did Cziffra have the greatest pianistic/technical vocabulary of any improviser

[stevie]

....ever recorded, for the piano?

something pretty obvious to me, because ive never heard anyone come close to the sheer amount of different figurations he can employ.

not harmonic, or melodic, but just pianistically, he is just unequalled, is he not?

[pianoperfmajor]

yes.

[nicco]

Cant say ive ever heard anyone...come even close to cziffra

[tompilk]

mmm... im99% in agreement. Hamelin is pretty good with 'technical vocabulary' but not improvising... not even close...
By far teh best improviser was Cziffra...
Tom

[pianiststrongbad]

Peterson, Tatum, and Jarrett come to mind.

[da jake]

We discussed this yesterday.

We came to a few shared conclusions:

1. Cziffra is a great pianist, a great musician, and a great musical mind (i.e., interpreter, transcriber etc.)
2. He was a master of technique, and could demonstrate his pyrotechnics in improvisations.

I agreed, but added:

Under no circumstances do those improvs put forward a case that he was a great improviser. My teacher, an excellent improviser, is able to improvise cogently and effortlessly in practically any style on any theme you give him.   

Though his technique is obviously less than Cziffra's, he can easily whip up a bunch of mindless octaves and scales in the same manner. 

For a technically and musically astute improviser, Cziffra-style improvs are really nothing special. I've been playing less than 2 years, and I have the ability to throw octaves and scales all over the place then stick in a theme from a Schubert-Liszt song when I run out of ideas - the only difference is that I have no technique to show off.

I suggested  that given the opportunity, the likes of Rachmaninov, Godowsky, Horowitz,  and even Gould could have improvised much more convincingly than Cziffra. Also, I believe that Art Tatum, Peterson etc. are hands down better improvisers than Cziffra.

Cziffra's "technical vocabulary" for improvisation, (whatever that even means), is probably better than anyone else's. But then again, he practiced stuffing as much random junk into an improv as he could. So best pianistically? Maybe. Harmonically? No. Melodically? No. Musically? No.

The BBC improv and others, are technically impressive but musically trash.  I think it puts a bad face on Cziffra's art, and represents the worst of his gypsy, cheesy, show-off side. Despite Cziffra undeniable contribution to music and his genius, it's crap like his BBC improv that are denying him the respect of many musicians. 

Not everything that geniuses do are in good taste or have intrinsic artistic merit simply because they are the product of a genius.

I guess Cziffra really does take after Liszt!

[erak]

Sorry but have you even looked at how his improvisations are put together?


The BBC is "technical trash", but that's because it's a mic check.

[da jake]

Yeah, that's why people shouldn't take it seriously.

[tompilk]

i cant believe you! Have you heard his improvs? how many? is technique was godly, and his playing and interpretation was godly and I would never call him "cheesy"...

[da jake]

This is what I consider Gawdlike improv playing:

https://s49.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=3SQJMZFS6I2ON3IA2DVP0WRFI4

Tatum's back in town. 

[stevie]

Sorry but have you even looked at how his improvisations are put together?


The BBC is "technical trash", but that's because it's a mic check.

and a camera check, and i dont think its 'technical trash', its awesome playing in every respect, only problem being - the circumstances in which it was filmed meant he had to warmup, and so had to run through some stuff with no knowledge that other people would critique him on it, and since the primary aim was warming up - alot of it is VERY loosely formed and there are barely any resting moments...BECAUSE ITS A WARM UP.

but in this particular improvisations defense, apart from displaying the most STUNNING technical mastery of the greatest variety of pianistic figurations ive ever witnessed, it has some really awesome moments musically.

the 10/1 interpretation, though not complete, is just awesome, pedalless and unique, with cziffra's unique rhythmic style added to give it a very 'whiplash' feeling, probably my favourite 10/1, actually.

and in the improvised parts, in the first segment there is some tremendous fire generated by cziffra during an awesomely judged climax, going from a march with left hand octaves propelling the force, via a glissando, to a powerful and emotional segment/

in the final segment, in which he uses a melodic fragment from a chopins song as his basis, he displays an astonishing array of figurations all executed in context and with refined taste, on the theme, and all played with the most delicious bravura elegance imaginable, its really beautiful.

