicality. He's become a favorite of mine! This makes me wonder (and maybe this is a new thread) who the Art Tatums of our time are. Do you ever know the greats without the perspective of history? | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/06/2005, 14:19:29 -- #14663 | |
| Thats a great question. We would have to exclude Oscar of course because he's from a different generation. Personally, my vote would have to go with Brad Meldau he is in fact amazing and he has it all. JV' | |
| jmkarns -- 06/06/2005, 14:56:07 -- #14664 | |
| I think Keith Jarrett still has some pretty excellent technique. Certainly he is on the board of jazz giants. | |
| sdm -- 06/06/2005, 15:16:32 -- #14668 | |
| You know, I've been kicking myself for months now -- I passed up a chance to see Meldau. Dumb! | |
| jazzlover -- 06/06/2005, 23:53:42 -- #14698 | |
| You guys miss the point -- which is to play BEAUTIFULLY -- technique is merely the means to this end. Having said that, how are you going to compare a pianist who has the annoying habit of turning everything into a blues - with the greatest jazz pianist (period) - Tatum??!! | |
| Dr. Whack -- 06/07/2005, 01:35:14 -- #14700 | |
| Hmmm...I think YOU missed the point. The original question was: Who had the greatest technique out of these two world class pianists? Of course the answer is Art. I surely hope you weren't implying that Oscar turns everything into a blues - if so, you missed a sigificant part of his playing if all you've heard is the bluesy stuff...you oughta check him out, he really is quite fabulous. His ballads are some of the most beautiful, moving playing I've ever heard | |
| Mike -- 06/07/2005, 01:39:53 -- #14701 | |
| since when is turning everything into a blues a bad habit. jmkarns you have an excellent point. But I might argue that Jarrett has the best overall tone of any pianist and the best overall mastery of all technical aspects of piano playing that lead to good tone. This is different from the type of brute force technique that was Tatum's. Tatum was a performer in an age where the piano'a played on were infinitely inferior to the ones Jarrett enjoys, So even if Tatum had tried to develop the type of technique Jarret has it would have been technically impossable in his day. So seeing as the thread begins by comparing Tatum and Peterson I would say we have been talking about that all out smack you in the face Technique which was Tatums rather than the sophisticated, beautiful, all incomplassing and often subtle technique that is Jarretts. | |
| hepcatmonk -- 06/07/2005, 04:01:29 -- #14707 | |
| mike -- please don't take this as a personal attack or something...it seems there's a lot of weird shit going on in this topic so i just want to start with a disclaimer just to make sure you know i'm not entering this with malice or anything.... but i absolutely disagree with your last post, about the way Jarrett and Tatum produced sound. Tatum was well known for playing with a light touch...that was how he so easily executed his fast runs. If you listen to any recordings of him, especially solo recordings, this is apparent, expecially in the tone quality of his ringing chords...listen to the articulation of Art, especially on ballads. Now I find Jarrett's done beautiful as well, but it is EXTREMELY heavy and most definitely brute force, at least for the great body of his recorded work. I mean, listen to the Koln concert...actually, pretty much any solo concert, or the trio stuff...Jarrett has one of the hardest touches I've ever heard. Watch the video of the trio playing and you'll see what i mean. He's putting all of himself into every note. A beautiful thing, but his touch is extremely Heavy, both obvious to my eyes and ears. Jarrett himself said much more recently that his way-too-hard touch and articulation is what caused himself so much playing injury...he found himself going back to the recordings of Bud Powell and listening to how he played with an extremely light and delicate touch, in an extremely flowing way, and that was what has guided his most recent work and technical goals. Also...my books about the history of the piano state that the changes between the concert grand from the beginning of the 20th century to today have been pretty negligible...the changes to the piano that facilitated "light playing" took place during the mid to late 19th century. Just some things to think about. | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/07/2005, 10:23:54 -- #14712 | |
| I might add to that the fact that Jarret's piano playing never did that much for me, I like his ballad playing and his rendition of when I fall in love and a few others are very nice, he also did some nice things with "all the things you are", other than those few things his playing just doesnt do it for me. But then again neither does herbies. To me ears theres a world of difference betwen someone like keith Jaret and Bill Evans. I have probably about 6 or more bill evans transcription books, not including the bill evans fake book. I have tried listening to him but i cant stand to listen for more than probably 30 min or so at a time. Bill evans, chick corea besides Oscar Peterson and Art tatum is in my opinion the three greatest jazz pianists of all time but of course I realize that this is a very subjective thing too. But as mike brought out earlier technique isnt. :) Peace Jv' | |
| Styles -- 06/07/2005, 12:18:31 -- #14720 | |
| Mike, make no mistake. Those obscenities were primarily and solely directed at YOU. Also, I don't give two shits what is neccessary and what isn't when it comes to responding to comments like "you are quite ignorant." However, that makes two times in this thread I've been wrong. My fault. pz | |
| Mike -- 06/08/2005, 03:30:42 -- #14743 | |
| I am glad your obscenities were directed at me. You should really try thinking before you post. If you decide to resort to vulgararities you should make it clear so as not to risk offending a non skin hardened veteran such as myself. The fact that you are ignorant about this simple device of conversational caution is much more important than your talking about Tatum when you are ignorant. I am sure at this point Scot wants this conversation to end. If you feel it necessary to continur this absurd talk private msg me otherwise: good luck learning how to better respond to comments like "you are quite ignorant", so that you end up looking like a man with a brain rather than a monkey who just slipped and fell on his own excrement. | |
| Styles -- 06/08/2005, 11:21:15 -- #14753 | |
| Lol at this I'm a person that likes resolution, and hopefully my last words concerning this matter will facilitate such ending. Scot, please allow a final exchange for this purpose. It does not matter to me wether you are a veteran that has been here since this site's conception. I wouldn't expect anyone to be afraid of that, and such position is no justification to say another person is ignorant. You might know more than the next person, but the less experienced person has the capacity to be taught something new. Conversely, I also suggest caution in your words. Words like ignorant have different meanings to different people, but personally it is a direct insult to things that mean alot to me. What you said may have been true in the Art Tatum discussion. But you can't say that stuff to another person without expecting a response. In principle, you were wrong. In a similar situation, ecspecially when JV provided correction already, correction is alot less offensive than insults. I knew little about Tatum and made inaccurate comparisons between his physical ability and that of Chick Corea. I was wrong, and be strict definition, IGNORANT of the truth. Being natured the way I am, I let fly with vulgarity towards someone else on a forum which has rules that doesn't allow such antics. I was wrong. I didn't use caution. I was wrong. Even though I don't appreciate your last comments, I'll assume that the meaning of my last post was misunderstood. I'll clarify: My fault. An equal term of substitution is I Apologize. | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/08/2005, 11:39:29 -- #14755 | |
| Hi fellows take a listen to some of these pianists and tell me what you think: Walter Norris Peter Nero: Phinneas: Alan Broadbent: Denny Zeitlin: Dick Hyman: Don Pullen: Adam Makowicz: Brad Mehldau: JV' | |
| Dr. Whack -- 06/08/2005, 13:39:31 -- #14765 | |
| they all suck... (just kidding:) | |
| jmkarns -- 06/08/2005, 16:07:56 -- #14771 | |
| I saw Nero in concert back in the 80's, but I can't recall that his playing was all that memorable. I like Mehldau, and think that he is a new talent worth listening to. | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/08/2005, 17:49:26 -- #14778 | |
| Yep, when I listen to them they sound okay some even sound awesome (think mheldau)but to me and my ears nothing like oscar, or art. But I asked everyone else to listen to get their feedback, because sometimes it good to question not only what we like but why. JV' | |
| Mike -- 06/08/2005, 19:17:03 -- #14780 | |
| yeh they all suck except Phineas and Pullen who are dead. | |
| fcbuccino -- 06/08/2005, 19:38:52 -- #14781 | |
| For his time there was no one better. Teddy Wilson fcb | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/08/2005, 22:10:46 -- #14787 | |
