Art Tatum technique

[minona]

I wonder what classical experts think of Art Tatum's technique. Is this the best glimpse into Franz Lizst's technique we have?

Obviously Tatum is not trying to be as perfecting and precise as classical concert pianists, but his method is often mesmerising. This outake footage shows him playing the same piece from different angles (excuse the cuts and pitching errors caused by the soundtrack):

=54s

Tatum being very humble:

[awesom_o]

I wonder what classical experts think of Art Tatum's technique. Is this the best glimpse into Franz Lizst's technique we have?

Tatum was a genius. Certainly of a very different sort from Liszt, but undoubtedly made from the same type of stuff. I think there are many similarities between Tatum's technique and Liszt's.

Both had astounding control of the pulse in any setting, no matter how extreme the lateral jumping that was going on under their hands.

Both were masters at creating the effect of blistering speed without ever rushing.

To be in command of the keyboard as they both were requires complete independence of the hands, bordering on fully-fledged ambidexterity, something both men obviously had.

Both had extremely developed hands, which, when seen in action, could genuinely give the impression of having 50 fingers instead of 20. This is because in reality their finger movements were so small and yet so powerful that they were by and large imperceptible, especially from a short distance away.

Obviously the immense and terrifying sound coming from the instrument was very perceptible!

I think this man is one of the other closest possible candidates for a truly Lisztian technique.

[dima_76557]

Is this the best glimpse into Franz Lizst's technique we have?

Tatum was a unique genius and a Teacher for all. What he was able to do at the instrument is all the more astounding since:
1) He was nearly blind from birth;
2) He was completely self-taught.

[nyiregyhazi]

Interesting. I'd not seen those outtakes before. However, this film shows what he could really do, in the more extreme style of his recordings.

[minona]

Watching the footage a few times, I wonder if his secret is the seamless fluidity between finger power, wrist power and forearm power (weight). We know that in organ and harpsichord playing, most of the strength comes from the finger joints (except for chords which use the wrist), where as in piano the whole arm weight is generally required (except on occasion).

Well, I wonder if Tatum learned to use all sources of power together in a more fluent way that the rest of us ever manage...?

Just a thought,

Minona

[nyiregyhazi]

Watching the footage a few times, I wonder if his secret is the seamless fluidity between finger power, wrist power and forearm power (weight). We know that in organ and harpsichord playing, most of the strength comes from the finger joints (except for chords which use the wrist), where as in piano the whole arm weight is generally required (except on occasion).

Well, I wonder if Tatum learned to use all sources of power together in a more fluent way that the rest of us ever manage...?

Just a thought,

Minona

While this is a very common explanation of piano technique, I must say that I find it odd to apply it to such a remarkable case as Tatum. I was schooled in this idea of technique, but seeing Tatum so clearly doing something altogether different was one of the things that made me seriously question the supposed idea that fingers might be transmitting arm power rather than moving themselves. Look how concise the arm movements are when he plays fast. The arm just moves from side to side and the fingers move the keys . it's geometrically impossible that his arm is a contributor of literal power behind that. His fingers produce all the movement and the arm simply glides around over the top. There's a subtle sense of resting down for support but aside from the sheer effortless nature of the technique, the thing that stands out about Tatum is quite a how little downward force his arms are generally applying. Get the arms' role right and the fingers can move perfectly well without the arm bearing down significantly on them.

PS. Sure - there are moments in the film where Tatum drops his arms up and down a little like most arm weight players, but these aren't the moments in which he's doing those remarkable effortless runs. Why base the technical analysis on the more bog-standard moments rather than on those unique things that make him stand out from the the arm weight crowd?

[awesom_o]

+1

[minona]

I can see what you're saying, but I've been experimenting and found that I can apply force (tiny jerks or micromovements) from my wrists and forearms without it really showing. I think it's possible to send a kind of 'shockwave' from different muscles so that none are doing all the work and thus appear to be doing very little. It could be like one of those 'tricks' like when magicians move objects with their breath without seeming to do so... after many hours of practice.

Then again, perhaps he just had very strong fingers...?

[nyiregyhazi]

I can see what you're saying, but I've been experimenting and found that I can apply force (tiny jerks or micromovements) from my wrists and forearms without it really showing. I think it's possible to send a kind of 'shockwave' from different muscles so that none are doing all the work and thus appear to be doing very little. It could be like one of those 'tricks' like when magicians move objects with their breath without seeming to do so... after many hours of practice.

Then again, perhaps he just had very strong fingers...?

I agree that these miniscule actions can help on the odd note, but the thing that makes Tatum so remarkable is the lack of up down. In my opinion, if it looks that smooth then it makes more sense to assume that it really is, than to suppose invisible arm impulses, in order to try to make it fit popular technical beliefs. If he's doing it on a tiny level, it's certainly the exception and not the rule. His fingers aren't necessarily strong (and rarely play very loud) but they produce virtually all of the activity, with the arm rarely adding any sign of impulse. You rarely even see a down to instigate the first note of a run.