Yeah, that's why people shouldn't take it seriously.

you think this....and yet you DO base all your (ignorant) criticism on this one example....

[stevie]

We discussed this yesterday.

We came to a few shared conclusions:

1. Cziffra is a great pianist, a great musician, and a great musical mind (i.e., interpreter, transcriber etc.)
2. He was a master of technique, and could demonstrate his pyrotechnics in improvisations.

I agreed, but added:

Under no circumstances do those improvs put forward a case that he was a great improviser. My teacher, an excellent improviser, is able to improvise cogently and effortlessly in practically any style on any theme you give him.   

Though his technique is obviously less than Cziffra's, he can easily whip up a bunch of mindless octaves and scales in the same manner. 

For a technically and musically astute improviser, Cziffra-style improvs are really nothing special. I've been playing less than 2 years, and I have the ability to throw octaves and scales all over the place then stick in a theme from a Schubert-Liszt song when I run out of ideas - the only difference is that I have no technique to show off.

I suggested  that given the opportunity, the likes of Rachmaninov, Godowsky, Horowitz,  and even Gould could have improvised much more convincingly than Cziffra. Also, I believe that Art Tatum, Peterson etc. are hands down better improvisers than Cziffra.

Cziffra's "technical vocabulary" for improvisation, (whatever that even means), is probably better than anyone else's. But then again, he practiced stuffing as much random junk into an improv as he could. So best pianistically? Maybe. Harmonically? No. Melodically? No. Musically? No.

The BBC improv and others, are technically impressive but musically trash.  I think it puts a bad face on Cziffra's art, and represents the worst of his gypsy, cheesy, show-off side. Despite Cziffra undeniable contribution to music and his genius, it's crap like his BBC improv that are denying him the respect of many musicians. 

Not everything that geniuses do are in good taste or have intrinsic artistic merit simply because they are the product of a genius.

I guess Cziffra really does take after Liszt!

i could take your ass down point for point, but ill just say, apart from a couple obvious things you point out in Cziffra's favour, this post is THE biggest pile of bullshit ive seen in quite some time, congrats.

[da jake]

I'm critical. Cziffra is one of my favorite musicians, just as Liszt, (for example) is one of my favorite composers. Both have done some very questionable things with music taste-wise, and I have no scruples about mentioning what I think those are.

[raskolnikov]

Would you guys mind naming some of Cziffra's essential recordings where he improvises?

[mephisto]

I am not Cziffra`s biggest fan but what da Jake wrote is just the silliest thing I have ever read. Cziffra`s improvisations are godlike, out of this word, just freakisihly insane!

The bbc warm up is probably the most impressive vid I have ever seen(not just from a technical point of wiew).

His playing is so spontanious and fiercy.

[stevie]

Would you guys mind naming some of Cziffra's essential recordings where he improvises?

sadly they arent commercially available...the bbc video is the most well known example

[mephisto]

Here is the proof

https://s64.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=0B108TVK2STO238TK299KHFN9V

-da Meph

[lostinidlewonder]

I don't even know where to start to try and judge who improvised better than another. It is much harder question than asking who plays a peice better. Improvisation is very personal and it is the persons unique musical voice. I don't think we should be assuming one persons improv is better than another. By the way, quick arpeggios and octaves in my mind isn't really good improvisation.

[ted]

Lostinidlewonder:

Very sensible, I agree entirely. Improvisation is as big a field as music itself. Asking who is the greatest or best is like asking whether a red rose is more beautiful than a yellow one. Sure, you can see who has a large keyboard vocabulary, mental arithmetic, memory, aural acuity, command of many idioms of the past (which, by the personal nature of the act, many good improvisers do not possess anyway) and so on, but in the end the whole cannot be judged by the sum of its parts.

In other words, while you can say that one person knows more chords, has a better grasp of a certain form, better technique and so on than another, it is still possible to get somebody who doesn't seem to possess much in the way of component abilities at all but who is capable of creating very striking things at the piano. The only conclusion I can draw is that improvisation uses a fundamentally different part of the brain than any of its component abilities.

Might be wrong, of course, I don't really know much about music, despite making many posts about it.