| "For his time there was no one better. Teddy Wilson" Amen to that brother! JV' | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/08/2005, 22:13:40 -- #14788 | |
| Oh yea I just remember two players that I admire very much one is 1. Jessica Williams 2. Mulgrew Miller Has anyone here actually listened to these two fabulous pianist's? JV' | |
| hepcatmonk -- 06/09/2005, 03:12:52 -- #14793 | |
| yeah, i've heard both and both are great. however I like Mulgrew the most. he's just a really great person and consummate pianist. shit. | |
| Mike -- 06/09/2005, 09:04:37 -- #14798 | |
| The problem is that you guys insist on turning a thread that started out being about what pianist had the best technique of all time into a thread about who is a great pianist. Sure all these guys you all are mentioning are great, they just clearly do not have the best technique of all time. There is only one such holder of that category. His name was Art Tatum. Really the teachers of the Forum are just trying to provide a simple answer to a straight forward question. It reminds me of a class I was in at Bezerkly where in a class a Proffessor asked students what their favorite Jazz band was. One kid answered "Steely Dan". The proffessor said "that may be your favorite band but they are not a jazz group. The kid tried to debate the Proffessor on this point. It was of cours a pathetic debate, Steely Dan obviously being a rock/pop group, But the kid was not willing to learn he was too emotionally envolved with the idea that Steely Dan plays jazz to see reality. | |
| sdm -- 06/09/2005, 12:23:08 -- #14807 | |
| OTOH, they (Steely Dan) did a pretty nice set with Marian McPartland. :) | |
| Jazz+ -- 06/09/2005, 13:59:43 -- #14813 | |
| Don Pullen would be the weakest link on that previous list, although I enjoyed his playing and new him. | |
| paddyallen -- 06/09/2005, 18:38:45 -- #14823 | |
| IMHO it's is always risky to,make comparisons between two musicians that play different styles. Admittedly similar but not that much. It is therefore down to one's own choice. Or in my case there is no choice. I like both because they are different. I have only a very small video recording of Art which is not surprising as he recorded much less than Oscar, though I have nearly all of both artists in LP and CD. I like live recordings or even better live performances. This refers to Oscar. I was in my late 30's then late 1960's I saw him in England on tour and he became what I would say were his very best years late 70's. Try the DVD Norman Grantz at Montreux 1977; Indianna and Sweet Georgia Brown two fantastic renditions! and more. Problem is seeing what I want to see, his hands, when the director thnks we want to see the inside of the Bosendorfer or how much the guy is sweating. Why is it that recordings made for music lovers, have such silly camera angles often? I have not heard Phineus but have actually been to two Teddy Wilson concerts in England again in late 60's actually spoke to him and bought an LP from him, another of my top choices. I will not make comparisons, though as I think it unfair 'specially as I'm no pianist to judge others anyhow. Alan | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/09/2005, 19:05:40 -- #14825 | |
| The problem is that you guys insist on turning a thread that started out being about what pianist had the best technique of all time into a thread about who is a great pianist. Sure all these guys you all are mentioning are great, they just clearly do not have the best technique of all time. There is only one such holder of that category. His name was Art Tatum. Really the teachers of the Forum are just trying to provide a simple answer to a straight forward question. It reminds me of a class I was in at Bezerkly where in a class a Proffessor asked students what their favorite Jazz band was. One kid answered "Steely Dan". The proffessor said "that may be your favorite band but they are not a jazz group. The kid tried to debate the Proffessor on this point. It was of cours a pathetic debate, Steely Dan obviously being a rock/pop group, But the kid was not willing to learn he was too emotionally envolved with the idea that Steely Dan plays jazz to see reality." Well, i agree with you about Art Tatum IMHO he is the holder of the title. Again, most people even people who aren't musicians themselves cuz i conducted an experiment) can tell you who they think has the most technique, speed clarity out of two pianists. As you have mentioned this is something that is quantifiable in other words it can be judged and even measured. When I have conducted this experiment in the past on Art Tatum Vs. Oscar Peterson or Art vs any other pianists I have never not once had a non-musicain or even a Pro pianists say that they think that some other jazz pianists had more technique than Art. I start out by telling them to forget about what music you like or disklike But tell them to judge soley on technique, same answer it never fails. And when people claim that some other pianists was better than Art I just laugh it off, cuz I know that they either are: A. A liar(dont wont to admit it) people do get jelous of talent sometimes or.. B. Haven't really listened JV' | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/10/2005, 10:13:35 -- #14857 | |
| Hey mike was berkley hard to get into? And what did the professor have to say about Art tatum and Oscar Peterson. JV' | |
| Mike -- 06/10/2005, 10:39:16 -- #14859 | |
| yes it is worth learning all the number combinations: That is how all modern day theoretical anaylsis is done in music. The order you learn the books in does not matter so much as that you study them all. It has been a long time since I studied them so I cant remember I think you would have to study the book where he explains what bII#5 is before you start the book that just starts using that stuff. | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/10/2005, 11:56:53 -- #14861 | |
| Oh, Uh, er'em don't look now but I think you replied to the wrong thread cuz you used the same reply for the "learning classical before jazz thread". Or, was that a system error. I've noticed some other strange things and oddities about this system as far as posting is concerned as well. JV' | |
| Styles -- 06/10/2005, 15:02:00 -- #14870 | |
| Mozart or Chopin could hang with him | |
| ziggysane -- 06/10/2005, 15:16:24 -- #14872 | |
| Actually, Mozart had several technical faults, most notably an inability to play in paralell thirds, that he covered up by simply avoiding them completely in his music. Chopin, although his technique was very sound, was a rather weak player due to his sickly physical condition. This is why most of his music is beautiful but lacks the Thunder of, say, Beethoven or Liszt. I'm throwing my vote in with Art personally. THe cat could do it all. | |
| CynBad -- 06/10/2005, 15:58:29 -- #14874 | |
| "Actually, Mozart had several technical faults, most notably an inability to play in paralell thirds, that he covered up by simply avoiding them completely in his music. Chopin, although his technique was very sound, was a rather weak player due to his sickly physical condition. This is why most of his music is beautiful but lacks the Thunder of, say, Beethoven or Liszt." LOL WHERE DO YOU GET THIS STUFF? TRY PLAYING THE REVOLUTIONARY ETUDE OR MOST OF THE CHOPIN ETUDES AND GET A CLUE. I have a suggestion for all of us: SHUT UP AND PLAY | |
| ziggysane -- 06/10/2005, 16:33:22 -- #14875 | |
| Okay... 1. That was meant to be a commentary more on the composers as technique as pianists than their music. However parts of it were sloppy particularly the remark about the thirds since Mozart didn't avoid them "entirely," although it was one of his primary weaknesses. 2. The facts about the composers themselves are historically verified. I take it you don't want to hear historical insight from now on? | |
| CynBad -- 06/10/2005, 16:48:11 -- #14876 | |
| Think we can get this thread up to 100 posts? Let me quote a fine musical mind, bassist David Friesen: "Comparisons will kill you." I've actually played all the composers you're talking about, seriously. You cannot compare them -- apples and oranges. It takes a completely different technique to play Mozart than to play Liszt, for example. I'm just pointing out that whether someone was "sickly" or not has nothing to do with technique or whether their music was "thunderous". If you actually study (meaning learn, practice, play) this music, it will give you much more insight than these anecdotes and strangely-drawn conclusions. | |
| CynBad -- 06/10/2005, 16:49:15 -- #14877 | |
| By the way, I hate Mozart. | |
| CynBad -- 06/10/2005, 16:51:53 -- #14878 | |
| And Beethoven was sickly his whole entire life. He was a mean-tempered, grouchy old dude. I think we're up to 93 now. | |
| ziggysane -- 06/10/2005, 17:02:42 -- #14879 | |
| I agree with you on the comparisons comment. They sure are fun though, aren't they? | |
| Dr. Whack -- 06/10/2005, 18:10:13 -- #14881 | |
| C'mon - 5 more! what's the record? I wasn't paying attention - I was actually practicing :) I liek Cynbad's "SHUT UP AND PLAY" | |
| ziggysane -- 06/10/2005, 18:54:50 -- #14882 | |
| I'm pretty sure that the record is for The whether or not Glenn Gould (and thus every classical pianist) is an artist. That one was over 100, though it was intentionally bumped quite a bit near the last 20 or so. | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/10/2005, 18:58:53 -- #14883 | |
