Franz Liszt vs. Art Tatum

[cuberdrift]

I enjoy the challenging aspect of Liszt's works. So one day, I came across this guy. I searched and found this shocking video. (im not really a jazz guy, but art tatum makes everything more interesting!)

Never has jazz been so technical imo!

Now compare it with Liszt;

(don't make me post all the Transcendetals! They'll overoccupy but you know what i mean!)

Also this (this piece isn't that famous?);

Which do you think is harder to accomplish? All are gruelingly difficult!!!

(p.s. don't think I lack the artistry of what a real musician should have, I'm just studying the techniques of various composers.)

Thank you for reading!

[adari]

They're both such different disciplines.
We mustn't forget that Tatum would freely improvise/add to any his performances, so there could be no true 'mistakes', unlike with Cziffra playing Liszt (not that Cziffra was capable of making mistakes anyway).
Also, why have you only chosen Liszt to represent the epitome of technically-demanding 'classical' piano? Why not Alkan or Hamelin?

[49410enrique]

They're both such different disciplines.
We mustn't forget that Tatum would freely improvise/add to any his performances, so there could be no true 'mistakes', unlike with Cziffra playing Liszt (not that Cziffra was capable of making mistakes anyway).
Also, why have you only chosen Liszt to represent the epitome of technically-demanding 'classical' piano? Why not Alkan or Hamelin?

or guido agosti / stravinsky

[keyb0ardfweak]

It's not the same..
I think one pianist has his own style but you cannot tell who is better, I think the question would me more subjective rather than objective..

Imagine closing this two men in a room.. what would happen?

[music_doctor]

Obviously if you are talking about who would be playing classicly and romanticly than I think lizst would be better. I also think his compositions are better too 

[cuberdrift]

You're taking it the wrong way! I'm not talking about whose music is better, because that is definitely subjective, but I'm talking about raw power.

Which demands greater dexterity and technical mastery?

And people, you're posting so many hard pieces! I'm only asking you to compare two composers.

Regards,
cuberdrift

[keyb0ardfweak]

In that case, technically, Art Tatum is harder

I would say that if you play Liszt, playing jazz and improvising would become "easier"

Why?
Liszt improvised over theme's. His writing is very pianistic and if you spend time on his music, it will never become impossible for you to play one of his pieces. He is more "virtuoso" and has less music in my opinion (now I am not putting down his music, it's just for you to see that his music, most of it, is full of 1,000,000 notes that if you eliminate them than you would really listen more music rather than a burst of notes) Unlike other composers like Chopin, you play Chopin for 5 years and it still doesn't sound the way it should be even you have the technique.

Liszt sounds harder than what it really is, the only problem is that if you don't have the technique you won't get there.

Now, with Tatum, the disciplines both men had are completely different.


I would say that Tatum is the Liszt in Jazz, I guess everyone would agree..

Now if you get the two composers, one studies counterpoint, harmony, works of his teacher, and some etudes providing technique, he creates another work from another (Paganini, MOzart, Bach, etcetc Well.. arrangements..) etcetc. The other one studies improvisation, plays folk songs and then they teach him reharmonization, chord types, scales types (dorian, phrygian, lydian, mixolydian, etcetc) chord voicings, comping, accompaniment, etc.


My answer to your question would be, as I stated above, that both require dexterity and technical mastery. They both put their effort and strived during their lives to become what they've become. No one wins, they are both great and their work require a lot of dexterity, technique and knowledge.




Ok.. this is only a suggestion and I would you people to share your thoughts with me: Someone may kill me if I said that it would be a waste of time if you tried to play an arrangement of any of these composers.. why not trying to do your own arrangement being inspired by this two great pianists? I mean, you would feel more comfortable if you are the one creating your own.

[chapplin]

I think the post above is very good.
However though, I would argue that the works of Liszt is harder to play.

Only based on a wild thought, if you take one piece from each composer, with similar notes per second.
Romantic works (often) requires a wider range of technique than a Jazz study/song.

[cuberdrift]

In that case, technically, Art Tatum is harder

I would say that if you play Liszt, playing jazz and improvising would become "easier"......

Great insight here. Thank you!

I think the post above is very good.
However though, I would argue that the works of Liszt is harder to play.

You'd have to explain why though.

Only based on a wild thought, if you take one piece from each composer, with similar notes per second.
Romantic works (often) requires a wider range of technique than a Jazz study/song.

Notes per second definitely is different from real dexterity (correct me if im wrong), you could play extremely thick chords and still get more notes per second then say...the Revolutionary Etude? Well imho anyway...

in regards to romantic music regarding a wider range of technical facility, i'd agree on most of it. But as said Tatum is the "Liszt" of jazz. Romantic works (and even more so with Classical works) do put a higher priority on this than jazz...generally. I'd say Art Tatum has no limitations with dexterity, i've watched the only few live videos of him recently and i'd say that if he were my standard, the only people who would rival me were ala-Richters or Horowitzes.

Thank you for the patience and knowledge people.