[stevie]

to above 2 posts -

im not saying he was the greatest improviser of all, and what you say, ted, is perfectly true.

but im talking here about objectively definable aspects, the sheer vocabulary of techniques and figurations employed in cziffra's improvisations is beyond that of any other pianist ive heard.

what he does with these IMO is great, but some may not like his style, whatever the case we are judging the tools he is working with and not the construction he is building...

[da jake]

Thanks for proving my point Mephisto - the fact that Cziffra inserts more technical trash than anyone else into an improvisation does not equal good improvisation.

Here's Oscar Peterson jamming with Charlie Parker:

https://s23.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=2XH8VCB6K093O0LJ516ZFG2VNL

Is Peterson trying to exhibit as much of his technique as he can? No
...But is this technically phenomenal? Yes
Is it a good improvisation? Yes.
Is it good music? Yes.

End of discussion.

[da jake]

Your argument for Cziffra's "technical vocabulary" still stands...but the whole reverence of such a pointless artificial distinction is stupid if you ask me.

here's an analogy:

It's basically like **** size. If you have n inches, where n is a large positive integer, then that's well and good. But if you use it to **** over everything, then you're not exactly accomplishing anything with your endowments.

Cziffra was packing a LOT of talent...and he DID put it to good purpose. But out of respect to the man, we don't really need to revere his...garbage.

[mephisto]

When you have an orchestra it is natural of you to use many if not all of the instrument that you have in a composition. Cziffra understood this and used the piano as a orchestra using it to the fullest. The octaves and arpeggios aren`t there for nothing, they help reinforcing the greatness of the improvisation. So I guess Liszt`s Sonata is totally ruined because of the prestissimo octaves close to the end. Pluss we all know the Chopin`s 10.1 and 25.10 sucks

Is Cziffra trying to exhibit as much of his technique as he can? Possibly
...But is this technically phenomenal? Yes
Is it a good improvisation? Yes.
Is it good music? Yes.

End of discussion.

[stevie]

Your argument for Cziffra's "technical vocabulary" still stands...but the whole reverence of such a pointless artificial distinction is stupid if you ask me.

here's an analogy:

It's basically like **** size. If you have n inches, where n is a large positive integer, then that's well and good. But if you use it to **** over everything, then you're not exactly accomplishing anything with your endowments.

Cziffra was packing a LOT of talent...and he DID put it to good purpose. But out of respect to the man, we don't really need to revere his...garbage.

point is, cziffra had the hugest one in recorded history, to my knowledge, and this fact alone is the subject of the topic.

what he does with it is really up to him, if youve read anything written by cziffra youd understand that to him, improvisational art was everything, the expression of something that is unique and spontanious, but not yet prepared for eternity...
his most fervent desire was to pass on this improvisational legacy, it was very important to him....plus if you read his autobiography youd realize he spent more time practicing improv than actual pieces, it was something he worked hard at, so its extremely insulting to say what youre saying.

its your opinion that his improvs dont sound good, many of us disagree...this is all subjective, to state he was a bad improviser as a fact is just incredibly insulting to everyone here, and especially your own intelligence.

at least study and look into how his improvisations are put together, come up with valid points and facts about his improvisational style..

[orlandopiano]

....ever recorded, for the piano?

something pretty obvious to me, because ive never heard anyone come close to the sheer amount of different figurations he can employ.

not harmonic, or melodic, but just pianistically, he is just unequalled, is he not?

I agree with Da Jake completely, but the original poster did specify he was talking about pure technique and not necessarily harmonic vocabulary. If that's what we're going by, I take Cziffra. But if you're considering anything more than sheer technique, the guys Jake mentioned (Peterson, Jarrett, Tatum) win in a landslide.

[gruffalo]

I, personally, think that Cziffra was able to do these impros through his techinque, and had he not had such a good one, his impros would not amaze people so much. His impros are technically superior to others, but not musically. i agree on some of the points that da jake said. i have heard guys who dont do any technical work on the piano who do amazing impros, especially those jazz people. just take away Cziffra's technique in his impros, and there is not much left. if you really want to know what the difference is between his impros, and real impros, just listen out for some people who arent in the classical field of piano. the two that da jake mentioned would be a good starting point.

Gruff

[m]

whatever the case we are judging the tools he is working with and not the construction he is building...