| "It takes a completely different technique to play Mozart than to play Liszt, for example" Right, and thats what alot of people dont understand, just cuz you can play one well don't mean you can play the other well. In my opinon and this is prbably fodder for another thread, but bach is something that has done wonders for my playing. JV' | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/10/2005, 19:00:54 -- #14884 | |
| Actually bach (im sure some will disagree) is about the closest you can get to jazz. JV' | |
| JayBrooks -- 06/10/2005, 19:38:59 -- #14886 | |
| JV -- "Right, and thats what alot of people dont understand, just cuz you can play one well don't mean you can play the other well." This is an apt acknowledgment on your part, which you don't seem to understand undermines the entire premise of your original question. That is, there is no single overarching "technique" which allows us to say, "Fred has more 'technique' than Jane". Technique, rather, is a multifaceted concept and cannot be viewed in such a monolithic way as we are doing in this entire thread. | |
| CynBad -- 06/10/2005, 19:41:08 -- #14887 | |
| And this brings us to 100! Yee-hah! Do I win the Gould recording of the Goldberg Variations? | |
| hepcatmonk -- 06/10/2005, 21:16:10 -- #14897 | |
| Nope, no prize, but you might say the honor of having post 100 is "Good as Gould." | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/10/2005, 22:34:14 -- #14900 | |
| "This is an apt acknowledgment on your part, which you don't seem to understand undermines the entire premise of your original question. That is, there is no single overarching "technique" which allows us to say, "Fred has more 'technique' than Jane". Technique, rather, is a multifaceted concept and cannot be viewed in such a monolithic way as we are doing in this entire thread. " Jaybrooks you just illustrated your stupidity better than anyone elsehere could. The original question was who had more technique Art or Oscar? When I said "just because you can play one well doesn't mean you can play the other I was talking purely about classical music. Which btw Art had enough technique to play anything well. See were are not conducting guessing games. The world greatest musicans people like howoritz, oscar peterson, and many, many others have all said that Art' was the man. Who are you so that we should listen to your voice? Are you a world class pianist? How many students have you taught? I have taught and played and performed professionaly, have you? You demonstrate that you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion. But as far as technique is concerned yes that is quantifiable that is something that can be measured. Its obvious when you listen to a piainist if he's a virtuoso or not and even to what degree. I lost respect for you when you said this: "Ok - so now to stir up some controversy: What do you guys think is so great about Tatum anyway, besides his ability to play really really really fast? Dr. Whack, you said it took you a while to see his merits, and I think maybe I'm at the point where you were where I just don't get what all the fuss is about. I mean, sure he's got monstrous technique, but to me, everything he plays is extremely one-dimensional -- always fast, incredibly dense/active, constant pentatonic runs all over the place (even in his comping, which I personally think is especially atrocious and self-indulgent). I can understand why pianists would worship this ability, but I can't see why any other musicians would want to listen to more than 10 seconds of it. Can somebody please edify me? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Personally, I think your green with enevy and Jelousy. Shame, shame, shame on you. If you could only hope to be blessed with even a tenth of arts talent you'd be a very lucky man. But you dont seem to know what true talent is. Shame on you! JV' | |
| JayBrooks -- 06/10/2005, 23:25:31 -- #14903 | |
| First of all, in case your inflammatory response was due to my post in the other thread, I would like to clear up that I actually didn't intend that as an insult. Looking back on it now I can see how it obviously could be interepreted that way, and for that I apologize. I simply meant that you seem to be unafraid to post provocative discussion questions and offer clear opinions about things, where many others seem timid to do so, and honestly, I (as well as others I'm sure) appreciate that about your posts. Now, on to your response here (I'll let the personal attacks slide assuming they were retaliatory): "Who are you so that we should listen to your voice? Are you a world class pianist? How many students have you taught? I have taught and played and performed professionaly, have you?" Yes I have taught and performed professionally, although I don't quite see the relevance of that given that this is an open forum for anyone to post their ideas. You never prefaced your original question with "only established professionals need respond", so what difference does it make? If you don't like my (or anyone else's) opinion, then just disregard it, whether we're pros or not. As for the "fact" of Art's superior technique -- I still maintain that technique is not one single entity that can be objectively measured between different people. Certain elements of technique do seem more objective (e.g., how fast someone can play a scale), but I view technique as a much broader concept. Horowitz , for instance, once described technique as the ability to conjure up many different sounds out of the piano, which is certainly different from sheer dexterity. Tatum could certainly play fast, but did he have this other sound producing element of technique? Maybe, but that warrants discussion too, and we should be careful not to oversimplify. Also, if technique is in fact so objective, verifiable, and "obvious", and if anyone who disagrees with your assessment of Art's supremacy is either "A) lying or B) haven't really listened" as you say, then I wonder why you would post this question in the first place since you already know the answer. As for your losing respect for me because I'm apparently not as big a Tatum fan as you are -- well, that's obviously your prerogative, but if you base your respect for other people solely on the extent to which they agree with you, then I think you'll be very disappointed with most people. Diversity really is what makes the world go round, as cheesy as that sounds. And I think diversity of ideas and opinions only helps a site like this -- I mean what fun would it be if everyone thought the same way?? So again, I apologize for the apparent connotation of my other post, but I hardly think that other people's disagreements with you on this topic warrants such outright dismissal. | |
| Mike -- 06/10/2005, 23:39:11 -- #14904 | |
| hm, when did you hear Mozart or Chopin play? | |
| Styles -- 06/10/2005, 23:52:05 -- #14906 | |
| When it comes down to listenable music, he may have truth in his words I'd listen to Tatum shit on the piano, so listening to his ambitious solo work is nothing, a bit overkill, but wow But his most compatible group work is probably the most listenable, and for me satisfying music. It's like listening to Bill Evans only ten times the talent. | |
| Styles -- 06/10/2005, 23:54:59 -- #14908 | |
| Look up his group joint "Hallelujah" to see what I'm talking about That comping is just damn ridiculous | |
| Styles -- 06/11/2005, 00:04:50 -- #14910 | |
| I just found out that I had heard a dumbed down version of Tiger Rag and have just presently heard the real one. As a classical and jazz pianist I think just listened to perfection. I no longer have anything more to say about Art Tatum, I'll just listen. | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/11/2005, 00:07:32 -- #14911 | |
| Yes he was an IMHO once in a lifetime muscian. As Oscar Peterson would say "He was touched by the hand of Jehovah God". JV' | |
| Mike -- 06/11/2005, 08:51:28 -- #14920 | |
| yeh, Bill Evans and Art Tatum had about as much in common as Hulk Hogan and Angela Jolie. | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/11/2005, 16:07:17 -- #14944 | |
| To scott and others here that I have offended please accept my apology. JV' | |
| 7 -- 06/11/2005, 16:18:46 -- #14946 | |
| In order for your apology to be fully accepted, you must upload a midi file of your greatest work to date and then let us criticize it and publicly ridicule your playing. Only after having endured this sadistic hazing ritual will you become truly accepted and made privy to the mysterious secrets of the undying ancients who have ruled this site since the dawn of time itself. LOL | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/11/2005, 16:37:59 -- #14948 | |
| Okay, sounds like a good idea my friend! JV' | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/11/2005, 16:38:10 -- #14949 | |
| Okay, sounds like a good idea my friend! LOL... JV' | |
| antiJV -- 06/11/2005, 18:25:08 -- #14962 | |
| What a snobby tart, and how arrogant, its people like you who put people off jazz and musicians in general. | |
| antiJV -- 06/11/2005, 18:55:52 -- #14965 | |
