Jazz pianists are underrated

[quasimodo]

I figured out many members of this forum never heard the jazz legendary pianists play. It's quite a shame.
As I'm typing I' listening to Oscar Petrson's "The great Connection", it's just mind-blowing.
Check out the jazz virtuosi, folks!


Fats Waller
Art Tatum
Errol Garner
Oscar Peterson
Ahmad Jamal
Keith Jarrett
Herbie Hancock
Kenny Barron
Kenny Kirkland
Michel Camilo
Brad Mehldau
Gonzalo Rubalcaba
Esbjorn Svenson
Jacky Terrasson
Bogdan Zulfikarpachic

Just to name the most famous...
Don't miss such a great part of (more or less) contemporary piano 

[BoliverAllmon]

I haven't heard jarrett play jazz, but if it is anything like his classical no thank you.

boliver

[quasimodo]

I haven't heard jarrett play jazz, but if it is anything like his classical no thank you.

boliver

WTH?
His Haendel is gorgeous, his WTC I is more than decent, his Shostakovitch is at least good.
Matter of taste maybe  .

[practicingnow]

comparing jazz pianists to classical concert pianists is ridiculous

[quasimodo]

comparing jazz pianists to classical concert pianists is ridiculous

Who's comparing ?
And anyway as far as skillz are concerned... 

[pianiststrongbad]

I heard from somewhere that Rachmaninov was in awe of Art Tatum, as was the rest of the world.  I agree that a lot of jazz pianists are underrated.  Many of the jazz pianists have had the greatest technical abilities in my opinion.

[quasimodo]

I heard from somewhere that Rachmaninov was in awe of Art Tatum, as was the rest of the world. 

Alledgedly, Sergei and Volodia used, now and then, to go to jazz clubs to see and listen to Tatum.

[BoliverAllmon]

WTH?
His Haendel is gorgeous, his WTC I is more than decent, his Shostakovitch is at least good.
Matter of taste maybe  .

I haven't heard the WTC, but his shosty is terrible.

[steveie986]

I haven't heard jarrett play jazz, but if it is anything like his classical no thank you.

What an ignoramus you are!

[steveie986]

comparing jazz pianists to classical concert pianists is ridiculous

Yes, I agree. Jazz pianists are a breed of their own. They possess Midas's touch while classical pianists only labor to dig up a few bits of gold.

[BoliverAllmon]

Yes, I agree. Jazz pianists are a breed of their own. They possess Midas's touch while classical pianists only labor to dig up a few bits of gold.

Abbey Whiteside would agree.

[steveie986]

Abbey Whiteside would agree.

No offense, BTW. I'm full of shite as usual. But Keith Jarrett is really very, very good. Ignore his classical stuff - they are good but not remarkable. I hate to say it, but his Koln Concert was magical.

[steveie986]

Abbey Whiteside would agree.

I wonder what Bernhard has to say about Whiteside?

[jre58591]

lets not forget nikolai kapustin, a damn good pianist/composer that combines jazz with classical and so much more.

[joca_hdj]

I heard Bojan Zulfikarpasic many times in Belgrade,he is amasing.
But i am more impressed with Bill Evans!
Anybody have listened to him?
He plays jazz,but we all can learn lot of him!
Just try to dig up any of his recordings,listen it for a while;i wont` say anything,it's up to you to figure out.
I `ll just say"so sensitive"
I think you can improve your musicianship by listening to jazz defenitely.
Jovan

[arensky]

Alledgedly, Sergei and Volodia used, now and then, to go to jazz clubs to see and listen to Tatum.

Rachmaninov was impressed by Tatum, but also said that he got bored after listening to him longer than 30 minutes. Which leads me to an important point about the differences between Jazz and Classical performance...


The jazz pianist is always doing "their own thing", there can be variety within that but it is limiting in a way. If we accept the premise that the jazz pianist is a composer, or certainly an arranger, when we hear a jazz concert or recording by one artist, it's like listening to Gould play Bach, or Zimmerman play Chopin. One composer, one pianist. Most classical pianists play programs by more than one composer, providing a variety of music for their audience. The classical pianist is a recreator, like an actor in a play.The jazz pianist (usually) takes a tune or composition but adapts it to suit him/herself, and when s/he is improvising is spontaneously composing. It's like improv acting or method acting. In method acting the actor's interpretation of a role comes from his own self and personality. Classical actors learn to subjugate their personality so that they can play a wide variety of roles, and instantly change their character, keeping themselves out of the character, as much as possible. Both of these schools of acting have their advantages and drawbacks, as do classical and jazz performance practices in music.

The jazz pianist has it easier in that s/he can adjust the technical difficulty level and pianistic textures to suit him/herself. In the case of  pianists like Tatum and Peterson, the technical level is as high as classical piano, that is their choice. Other jazz pianists often lower the technical level or don't do certain things because they don't care to. I don't think Errol Garner conciously thought " my scales aren't so clear, I'll avoid them" he just did what came naturally to him, just like Bill Evans didn't go in for thundering effects in the bass a la Garner, Tyner or Peterson. He evolved his own piano style without that. The primary difficulty in jazz isn't physical, it's having to think on your feet in real time, spontaneously composing.
 