When you look at a beautiful building you don't care what tools were used to create it. If you look at an ugly building you don't care if it was created with the most advanced tools, either.

By no means I am saying that Cziffra's improvising is ugly. Pianistically it is impressive. Very, very impressive.  That man knew how to show off! No doubt he mastered his tools with many hours of practicing and used them with complete abandon.

As for the musical content, I don't see much difference between the improvisation posted above and the one from BBC video. Both sound like some lisztian type at his worst and share the same thematic material with questionable development (i.e. lack of one), same structure (i.e. lack of one), same vocabulary (also can be found in his transcriptions), and the same noise in term of sound pressure.
But with all that, I'd listen to it... even just to experience that unbelievable energy that man put into keyboard.

[quantum]

Where would one obtain the BBC video?

[mephisto]

I am really shocked

Cziffra`s improviastions move me more than any Jazz pianist`s improvisations. The sheer rythmic drive and spontanity is just amazing. It is obvious to me that Tatum also was trying to show-off, but lacked the pianistic skill of Cziffra. And Tatum is one of the best pianists of all time regardless of style. Tatum`s playing is of course extremely impressive from a musical and pianistic point of wiew but Cziffra is just more.

[gruffalo]

yes, cziffra has pianistic skill and rhythmic drive, but the real improvisers are natural. without Cziffra's technique, his impros wouldnt be that amazing.

im in no way doubting cziffra as a pianist, he truely is a genius, just not a true improviser.

[raskolnikov]

I am really shocked

Cziffra`s improviastions move me more than any Jazz pianist`s improvisations. The sheer rythmic drive and spontanity is just amazing. It is obvious to me that Tatum also was trying to show-off, but lacked the pianistic skill of Cziffra. And Tatum is one of the best pianists of all time regardless of style. Tatum`s playing is of course extremely impressive from a musical and pianistic point of wiew but Cziffra is just more.

Alright, I think you need to watch what you say very carefully.  And then take a listen to Tatum's version of Elegie or his 1933 version of Tiger Rag.

I realize that the original poster only stated that Cziffra could emloy more figurations and phrases better, but realize that in the world of improvisation, these things aren't as difficult as playing over the number of harmonic changes as Tatum does.  And that makes the title of greatest figuration employer less of a title, IMO.

[cziffra]

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9145958126932794540&q=cziffra&pl=true

I believe that is the BBC video, correct me if I'm wrong.

[demented cow]

It's pointless to say how good an improviser someone is without asking how much of the purported improvisation you're assessing was actually improvised. How much of Cziff's BBC warmup or a given version Tiger Rag by Tatum was really improvised? We don't know. Maybe they came up with some of the passages at home and thought made a point of remembering them so they could re-use them next time. That's the sort of thing I do when I improvise, and over the years you get a repertoire of passages and tricks that you can vary infinitely. I doubt any other improviser is different. In my case, it doesn't sound anywhere near as good as Cziff or Tatum, but if I were suddenly given their immense technical abilities and the background of the pieces they had played, then the comparison might become interesting. Unless, of course, these guys really WERE just making everything up on the spot. But we simply don't know if that was the case.

[mephisto]

Alright, I think you need to watch what you say very carefully.  And then take a listen to Tatum's version of Elegie or his 1933 version of Tiger Rag.

I realize that the original poster only stated that Cziffra could emloy more figurations and phrases better, but realize that in the world of improvisation, these things aren't as difficult as playing over the number of harmonic changes as Tatum does.  And that makes the title of greatest figuration employer less of a title, IMO.

I have heard those pieces/songs and in the Tiger Rag it is obvious to me that Tatum is showing off. And who isn`t impressed by what he plays? But it doesn`t have much musical substanse. Still it is wicked and one of the best solo piano jazz recordings that I have.

Tatum may be better in chord progressions etc but on the technical basis Cziffra wins hands down. On the musical side: It is just subjective taste.

[gruffalo]

yea, cziffra wins on a technical bases. read that through over and over again. technique isnt real music. im not doubting cziffra's musical abilities, but he is impros are not as musical as that of Tatum because Cziffra's are done through great technique. he as a born n bred trained classical pianist, whereas these Jazz musicians are mainly self taught and if they did go and get a great technique, their impros would be even more phenominal than Cziffra.