| This comment was quite a way back but i just read it and im afraid ziggysane was right: 'Chopin, although his technique was very sound, was a rather weak player due to his sickly physical condition. This is why most of his music is beautiful but lacks the Thunder of, say, Beethoven or Liszt.' Chopin only could play between 'PPP' and i think '(i)m(/i)F'. So people need to watch what there saying. There seems a HUGE divide and problem with classical music on this site and i think it needs to be sorted. Maybe a new thread so people can battle it out?!?!?!!! | |
| 7 -- 06/11/2005, 21:46:47 -- #14972 | |
| antiJV, Pull my finger | |
| Ole Tymuh -- 06/12/2005, 07:21:03 -- #14986 | |
| Believe it or not: I shared many a steak dinner with Art Tatum at the old EMBERS more than 50 years ago. How I loved that man. Ole Tymuh | |
| 7 -- 06/12/2005, 12:25:01 -- #15003 | |
| How did he like his steak done? Did he cut with his right or left hand? What kinds of things did you talk about? Did he ever talk with his mouth full? Did you pay for the dinners or did he? Just joking. You're a really lucky guy! | |
| Mike -- 06/12/2005, 17:07:38 -- #15014 | |
| Actually I would like to know all those things and anything else you can tell us about Art Tatum. Please Please tell us more!!! | |
| Mike -- 06/13/2005, 01:52:32 -- #15033 | |
| antijv could it simply be that the name of this site is Learn JAZZ piano and not "Learn Classical Piano" so that people that come here are logically hoping to talk about Jazz piano instead of Classsical that is at least in the United States already disproportionately covered. | |
| optat -- 06/14/2005, 01:22:28 -- #15086 | |
| Hello to everyone! I know that nobody here recognizes me posting anything. That's because I haven't. But I have been coming to this forum for about 4 years now on a consistent basis to read what everyone else has to post and I usually love it. I also am not a beginner when it comes to playing jazz piano or listening to jazz. Of all of the posts that I have read this one has to be the one that I have contemplated with myself for the entire time I have into jazz. It seems like almost everyone who posts has put in their two cents on this and I couldn't hold back any longer on mine. Fisrt, I must make it clear that my two favorite musicians are Art Tatum and Oscar Peterson at nearly a dead tie, so do not have very much bias as far as preference of style. The original post had to do with technique. In "my opinion" I feel that these two piano players obtain the top two spots in jazz, if not any other genre of music, for technique. It seems like everyone agreed that Art had an astounding technique, and I more than anybody would defend that whole heartedly. Out of all 120 posts there was very little analysis or credit given to Oscar. In this post I basically want to give him credit on his technique that, once again in "MY OPINION", I feel is on par with Art's. The reason why I feel that my opinion deserves merit is because I have transriptions of both artists and have transcribed some of each musicians most difficult peaces to play, technically speaking (get it :) ) Aspects: Stride: this obviously has to do with their left hand's. In Art's case take Tiger Rag, because if you haven't heard it you have no say in Art's technique. At the tempo that he takes this song at he plays stride so clean and doesn't dilute it to jumping smaller intervals. In Oscar's case he has, on many recordings, played stride at tempos in the same range as Tiger Rag. My case in point would be his Solo/Live CD done in the mid 1970's or his sessions with the trumpet kings (Diz, Roy, Sweets, Clark Terry, and Faddis). In this technical aspect they both play this technique in the most efficient and clean manor that might have ever been captivated on recording. I am not trying to be a smart allic(?) but if anyone has any recordings where the element of stride is played with better technique I would be delighted to hear it. Right-hand Runs: anybody here who loves solo jazz piano instantly should think Art Tatum when they hear the word run in a musical context. While Art is the one who took runs to the highest jump in level at his time (not the first to exploit runs), they almost all used only three fingers. This is not to say or take away at all of the difficulty of the runs but, some of the runs that I have on transcription (Chicago Blues) and that I have done myself (Perdido) require you to use your pinky or ring finger during the runs. Technically this is not as easy of a thumb under move and takes more practice to this to get the notes to come out more even in time with the proper dynamics. This would be one case for sure where Oscar and Art are equal in one aspect, if not, surprisingly, I would give Oscar the edge (just MY OPINION). (Independent of right-hand) Left-hand lines/runs: In Art's playing he has always put to use runs in the left-hand while doing something seperate from that in his right. In the transcriptions that I have of him where he uses this it is usually something that is in 16th notes and ocasionally very scalar, but what he is doing in the right hand at the time of those runs would make it that much more difficult to play correctly(Smoke Gets in Your Eyes). His clarity on these left-hand runs is nearly perfect. Of those left-hand runs he very rarely plays something that is more melodic and would require more thought or technical concentration. In Oscar's case he employs this technique in different ways which makes it hard to compare but still just as easy to marvel at in its technical difficulty and his execution. One way in which Oscar does this is can be heard on his trio CD Live At Zardi's where he plays the ballad Laura. His independence in both of his hands here is obvious but the focus should be on his left hand. Much of what he does here is arppegiate chords but not in the simple fashion only spanning a tenth or so, but up to two octaves and coming back down. This is something he obviously learned and perfected with his classical training but when you do what he does in both hands at the same time it makes it very hard for the left have to play the figures that he does and does it with a nearly emaculate technique. Another example of this aspect can be drawn off of the second disc of the same CD just mentioned called Surrey With The Fringe On Top. At one point during his solo, which is taken well over 300 b.p.m., while his right hand is playing an ascending melodic pattern you can hear his left hand do a descending run that spans at least two octaves with great clarity in both hands. You must hear this example to believe it. On a track called Carnegie Blues(1950) off his 1950-1952 Chronological Classic CD he takes one of the first left-hand only bebop-phrased solos ever in jazz. Bebop lines don't usually give way very easy to the left-hand so at the time this was a revolutionary new idea that had to be practiced and, thus, the technique was created. It is not the best but it is far from the worst, and still difficult to most even after a small amount of practice. Two-fisted lines(one line, both hands at same time): Art didn't do a whole lot of this (Cocktails For Two), most likely not because he couldn't (wouldn't that have been something to hear if he did it more). Oscar claims in his autobiography that created this technique (or at least introduced it in jazz). He might never be out-done in this category in my opinion. A lot of the lines that he plays in both hands require extremely difficult fingerings, yet the sounds that the piano made when he did this were so crystal clear that you sometimes have to really listen hard to be able to tell if the line was being played in the left hand as well as the right. There are so many examples of him doing this at such a high level but one stands out in my mind right now and that is Nica's Dream off of the Exclusively For My Friends box set and a very early one that I have on his 1949-1950 CD is appropriately titled Debut because it was his American recording debut. Dynamics: as far as control for dynamics they both had complete control of that. Some might say that Art may not have but in MY OPINION he just didn't feel compelled to use it so much, seeing as jazz "requires" you to play what you feel or hear. One thing that Art used to do with his control of dynamics was his accenting of notes in the left hand, particularly a seventh or tenth while one or more notes was being played in the same hand at the same time. This can be heard in one of his early versions of After You've Gone. The tone that those notes had rang and chimed so well without neglecting the other notes in the chord. Oscar's dynamic control was showcased more in his right hand while playing lines and in both hands during a solo song. As far as his right-hand lines go any recording he made after the mid 1950's shows this really well(Nica's Dream is one example). An example of his solo dynamic control is very well diplayed on Little Girl Blue on his My Favorite Instrument CD. Right-hand octaves: neither musician used this to a great extent but did use it from time to time. The more difficult use of this technique for both men was done with good technique but not shown very much by either (perhaps by choice). Linear approach in right-hand: Art played lines in his right hand that were so fast and clear at times you would think that the piano was humming. Listen to any recording by Art to determine that (Tiger Rag always works). I