[jsstunned]

You can't compare them its' two different worlds. Jazz and classical are very different, It is possible that a classical pianist would suck at playing jazz and vice versa. As for my favorite I would go for Liszt, not that I dislike Art Tatum I think he was an exceptional pianist, but jazz is not my thing.

[chopin2015]

look up caravan by art tatum
also
the man I love

Tatum is the boss!

[camille101]

From a purely technical viewpoint, I would definitely say Liszt is harder.  Not that I don't like Art, he is a master, but jazz music simply doesn't require the crystal clear technique and accuracy of classical music (to the same extent, I mean.  To play almost any of Tatum's pieces, you would need a highly developed technique).  What I mean is, in jazz, you can get away with departures from the score to suit your personal needs as long as the original piece is in tact.  However, if you did such a thing in classical music, it would be "frowned upon", even though improvising was an integral part of performance in the time these pieces were made.
As well as this, the technical challenges are different from each man.  Tatum's scores have very fast figures in the right hand, while the left hand usually has some sort of accompaniment.  Tatum is also rhythmically difficult.  While Liszt commonly utilizes other techniques, such as demisemi runs, fast octaves, fast double thirds, repeated notes, that require the pianist to have a greater technique in many areas of pianistic skill.
Having said that, both are difficult to play and interpret.  Your observation that Art is the 'Liszt of jazz' is very true. 

[asuhayda]

This is a tough comparison to make (but not a new one)...

Either Horowitz or Rubenstein (I can't remember which) said that if Art Tatum ever made a switch to classical music, they would quit.

One consideration that you also have to make is the Art Tatum is was nearly blind.  The things he could do with his left hand were incomprehensible.  And he had lightning fast (and interesting) runs..  Although, I agree that he would improvise much of his music, which effectively blurs the lines,  his ideas were second to none. And the fact that he was able to think that stuff up on the fly should give him an edge over Liszt. 

You also need to conisder that even in Liszt's time,  he had many critics.  Clara Schumman called him a "smasher of pianos"..  I think the general criticism was simply that Liszt did certain things musically because he "could" and not necessarily because they sounded good.  I'm not so sure you could make the same argument for Art Tatum.

Many modern music critics do not even place him among the top ten greatest composers of all time.  In fact, Bartok often gets that nod over Liszt (who is a fellow Hungarian).

Anyway,  this is just my opinion.  I guess the best thing to do to settle this dispute would be to get a transcription of the Tiger Rag and maybe something like Feux Follet... try to learn them both and see which one is harder. 

[le_poete_mourant]

Although, I agree that he would improvise much of his music, which effectively blurs the lines,  his ideas were second to none. And the fact that he was able to think that stuff up on the fly should give him an edge over Liszt. 

Liszt was quite an improviser himself, wasn't he?

[asuhayda]

Yes of course... even so, in my opinion, I think Art Tatum was better.  Like I said, it's a tough comparison.

I've never been a giant fan of Liszt.  I've preferred Chopin.  I feel like list was a technical juggernaut, but many of his pieces lack depth compared to Chopin or Schumman or Rachmaninoff.

Art Tatum was an improvisatory genius.  People compared him to Mozart.  And viruosos cowered at his technical ability.

[danielekstrom]

This is such a stupid debate. We're never going to come to a consensus on it since one person is going to always believe that one take more technical skills than the other. People are going to argue that reading from a score if more difficult than improvising, others are going to argue that improvising is more difficult. It depends on the person, really. Some pianist are terrible improvisers but can play from a score like it's nobody's business, others are the complete opposite. Then comes the old classical vs. jazz debate. Well, that's a tough one too since they both require very different facilities. Even using different parts of the brain. So there's no way you can possibly know.

Also, he was mostly blind, so we don't know what he could have done with sheet music. It's possible that he could have been terrible at reading it. Though he probably wouldn't have, we still don't know. We just don't have enough information. It's useless. And even if we do, what's the point in comparing?

[thalbergmad]

Yes of course... even so, in my opinion, I think Art Tatum was better. 

In order to make a proper judgement (even if that were possible) you would have had to have heard both of them live.

This thread is pointless, but no doubt more along the same lines will continue to appear.

Thal

[asuhayda]

In order to make a proper judgement (even if that were possible) you would have had to have heard both of them live.

This thread is pointless, but no doubt more along the same lines will continue to appear.

Thal

There's absolutely nothing pointless about it at all.  it gets people thinking about history, composers, musical roots... obviously, it's subjective.  That doesn't make it pointless.

[ahinton]

There's absolutely nothing pointless about it at all.  it gets people thinking about history, composers, musical roots... obviously, it's subjective.  That doesn't make it pointless.

No, I'm sorry; Thal is correct. It is pointless, just as are so  many similar threads, because no meaningful conclusions can be reached no matter how many on-topic posts and no matter what their content. If it were truly imperative to have threads like this in order to "get people thinking about history, composers, musical roots", there would have to be something far more fundamental at fault in the first place.

In the case of this particular thread, the very fact that the presence of recordings by Tatum and the absence of any by Liszt means that no one contributing to it will ever have heard more than one of those two pianists identifies its major flaw even before the "comparisons are odious" bit gets a chance to kick in.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Thal is correct.

