Classical vs. jazz what is harder

[espplayer7]

Hey guys, new to piano i was just wondering what is more technically demanding, classical or jazz? I know jazz has a lot of improv, but when i hear something like moonlight sonata 3rd movement I am like 

[thierry13]

Moonlight sonata 3rd mvt is far from being one of the hardest technical challenges there is ... in fact, as far as technical challenges go, it's one of the easier pieces ... kind of "easier" in the category "harder" pieces. Anyways classical is obviously MUCH harder than jazz. For many obvious and objective reasons, both technically and musically, and then because it's simply so much better.

[go12_3]

Classical is harder with the techical fingering that has to executed at all times, and if your fingers happen to trip up......ah, oh, a mistake!  And pianists can't afford to make mistakes.      And so it goes,  it takes much patience and much practice to perfect a classical piece, no matter what level you are in.   

[thierry13]

Classical is harder with the techical fingering that has to executed at all times, and if your fingers happen to trip up......ah, oh, a mistake!  And pianists can't afford to make mistakes.      And so it goes,  it takes much patience and much practice to perfect a classical piece, no matter what level you are in.   

Is this designed as some kind of joke? As if fingering had anything to do with technical difficulty...

[go12_3]

Is this designed as some kind of joke? As if fingering had anything to do with technical difficulty...
[/quote/]  meaning?  how about you sharing some of your insights then in this thread?

[loonbohol]

For me CLAssical is harder to perform.
Jazz is harder to compose.

[lostinidlewonder]

This is a difficult question because both have elements that cause more problems than the other. I find rhythmic devices used in Jazz is more complicated and pushed to the more to forefront of performance when compared to Classical. Jazz is rhythmic music and develops  rhythmic devices a lot more than classical. Jazz also has a much larger scope for improvisation which eludes a lot of classical pianists. A jazz pianist has a difficult time to find their voice because of all of these creative parts of jazz. It is easy to sound formulated and boring.

I think that classical has more characters and variations in sound than Jazz. Jazz walks more narrow musical path since it was created in a relatively shorter time period than Classical. Classical music has hundreds of years and periods to it thus the variation in musical character is a lot greater than what you find in Jazz. Classical music also spends a lot more time on shades of sound and technical explorations of arpeggio/chord/scale forms.

[thierry13]

This is a difficult question because both have elements that cause more problems than the other. I find rhythmic devices used in Jazz is more complicated and pushed to the more to forefront of performance when compared to Classical. Jazz is rhythmic music and develops  rhythmic devices a lot more than classical.

That is only true if you exclude 20th or 21th century music.

[lostinidlewonder]

That is only true if you exclude 20th or 21th century music.

Can 21st century music really be considered classical though?

[thierry13]

Can 21st century music really be considered classical though?

That's the question ... and 20th? Sorabji is definitely classical, and I think(not sure) there are some insane rythms out there in some of his works ... not to mention many many other composers.

[simon_horsey]

Both are harder! ... and both are easier! It all depends on practice!

If you want to find some technically challenging jazz try some transcriptions of Oscar Peterson or Chick Corea...and remember that aside from the head they are mostly improvised!

Listen to Bill Evans - he produces an amazing sound from the piano...

They are different styles - but I wouldn't say one is harder than the other - just different skill sets.

[thierry13]

Both are harder! ... and both are easier! It all depends on practice!

If you want to find some technically challenging jazz try some transcriptions of Oscar Peterson or Chick Corea...and remember that aside from the head they are mostly improvised!

Listen to Bill Evans - he produces an amazing sound from the piano...

They are different styles - but I wouldn't say one is harder than the other - just different skill sets.

That's bullshit to make everybody happier with themselves. Classical is much harder.

[Petter]

Thierry isn´t that you on the right flank?

[steve_m]

5

[yuc4h]

Who else would like to know why thierry13 thinks he knows everything?

Not me.

[thierry13]

Thierry isn´t that you on the right flank?

Actually, such weak display of musicality could only be demonstrated by people who tend to play inferior music, like jazz for example.

[thierry13]

Who else would like to know why thierry13 thinks he knows everything?

I don't know how knowing music well enough to say that classical is much harder than jazz is knowing everything...

[hey_jude98]

That's pretty hard to say,they're both pretty technical.I'd say jazz,no classical,jazz,classical,jazz  

[hey_jude98]

Okay, Here is my final decision:Classical.

[steve_m]

b

[lostinidlewonder]

I'd like to see some classical music use rhythms like this

3:44 the energizer rabbit!!!!

[jabbz]

I like to see Jazz musicians use some of the rhythms in Synaphai.  Actually, I'm near certain I've heard some excellent free jazz that uses unbelievably complex rhythms, so don't take that as an attack on Jazz musicians by any means.