never want to take anything away from Art's technique, seeing as I THINK it is the greatest along with Peterson's, but his choice of notes was a little more conventional than Oscar's judging by playing through transcriptions of both men. Oscar's lines are as fast as Art's sometimes, not all of the time, but are typically much harder to play because of their neglect for convention purposes. In MY OPINION both men, though, did have the same amount of technical facility in this category of technique. While this is not nearly all of the aspects (which is impossible to determine) of my efforts of, "trying" to describe in words, quantifying technique, there are countless other things that both men had unique to each other such as block chords(Oscar) or the numerous technical devices that Art owns that can be taken into consideration when evaluating these two musicians' techniques. I know this may seem like I am siding more towards Oscar but I truthfully am not. I just wanted to give him the credit that this post was devoid of in his favor. Like I said earlier they are both equally my two favorite musicians and I have given this a lot of thought. I could have said a lot more on their music as a whole, but I wanted to stick to the main point for this one, TECHNIQUE, since it was the original point and an integral part of this artform. I know this may seem like a lot, but for people who take this artform seriously these two men have accomplished enough, musically, to have just this aspect, TECHNIQUE, analyzed and appreciated to an even greater extent than what I have said. So as anyone has the freedom to criticize these men for their music, and although it is my opinion, I feel it should be fully understood that it is their technique that can be appreciated by any knowledgeable student of music. Thank you to anyone who actually read all of this and considered what I had to say, as I have been doing for all of you for about four years now. Anthony | |
| Seb -- 06/14/2005, 06:39:32 -- #15096 | |
| Wow!! Great post optat, thanks so much for all these info :))) That was a real lesson Feel free to say more on their music whenever you want :) You'll have at least one reader who will love it | |
| Mike -- 06/14/2005, 09:04:30 -- #15097 | |
| nice post Anthony. | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/14/2005, 09:44:26 -- #15101 | |
| Hey man great post, I just thought I make an observation on this part: 'Right-hand octaves: neither musician used this to a great extent but did use it from time to time. The more difficult use of this technique for both men was done with good technique but not shown very much by either (perhaps by choice).' I disagree with you on this. Oscar used ocatave's quite a bit. In fact if your listening you can hear him do it all the time, esp when he was playing a blues. Think of songs like Blues for Big Scotia, Chicago Blues too. He even does this on standards think of songs like All the things you are Autumn Leaves Etc. Of course there are a few songs where he use them sparingly think of songs like night nightingale where he waits to bar 187 to start playing them. Another one of his devices was to sometimes intersperse these ocatves on dominant chords with the third or 13th. Oscar plays so fast that its hard to catch all of these nuances. Even on his own compositions Like hymn to freedom in bars 38, 39, 48, 49, 50, 53, 55 all illustrate beautiful ocataves, he often played them unsupported or as he himself said: "I use double ocataves alot when I'm playing with bass players cuz they always trying to overpower piano players" Not to critize you here but this fact is so obvious that it begs the question name some songs where he didn't do this at least once? I would certainly like to hear them! JV' | |
| Dr. Whack -- 06/14/2005, 11:41:15 -- #15105 | |
| Welcome Anthony! The water's fine - a little too warm sometimes, but very nice:) I think we all love and respect both of these amazing players. It is kinda silly to debate technique over music -hehe, but nevertheless, the question was asked, so we all answered. I think though that is also important to be careful assessing a jazz artist's playing by analyzing transcriptiions (not that you did that exclusively, just wanting to make point in hopes of achieving 200 posts:) I personally have never seen a transcription that was accurate. Now I haven't seen a lot of them either - mainly because the one's I've seen were not good, and I'd rather listen for myself...but it does seem to me to beg a bit of caution. As I listen to some of Oscar's two-octave apart solo lines, as amazing as they are and as much as I love him, I can hear him cheating on the left hand (light drop outs hear and there). A transcription might actually show what was intended to be played. Also, as you mentioned in his stride playing, sometimes he will "dilute it to jumping smaller intervals" Still but very cool, but a form of cheating the style a bit. I cannot say that I have ever heard Art, "cheat" on anything... Thanks for chiming in! (and reading my drivel) | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/14/2005, 12:48:17 -- #15108 | |
| Well said Whack, even Oscar himself would tell you that he wasn't a completley authentic Stride player. If the people here making posts would by the oscar peterson multimedia cd-rom and listen to it and in conjunction to that read his journal, alot of these questions would be cleared up prety fast. By a show of hands please, how many here have read his journal and listened to the multimedia Cd? JV' | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/15/2005, 13:35:14 -- #15149 | |
| Anyone? JV' | |
| Dr. Whack -- 06/15/2005, 14:57:56 -- #15155 | |
| judging by the responses, I would guess no one has - including me...I'll check em out | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/19/2005, 16:16:02 -- #15294 | |
| Yep, that would clear up any questions about oscar's style and give you stuff to work on for quite a while. JV' | |
| Styles -- 06/19/2005, 17:28:43 -- #15295 | |
| Don Pullen is pretty good | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/20/2005, 00:23:12 -- #15305 | |
| Yes he is, but its been a while since I've listened isnt he deceased? JV' | |
| Mike -- 06/20/2005, 01:59:24 -- #15307 | |
| He died in April 1995. What did he have to do with a thread about Tatum and Peterson anyways? And "pretty good" is a gross understatement or downright insulting when it comes to the work Don Pullen did. | |
| Styles -- 06/20/2005, 12:57:41 -- #15332 | |
| Don Pullen is pretty frikkin awesome totally and utterly | |
| jletourn -- 06/20/2005, 14:06:50 -- #15334 | |
| "By a show of hands please, how many here have read his journal and listened to the multimedia Cd?" I don't know what his journal is, but I've read through the book/CD set of his transcribed solos. Seemed fairly accurate, and I liked seeing how some of those voicings worked, especially on the Pablo double-album set from which many of the transcriptions were taken (my favorite of his albums, actually). That said, I'm not that interested in learning more about Oscar Peterson's playing, so I'll duck out now. | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/20/2005, 15:48:58 -- #15338 | |
| Hey, actually I agree with you. I myself find it far more useful to dissect the playing of someone like Bill Evans. But, then again even Oscar Peterson has studied evans and had alot of respect for him. JV' | |
| jletourn -- 06/20/2005, 16:07:49 -- #15340 | |
| I don't know if you're talking to me, JV, but if so, I don't doubt that OP remained curious about other players throughout his career. Even if his style didn't really change drastically because of this, he seems like the sort of intelligent person who would be interested in transcribing, studying, listening closely to others just for the sake of keeping busy (although I imagine his time was fairly limited, being on the road so much). At any rate, I didn't intend to "disrespect" OP -- I'm just personally not interested in his RH enough to study him. And, let's face it, among the many pianists who didn't play in OP's style, the reason for avoiding his ebullience wasn't just because they had someplace else to go; frankly, most of the excellent pianists one admires simply *couldn't* play like OP, technically, even if they wanted to. Count me among these people, I suppose. I'm surprised (maybe) nobody's mentioned his playing on dates like the Lester Young Meets the OP Trio (Verve) and such -- that's my favorite of his playing, when he when he can swing along quite nicely with a superb soloist taking many of the melodic duties. | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/20/2005, 16:26:28 -- #15341 | |
| Hey Jletourn I'm with you all the way man. JV' | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/24/2005, 00:17:03 -- #15507 | |
| How many here think that being able to play fast is the primary ingredient in being a virtuoso? JV' | |
| SolArt -- 06/24/2005, 05:54:39 -- #15515 | |