[demented cow]

Re improvisation, why don't more people do stuff like this:
There was an Australian concert pianist called Geoffrey Tozer who wasn't particularly notable except that he used to do concerts where the audience had to suggest a theme for him to improvise on, plus name a composer in whose style it was to be played. I have a cassette of him doing this. Somebody suggested 'Moonlight sonata in the style of Rach', and he morphs the start of the 2nd concerto and the moonlight together, making them seem so related that you end up thinking that Rach plagiarised the passage from Beethoven. Tozer was also asked to improvise a double fugue on the names BACH and CAGE, which he did. The impros were all quite ingenious, and quite funny in spots.
I suppose there's always the risk that Tozer planted people in the audience to ask him to play things he'd worked out at home.

[stevie]

yea, cziffra wins on a technical bases. read that through over and over again. technique isnt real music. im not doubting cziffra's musical abilities, but he is impros are not as musical as that of Tatum because Cziffra's are done through great technique. he as a born n bred trained classical pianist, whereas these Jazz musicians are mainly self taught and if they did go and get a great technique, their impros would be even more phenominal than Cziffra.

cziffra was likely as self-taught as tatum

cziffra could improvise simply and plaintively, the examples on this thread arent the best of his allround rhapsodical style.

and what is this comparing of musicality? i dont understand how you can say this....

marik makes points that are somewhat true, in regards to the improvisations posted, but evidently he hasnt heard cziffra at his best, NONE of us have, because he didnt improvise best in a studio...

not forgetting that cziffra's improvs are really damn innovative, the sounds, rhythms, and harmonic effect, i just havent heard anything like that, he goes beyond what liszt wouldve ever done.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Cziffra's are done through great technique. he as a born n bred trained classical pianist, whereas these Jazz musicians are mainly self taught and if they did go and get a great technique, their impros would be even more phenominal than Cziffra.

Just to muddy the waters a little..
You can't argue that Cziffra was a born and bred trained classical pianist, because he wasn't. Yes, he went to the Franz Liszt Academy, but Cziffra was largely self-taught, and by the time he got admitted, he was already an experienced public performer and improviser. Secondly, he used improvisation (in his cafe days) to rebuild his technique after the war and the period of time doing forced labour.

That being said, I do sometimes get the impression that his improvisations are basically a collection of very advanced technical tricks being thrown together in a spectacular crowd-pleasing manner. Don't forget, however, that's basically what he was paid to do for quite a lot of his life before he became famous.

[stevie]

not really, the thing is - no improviser is infallible, and in a moment of a lack of inspiration, sometimes it can sound musically empty, but still with flying fingers.

its when he is musically imspired AND these 'tricks' are commanded with his great musical imagination, that he is the most exciting and compelling improviser ive ever heard.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

It's a shame that there's none of Beethoven's improvisations around for comparison. I don't have any doubt that Cziffra is the best improviser in the last century of classical music (I will always have reservations about his use (lack) of structure). Improvisation is much neglected within classical music. I don't speak as an expert on jazz, so I won't make comparisons with Tatum etc.

[demented cow]

he goes beyond what liszt wouldve ever done.

As a rough guess, I'd say that most of us haven't heard Liszt improvising, so it might be that your claim is a bit, um, hard to assess, adding to the whole arbitrariness of this discussion (given that we don't know how much any improviser has practised at home).

I think Beethoven must have been the greatest improviser: We don't know what he sounded like, but there's at least evidence of the effect it had: accounts of people sobbing
uncontrollably, which to my knowledge hasn't been happened since.