The classical pianist has it easier in that everything is planned and mapped out in advance. This presents it's own challenge;  to render a composer's score accurately involves not just a good technique but knowledge of the different styles and eras of piano music. And the technique involved has to be all encompassing, you can't take the scales out if you're not good at them; the classical pianist has to be able to play in many different styles using and mastering all the physical resources available. Of course, we can avoid composers and pieces that don't "fit" us, the way jazz pianists don't have to use techniques they don't feel comfortable with, so perhaps it all comes out the same in the end, when the final commitment is to the music, not the motor that runs it.

The main difference is the improvisational one; I'm not sure that can be taught, I think that one either "makes stuff up or doesn't". But back to Rachmaninov getting bored with Tatum, it was because he was conditioned to hear a variety of music by different composers when he listened to a pianist. He got tired of the same thing after a short while, imo.

I quit classical piano for two or three years in order to be a real jazz pianist, not a classical pianist who played at jazz. I'm not one to "never say never", but at the time I had no intention of returning to classical piano. I was quite good at "real" jazz right off the bat, but I got bored after a couple of years, and started playing classical again; I felt like I was always eating the same thing, and wanted a musical diet with more variety. So I started giving recitals again, and what an improvement. To summarize this, after playing jazz and developing a way of playing the piano that was mine, it was easier for me to conquer the technical difficulties in other piano writing. In other words I learned how to tailor Bach's and Chopin's clothes to fit me, instead of always feeling like "this suit doesn't fit" when I played classical music. This was particularly true of Beethoven, whose piano music has always been difficult and akward for me.

I think every pianist should improvise/"make stuff up", ( using correct technique; many jazzers injure themselves because they don't know correct technique; then again, so do many classical players  ), and not nessacarily in Jazz.  How can the classical pianist successfully recreate music if they've never created any of their own? Similarly the jazz musician should study fully realized musical structures ( classical pieces) so they know that there's more to music than spitting back the same riffs and ideas all the time. Heh, I think there are more jazzers who study classical (to a point) than classical players who improvise. That's a thread of it's own, perhaps...

Horowitz, when asked what he thought of Tatum...

"Tatum, he is the greatest pianist ever!"   

[leahcim]

Rachmaninov was impressed by Tatum, but also said that he got bored after listening to him longer than 30 minutes. Which leads me to an important point about the differences between Jazz and Classical performance...

Yes, I would have said it's ironic that music which [amongst the list of other things we came up with once] is supposed to be improvised, spontaneous and "different every time" is indeed largely done and dusted if you've listened to 30 minutes of it [although I'm wondering what Rach did for the other 25 minutes ] especially in contrast with a genre that is largely unashamedly playing the same thing again and again.

You may as well play blues / pop, for one thing the girls you'll meet are better looking and if you play something that's good you can at least play it some other time.

That's not to say that some of the people who play it aren't talented though, but to me that's just the crying shame of it.

I guess it's the sort of thing where you'd expect a Bernhard or Taubman to talk about the dangers of getting jazz and how people who say "but so and so plays like that" is because a lot of professional players get jazz too. By using special techniques you can re-train your playing methods to avoid it [or avoid it at all in the first place] It's probably worse than CTS though not having a physical cause. Most doctors won't even acknowledge it exists, let alone have a clue what to do if you say you're learning the piano and have experienced it. Don't let them do a full frontal lobotomy. Unless your name is Cleo. A zub a zub a zub de boop de dah dah!

[practicingnow]

Yes, I agree. Jazz pianists are a breed of their own. They possess Midas's touch while classical pianists only labor to dig up a few bits of gold.

It is in part because of the opinion of guys like you that that classical music will continue to enjoy a long slow death.

I can't comment on what you hear when you listen to great classical pianists, I can only comment on what I hear.  But I hear something very special, and yes, Vladimir Horowitz is far superior to Keith Jarrett and Art Tatum to my ears.

That Midas touch of Jazz pianists that you refer to, to me , seems like they are reaching into their usual same bag of tricks and pulling out the same bits of gold over and over. 
On the other hand, the "labor" involved in digging up "a few bits of gold" ( - I'm assuming you mean the collective works of Bach, Beethoven Chopin, Liszt, Schubert, Haydn, Rachmaninoff, Schumann, Alkan, Mozart, Scriabin, Brahms, Mendelsohn, Granados, Ravel, Debussy, Prokofiev, etc. as your few "bits of gold" list) is a noble and deeply rewarding life-long pursuit, as I see it.
I hope some other members agree with me.

[arensky]

It is in part because of the opinion of guys like you that that classical music will continue to enjoy a long slow death.

Well, how did he come to form this opinion? Obviously jazz pianists are doing something for him that classical pianists are not. As for the long slow death (yes it's happening, classical music is on life support but it's not too late yet), I believe classical musicians have only themselves to blame for this.

 Classical music is perceived by most people as snooty and elitist, something that cannot be understood without being initiated into it, like a private club. How did this come about? The record companies and TV certainly made it accessible from the late 1940's to the 1970's, and more music is available to us with the click of a mouse than ever before. I think the problem lies in the attitude of maany classical musicians, they think they are superior to other musicians, and they sure act like it. This turns people off.  People don't like to be looked down upon, and classical musicians are inculcated with this idea of their superiority the second they step into music school, and many of the books about classical music make this elitism perfectly clear to the uninitiated, who then don't want to be part of the snootery. This isn't always true, there are people who like what they hear and listen to what they like, regardless of it's superficial appearence. It's time for some serious PR for classical music. It's unfortunate that most of the attempts at classical PR are affected, cloying, and insincere.

Because people like classical music!    It's the attitude of classical music that they don't like. 