| Not me. However as to regarding speed it depends WHAT lines & such you're playing fast,(of course) not just any ol' bun'cha notes. However I would like to add that past a certain threshold indeed in places any old PASSING notes as super-greased lightning do the trick applied between "correct or working" notes! To illustrate not in every key does a white-key glissando sound OK, & in many not all of those notes "fit" but it works none-the-less especially at higher speeds. However I would say the listeners/audience have the misconception it IS the speed in determining a virtuoso. Virtuosity (Webster's New World Dictionary)-great technical skill in some fine art, esp. in the performance of music. So according to that definition "great technical skill" would seem to encompass speed as well. | |
| Dr. Whack -- 06/24/2005, 09:56:55 -- #15520 | |
| To me a "virtuoso" is someone who executes musical ideas flawlessy and effortlessly | |
| 7 -- 06/24/2005, 14:08:58 -- #15537 | |
| A Classical virtuoso is one who can execute their repertoire with technical perfection while still infusing deep and powerful passion. A Jazz virtuoso also exudes great passion, but I would have to say that another aspect is appropriateness. That is to say that the Jazz virtuoso will alway play exactly what complements the current musical situation. Merely playing fast without playing with the correct feel and/or phrasing is not virtuosity. Although every virtuoso is capable of playing fast. A Rock virtuoso also exudes great passion, but I would have to say that another aspect is in-your-face-ness. That is to say that the Rock virtuoso will alway play exactly what complements his current tight leather jeans. | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/25/2005, 15:51:51 -- #15605 | |
| Ok, then so in you opinon are the following people virtuoso's? 1.Bill Evans 2.Chick Corea 3.Bud Powell 4.Dave Grusin 5.Mcoy Tyner 6.Mulgrew Miller 7.Jessica Williams 8.Duke Ellington 9.Thelonius Monk 10.Herbie Hancock 11.Ahmad Jamal 12.Marcus Roberts 13.Kenny Barron 14.Gene Harris 15.*Gonzalo Rubalcaba* 16.Andre Previn 17.*Keith Jarrett* ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Please also list your reasons why this person wouldn't be considered a virtuoso. Ie, not fast enough, musical enough, accurate enough etc. JV' | |
| Dr. Whack -- 06/25/2005, 16:04:37 -- #15607 | |
| they all suck...:) (just kidding) | |
| 7 -- 06/25/2005, 16:43:25 -- #15609 | |
| My opinion of Duke Ellington and Thelonious Monk as pianists is relatively low. And before you all start attacking me, remember that I'm entitled to my opinion. Duke Ellington While I respect him as a composer, I never thought much of his actual piano work either solo or ensemble. He was schooled in Stride and never really broke free of that in his own playing. I find his touch and tone to be relatively heavy. I don't think he had any interest in competing with his contemporary piano virtuosos and chose to focus more on his compositional and arranging skills (even though he got a lot of credit for work that was actually Billy Strayhorns). Therefore not a piano virtuoso in my book, even though he wrote some truly great stuff. Thelonious Monk Monk was overwhelmed by the Jazz scene that he was thrust into. I feel that he thought that Bird and Diz were just making up crazy stuff to sound wierd and Avant-Garde. He really didn't understand what the Bebop guys were doing. His compositions, while (in a sense) logical, always leave the listener (even the educated listener) feeling off-balance. Monk was an excellent Stride player, but Stride has very little in common with Bop. It is a huge leap to move from Fats Waller to Charlie Parker, even though it happened within the span of less than ten years. Monk was in over his head. Plus his hold on any type of reality was tenous at best. He was clinically insane. At one point I was tempted to label him the Van Gogh of Jazz. But Van Gogh's work is vibrant and colorful with an almost childlike excitement. Monk's work is pretty dark and gloomy. Did Monk write some good stuff? Sure, but in my mind those few tunes are overshadowed by his flat out wierd stuff. Was Monk a piano virtuoso? Not in my opinion. He was a sloppy player and made mistakes (both melodic and rhythmic) all the time. That conflicts with the "appropriateness clause" in my earlier post. There are those that worship Monk. For that matter there are those that worship any one who gets famous. I think what separates the men from the boys is who serious musicians go out of their way to emulate. Serious Jazz pianists will study Fats Waller, Art Tatum, Bud Powell, Bill Evans, etc. but Monk is just a footnote. | |
| CynBad -- 06/25/2005, 16:59:00 -- #15610 | |
| A lot of serious jazz pianists have studied the MUSIC of Monk, and play it better than he ever could. | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/25/2005, 18:59:44 -- #15615 | |
| Hey all good points so far. But I would like to know is how you feel about the others too. Please use the info below and simply put a yes or no by thier name and also why you feel this way I will go first: 1.Bill Evans Yes- crystal clear, beautiful harmony. 2.Chick Corea; Yes- Again crystal clear firm command of instrument, rythmically exact. 3.Bud Powell; Yes- Incredible content of new and fresh Ideas. (listen to his rendition of all the things you are. He spins motif after motif with not a single repeat. Also he could do a very exact Art tatum impresion) 4.Dave Grusin. No, I havent listened a whole lot but wasn't impressed enough to call him a virtuso. 5.Mcoy Tyner No-I do not believe he is a virtuoso 6.Mulgrew Miller No- He's close but no cigar. 7.Jessica Williams Yes, she's a great player 8.Duke Ellington No, someone has already explained why. 9.Thelonius Monk No, too sloopy, too much dissonace etc. 10.Herbie Hancock Yes, but i am not in awe of his playing. 11.Ahmad Jamal Yes, incredible player, can swing great articulation. 12.Marcus Roberts No-he is a great player though. 13.Kenny Barron Yes, he is truly one the underated pianists of our time 14.Gene Harris No,(not sure) he has a good command of the blues But to be honest I really haven't listened enough. 15.*Gonzalo Rubalcaba* Yes A powerhouse virtuoso, he if compelled could very easily move into the next level which is close to being on par with Oscar Peterson 16.Andre Previn No- good player though 17.*Keith Jarrett* Yes- But I am unimpressed with his playing overall and all the grunting noises simply piss me off to where I cant listen to him too much Please tell why you agree or disagree. Thanks JV' | |
| Mike -- 06/25/2005, 19:04:08 -- #15617 | |
| To think that other pianists could play Monk better than Monk ever could is to completely miss the beauty of Monks music and I feel a little sorry for you. Athough put in a different way I would concede in a second that Monk could never win a Monk competition, but that is statement about the quality of Monk competitions, not Monks playing. Monk is not the piano player you study to become a great technician. He did not have great technic nor did he aspire to it. He is a pianist you study to become a great pianist, for he is surely one of the greatest to have ever lived. There is a great big difference between a great pianist and Top technician. When we talk about Technic we talk about Tatum and do not include Monk nor Ellington. But when we talk about great pianists any list that did not include Monk would certainly be incomplete. Personally i think Ellington makes the list as well and would point to recordings such as Ellington with Coltrane, but give that it is debateable. | |
| CynBad -- 06/25/2005, 20:24:36 -- #15618 | |
| Don't feel sorry for me. While I think Monk was was truly a GREAT creative artist and his music will be with us forever, some of the "Monk-worship" that goes on is nothing but a bad case of The Emporer's New Clothes. His playing, even on some of his classic recordings, is frankly embarrassing. I love the man's creativity and different way of hearing things, but tell me how you can listen to him playing "Ask Me Now" and not cringe. He had some psychiatric problems even before he started doing drugs, and the drugs only made them worse. Yes, I think Jessica Williams plays Monk better than Monk played his own stuff. Lots of people do. | |
| Mike -- 06/27/2005, 22:23:12 -- #15693 | |
| You and lots of other people are sadly .......... sad. To have such a limited understanding of what it is play the greatest of all instruments. The fact that it is an issue for you that he had psychiatric problems is discriminatory and shameful. And although I do not endorse the use of drugs by musicians past or present it is a fact that most of the legendary musicians who created and who were the greatest jazz musicians in history were addicts (Evans, Davis, Parker, annd on and on) it is clearly absurd to single out Monk for this in any way. | |
| 7 -- 06/27/2005, 22:31:06 -- #15695 | |
| Mike, Why are you attacking CynBad for her opinion of Monk? The fact that he had psychiatric problems is exactly why he wrote and played the way he did. If you like the way Monk played, fine. But there are plenty of folks who can't stand him. And don't tell me that it's because I don't "understand" him. I DO understand him and that's WHY I don't like him. Please don't get into a fight with CynBad because she doesn't like Monk. | |
| CynBad -- 06/28/2005, 08:05:54 -- #15706 | |