Check out his left thumb reflected in the piano when he plays starts the riff before right hand runs. There's not a trace of arm pressure in sight. It's pure individuation of the thumb from a loose arm

[richard black]

He was simply unique and those of us who weren't born in time to see him live have reason enough to be grateful for the recordings and films. Incidentally, the film referred to by Nyiregyhazi is running at the wrong speed, so it comes out about 5% faster (and sharper) than Tatum actually played it. If anyone can refer me to a decent YouTube downloader (I've got about 3 on this computer and they're all rubbish!) I'll download it, correct it and re-upload it.

[minona]

Interesting! On the video of outakes, at 2:48, the for the downward run, he he tilts his thumb inwards almost so it's towards the key. If you do that hand position you see that all your finger ends can be lined up! I've never seen that before. That's definitely not a 'Liszt technique' but one that is most surely his own, and definitely come from being left to his own devices without anyone telling you it's wrong.

On the 'Yesterdays' footage, he appears to do the opposite for the same reason, that is, at 1.21 he leans hit right hand in at the pinky end which again makes the three end fingers line up (since they're different lengths). So it seems he is compensating for the different lengths of fingers in such a way that perhaps finger power is used more efficiently. Strangely, it reminds me of Segovia's guitar technique at times (the slight movement and posture of the hands giving optimum efficiency).

It's likely that this particular technique favoured certain riffs and runs more than others. He may have been aware of this and perhaps it even bothered him to an extent. I know with guitar, you can sort of get to a dead end with certain tricks and devices, but then Tatum was a great all round player with great musicality.

[minona]

If anyone can refer me to a decent YouTube downloader (I've got about 3 on this computer and they're all rubbish!) I'll download it, correct it and re-upload it.

I'm not sure, but it'd be great if you could slow some down a bit. :-)

Also, if anyone has links to any more footage I'd be greatful. Is there any more footage?

[awesom_o]

It's likely that this particular technique favoured certain riffs and runs more than others. He may have been aware of this and perhaps it even bothered him to an extent. I know with guitar, you can sort of get to a dead end with certain tricks and devices, but then Tatum was a great all round player with great musicality.

I think you are correct-Tatum favours certain riffs and runs over others.

I don't think he was a great all-around player.

Everything he played tended to be extremely fast and filled with dazzling runs. He was not exactly known for his singing cantabile tone. Bill Evans, on the other hand.... that man could really make the piano sing!

[senanserat]

Art Tatum is the most

[minona]

Everything he played tended to be extremely fast and filled with dazzling runs. He was not exactly known for his singing cantabile tone. Bill Evans, on the other hand.... that man could really make the piano sing!

I think it's true sometimes, in that Yesterdays clip for example, I think it didn't develop too well personally. We know he drank copious amounts of alcohol... so it's amazing not only despite that.

...but remember that 'dazzling runs' are not necessarily devoid of beauty just because they're technically impressive. A dazzling run is a sound too, a pretty, shiney sound. And his technique made the notes tinkle and sparkle like jewels.

[awesom_o]

...but remember that 'dazzling runs' are not necessarily devoid of beauty just because they're technically impressive. A dazzling run is a sound too, a pretty, shiney sound. And his technique made the notes tinkle and sparkle like jewels.

I didn't say anything Tatum played was devoid of beauty. I said he wasn't a particularly well-rounded pianist. His playing style prioritized speed, complexity, and rhythmic accuracy to such an extreme extent that it became the only thing he played.

Listen to this. This guy was also blind. Maybe his RH runs are a few ticks slower than Tatum's, but he didn't care. IMHO, this man was a more well-rounded pianist than Tatum. Listen to the beautiful lyricism in his tone!

 

[swagmaster420x]

I didn't say anything Tatum played was devoid of beauty. I said he wasn't a particularly well-rounded pianist. His playing style prioritized speed, complexity, and rhythmic accuracy to such an extreme extent that it became the only thing he played.

Listen to this. This guy was also blind. Maybe his RH runs are a few ticks slower than Tatum's, but he didn't care. IMHO, this man was a more well-rounded pianist than Tatum. Listen to the beautiful lyricism in his tone!

 

do u know nobuyuki tsuji

[awesom_o]

Not personally, but I know of him.

There are quite a few more blind concert-pianists out there than you might think.

In fact, being blind is much less of a handicap in piano-playing than many people seem to think it is.

[frasers]

Heres a video of a comparison of Art with (one of my favourite pianists) Oscar Peterson, who may not have played as effortlessly as Art Tatum but still one of the best in the genre. He was also a big fan of Bach, which is cool.    