The same things are happening to Jazz. Jazz has this veneer of "cool" about it, that makes it attractive to today's general public. However, this veneer is just that, a superficial thing that covers the core of the music that is real. Like the elitism of classical, this "coolness" (twisted elitism) often creates a barrier between the musician and the listener, and turns the listener off. It seems to be happening in all music. Everyone seems to be stuck up about their music lately, alternatives poppers rappers folksters hip hoppers new agers you name it. Too much "cool" and ego, not enough music. 

can't comment on what you hear when you listen to great classical pianists, I can only comment on what I hear.  But I hear something very special, and yes, Vladimir Horowitz is far superior to Keith Jarrett and Art Tatum to my ears.

That's fine. But I don't think you can evaluate Horowitz and Tatum using the same criteria. One was a terrible improviser, the other was a genius. Tatum did not play classical piano, although he  knew it and learned from it, and had the ability to do it at a very high level. Same planet (the planet of ne plus ultra), different worlds.  Jarrett we can compare with both of them, since he plays on both "planets" .

And he comes up second place on both, imo...

That Midas touch of Jazz pianists that you refer to, to me , seems like they are reaching into their usual same bag of tricks and pulling out the same bits of gold over and over.

And so are classical pianists. Horowitz playing the Carmen Variations, Rubinstein playing Chopin (again), Serkin playing Beethoven. Most pianists have their specialties. See my enormous post in this thread, I don't want to repeat myself. Maybe it's all just a bag of tricks...   
 

On the other hand, the "labor" involved in digging up "a few bits of gold" ( - I'm assuming you mean the collective works of Bach, Beethoven Chopin, Liszt, Schubert, Haydn, Rachmaninoff, Schumann, Alkan, Mozart, Scriabin, Brahms, Mendelsohn, Granados, Ravel, Debussy, Prokofiev, etc. as your few "bits of gold" list) is a noble and deeply rewarding life-long pursuit, as I see it.
I hope some other members agree with me.

I agree with you you 100%. 

[arensky]

I haven't heard jarrett play jazz, but if it is anything like his classical no thank you.

boliver

I heard him play a classical recital years ago, it may have been his first attempt in this direction. He played the Pathetique Sonata, some Bach (Preludes and Fugues and Inventions) and some Debussy Preludes. It was, uh, how to say this, pretty bad. I don't know if he performs classical music live, or just records it. I would not be surprised if the latter was the case. I think for live performing he is strictly stream of conciousness a la the "Koln Concerts", and cannot follow a set program. That said the classical recordings are satisfactory and he is a great jazz pianist.

[mephisto]

I heard him play a classical recital years ago, it may have been his first attempt in this direction. He played the Pathetique Sonata, some Bach (Preludes and Fugues and Inventions) and some Debussy Preludes. It was, uh, how to say this, pretty bad. I don't know if he performs classical music live, or just records it. I would not be surprised if the latter was the case. I think for live performing he is strictly stream of conciousness a la the "Koln Concerts", and cannot follow a set program. That said the classical recordings are satisfactory and he is a great jazz pianist.

My last piano-teacher said to me that she saw Keith Jarrett play an improvisation-recital, at wich he also played a Scriabin piece. I can of course not say if this is true or not.

About your last post who was a genius and who was terrible improviser. Sorry for being so stupid.

[arensky]

My last piano-teacher said to me that she saw Keith Jarrett play an improvisation-recital, at wich he also played a Scriabin piece. I can of course not say if this is true or not.

About your last post who was a genius and who was terrible improviser. Sorry for being so stupid.

I was not clear; genius (improviser) is Tatum, bad improviser was Horowitz. Perhaps this is not fair of me, I am only repeating things I've heard or read, I've never heard him improvise.

[leahcim]

Classical music is perceived by most people as snooty and elitist, something that cannot be understood without being initiated into it, like a private club. How did this come about?

In the context of Jazz it's laughable to suggest classical musicians have some superiority complex. [cf David Horne for example, you'll find the forum on google, and / or search usenet where's there's a plethora of people who, well go and see...]

At least the classical musicians superiority, as far as musicianship goes is logical....some of those Jazz guys often play Yamahas and digital pianos!

All music is as "dead" [or not] as classical.

The idea that any other genre is, via record executives or TV, about the music is a fallacy.

Besides, you can't make music "accessible" any more than you can make any other subject, e.g astro-physics, maths or computing accessible.

You can fool a few people into believing wiggling a mouse makes them computer literate though, but do you think Bill Gates made computing accessible? No. cf Knuth.

I don't see music being any different - anything I know about music, performance, theory and so on, isn't because I have a shelf of CDs or an internet connection or 40 channels of music on my TV.

The TV people trying to make it accessible here are people like Classical FM TV. Their team of highly paid chimps decided that to make it popular they wouldn't have classical music on it.

Instead they have the Browns [playing lord of the dance on 5 pianos, that's like a 3rd of a note each] and Maksim [playing with his genitals I think] and some school choir singing coldplay songs. Then a pile of dire italian arias.

Coldplay - that's a load of minor chord arpeggios played on the piano and a guy singing nasally over them about how miserable everything is. They are huge,  think about it. If that's big, classical can't die. Indeed it sounds like a heavy sinus cold would just increase album sales.

They have the cheek to put in 5 minute adverts with a narrative something like "people said classical music was dead....they said we wouldn't get any viewers....over 3 million people watched our channel.." and such cobblers as that.