But seriously, it's subjective. A good musician should be able to do any of the previously mentioned skills, a mon avis.

[lostinidlewonder]

I like to see Jazz musicians use some of the rhythms in Synaphai.

Is that classical period??? I'd say pretty a lot of what is composed during and after the 20th century cannot be considered classical. "Classical" music has a very particular time period, any musical student who has studied music history will know this.

[Petter]

I'd like to see some classical music use rhythms like this

3:44 the energizer rabbit!!!!

Wow, nerds unite. Isn't that just a straight 4/4 funk beat. Fun clip.
 
To me Jazz is the act of improvisation as a unit, judging the pianist solely on his own efforts is meaningless. Bill Evans sounds gorgeous with Paul Motion but sh*t with Jack De Johnette. The Miles Davis quintet of the 60ths is amazing cause of the interaction between the players. Listening to Herbie Hancock today is nothing like listening to the records from the 60´s. And so on and forth.
 The whole argument is pointless since the things you can´t do obviously are harder then what you can do. Svatoslav Richter would be totally lost in a simple 12 bar blues and I don´t think anyone would blame him. Oscar Peterson would never be able to play Prokofiev and I don´t think anyone would hold that against him either.
 It´s also pointless since Theirry wants to troll jazz topics in an environment (pianostreet.com) that is mostly focused on western art music. And it´s meaningless because to define what "classical" or "jazz" really is an enormous task that I doubt all musicologist and musicians would ever agree on. 

[jabbz]

Is that classical period???

Hey, you said nothing about the 'Classical' period, you said classical musicians, classical with a small 'c' refers to western art music in general.

[thierry13]

Okay, Here is my final decision:Classical.

Sane reasoning allways results in good answers.

[thierry13]

That's pretty hard to say,they're both pretty technical.I'd say jazz,no classical,jazz,classical,jazz  

It is funny, tough, that in this post, you begin AND end with jazz, while in real life, everything begins AND ends with classical.

[jlh]

Both are easy. 

[thierry13]

Both are easy. 

I like your roflcopter.

[lostinidlewonder]

Hey, you said nothing about the 'Classical' period, you said classical musicians, classical with a small 'c' refers to western art music in general.

don't be picky. Jazz is not western art?

[jabbz]

I don't think jazz is classified under western art music, I think that is music strictly in the classical tradition. I'm not sure, but would jazz be classed as popular music?

[thierry13]

I'm not sure, but would jazz be classed as popular music?

It sure would. Any dumbass can play jazz with soul if he's got any decent musical sense (wich most human beings have).

[thierry13]

don't be picky. Jazz is not western art?

Jazz + art = ?? ... barely indirectly connected concepts.

[jlh]

I like your roflcopter.

Why thank you! 

[mc_shas]

HA HA HA HA!! I knew this would turn into such a heated topic. I only wish I had discovered it sooner to get in on some of the slating. It is such an unanswerable question. lol.

However for the good spirit of everything. Anyone who makes the argument "classical music is technically more difficult" they haven't got a leg to stand on. The technical level and complexity that some jazz artists have reached even when improvising easily competes with with classical technicality. Vladimir Horowitz once said that if Art Tatum ever took up classical music seriously, Horowitz would quit the next day. lol.

Upon hearing the incredible range and mastery of the high register that Louis armstrong had, classical musicians of the time refused to believe that it was genuine and insisted that it was some kind of trick.

There argument very quickly become redundant when you note that there have been a considerable number of jazz greats who are also fantastic classical musicians as well. Chick Corea, Keith Jarret, Herbie Hancock...Any of you "classical only, classical's the best" people out there should try learning some Nikolai Kapustin. lol. He's a fantastic cross over of the two words. Whilst he was also a jazz musician he has taken a somewhat classical approach composed some fantastic piano music. Compared to my own modest technical skills they are really quite hard! Great fun tho.

Anyway, peace out dudes. It's all good.

[boygab90]

im pretty sure they are classical musicians turned into jazz greats because of their classical background

[db05]

im pretty sure they are classical musicians turned into jazz greats because of their classical background

Yeah, but why did they turn to jazz after all that?

[boygab90]

well its not important why, the point is that classical training enhanced their ability to play jazz, but to answer the question..maybe cause it was easier? lol jk, probably because they wanted to try something different or liked jazz

[thierry13]

Vladimir Horowitz once said that if Art Tatum ever took up classical music seriously, Horowitz would quit the next day. lol.

Upon hearing the incredible range and mastery of the high register that Louis armstrong had, classical musicians of the time refused to believe that it was genuine and insisted that it was some kind of trick.

There argument very quickly become redundant when you note that there have been a considerable number of jazz greats who are also fantastic classical musicians as well. Chick Corea, Keith Jarret, Herbie Hancock...

