| LearnJazzPiano.com archives: Oscar live | |
| piano paul -- 07/11/2005, 02:23:01 -- #16370 | |
| I saw Oscar last week in London and he was tremendous. Still going at 80 and such a warm person. Standing ovations all round. He is very slow with his walking these days - it took a while for him to get on stage and positioned on his stool - to be honest I wasn't expecting much from his playing all things considered... I was more there just to see the man himself and give out some respect. But he ripped it! Everyone agreed of course. He had great reviews in the English press. See: http://www.britevents.com/event.asp?id=6132&title=Oscar%20Peterson Oscar and the band (with Ulf Wakenius on guitar and Alvin Queen - who played a couple of awesome solos - on drums) played a good mix of upbeat swing material and ballads - many of which Oscar had written himself, using past relationships as source material. One, simply called 'Love ballad' (I think), was very beautiful. Oscar talked a lot about the great jazz players who have passed and played songs to their memory on a few occasions. He also paid tribute to Niels-Henning Orsted Pederson and to his new bass player, David Young, for having the guts and talent to take his place on the tour. Regarding the Tatum / Peterson debate in a recent thread, I have heard very little of Tatum so cannot comment. However in general I think technique is only 10 percent of piano playing. Obviously you need a good technique in order to express yourself, but to my mind it is nothing more than a means to an end. It is imagination, openness and expression of feeling that far outweigh any amount of virtuosity when it comes to the music I will listen to again and again. I think great pianists need to be very open, brave people. They need to lay bare their souls, their feelings, when they are at the keys. They need to express their flow of emotion and moods. Oscar played with feeling and soul, that's what is important. (By the way, don't get me wrong, his technique was still very good.) | |
| SolArt -- 07/11/2005, 03:17:03 -- #16373 | |
| 10%?! | |
| piano paul -- 07/11/2005, 07:58:12 -- #16375 | |
| Yes, in fact what I really mean is nought percent. Because technique is (in my opinion) just a means to an end. | |
| jazz jasper -- 07/11/2005, 08:34:28 -- #16376 | |
| Exactly, im behind you all the way there | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 07/11/2005, 09:35:16 -- #16383 | |
| 10% - 100 leaves 90 percent of things that you simply want have enough technique to do. I see people make this kind of false reasoning all the time. People for the most part are to lazy to try and develope this aspect of piano playing. But, to be honest imho technique and musciality are just different sides of the same coin. Nothing to me is worse than a piano player with sloppy technique. JV' | |
| JB -- 07/11/2005, 10:24:15 -- #16386 | |
| Nothing to me is worse than a piano player without any ideas. | |
| piano paul -- 07/11/2005, 11:03:48 -- #16388 | |
| You don't have to break the world piano speed record in order to express yourself. There can only be one 'fastest pianist in the world', or one 'best technique in the world' if speed and note accuracy are the criteria for judgment. Does that invalidate everyone else's piano playing? Of course not. | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 07/11/2005, 12:52:39 -- #16391 | |
| See for yourself! JV' | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 07/11/2005, 14:25:08 -- #16393 | |
| "Nothing to me is worse than a piano player without any ideas." Imagine have a million ideas in your head but only a very little technique... How are you going to express those ideas without the technique? Technique and Musicality or different sides on the same coin. JV' | |
| SolArt -- 07/11/2005, 15:33:43 -- #16394 | |
| Exactly JV, chops are chops. You don't have to be "the fastest in the world", pp, but who wants to be straggling in the dust?! | |
| piano paul -- 07/11/2005, 15:33:54 -- #16395 | |
| I understand what you're saying JV. I think we all need to practice technique at every opportunity... until we don't think about it any more and we can simply create. I just like to think of music as art rather than science; science is so cold. Going back to Peterson and Tatum, I understand Peterson believed that Tatum was 'Touched by God'. Now surely that can't be explained by the science of technique? | |
| jazz jasper -- 07/11/2005, 15:38:39 -- #16396 | |