The imaginative scheduling for a genre as rich and diverse as Classical is basically 3 programmes "Morning" "Afternoon" and "Evening"..perhaps there's 4, one called "Night" too, so you can always tune into the stuff you like, err not.

Yet we have threads in here exchanging little clips of performances. People doing their own thing, concert pianists and so on - and that's just one instrument.

A complete halfwit could make a better classical music channel than they do, so you wonder who they have doing it.

In that small sense perhaps I agree with you. Classical music has a lot of halfwits that can't play and on the face of it have nothing at all to do with classical music, except perhaps some uni course. Complete buffoons [we've at least one here who I shan't name] if that's the kind of classical music person you're talking about that is ruining it / killing it or whatever, I'd probably agree, I bet there's a bunch in every TV station.

e.g Whoever decides every year to ignore every classical music event around the world, every video release, archive footage, new musicians, old musicians and so on and instead show the £$"£ing proms for example. Especially the last night.

e.g Who decides to dress up kids like that? I see people playing and they are wearing whatever clothes they usually wear [jeans or whatever] Then you see a comp or recital and they are dressed like something out of Oxfam shop, something that was removed from a dead body in the 1930s. Is that the musicians or some other hanger on as above that decides that's what pianists should wear?

[practicingnow]

I think the problem lies in the attitude of maany classical musicians, they think they are superior to other musicians, and they sure act like it. This turns people off.  People don't like to be looked down upon, and classical musicians are inculcated with this idea of their superiority the second they step into music school, and many of the books about classical music make this elitism perfectly clear to the uninitiated, who then don't want to be part of the snootery.

I don't agree - young classical musicians are largely very hard-working, respectful, humble, dedicated, and quite nice people.  They study hard, and honor their tradition.  They realize that they are fighting an uphill battle, and they also realize that they are losing.  They realize that they are in a miniscule minority.  But they do what they do for only one reason - because they love it - there is no other reason.  It is quite noble actually.  Certainly there is no popular glory in classical music, and even less money.  And if some of them feel that the music they study and play is inherently superior to jazz or pop or rock, well - - - let's just say I think they have a right to that opinion...
IN FACT it is the jazz musicians that put on the hugest airs of superiority, in my experience, they are the ones in the "exclusive club" out of the musicians that I know.  They seem to be always trying to "outcool" you.  It rarely comes off as anything but arrogant, obnoxious and foolish.
I can honestly say, now that I think about it, that none of the classical musicians that I know are snooty or pretentious.  They are all pretty down to earth.
Classical music lovers, on the other hand, can be a different story, unfortunately...

[practicingnow]

The same things are happening to Jazz. Jazz has this veneer of "cool" about it, that makes it attractive to today's general public. However, this veneer is just that, a superficial thing that covers the core of the music that is real. Like the elitism of classical, this "coolness" (twisted elitism) often creates a barrier between the musician and the listener, and turns the listener off. It seems to be happening in all music. Everyone seems to be stuck up about their music lately, alternatives poppers rappers folksters hip hoppers new agers you name it. Too much "cool" and ego, not enough music. 



That's fine. But I don't think you can evaluate Horowitz and Tatum using the same criteria. One was a terrible improviser, the other was a genius. Tatum did not play classical piano, although he  knew it and learned from it, and had the ability to do it at a very high level. Same planet (the planet of ne plus ultra), different worlds.  Jarrett we can compare with both of them, since he plays on both "planets" .

And he comes up second place on both, imo...


And so are classical pianists. Horowitz playing the Carmen Variations, Rubinstein playing Chopin (again), Serkin playing Beethoven. Most pianists have their specialties. See my enormous post in this thread, I don't want to repeat myself. Maybe it's all just a bag of tricks...   

Agreed

[leahcim]

I don't agree - young classical musicians are largely very hard-working, respectful, humble, dedicated, and quite nice people.

Well no. Let's not kid ourselves. We know it exists and in most part it's justified too. But it implies that there was a time when classical musicians weren't elitist and thus were popular because of it.

Fallacy.

If Beethoven were around now and one or two went "Hi, my names $blah and I'm a classical musician" he'd still be laughing at them a week later. Moreso when the topic got around to composition.

He wasn't nice. If we'd wanted someone nice, we'd get a girl. Otherwise, get some dude who can play and write tunes, yeah? If he knows it too, so what?

I think one or two have heard of Beethoven....moreso than whoever the latest pop fad is....that's not because Beethoven went on Saturday morning TV saying "I do it for the music, I love the fans, I play ok I guess, I'd like world peace and save the dolphins, I don't eat meat and drive at 30mph...think of the children!"

Beethoven was a turd of a human being and had the popularity of his music over the centuries relied upon the guy's personality or moral merit we wouldn't wipe our backsides on it.

What next? "Punk died because after the sex pistols, the bands became rude" ?

So no, if you're learning the piano, don't worry about how nice and humble you are unless it's justfied...because we're all usually humble for a reason - I'm humble about playing the piano because I can't, not because it's an attractive character trait I feel I need to project.

[quasimodo]

I don't understand why this thread turned into some kind of controversy, classical vs. jazz and classical is dying and stuff  .
I was just stating those jazz guys were worth listening with attention, with open-mindedness. It's not about who is better or something...
Actually those giants of both worlds are most often interested in what happens in the other side. We talked about Horowitz and Rachmaninov but there are many other examples: Samson Francois, Alexis Weisenberg, Friedrich Gulda even tried their hands in jazz; on the other hand most of the top jazz pianists were classically trained, Brad Mehldau often says his main source of inspiration is Brahms piano music.
Even Helene Grimaud, at a certain time claimed listening to more jazz than classical.
It's just nonsense to raise barriers...