Yes, Art tatum had serious chops. Would that make him a great classical pianist? I doubt he would be able to make a coherent interpretation of something like the Hammerklavier, for example, wich classical pianists are trained to do, and wich is much, much harder than anything any jazz artist has ever come up with. Yeah you're going to tell me it's "different" difficulty, but I'm sure that even with those "different" difficulties, I'm 100% certain I can come up with something comparable/harder in the classical repertoire.

Wasn't Louis Armstrong a trumpet player? Completly unrelated to the question since there is no harmonic structure to deal with with trumpet and for many many other reasons, it's completly out of topic. And how does something has purely physical as high register playing has anything to do with the comparison between classical and jazz?

Last, Chick Corea, Keith Jarett, Herbie Hancock, are NOT fantastic classical musicians, for god's sake. They aren't even comparable to even the standard young conservatory student.

[weissenberg2]

it should actually be "classical vs. jazz, which is harder?"

don't mean to sound stuffy 

[boygab90]

there was a duff man, and now there is a stuff man

[indutrial]

Last, Chick Corea, Keith Jarett, Herbie Hancock, are NOT fantastic classical musicians, for god's sake. They aren't even comparable to even the standard young conservatory student.

For someone who's apparently figured out the entire jazz world, you are completely atrocious at citing any examples beyond the same handful of jazz namedrops, mostly big, popular easy targets that, even in the jazz music world, are well worth criticizing. What's obvious to me is that you still DON'T KNOW S**T about 99% of the people who play improvised music. You have no clue what that scene's been doing and completely rely on a frail set of introverted conservatory stereotypes. You look at other genres in music the way the Nazis looked at Slavic people and homosexuals during the Third Reich. Getting the word "inferior" out of your big stupid mouth is about as easy as getting a white supremacist to utter the 'n' word. I've noticed you puffing out the same stale hot air and tired arguments about jazz for over a year and you still haven't got a leg to stand on.

Why don't you surprise us all and actually cite some musicians that aren't so easy to generalize about. Or at least spare us your worn-out classical posturing and admit that you hate jazz because you're a joyless, hollowed-out failed musician who doesn't know when to give up on a losing argument.

As a matter of perspective, I've met many insanely talented classical musicians and a few excellent composers, and NONE of them ever had a stitch of negative garbage or bile towards the jazz scene or other music scenes. The ones who talk the most trash are always the failures who are angry that they went to conservatory for four years and are still teaching private lessons, always the washouts who couldn't think outside the box and listen to recordings/musicians/genres that weren't shoved down their throats by their a-hole college professors, always the losers who should have never become musicians because they are just using music as an excuse to convince themselves that they're more intelligent than others. Give me a break...

Should classical musicians consider someone like cellist Matt Haimovitz to be some kind of traitor because he's recorded cello arrangements of Jimi Hendrix's 'National Anthem' and played improv gigs with DJ Olive and jazz guitarist John McLaughlin? To put it into more perspective, Haimovitz is a complete genius musician and has recorded almost every important piece in his instrument's repertoire (ranging from the six Bach suites to modern sonatas by Barber, Hindemith, Carter, Ligeti, etc...). When I met the Prism Saxophone Quartet, they told me about some of the amazing jazz composers and improvisers they worked with on a regular basis, and went on to play a stunning set of modern 'classical' pieces by Glazunov, Denisov, Gubaidulina, and Smirnov. Let's be sure that it's damned clear that, in the REAL music world, where musicians actually perform and do meaningful things, any perceived rift between jazz musicians and classical musicians is not even a remote concern. Good, established musicians wouldn't be caught dead indulging in puerile debates about which genre is "harder" or what style is "inferior." Anyone of you who actually feel the need to wave one flag or the other need to get your musical priorities straight.

[boygab90]

i love jazz but classical music is simply technically harder (not inferior, that's up to opinion)

[Petter]

If you're interested in notes per minute you should check out the various cuban jazz pianists and Phineas Newborn, McCoy Tyner. I'm not really a fan of the hardbop thingy but it's alot of notes. If you want to form another opinion about Chick Corea, Keith Jarret and Herbie Hancock then the one Theirry provides, you should realize that they're all past their primes and nowadays they are mostly just repeating themselves.
 
Keith Jarret made some excellent recordings during the 70's with his Scandinavian quartet of which "My Song" and "Belonging" probably are the most well known. He also made great recordings for Impulse with Charlie Haden and Paul Motian during the 70s. Also the first few standards records (early 80s) for ECM with Jack DeJohnette and Gary Peacock are worth listening to in my opinion.
 