I think the is Peterson at his best ( I may be wrong) check out the right hand

[cuberdrift]

Incidentally, the film referred to by Nyiregyhazi is running at the wrong speed, so it comes out about 5% faster (and sharper) than Tatum actually played it.

Faster? Sharper? How and why?

[wwalrus]

I'm pretty sure it has to do with the fact that the videos of Tatum are pretty old - 60s and earlier i'm pretty sure. Back then, cameras could only record at a certain fps, and in order for it to not be choppy, it would have to be sped up. an analogy is this:

if you have a picture book that works sequentially (pictures on each page and you have to keep flipping for a moving image), if it is missing big chunks (frames), you need to fill that time. That's why it's sped up, because there are then less frames per second, and therefore less gaps between frames.

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm pretty sure it has to do with the fact that the videos of Tatum are pretty old - 60s and earlier i'm pretty sure. Back then, cameras could only record at a certain fps, and in order for it to not be choppy, it would have to be sped up. an analogy is this:

if you have a picture book that works sequentially (pictures on each page and you have to keep flipping for a moving image), if it is missing big chunks (frames), you need to fill that time. That's why it's sped up, because there are then less frames per second, and therefore less gaps between frames.

is there any specific basis for that or is it simply your guess? It sounds very unlikely indeed. Quite simply, analog devices don't always play back at the correct speed unless they are flawlessly calibrated. This seems like a far more credible explanation than some fool thinking it's okay to deliberately tinker with the speed in order to make it look smoother. While I wouldn't put it past the realms of human stupidity, it seems far more likely that it's simply the product of an error in play back speed.

[cuberdrift]

I wonder what classical experts think of Art Tatum's technique. Is this the best glimpse into Franz Lizst's technique we have?

Not exactly. To my knowledge, Tatum didn't play as loud or as showy as Liszt, although his fingers were perhaps as dexterous (if not more !) as what are required in some of Liszt's most technically demanding pieces. For instance, I don't recall Tatum doing 'interlocking octaves', or double notes as fast as Liszt.

Both men had extremely well-developed technique, but I guess there are some various obvious differences, as well as similarities of course. 

I think this man is one of the other closest possible candidates for a truly Lisztian technique.

Cziffra? 

Interesting. I'd not seen those outtakes before. However, this film shows what he could really do, in the more extreme style of his recordings.

Not at all. It was a show of virtuosity, but I recall some even more intimidating stuff. Check out his left hand in this video:

&t=1m51s

Incidentally, one thing I always wondered is why in his later recordings, notably from the 50's, didn't sound as flamboyant as his 30's renditions. It's often said that he played much better in after-hours parties than in recording sessions or concerts - Earl Hines claimed he did impossible things on the piano and was ten times better in these situations! In light of this, Tatum WAS in fact, recorded in an after-hours session - the '20th Century Piano Genius' album. But what puzzles me is that he didn't seem to be as virtuosic or dazzling as he was, often. It sounded like he took things easy and didn't bother to impress anyone, which resulted to something that gave me the impression that he was not exactly at his best. Does anyone care to share some light to this? Prove me wrong, perhaps? 

Heres a video of a comparison of Art with (one of my favourite pianists) Oscar Peterson, who may not have played as effortlessly as Art Tatum but still one of the best in the genre. He was also a big fan of Bach, which is cool.    

I think the is Peterson at his best ( I may be wrong) check out the right hand

I'm not sure, but I always thought Peterson somehow had an even more developed technique than Tatum. Oscar was a bigger man, so it follows that he could do more. It seems to me that he had stronger fingers and that he managed to play some extreme fortissimo's Tatum did not regularly venture to. I'm not certain of this, however. On seeing the 'Tiger Rag' re-played on a Yamaha Disklavier pro,  Oscar I think himself said Art Tatum had an even higher level of virtuosity than maestro Horowitz!

is there any specific basis for that or is it simply your guess? It sounds very unlikely indeed. Quite simply, analog devices don't always play back at the correct speed unless they are flawlessly calibrated. This seems like a far more credible explanation than some fool thinking it's okay to deliberately tinker with the speed in order to make it look smoother. While I wouldn't put it past the realms of human stupidity, it seems far more likely that it's simply the product of an error in play back speed.

Does this mean that all old recordings by some great pianists weren't really that impressive since the videos played faster than them?   

[nyiregyhazi]

Not at all. That would be so if the other poster's theory were correct, but my point was quite the opposite. It depends entirely on how it's played back and whether the equipment is calibrated right. I don't believe films are routinely sped up for the sake of frame rate. When properly played back, videos don't go faster. It's easy to verify, as for any classical repertoire, the pitch should be correct. If it's sharp, it's played back too fast.

[minona]

Playing blues / boogie sort of demands a more Lizstian hand posture, perhaps due to the gaps in the scale. It demands the fingers to be looser, and able to bunch up for playing chromatic 'bent note' imitations soulfully.