[arensky]

I don't agree - young classical musicians are largely very hard-working, respectful, humble, dedicated, and quite nice people.  They study hard, and honor their tradition.  They realize that they are fighting an uphill battle, and they also realize that they are losing.  They realize that they are in a miniscule minority.  But they do what they do for only one reason - because they love it - there is no other reason.  It is quite noble actually.  Certainly there is no popular glory in classical music, and even less money.  And if some of them feel that the music they study and play is inherently superior to jazz or pop or rock, well - - - let's just say I think they have a right to that opinion...

Yes, the young classical student is to be lauded. But it doesn't have to be hopeless and they don't have to lose. (losing is a mental state and concept, something we invent) There is no practical reason for doing classical music other than love. But this noble motive doesn't justify elitism. They have a right to their opinion, but that doesn't make it attractive to everybody else, which is what concerns me, not "who is more stuck-up" (so is some jazz). I teach Music Appreciation and Jazz History to the uninitiated, and the young people (mostly) who take these classes are instantly comfortable with the jazz class, in music appreciation (classical music) I have to overcome resistance and prejudice to the subject. How did this come about? Who gave these kids these opinions, largely unfounded, that Jazz is "cool" (a lot of it is bull****) and classical music is "stuck-up" ( a lot of jazz is too)? I can only feel that it's the whole culture and aura around classical music that leads to this negative perception about it from young people. Where did this come from, if not the musicians themselves? If it was our PR machine and image makers, we should have monitored them more carefully. It's easy to get caught up in the wonderful things that people tell you about yourself... Jazz on the other hand has a visible connection to Blues, Rock and "pop" (I hate that term) that Classical music no longer has. I emphasize that point in my classes, explaining how Liszt and Paganini were the first "rock stars" and that Opera isn't that much different from the musicals that many of them enjoy, and so on. I think I do this withpout pandering and I'm pleased to say that after taking my classes young people seem to be more aware of music as an art and science, not just a commercial product.

IN FACT it is the jazz musicians that put on the hugest airs of superiority, in my experience, they are the ones in the "exclusive club" out of the musicians that I know.  They seem to be always trying to "outcool" you.  It rarely comes off as anything but arrogant, obnoxious and foolish.
I can honestly say, now that I think about it, that none of the classical musicians that I know are snooty or pretentious.  They are all pretty down to earth.

Heh I spent an evening at a cocktail party full of jazz musicians and the guest of honor was a superstar. All this guy could do was talk about himself, he was so conceited offensive and overbearing that he was not aware of it, someone truly out of touch with reality. And yet everyone there was happy to darken their nose a few shades to gain favor with him, although it was patently obvious that he would never help anyone but himself. I met a famous classical violinist once, I asked him a question about one of the pieces he played, and without even saying "excuse me" turned away as if I did not exist. His career has faded...  

I have known jerks in both types of music (and a few others as well) as well as humble modest people. I think maybe you should meet my Jazz friends and I should meet your Classical friends. But it's the public's perception that I'm concerned with, we've almost completely lost their attention. Perhaps classical music needs an image makeover.

[pianistimo]

cole porter is my hero.  but, what is jazz piano without singing?  if you want to play jazz - you have to find a voice or be one at the piano.  it's very hard to carry it off like a pro.  you either got it or you ain't.  what is worse than a classical pianist turned jazz.  i think it would put me under.  i mean if i saw my piano teacher doing cocktail piano work - i'd freak.

on the other hand, he plays so smoothly - he'd probably be really good at it if he wanted to be. 

[arensky]

It's just nonsense to raise barriers...

Yes.

But they seem to raise themselves spontaneously... 

[leahcim]

I asked him a question about one of the pieces he played, and without even saying "excuse me" turned away as if I did not exist. His career has faded... 

...and you think your response to his career fading is attractive to the "public"?

Why should he talk to anyone? He played his pieces and lots of people are approaching him maybe, perhaps he's tired. Perhaps he doesn't need an excuse, why should anyone talk to you? You are the one arguing against ego yet telling us a story that shows you have your own ego issue The only thing you didn't say "Don't you know who I am?"

The clarification just comes across like you have a huge chip on your shoulder about someone else who plays the piano being the centre of attention for a while. Does it hurt that much? Then a spiteful cheer when someone falls "Hurrah!" The green eyed monster mocks the meat it feeds on, remember. Your career could have had some height to fall too if you'd only had the chance

That's pretty much what most of the never-quite-made-its are like, no? That's far more unattractive TBH, and from time to time we see the "competition fixed!" dummy spitting in here too.

Similary Simon Cowell, everyone he meets can sing "Hey, I'm arensky, I'm a singer...ooh lottie is at it again haha lottie is at it again boom boom!" "Oh no" thinks Simon, "...another fuckwit, I'll try and ignore him" then on singingstreet.com "I met Simon Cowell last night, told him about my falsetto and asked him a question and he ignored me! What a jerk! Who does he think he is!" ..."Oh yes darling what a jerk! His career's ending though. Hahaha!"