| Mike, I didn't single Monk out or attack him. I clearly said he was a great, unique artist. I love his MUSIC. He just was NOT a great pianist. No one who has seriously studied the piano would say that he was. I have played since I was six years old and studied piano performance seriously and even finished a degree in it. If you even want to get a clue of what a great PIANIST is, aquaint yourself with Martha Argerich. Oh, wait, you seem to have nothing but derision for these classical players who can play the socks off you. Mike, you have a bad case of the Emporer's New Clothes. Or perhaps he makes you feel better about sloppy, amateurish playing? | |
| jletourn -- 06/28/2005, 10:23:33 -- #15725 | |
| Well, without tackling the question of whether or not one should admire Monk's technique, although I like his playing and *no one* has argued the case that it is deficient, although 7 has given an interesting analysis which I agree with in part, it's interesting to note that the basic question underlying the evaluation of the technique of jazz pianists hasn't really been addressed, except perhaps obliquely in 7's and Mike's posts. Namely, the reason that technique can be evaluated in classical music is that a repertoire exists in common. There is no equivalent repertoire in jazz music, period, and therefore no comparisons may be made between performers. Sure, there are some heads that may be tricky and some techniques that may be commonly practiced, but *nothing* like what exists in the world of classical music or even in stride piano (you know, play "Carolina Stomp" or the "Charleston Rag" or such). Beyond that, it should stand to reason that, while there are clearly pianists who have distinguished themselves in classical music because of their technique (Hamelin, Gould, Horowitz, et al.), this distinction is only remarkable (a) because of the breadth of repertoire such artists can perform or (b) because of the unusual features of a piece an individual performer wishes to highlight (playing a piece very quickly, or with exceptional articulation, for example) or (c) because of the interpretive skill a performer brings to the piece, which is plainly not what is commonly included in the term "virtuosic," especially as it was used here. It is certainly the case that music schools thrive because it is possible to *teach* the technique needed to perform demanding pieces at the level of whatever contemporary standards prevail. So, one might just as well ask oneself: why worry so about something which can be taught to *most* docile people? And, if this skill is absent in certain extra-classical musicians, the better question might be why they didn't bother to incorporate some of these skills in their own improvisations, given that it surely wouldn't have been a difficult thing for *any* of these jazz pianists to acquire a legitimate technique, given enough time (which would have obviously detracted from their own habits of playing). | |
| Mike -- 06/28/2005, 15:53:52 -- #15767 | |
| 7 I am not attacking Cynbad I am disagreeing with her. And disagreeing with her reasoning. And finding fault with I find to be discrimatory reasoning as well. There are several problems with siting Monks psychiatric problems as she did and now you have.... they are as follows: 1.) Many of the greatist jazz players of all time had serious psychiatric problems...ie, Powell, Parker, Holliday. 2.) Did these artists really have psychiatric problems at all??? It is convincingly documented that they were drug addicts, but there is a lot of evidence and literature suggesting that they were subjected to Insane asylums, electroshock treatments and the like as a simple and pure form of Racism in the day. 3.)I have Psychiatric problems. (as I would suggest obviously Whacky does too) And I am a good Pianist and a skilled composer. Whatever quality is in my compositions I assure you is a direct result of my own hard work with two of the finest composition teachers in the world and in no way has anything to do with my Psychiatric problems. So why should I believe as 7 says that Monks success was not also do to his own hard work and talent. To say that his product was a result of his psychiatric problems is simply discriminatory and steriotyping in nature. If anything especially in Monks day where they used Electro shock treatments, Psychiatric treatments severly disabled Creativity, and this is a well documented fact. Cynbad You said " I clearly said he was a great, unique artist. I love his MUSIC. He just was NOT a great pianist. No one who has seriously studied the piano would say that he was. I know that is what you said. I never disputed that. I simply disagree with every word of it. And disagree strongly. I will say it again as you are repeating yourself. I believe Monk was a Great pianist as well as a great artist and all of the great pianist I know and have studied with agree. I have seriously studied the piano and played professionally most of my adult life and I do say that Mond was a Great Pianist with few in history that have equaled him. 7 If you say there are plenty who cant stand him I will take your word for it that that is true where you are and where you have been. But where I live (East Coast, Boston area) and where I have traveled I have never met any one who does not think Monk was a great pianist although all express reservations about his technique. Also again I was not trying to fight with Cynbad. I thought and still do think it was a valid and important debate... The essense of the debate to me is "Does it require great technique to be a Great pianist?" And second "Should you discount a musicians accomplishments becuase of past drug or psychiatric problems?" obviously at this point I believe the answers to these questions are No. My apologies to those offended but I do believe they are positions that should be recognized and supported. | |
| Dr. Whack -- 06/28/2005, 16:51:27 -- #15776 | |
| "I have Psychiatric problems. (as I would suggest obviously Whacky does too)" heh heh...I thought it was a secret:) | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/28/2005, 17:39:04 -- #15777 | |
| That was a great post Mike keep'em coming. After carefully considering what you said, I have to admit that I agree with you. JV' | |
| Jazz+ -- 06/28/2005, 19:01:11 -- #15782 | |
| Of course Monk was a great and very unique pianist. and of course he was often sloppy sounding, when compared to Peterson and many others, and he overused that whole tone run, LOL. But those imperfections were all part of his unique voice. | |
| Styles -- 06/28/2005, 20:20:03 -- #15787 | |
| Monk was a genius just not a virtuoso | |
| Mike -- 06/28/2005, 20:31:23 -- #15788 | |
| agreed..... by definition "Virtuoso includes great technic" whereas "Great Pianist" does not. And Jazz + maybe those are imperfections to you, but not to me nor anyone else I know. But I agree to choose to work on and how much you work on flawless technic as opposed to creativity is clearly an element of style and there is no dispute as to who had the worked harder on technic and creativity between Monk and Peterson as the is no dispute about the result. But Monks technic was the technic he wanted to produce the sound he wanted. He did not want the sound Peterson has. So in that sence his technic was in fact as good as Petersons is. But I think that point is way beyond the scope of this threads abililty to address. | |
| jmkarns -- 06/29/2005, 12:31:54 -- #15831 | |
| Monk played what was in his head, and that is what jazz musicians do. While he may not have had the technique of an Art Tatum, he did pretty freaking well with what he had. I once performed a list of songs for a musically naive friend, and he picked Monk's "Misterioso" out of the pile as a "great song". Yes! He has that effect on me too. Listen to how he improvises "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes". No one but a genius could put that kind of tension out there. | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 06/30/2005, 11:40:10 -- #15929 | |
| I have to admit that when I first started playing Besides Art Tatum, Oscar Peterson and Bill Evans I drew most inspiration from monk. He's someone who i never really tried to copy like the other three I just mentioned but I did admire him him for his unique "voice". JV' | |
| Styles -- 06/30/2005, 19:30:47 -- #15964 | |
| Eldar Djangoriv | |
| flyin'hands -- 07/05/2005, 15:21:25 -- #16170 | |