[stevie]

cziffra used some figurations liszt never used, and built upon liszt's foundation, and cziffra's transcriptions are alot more flamboyant than liszt's.

cziffra also improvised jazz...liszt didnt do that

plus, on the short improv meph posted there is a wikid disco groove

[daniel patschan]

The question is: what is improvisation ? In general you play either alone or (more frequent) with a group of people over a certain harmonic progression - or you invent freely over a certain theme. The results are, if done in the highest professional manner unforseeable. That's the case if the best in this field are doing it. Just to name a few: Charles Parker, Dizzy G., Wayne Shorter, Pat Metheny, John McLaughlin, Miles Davis, Keith J.; When these people play/played even they don't/didn/t know where the journey would go to. Miles Davis once said about Wayne Shorter (i think it was him) that this guy never ever played something twice ! Unbelievable. Now - what is our beloved Goerges doing in this video ? He plays fast (very fast) very usual patterns of octaves, scales and arpeggios. This is, and i am sure for a 100%, some stuff that he had played again and again throughout his whole live. He is a professional classical pianist - he can of course play these patterns ! The majority of famous classical pianists can play these patterns, even with eyes closed ! Do you really think that Mikhail Pletenv, Maurizio Pollini, Nikolai Lugansky, Kristian Zimerman, Ivo Pogorelich, Arcadi Volodos, Evgeny Kissin, Andrei Gavrilov, Emil Gilels, Sviatoslav Richter, Bernd Glemser, Nelson Freire, Martha Argerich, Marc-Andre Hamelin, Lang Lang, Yundi Li, Garrick Ohlsson, John Ogdon, Jorge Bolet ect. ect. ect. aren't/weren't able to do so ? Hey, these are the tools they are working with - but most of them don't/didn't feel the necessity to show up in such a vulgar manner.

And if if now comes to the musical content of this "improvisation": it is completely empty. 

[stevie]

 

[da jake]

Cziffra had an amazing command of the piano, and made some great music - but all we hear in those improvisations is the former distinction. You're fooling yourself if you think they are good music.

[raskolnikov]

I have heard those pieces/songs and in the Tiger Rag it is obvious to me that Tatum is showing off. And who isn`t impressed by what he plays? But it doesn`t have much musical substanse. Still it is wicked and one of the best solo piano jazz recordings that I have.

Tatum may be better in chord progressions etc but on the technical basis Cziffra wins hands down. On the musical side: It is just subjective taste.

I guarantee that it would be about fifty times more difficult to transcribe almost any Tatum piece compared to the example we have of Cziffra's playing.  Cziffra has a tendency to generate tension by playing Fortissimo.  But Tatum develops tension by reharmonizing his piece and playing interesting melodies, some based on the original theme some not. 

I think that is why some listeners think that Cziffra sounds a little corny in comparison ( especially those used to Bartok, Coltrane, etc).  And I think that is why I think Tatum had more musical substance, even on some of his crazy pieces (Elegie).  Although, I would have liked to hear Cziffra on a more structured improv.

[bach-liszt]

Cziffra is great and one of my favorites.  But, yes, there is one greater ---ART TATUM.   He was a prodigious pianist and the only one who could exceed Cziffra in the areas of touch, speed, technique and improvisation.

In the Tatum autobiography,"Too Marvelous For Words,"  Horowitz (who was an admirer of Tatum) played his set variations on "Tea For Two" for Tatum.    After several variations Horowtitz was done and Tatum said something like, "That's great, but is that it?"  Tatum then proceeded to sit down at the piano and amaze Horowitz with numerous variations and reharmonizations.     On another occasion, Horowitz once told Tatum, "I can play as fast as you, but I can't keep up with you."   I bet Horowitz never told that to anyone else!

It is well known that Tatum amazed both classical and jazz pianists of the highest caliber. 

[bach-liszt]

Regarding an earlier post, I purchased sometime ago The Art Tatum Collection(published by Hal Leonard).   The effort to transcribe the Tatum pieces was monumental.  "Tiger Rag" is included in the collection and it is the most difficult, nuanced leap into another world I have ever encountered.  Assuming you can play the notes, you next have the problem of achieving that incredible touch of Tatum and the SPEED of Tatum.   Very few can do this.   My appreciation of Tatum was even greater once I saw the "roadmap" of what he was doing. 

I challenge anyone in this forum who thinks they have a great technique to purchase the collection (it is available on Amazon) and give some of the pieces a try!!   

I have never heard a pianist play as quickly (yet cleanly) as Tatum.    Like someone once said,  "Art Tatum, you can't 'imatatum.'"

[prometheus]

I didn't know that Cziffra was primarily a jazz pianist.

[stevie]

I didn't know that Cziffra was primarily a jazz pianist.

who said that?