Give the guy the benefit of the doubt he's never heard of you, he's going to dread 2 things (a) the nerd / geek who's going to say "You played 3 notes incorrectly on page 4, from page 56 onwards it doesn't sound to me like you'd had the right edition, mine doesn't have a rest there and the.....or as above the guy who is just there to further his undeserved career "...can' you give this tape to Bill at EMI? I nearly came second in a competition but I forget my name and got lost at the airport..." or perhaps he just wanted to find someone who liked the show too that he could shag, or talk about something else than violin playing all the time. "Sheet Barbara, I meet these people who have no life outside music, I love the music but they talk about nothing else <yawn>..."


I guess the fact that fame is fickle is going to get that "I can play as well as him, why aren't they fawning around me?..." response, but if you want humble musicians you have to accept that sometimes the famous musician isn't going to be the best, otherwise he wouldn't have been humble...and fame will soon remove any shyness he had about how great he is, as you've noted

[arensky]

...and you think your response to his career fading is attractive to the "public"?

Perhaps not. But that's how I feel. A lot of them can relate, IHND....

Why should he talk to anyone? He played his pieces and lots of people are approaching him maybe, perhaps he's tired. Perhaps he doesn't need an excuse, why should anyone talk to you? You are the one arguing against ego yet telling us a story that shows you have your own ego issue The only thing you didn't say "Don't you know who I am?"

He was in a receiving line, part of his job. I am in the line. He should talk to me, especially since I am asking a short simple intelligent question, politely. We all have our own ego issues, I am no exception. The guy was rude, and quite frankly I fely hurt and affronted particularly as I was standing with an important member of the musical community. Left me with egg on my face. **** him hard. 

He is slipping into obscurity, a burnt out cokehead  oo oo ooo oooo oooooooooOOOOOHHHHH!!!!!!!!

                     

The clarification just comes across like you have a huge chip on your shoulder about someone else who plays the piano being the centre of attention for a while. Does it hurt that much? Then a spiteful cheer when someone falls "Hurrah!" The green eyed monster mocks the meat it feeds on, remember. Your career could have had some height to fall too if you'd only had the chance

I am happy to let other people play the piano, that doesn't threaten me. (except for a couple of rivals in the region, but that is professional, not personal) I play very well, and if someone plays better than me I observe them and learn from it. My career has had it's up and downs like anyone else's.

That's pretty much what most of the never-quite-made-its are like, no? That's far more unattractive TBH, and from time to time we see the "competition fixed!" dummy spitting in here too.

How do you know I've never-quite made-it? For all you know, I could have never come close to making it. Thanks for the vote of confidence! 


Some competitions are fixed, or certainly slanted. I have experienced this, and not as a contestant.

Similary Simon Cowell, everyone he meets can sing "Hey, I'm arensky, I'm a singer...ooh lottie is at it again haha lottie is at it again boom boom!" "Oh no" thinks Simon, "...another fuckwit, I'll try and ignore him" then on singingstreet.com "I met Simon Cowell last night, told him about my falsetto and asked him a question and he ignored me! What a jerk! Who does he think he is!" ..."Oh yes darling what a jerk! His career's ending though. Hahaha!"

I'm sure many people think that about Simon Cowell. He's right in his asessments most of the time, but he often takes pleasure in belittling the "contestants" , and getting an obvious kick out of it. Is that really nessacary? I don't enjoy watching humiliation or get a kick out of it. Yes some of these "artists" who come on this show are kooks and are looking for a fight/ but many of them have no idea how bad they are, and I feel that they are being victimized for $$$. Sure they asked for it and it's freedom of expression and a lesson for the rest of us (ooHHH!!!! MORALITY PLAY  ) but it bothers me, I don't see why it's nessacary. There's something wrong with it, this is an instinctive (emotional??  ) reaction, not an intellectual one. Maybe I am a sap 

Or maybe I am right. 


Not that I want a world of Pollyanna Abdul, but it is easier on the eye...   
 

I guess the fact that fame is fickle is going to get that "I can play as well as him, why aren't they fawning around me?..." response, but if you want humble musicians you have to accept that sometimes the famous musician isn't going to be the best, otherwise he wouldn't have been humble...and fame will soon remove any shyness he had about how great he is, as you've noted

This is unclear, I don't quite understand what you mean..   

[mephisto]

I was not clear; genius (improviser) is Tatum, bad improviser was Horowitz. Perhaps this is not fair of me, I am only repeating things I've heard or read, I've never heard him improvise.

I will hook you up

[brewtality]

Horowitz improvs? where'd you get that meph? btw aren't his transcriptions an indication of his improvisation skills? I mean Tatum's were very worked out, so it is a fair comparison. I admire Tatum alot, there's that vid of him on youtube, I love the way he looks; dead still, efficient movements. Jarrett, I have never been able to get into. I remember I watched his programme of him on TV and I turned it off after 5 mins, not only was he hard to watch but the playing did nothing for me.

[timothy42b]

Your classical pianist may do a recital or concerto concert periodically, and is in control of what music he/she chooses.

Your jazz player is in the club 4 or 5 nights a week, and if he doesn't please the crowd he's fired.  That alone makes quite a difference in what he can choose, what risks he can take, what he has time to prepare. 

Perhaps it is not fair to compare the geniuses like Tatum or Horowitz.  In the jazz world a lot of craftsmen are working everyday.  In the classical world a lot of artists are preparing everyday but will never perform. 