| I tried to post this message earlier, but I'll try again. Re: the poll on Oscar Peterson versus Art Tatum: I'm 54 now. I've been playing jazz and other styles (blues, ragtime, stride, rock, classical) for some 45 years now. I am very familiar with both Oscar Peterson and of course Art. They were both my piano idols and role models since I was around 6 (in 1957). However I strongly agree with Hank Jones and the tribute (by Oscar) he read re; Art Tatum. I am not necessarily a religious man by any means, but if I were, all of the evidence that "something" exists out there way beyond our own comprehensions, and that "something" nearly routinely and completely manifested in the musical gifts endowed upon Art Tatum. This is in no way a put down to Oscar Peterson, the late Bud Powell, Chick Corea, the late Errol Garner, or the late Phineas Newborn Jr., it is simply a case or analogous to some of us mortals being endowed with say maybe a star or a planet for our own musical aresenals, whereas Tatum was endowed with a universe of sound and creativity that was always available immediately and in full force! I have been fortunate enough in my decades of gigging to have actually met many pinists and other musicians who were REALLY fortunate enought to have met, known, or played with/for Tatum and Oscar Peterson. To the man (or the lady) ALL were in awe of Tatum, and all felt he was really, musically speaking, from some other universe! Remember that such monstorously gifted classical pianists as Horowitz, Rubenstein, and Gisikieng were themselves absolutely awestruck when seeing and hearing Tatum. In a musical sense,it's much like stumbling across the pyramids. There are endless mysteries raised, unanswered questions, and simply the beauty and mystery of some extraordinary creative mind and work. That was and is Art Tatum! Chris M. / Albuquerque, NM stars or planets in our musical arsenals versus Art being endowed with a universe of sound and creativity which could manifest instantly and on levels which could not even be imagined by those very other jazz pianists (and classical pianists) mentioned herein. I have been fortunate enough in my decades of playing to have come across old pianists or other musicians who themselves were fortunate enough to have seen and heard both of these men in their prime. To the man, Art is always referred to as "off scale", "in a class by himself", "mind altering" , etc. Remeber that even such monstorously gifted classical pianists as Horowitz, Gisikieng, Rubenstein, and Rachmaninoff himself were simply awestruck when seeing and hearing Tatum perform! People in other fields of art have described Tatum to being akin to someone like Michaelangelo or Monet, but being able to produce instantaneous masterpieces, all while seeming to be roaring down a speeding rollercoaster! When I stsrted taking classical training at 5, back in the mid 1950's, I eventually worked myself into playing difficult compositions ny Liszt, Chopin, Rachmaninoff, etc. I can tell you that trying to merely decipher, much less play such Tatum standards as "Taboo", "I wish I were Twins", "Tea For two" etc, were even more difficult than the classical works! Listeners tend to get thrown off by Tatum's runs or speed. It is under this lighning method of delivery that the really phenonmenal stuff is always going on. There are the very ingenious and highly complex harmonic voicings whish are always being created and fitting perfectly into a masterpiece mosaic, every time he's decide to play. | |
| flyin'hands -- 07/05/2005, 15:31:59 -- #16173 | |
| I tried to post this message earlier, but I'll try again. Re: the poll on Oscar Peterson versus Art Tatum: I'm 54 now. I've been playing jazz and other styles (blues, ragtime, stride, rock, classical) for some 45 years now. I am very familiar with both Oscar Peterson and of course Art. They were both my piano idols and role models since I was around 6 (in 1957). However I strongly agree with Hank Jones and the tribute (by Oscar) he read re; Art Tatum. I am not necessarily a religious man by any means, but if I were, all of the evidence that "something" exists out there way beyond our own comprehensions, and that "something" nearly routinely and completely manifested in the musical gifts endowed upon Art Tatum. This is in no way a put down to Oscar Peterson, the late Bud Powell, Chick Corea, the late Errol Garner, or the late Phineas Newborn Jr., it is simply a case or analogous to some of us mortals being endowed with say maybe a star or a planet for our own musical aresenals, whereas Tatum was endowed with a universe of sound and creativity that was always available immediately and in full force! I have been fortunate enough in my decades of gigging to have actually met many pinists and other musicians who were REALLY fortunate enought to have met, known, or played with/for Tatum and Oscar Peterson. To the man (or the lady) ALL were in awe of Tatum, and all felt he was really, musically speaking, from some other universe! Remember that such monstorously gifted classical pianists as Horowitz, Rubenstein, and Gisikieng were themselves absolutely awestruck when seeing and hearing Tatum. In a musical sense,it's much like stumbling across the pyramids. There are endless mysteries raised, unanswered questions, and simply the beauty and mystery of some extraordinary creative mind and work. That was and is Art Tatum! Chris M. / Albuquerque, NM stars or planets in our musical arsenals versus Art being endowed with a universe of sound and creativity which could manifest instantly and on levels which could not even be imagined by those very other jazz pianists (and classical pianists) mentioned herein. I have been fortunate enough in my decades of playing to have come across old pianists or other musicians who themselves were fortunate enough to have seen and heard both of these men in their prime. To the man, Art is always referred to as "off scale", "in a class by himself", "mind altering" , etc. Remeber that even such monstorously gifted classical pianists as Horowitz, Gisikieng, Rubenstein, and Rachmaninoff himself were simply awestruck when seeing and hearing Tatum perform! People in other fields of art have described Tatum to being akin to someone like Michaelangelo or Monet, but being able to produce instantaneous masterpieces, all while seeming to be roaring down a speeding rollercoaster! When I stsrted taking classical training at 5, back in the mid 1950's, I eventually worked myself into playing difficult compositions ny Liszt, Chopin, Rachmaninoff, etc. I can tell you that trying to merely decipher, much less play such Tatum standards as "Taboo", "I wish I were Twins", "Tea For two" etc, were even more difficult than the classical works! Listeners tend to get thrown off by Tatum's runs or speed. It is under this lighning method of delivery that the really phenonmenal stuff is always going on. There are the very ingenious and highly complex harmonic voicings whish are always being created and fitting perfectly into a masterpiece mosaic, every time he's decide to play. | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 07/05/2005, 20:10:06 -- #16187 | |
| That was excellent flying hands! JV' | |
| flyin'hands -- 07/08/2005, 22:03:41 -- #16304 | |
| Thank you Jazzvirtuoso. I'm new to this site, so I apologize for the interrupted messgage re: the Tatum/Peterson discussions. I was quite surprised to see how heated the exchanges seem to have got on this topic! It is really great though to be able to run into either old jazz pianists or fans who were fortunate enough to have seen one or both of these musicians in their prime. I don't know if it's even been mentioned here, but the pianist who used to do the musical arrangemnets for the Mr. Rogers show on PBS, the late Johnny Costa, was himself a very good jazz pianist, who was highly influenced by Tatum! He even has a website which has a picture of him with Art. When my daughter (now 33) was just a child, I would always hear his piano playing during the show, and I knew that whoever this was, he must have known Art! He was also a really nice individual. so jazzvirtuoso, are you still gigging? I performed a lot in the late 60's, throughout the 70's, and into the early 80's, but after that, I decided to enjoy other hobbies, like traveling, running, hiking, etc. I work by days as the director of a Therapeutic Rec. program in a physical rehab facility, but every so often, I'll still take some hotel or club gig here and there. Musically speaking, Albuquerque is not the most secure zone to reside in, if one wants to make a full time living as a musician. I'll sometimes take gigs where it's strictly jazz piano, but other times, I have to do singing/playing gigs, where I have to sing a lot of stuff like Stevie Wonder, Elton, Billy Joel, blues, 50's/60's rock, even country! Whatever it takes just to get a chance to play. I always enjoy it! | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 07/09/2005, 09:16:08 -- #16319 | |
| Well, I stopped gigging with my band about a year ago and formed a duo with my wife. I personally find it easier than a band and too me just as much fun. So I kill two birds with one stone. I get to spend quality time with my wife and fufill my love for music. JV' | |
| flyin'hands -- 07/09/2005, 14:40:45 -- #16336 | |
| Good for you! It sounds like a great arrangement! Wow, I was again looking over some of these discussions re: Art and Oscar, and I was wondering if Oscar himself ever visited this site! It would be very interesting to get his perspective on these matters. Speaking of Art's influences on so many jazz pianists, have you ever heard Claude Bolling's version of "Yesterdays"? His arrangment is like a tribute to Art's and actually quite similar. I've heard endless stories about how Art would love to listen to nearly any type of piano player, and he usually always had something nice to say about them. I can almost see Art smiling at this Bolling interpretation! There's a "V-Disc" recording of Art performing a tune called "Lover", and to this day, that left hand of his and the mind driving it, just blows me away! My feelings regarding this site is that I really wish all of us pianists could get together at some club with a good piano, just like the old days in Harlem, share drinks, stories, play, and learn from each other and really have a blast. That's something sadly missing today. | |
| Dr. Whack -- 07/09/2005, 15:07:09 -- #16337 | |
| A while ago I brought up the notion to arrange a sort of LPJ convention where we could a | |