| yeah i see where your coming from and i do understand what you mean by different sides on the same coin, but i think that if i had to choose musicality or technique id choose musicality. I think another thing is that you can naturally have a good ear and musicality that can't be learned, for example most of us will ever have the ORIGINALITY and great ideas like parker or peterson, its something you cant learn, where as technique you can definatly learn. I do ALSO think that some players do have a naturally good technique, but id say that it is the easier thing to learn. I had studied and played liszts and chopins music before i started playing jazz, and on my jazz course at college, i have the best technique there, better that most of the tutors, but im no where near the best jazz PIANIST. Im actually one of the worst. I contantly get told that im 'decorating' the music, rather than playing musically, because i just thunder up and down the keyboard as fast as i can hoping that ill be able to impress people with technique. But people who know what there talking about tend to see straight through it, and this is why i think that peterson is so amazing that he can THINK and PLAY that fast and mean every note. Do you not think that technique is easier to learn? | |
| Styles -- 07/11/2005, 20:57:38 -- #16406 | |
| The piano is like a new language. When you first start out you are only speaking in little short simple phrases. Though as you learn more words you can express what you are feeling more eloquently, and even simple phrases carry the connotation of a greater wisdom. Equal emphasis is the answer | |
| nn -- 07/12/2005, 10:36:14 -- #16427 | |
| A musician who can play very fast and accurately will always draw more praise and respect from other musicians than one who has outstanding musicality/originality. As a result, music students nowadays (in jazz and classical) are driven to focus mostly on technique. I'm afraid that as a result of that, the music will sound more and more empty in the future. Personally, if I want to hear music played like a machine, I'll pick electronic music over jazz and classical any day, because at least it is meant to be like that. | |
| SolArt -- 07/12/2005, 11:17:45 -- #16429 | |
| In my opinion those with outstanding technique will sooner or later develop their musicality and emotional side, and when they do away they go, sailing into the heavens of bliss! Maybe with a little external "attitude adjustment" being the catalyst. | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 07/12/2005, 13:14:32 -- #16438 | |
| "In my opinion those with outstanding technique will sooner or later develop their musicality and emotional side, and when they do away they go, sailing into the heavens of bliss! Maybe with a little external "attitude adjustment" being the catalyst." True my friend very true. JV' | |
| mooondancer -- 07/13/2005, 16:05:10 -- #16498 | |
| Actually I find too much technique can sometimes be limiting. let me explain! Art Tatum once said after a show he felt he was only showing off technique at the piano - it wasn't satisfying emotionally. Having a lot of technique makes it possible to rip up and down the piano without necessarily having a real message. Without so much technique, you have to be emotional and develop your ideas slowly because it's all you CAN do. I dig this more. Take BB KING or MILES DAVIS. I would rather have the feeling and control of one or two note phrases of these masters than virtuoso technique like Wynton Marsalis. | |
| jazzvirtuoso -- 07/13/2005, 17:33:10 -- #16501 | |
| Oh well, to each his own. I repectively disagree. "Imagine have a million ideas in your head but only a very little technique... How are you going to express those ideas without the technique? Technique and Musicality or different sides on the same coin." JV' | |
| SolArt -- 07/14/2005, 02:47:36 -- #16512 | |
| The piano is not a guitar or a horn. How can you compare non-piano players to the piano in this way? We can't bend notes or add vibrato, etc. So we use two hands & have to deal with other aspects to get the statement across, which require technique. Art probably wasn't in a good playing mood that time, it certainly doesn't mean he always felt this way. What if Miles had less technique? Then we wouldn't recognize him! Technique unlimits you. This all reminds me of people who pray for expression, etc before Christian music performances, but if they didn't practice their instruments sufficiently, & learn more about theory and how to apply it, well...the fried fish dinner will NOT magically appear! | |
| Dr. Whack -- 07/14/2005, 07:22:43 -- #16518 | |
| "the fried fish dinner will NOT magically appear!" Now I like that one:) can I use it? | |
| SolArt -- 07/14/2005, 08:28:27 -- #16519 | |
| Yes. | |
| jazz jasper -- 07/18/2005, 19:22:21 -- #16698 | |
| I know that the piano is not a horn but i recently found this said by lester young... "Originality's the thing. You can have tone and technique and a lot of other things but without originality you ain't really nowhere. Gotta be original." | |
| Copyright © 2005 by Scot Ranney. All rights reserved. | |
| Click Here for more information about performances and clinics. Click Here to sign up for Scot's music announcements. | |