[prometheus]

The same things are happening to Jazz. Jazz has this veneer of "cool" about it, that makes it attractive to today's general public. However, this veneer is just that, a superficial thing that covers the core of the music that is real. Like the elitism of classical, this "coolness" (twisted elitism) often creates a barrier between the musician and the listener, and turns the listener off. It seems to be happening in all music. Everyone seems to be stuck up about their music lately, alternatives poppers rappers folksters hip hoppers new agers you name it. Too much "cool" and ego, not enough music. 

I think it is more about the listeners than the musicians themselves. People that listen classical music often listen it either because they want to be elitist or because they are musicians themselves. Same with jazz, it is listened by the people who use it to define their pop culture. Same with rock, rap, electronic music, etc. It defines groups and social differences. Music isn't that much about music as one may think.

And this is what people try to maintain. Classical music needs to stay upper class and elitist. Jazz has to stay either intellectual or cool, rap needs to stay 'on the street', rock needs to be for wild teenagers, etc. The moment street scum are chilling out listening to classical music it will lose its appeal with the 55+ rich people. And as long as only 55+ rich people go to classical music concerts it will not be cool for teenagers. That's the way it works. It is the audience not the musicians. At least that is my view.


As for comparing classical and jazz. In classical music we have a composer that can spend a lot of time working out all the fine details. The person can talke months or years to write a piece. Then we have the pianist who is solely a performer and interpreter. This person can focus all energy on playing the perfect piece perfectly.

Jazz is very different. We have one person that needs to create all the music 'on the fly'. The person will only have the time it takes to play.

So lets say that a composer and performer spend 100 times as much time on the music as the jazz improvisor. This means that jazz improvisor needs to be 100 times more skilled to reach the same quality of music.
Of course tht is impossible. This is why jazz music is of lower quality and this is why jazz music is less ambitious.

This is also why jazz is about something different than classical music. Classical music is about high art, the best organisation of music imaginable.

Jazz music is about craftmanschip. About musical personalities, making mistakes, having genius moments, creative energy, etc.


This is why jazz music is more for musicians than classical music. A listener of jazz music indirectly admires the musician. The listerer will understand the difficulties and the unique talent.
In classical music one just admires the sound. Composers are dead and performers are supposed to add nothing.

If one were to listen to jazz as one would listen to classical music then the person would only realise that the sound is of a lower quality than in classical music. The craftmanship of the improvisor and the creative energy is not understood.

[leahcim]

Classical music needs to stay upper class and elitist.

I think that's the fallacy, the audience for classical music isn't upper class. No more than rap that sells lots of CDs is bought by black people shooting each other and living on the street. It's white middle class kids with perfect grades who think rebelling is stopping out 30 minutes later or driving moms car at 35 in a 30. Plus a bunch of other social groups that listen and buy it, grandmas and grandpas, parents and whatever else. I wouldn't fool the image of the music with that of the audience [or for that matter, in the main, with the artists behind the image either] definately not for anything that is popular.

You're certainly correct to observe that image about classical music [especially in genres like Opera] but my family haven't owned Kilkenny for centuries now and, if anything, one thing Classical FM buried was the Radio 3 image for it. It's the fallacy of who the audience is that leads to the dire presentation.

Don't be fooled by the ageist media either - e.g you see those adverts on TV that have the father who is clueless about computers and his kids, despite all logic, are computer geniuses? "Oh dad, you can't even switch it on...you pathetic wally, let me do it"  It was never true, but if it was, it hasn't been true for 20+ years now.  So do you really think 55+ today is about eating wurthers originals, listening to classical music and planning for your pension? What a load of cobblers. Rock concerts are headlined by people born just after WWII. The same is true of whatever image you want to project for people who listen and enjoy classical music, whether they are 5, 25 or 55, it's just bollocks.

Besides, the elistism isn't about elitism in that social sense [perhaps that exists] its about in a musical sense.

[arensky]

I think it is more about the listeners than the musicians themselves. People that listen classical music often listen it either because they want to be elitist or because they are musicians themselves. Same with jazz, it is listened by the people who use it to define their pop culture. Same with rock, rap, electronic music, etc. It defines groups and social differences. Music isn't that much about music as one may think.

And this is what people try to maintain. Classical music needs to stay upper class and elitist. Jazz has to stay either intellectual or cool, rap needs to stay 'on the street', rock needs to be for wild teenagers, etc. The moment street scum are chilling out listening to classical music it will lose its appeal with the 55+ rich people. And as long as only 55+ rich people go to classical music concerts it will not be cool for teenagers. That's the way it works. It is the audience not the musicians. At least that is my view.

This stereotyping of musical taste is what we need to move away from, and it's happening. As micheal points out after this post the social image that a certain genre or style of music has doesn't nessacarily restrict that music to that group of people. Rap left the street a long time ago and is now enjoyed by white teenagers and stockbrokers, and it seems to me that almost everybody enjoys some kind of classical music once you knock down the elitist aura that surrounds it.

As for comparing classical and jazz. In classical music we have a composer that can spend a lot of time working out all the fine details. The person can talke months or years to write a piece. Then we have the pianist who is solely a performer and interpreter. This person can focus all energy on playing the perfect piece perfectly.

Jazz is very different. We have one person that needs to create all the music 'on the fly'. The person will only have the time it takes to play.

So lets say that a composer and performer spend 100 times as much time on the music as the jazz improvisor. This means that jazz improvisor needs to be 100 times more skilled to reach the same quality of music.
Of course tht is impossible. This is why jazz music is of lower quality and this is why jazz music is less ambitious.

This is also why jazz is about something different than classical music. Classical music is about high art, the best organisation of music imaginable.