Chick Coreas most famous record is probably "Now he sings now he sobs" from 1968, which is a really great record, well worth checking out. I haven't listened all that much to him and I don't really fancy his "Return to Forever" and "Elektrik Band" records. I think the duo albums with Gary Burton and the record Akoustic Band from 1989 are really great though.
 
Herbie Hancock did his best records as a sideman during 1960 with Wayne Shorter and Miles Davis. The most renowned Shorter record which features Hancock as a sideman from that era is probably "Speak No Evil". I think all the Miles Davis records from the 60s are great, like E.S.P, Nefertiti and Miles Smiles etc, but there's also some great live recordings, most notably a show from New York's Philharmonic Hall from 1964 which is spilt up on the records "Four and More" and "My Funny Valentine" where they still play standards. As a leader I like Hancocks "Empyrean Island" and "Inventions and Dimensions" the most, both released on Blue Note.

[richard black]

Whichever you don't do is harder. I'm not saying I can play, oh, Brahms concertos, Alkan op.76 etc .etc. - but at least I can see how it should be done. Jazz? Nope, what Tatum, Lewis, Jarrett et al. do is beyond me.

Which is one of several reasons I have the most ENORMOUS respect for the very few pianists who can do both to a high level. Er, actually I can hardly think of any. Friedrich Gulda, maybe....

[indutrial]

If you're interested in notes per minute you should check out the various cuban jazz pianists and Phineas Newborn, McCoy Tyner. I'm not really a fan of the hardbop thingy but it's alot of notes. If you want to form another opinion about Chick Corea, Keith Jarret and Herbie Hancock then the one Theirry provides, you should realize that they're all past their primes and nowadays they are mostly just repeating themselves.

Jazz, or better yet, simply improv-based playing is a genre that is heavily misunderstood, since many listeners will write it off after hearing the genre's staples. On another level, one could take a few courses in jazz theory and decide that the format is kind of stale. In many cases, this certainly makes sense. Musicians like Keith Jarrett and Chick Corea are both players who, especially now, keep their performances in somewhat of a stylistic safety zone. However, they are far from the be-all and end-all of the genre. The same could be said of Tyner, who could be lightly criticized for sticking too hard with the modal jazz style that he's used since the 1960s.

Problem is that some classical musicians will take the ball and run with it, all the while ignoring loads of lesser-known talents that evolved since the 1970s and have completely redefined the world of improvised piano playing. The jazz world itself is, in many ways, such as diverse and multifaceted as the classical world. Expansions upon the ideas of free improvisation, jazz composition, and performance have given rise to many talents that sound nothing like the typical jazz-piano namedrops. Pianists like Marilyn Crispell, Myra Melford, Craig Taborn, Keith Tippett, Borah Bergman, and Sten Sandell (to name a few) have recorded tons of records that are every bit as stimulating as good classical performances can be. There's obviously a measure of difference in the overall technical performance, since the classical pianist is expected to meet the standards of the piece, but modern improvising pianists are presented with entirely different demands of an equally-daunting nature. In the best cases, the improviser is set to the task of creating a sort of instant composition that gels with multiple ideas being brought in from equally awesome drummers/bassists/reed-players/etc...

That's not to say that there's not an overwhelming amount of noodly jazz that goes in one ear and out the other, in addition to lots of uninspired jazz players whose best gig should never exceed playing background music at the local bistro, but that goes for every genre (especially classical, which is better at churning out douchebags than any other genre I've seen). The good jazz is definitely in abundance for people who actually mount a convincing search.

[Bob]

I was going to ask, what if there's another style of music that actually is harder, but it's not jazz or classical?    But then I was thinking you can generically divide most things into jazz and classical.  Although there is ethnic/world music...

[go12_3]

I was going to ask, what if there's another style of music that actually is harder, but it's not jazz or classical?    But then I was thinking you can generically divide most things into jazz and classical.  Although there is ethnic/world music...

The blues, ragtime.....

[jazzyprof]

I personally find jazz much harder to play well...and I've dabbled in both classical and jazz.  With jazz you have to be able to compose on the spot and play what you have composed at that instant.  You have to have ideas in order to improvise well.  You have to have a thorough grasp of harmony and be able to plunk down complicated chords (like altered 13th chords) instantly.  You have to be able to transpose on the fly.  And you have to have some pretty fast fingers for all those runs and rapid-fire solos. 

With classical, on the other hand, the music is all written out for you.  You don't need to know anything about harmony and you certainly don't need any ideas.  As Bach said, all you have to do is press the right key at the right time and the instrument plays itself.  That's why I turned to classical after several years of trying to learn jazz piano.

Take a look at Eldar Djangirov improvising on the Ellington tune "Take the A Train."

[Bob]

The blues, ragtime.....

I definitely put those in with jazz.