Gonna save this one.

Thal

[ahinton]

Gonna save this one.

Why? It wouldn't be the first time! Anyway - Jesus saves too, so be careful of what you wish to do...

Best,

Alistair

[stoudemirestat]

This is a tough comparison to make (but not a new one)...

Either Horowitz or Rubenstein (I can't remember which) said that if Art Tatum ever made a switch to classical music, they would quit.

One consideration that you also have to make is the Art Tatum is was nearly blind.  The things he could do with his left hand were incomprehensible.  And he had lightning fast (and interesting) runs..  Although, I agree that he would improvise much of his music, which effectively blurs the lines,  his ideas were second to none. And the fact that he was able to think that stuff up on the fly should give him an edge over Liszt. 

You also need to conisder that even in Liszt's time,  he had many critics.  Clara Schumman called him a "smasher of pianos"..  I think the general criticism was simply that Liszt did certain things musically because he "could" and not necessarily because they sounded good.  I'm not so sure you could make the same argument for Art Tatum.

Many modern music critics do not even place him among the top ten greatest composers of all time.  In fact, Bartok often gets that nod over Liszt (who is a fellow Hungarian).

Anyway,  this is just my opinion.  I guess the best thing to do to settle this dispute would be to get a transcription of the Tiger Rag and maybe something like Feux Follet... try to learn them both and see which one is harder. 

Okay firstly Liszt's ideas were also second to none, and he also thought them up on the fly...Liszt was known as a GREAT improviser.

Also, about your comment about Liszt having critics in his time... it is documented today by the less ignorant that most of these criticism's were completely misguided. Also, everything that Clara Schumann says about Liszt is to be taken with a grain of salt. After an incident in the 1840's she absolutely despised Liszt and that led to her berating him at every oppurtunity. Before this incident, Clara (one of the greatest pianists of the day) also, earlier, wrote that his playing made her feel like a student and that there was an otherworldly quality to it.

About your comment on him not being among the top ten composers... Just because someone isn't mentioned often as one of the ten greatest composers that doesn't mean they aren't great. And saying that Bartok sometimes gets the nod over him? Well Bartok was also a GREAT composer. Not of piano music, but overall. Hell, usually Chopin isn't either - despite his being worshipped on these piano forums. Same with Rachmaninoff who is usually ranked 20+. Being ranked in the top 25 composers means you are a GREAT composer. I would say that Liszt is very underrated as well and as far as the overall quality/versatility of his output and the sheer originality, innovativeness and influence, him being a top ten composer would not be out of the question.

Also I think i've read three times in this thread that Liszt's music is far more 'virtuoso' than music. I have heard that said so many times about Liszt that if I didn't know better I would believe it too. It's simply false. If you confined is output to a few Hungarian Rhapsodies (which deserve credit as astounding pianistic invention ala Scarlatti's sonatas) and operatic paraphrases then perhaps you could make that judgement, but what about the Sonata? The Annees de Pelerinage? Harmonies Poetiques et Religeuses? 2nd Ballade? Legendes? Weinen Klagen variations? Even the Transcendenal Etudes (especially the last 5) and Mephisto Waltzes in fact use a virtuosic language entirely for a musical purpose. Many of these pieces use a virtuosic language in order to make programatic effect - like swirling winds, crashing waves, flowing water, birdsong - and also absolute music effects. Before you criticise that language, realise that many revered composers, in their piano music, also use a virtuosic language and many of them were greatly influenced by Liszt's largely misunderstood piano writing. Then there's also the late piano works, the Consolations, Glanes de Woronice, Berceuse, Apparitions, transcriptions of his own Lieder, etc. Moving on, what about the great Choral music like the 13th Psalm, Christus, Missa Solennis and Via Crucis? What about the two great symphonies and excellent symphonic poems like Les Preludes, Tasso, Orpheus, Heroide Funebre, Hamlet, and From the Cradle to the Grave? What about his many first rate Lieder? I might be taking this too seriously but I am so sick of this misguided judgement of Liszt, and it's time for that to change.

[j_menz]

Also, about your comment about Liszt having critics in his time... it is documented today by the less ignorant that most of these criticism's were completely misguided.

So, you are suggesting that the people who actually heard him play are less qualified to judge his merits as a performer/pianist/improviser than those "less ignorant" today (who clearly haven't).

Don't allow your passion for his music have you make or fall for logical clangers like that!

[stoudemirestat]

So, you are suggesting that the people who actually heard him play are less qualified to judge his merits as a performer/pianist/improviser than those "less ignorant" today (who clearly haven't).

Don't allow your passion for his music have you make or fall for logical clangers like that!

You're right, obviously. I got a bit carried away and was talking more about his merits as a composer rather than performer when that wasn't the argument. Of course he had his critics in his day as far as his performing...but at the same time if you look at the people who simply revered him as a performer you realise that he was considered to be the greatest performing artist of his day (except maybe Paganini) - and the great always has critics.

[asuhayda]

and the great always has critics.

Haha.. except for Art Tatum!