Jazz music is about craftmanschip. About musical personalities, making mistakes, having genius moments, creative energy, etc.

Yes the proceses of Jazz and Classical are very different. But I don't think you can say that Classical is better than Jazz, based on your example of "100 times". Yes it's impossible for the jazz musician to do what you describe but musical value isn't just a matter of time spent. If this were true, Every composer would be as good as Bach and every pianist would be Horowitz or Hamelin.

And if you follow this line of thought a little further, the composer can dispense with the human element ( errors, imperfection) altogether, arrange his music on a computer and be done with it. This is a track that some composers tried in the 1950's and 60's but it hasn't been popular with classical audiences. It's made it's way into some modern music that's not classical, but that I hesitate to call "pop".

This is why jazz music is more for musicians than classical music. A listener of jazz music indirectly admires the musician. The listerer will understand the difficulties and the unique talent.
In classical music one just admires the sound. Composers are dead and performers are supposed to add nothing.

Then it's odd that jazz has more currency with the general public than classical music, although many musicians in both genres are playing for themselves, not trying to curry favor with the public.

The listener of jazz music directly admires the musician, who IS the music, since s/he is creating it at the moment. And in my experience the jazz listener is not understanding, they are just grooving on what they are hearing and feeling, leaving analysis and difficulty behind. And at classical performances someone like Gavrilov or Horowitz can put the audience on the edge of their seat, by what they are doing with the music. Another pianist could play the same piece and add nothing as you suggest is the norm, and these same people would be passive. This is what is wrong with a lot of modern classical performance imo, this passivity. You can stay home and be passive and save the $$ spent on the ticket. This is why Lang Lang, for all his gaucheries and faults, has masde such an impression on the classical performing scene. You may not like him, but he certainly isn't passive!

Performers adding nothing ? I was never taught to add nothing to a piece in many years of classical piano study and I don't know anyone who was. Although some performers seem to have nothing of themselves to give to an interpretation, this is impossible.

 

If one were to listen to jazz as one would listen to classical music then the person would only realise that the sound is of a lower quality than in classical music. The craftmanship of the improvisor and the creative energy is not understood.

I listen to everything the same way, excluding when I am playing music, that is a different kind of listening. I've always listened to and enjoyed a wide variety of music, there's good and bad bach rock chopin coltrane shankar gamelan c&w rap muzak you name it. I prefer good classical music to bad jazz music and vice versa. What exactly do you mean by "sound", that's very interesting...

[mephisto]

I agee with arensky(but not 100% percent in the sence that i would have answered the same way).

[arensky]

Horowitz improvs? where'd you get that meph? btw aren't his transcriptions an indication of his improvisation skills? I mean Tatum's were very worked out, so it is a fair comparison. I admire Tatum alot, there's that vid of him on youtube, I love the way he looks; dead still, efficient movements. Jarrett, I have never been able to get into. I remember I watched his programme of him on TV and I turned it off after 5 mins, not only was he hard to watch but the playing did nothing for me.

I think that while Tatum's interpretations of certain songs such as Yesterdays, Humoresque, (these are the vids on youtube) Sweet Lorraine and Willow Weep for Me are definitely heavily arranged, almost to the point of being through composed, his different recordings of them are always a little bit different, and obviously not thought out before, it's truly spur of the moment, although there are certain things he always does like the interlocking octaves in Yesterdays, the cadenza at the end of Humoresque and the intro to Sweet Lorraine, but they are never exactly the same, and in those pieces he will often take a completely different tack when he is playing the improv choruses. Very few jazz pianists play completely off the top of their heads with no preconceived ideas or patterns; Keith Jarrett and Cecil Taylor are the most successful at this, (sometimes ) and I once heard Mal Waldron live, he and his trio just started to play in altered tonality, and it just grew like a plant and spread out over about an hour and a half then they took a break, came back and did another one. This was as much like listening to Sangeet (raga) as Jazz. It was extraordinary.

Being a good improviser requires discipline just like classical or arranged playing, but it's a different kind of discipline, playing "on the fly"  as Prometheus calls it requires a different sort of concentration and focus than recreating something that exists already, and it's dangerous to mix the two, I've tried in private and it just doesn't work.

Yet.

Horowitz was a classical player, he did improvise in private for friends and between takes in the studio, but stuck to the notes he had practiced when he was on stage although he would vary tempi and dynamics and phrasing of those notes in performance, which makes him more "jazzlike" than most classical pianists. The Carmen Variations were always different, but I think he stuck to what he jad practiced when he was on stage. Who knows, some live performances may contain improvisation.

The 1957 Carmen (thanks mephisto is fascinating because it's focus is musical, not technical. I've always wondered what this sounded like. Now I know. 

The following is from "Horowitz" by Glenn Plaskin, a controversial but interesting biography. On page 292 it says

"One indication Horowitz was ready to resume his career fully was that he began to rework his Carmen transcription. He had already performed Carmen twice for records, but now decided the piece could be improved. After at last putting down the original version on paper, he began to edit and recompose it with the idea of expanding the two earlier encore versions and making Carmen a real "concert composition" similar in length to a Chopin Ballade. He even teast recorded the new version at Carnegie Hall on May 14th 1957."

I didn't recognize this as Carmen at first, he kind of sneaks into it, and the tempi are quite relaxed compared to the other 4 recordings I've heard (1928, 1947, 1968 1978). This 1957 one is cool, but I prefer Carmen in it's barn burner incarnations.