Keith Jarrett - The art of improvisation

[presto agitato]

An important series of videos has been posted on youtube.

The series tells us about Jarrettīs life and his musical journey across four decades.

The first video is here:

[pokeythepenguin]

Ew.  Not this stuff again.

[retrouvailles]

Ew.  Not this stuff again.

Agreed. Please don't show us this. Keith Jarrett is possibly one of the most overrated pianists ever, both in jazz and classical (much more so in classical).

[pokeythepenguin]

Agreed. Please don't show us this. Keith Jarrett is possibly one of the most overrated pianists ever, both in jazz and classical (much more so in classical).

I'm not even going to comment on my actual feelings about Keith Jarrett as a pianist, or performer.  I meant more like, "oh god, here come the spam wars circa 2007."

[ahinton]

Agreed, I'm afraid; just try those Shostakovich Preludes & Fugues for (not at all) good measure - well-meaning, no doubt (or I think there isn't any doubt) but really not up to scratch - quite a few of the pieces themselves are far from Shostakovich at his best, I openly admit, but some of them are rather good although you'd never know it from these "interpretations".

Best,

Alistair

[thierry13]

This video is UNBELIVEABLE ... in the bad meaning of the word. Calling Jarrett a "classical pianist" is simply ... untrue? Fake publicity, that's how I'd call it. Keith doesn't play classical music, he fakes it. And I won't even talk about jazz.

[arensky]

Keith Jarrett has played brilliantly on occasion, particularly in his own pieces and his free improvisations and he deserves credit for broadening the spectrum of improvisation in recent years. My own estimation of him is more in line with the views already posted, although not nearly as vitriolic. I was at his first classical recital in the 80's when he decided to swim in both pools. It was execrable. He used music, and it didn't help. The "Pathetique" Sonata was beyond bad by any standard, particularly that of a famous pianist with pretensions to artistry. Since then I thnk that most of his classical playing has been confined to the recording studio, mercifully. He should stick to "his own thing" imo, although his recording of some Handel Suites was interesting as an alternative to the standard way of playing Baroque keyboard music, and some of it was quite nice if a bit soporific.

Anyway, for a real look at the art of improvisation AND music, this is the video to watch;
 
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,33098.0.html
 

[soitainly]

 It kind of bothers me how much musicians and artists, who are supposed to some of the most open minded people, end up being so locked into one way of thinking that they slam anything that doesn't fit their rather narrow set of criteria. To me it is kind of funny that Jarrett, coming from a music form that isn't very popular these days such as jazz, can play a form of music even less popular (classical), and sell more records than most of the name classical pianists. I am sure that has to irk someone that has dedicated their whole life to becoming a classical pianist. But it kind of makes you wonder how classical music became so rigid, and I am sure this rigidity has contributed to its unpopualrity.

 I am not a Jarrett fan by any means, I have exactly one of his CD's. I had rented this documentary before and thought it was informative. It just strikes me as off that most of us play music by composers from 100 years ago that were for the most part great improvisers and creaters, yet we aren't open to coming to this music from different directions. I think that he still plays classical music some because he loves it. That he brings in a whole new generation of potential fans of this music seems to be a good thing. To overly ridicule him just sort of feels like tinges of jealosy and sour grapes.

 We all have artists that we don't like, but can't we at least keep from being so critical in the bad sense of the word.

[javacisnotrecognized]

It kind of bothers me how much musicians and artists, who are supposed to some of the most open minded people, end up being so locked into one way of thinking that they slam anything that doesn't fit their rather narrow set of criteria.

I can't see what is wrong with it - if the music is bad, it will be slammed. If it is good, it will be praised. Of course all kinds of factors skew this process in multiple ways, but ideally this is just natural selection at its best.
 

To me it is kind of funny that Jarrett, coming from a music form that isn't very popular these days such as jazz, can play a form of music even less popular (classical), and sell more records than most of the name classical pianists. I am sure that has to irk someone that has dedicated their whole life to becoming a classical pianist. But it kind of makes you wonder how classical music became so rigid, and I am sure this rigidity has contributed to its unpopualrity.

I personally believe that this has to do with a mixture of societal elitism and insecure teachers. Suppose you just picked up a new student, and you have a choice: You can help this student reach fullness of internal expression at the piano, or you can teach him to play just like everyone before him has. If you do the first route, you may be ridiculed since your student plays "differently." If you take the second route, your student won't really be a great pianist, but he'll get record deals, give performances, and be praised by the people who write reviews. Furthermore, there is mounting pressure against those who do wish to be individual. "Every other pianist plays it this way, do you think you're so much better than them that you need to play it differently?" is a typical nonsense excuse you often see as a response to this in some form.

It just strikes me as off that most of us play music by composers from 100 years ago that were for the most part great improvisers and creaters, yet we aren't open to coming to this music from different directions.

Most of the people on this forum ARE open to new approaches! However, not every pianist in the world uses Pianostreet. Most people who teach "The one true way to play music" do not frequent forums on the internet (Partly because everyone disagrees with them).

I think that he still plays classical music some because he loves it. That he brings in a whole new generation of potential fans of this music seems to be a good thing. To overly ridicule him just sort of feels like tinges of jealosy and sour grapes.

 We all have artists that we don't like, but can't we at least keep from being so critical in the bad sense of the word.

He brings a new generation of fans to the music - but consider this: Most of the fans will probably go through the process I mentioned above, if even they DO get involved.
And even then, they may be getting involved for the wrong reasons.

Anyway, thanks for your post .. you give me alot to think about..

PS there actully ARE people who are actively working to improve the classical music situation .. check out https://www.miamipianofest.com/ for instance

[Petter]

Keith Jarret is a fuckig genius and whatever is against your straitjacket appeals, Itīs on your behalf.

[indutrial]

Pianists getting into jazz and classical via Keith Jarrett is kind of like guitarists getting into their craft via players like Eric Johnson and Steve Vai. They are pretty good, stabile players with solid repertoires, etc... but after a while you start to realize that there are other players doing so much more and that their work might be a tad gimmicky. I'll admit that before I really knew my ass from a hole in the ground about piano improv, Jarrett's stuff was pretty interesting. Since I was playing bass at the time, I actually benefitted more from listening to Gary Peacock and Palle Danielsson's contributions to his records, not to mention the strong drumming provided by Paul Motian, Jack DeJohnette, and Jon Christiansen.

As time goes on, of course, Jarrett's style definitely goes stale whereas many other improvising pianists and jazz players continue to create steadily-interesting work (I still like guys like Craig Taborn, Sten Sandell, Borah Bergman, and Alexander von Schlippenbach). Jarrett just plays it too safe and he's an big baby (too many years of getting his ass kissed as a 'prodigy'). At the end of the day, he's really just a good springboard for listeners to get into that scene, sort of like Chick Corea.

[retrouvailles]

Keith Jarret is a fuckig genius and whatever is against your straitjacket appeals, Itīs on your behalf.

That's the right spirit! Too bad it's going in the wrong direction.

[Petter]

Artists like Keith Jarret, Nigel Kennedy or Lang Lang (despite putting on gimmicks that invites you to slap them on their little tush) that manages to reach a larger none musician audience then the average 150 admirers of a classical or jazz musician, is of more importance then whatever aesthetic ideals you feel are being compromised by their generally larger appeal.
 Personally I canīt play Axel F after 18 years of piano studies, so Iīm glad my girlfriend fills me in when she farts.