Non-classical piano virtuosi?

[cuberdrift]

(I am not discussing classical as in 1750-1820, but as the 'Classical Music' tradition as a whole)

I was wondering if there are any of them, and if so, who in particular...because it looks like classical music training generally provides the highest standards of technical demands in any genre.

But I'm curious about the world out there. Are there any non-classical pianists, like those who play rock/jazz/whatever, who have attained levels of virtuosity close to that of, or equal to, say, Hamelin, Richter, or Volodos?

[awesom_o]

But I'm curious about the world out there. Are there any non-classical pianists, like those who play rock/jazz/whatever, who have attained levels of virtuosity close to that of, or equal to, say, Hamelin, Richter, or Volodos?

Yes.

I feel as though if a person has ever actually listened to jazz they wouldn't need to ask this type of question.

As for rock.... I have only two words for you.

Rick Wakeman.

I don't know much about the 'whatever' genres.... was there something in particular you were thinking of?

[kevin69]

Art Tatum for example

[cabbynum]

Whoever the pianist for muse is he is pretty good . Not near the same level of those guys, but as non classical musicians goes he's got really good techn ique

[falala]

It's a troublesome comparison because classical and non-classical pianists are not really judged the same way by their audiences or their peers. A jazz or rock pianist is responsible for creative choices about which notes to play (even if they're not the full composer of the piece). Thus judgment of their prowess is always only partly about their command of the instrument itself, the other part being about the strength of their ideas. The same doesn't apply in classical music where the ideas are provided in detail by the composer, and the player only interprets them.

Having said that, some examples that spring to mind are:

Art Tatum
Earl Hines
Oscar Peterson
Chucho Valdez (of Cuban supergroup Irakere)
Jordan Rudess (of Dream Theatre)

[awesom_o]

Thus judgment of their prowess is always only partly about their command of the instrument itself, the other part being about the strength of their ideas. The same doesn't apply in classical music where the ideas are provided in detail by the composer, and the player only interprets them.

The composer doesn't provide us with any detailed ideas.... only detailed scores.

We need to have strong ideas as classical pianists, because our command of the instrument is deeply linked to the strength of our ideas themselves!

[cuberdrift]

Tatum or Wakeman are great indeed, but could they keep up with people like Hamelin?  

One thing I always wondered is whether the improvising pianist can pull off more ridiculously difficult passages extemporaneously than what he can do for actual pieces (i.e. improvise a line as hard as Liszt T.E.'s, but the pianist himself doesn't actually have the facility to do T.E.'s), or if the improviser actually had to tone down his technical flamboyance in favor of other aspects of creative spontaneity during the improvisation. For instance, one can easily do an insane 'improv' of random 64th notes without being able to play them later on (as in an actual piece), but they are justified as they are in the context of improvisation.

Sorry if my terms seem pretty vague...basically I want to know if an improviser, during an improvisation, can pull off harder technique than what the pieces he can handle demand, or vice versa.

EDIT: Keith Emerson??

[nanabush]

Classical pianists are a special breed, but I've met TONS AND TONS who could not 'create' a 16 bar piece from scratch if you gave them an hour.  It would sound like a Mozart or Bach ripoff.

Non-classically trained pianists have questionable technique, but they generally have no creative 'barriers' that hold them in place.

I agree with the comment earlier about what the audience seeks.  A rock critic listening to a Schoenberg recital is going to have a rough time.  A classical critic listening to Lady Gaga is going to have a hard time.  They are different sides of the spectrum; none of my friends who go to heavier (rock, metal, etc) shows care about how fast or slow, or how many wrong notes they played.  It bugs me when peoples' first comments about a recital are "omg, did you hear the wrong note at 10:34!!!!"...people who aren't classically trained are NOT bad musicians, they are just using another 'dialect' of the same *** language lol.

But ya, there are some complete monsters at the keys.  I've heard some Jazz and even Rock pianists play repeated chords that would put Erlkonig to shame.  Maybe they can't sight read Liszt, but they can still destroy the keyboard 

[ted]

Sorry if my terms seem pretty vague...basically I want to know if an improviser, during an improvisation, can pull off harder technique than what the pieces he can handle demand, or vice versa.

Speaking for myself, the answer is unequivocally yes, very much so. However, I am a particularly inept interpreter of pieces, so that is not surprising, and my answer sheds little light on the general question. It gets complicated very quickly because certain aspects of improvisation, notably rhythm, simply do not occur in written music at all; and it is precisely these features which drive an improviser's technique.

[theholygideons]

Justin Bieber

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Rick Wakeman was actually classically trained, though only for a while.

Vitalij Kuprij likewise, but he's done a lot of non-classical and his technique is of a high level.

Sorry if my terms seem pretty vague...basically I want to know if an improviser, during an improvisation, can pull off harder technique than what the pieces he can handle demand, or vice versa.

Interesting question. Superficially yes, because if you were to write out a virtuosic improvisation and then tried to play it from the score, you would find it harder to play. However, I suspect that's partly because the limitations of notation render the score an incomplete and inaccurate realisation of what went on. But on the other hand, when you're improvising, you're largely doing what comes naturally and thus it isn't "difficult".

[bharatbash]

Nicky Hopkins!

[cuberdrift]

Speaking for myself, the answer is unequivocally yes, very much so. However, I am a particularly inept interpreter of pieces, so that is not surprising, and my answer sheds little light on the general question. It gets complicated very quickly because certain aspects of improvisation, notably rhythm, simply do not occur in written music at all; and it is precisely these features which drive an improviser's technique.

I'd agree. How about this; if he learned it note-for-note, could Oscar Peterson play the runs in Chopin's Op.10/1 as fast and as clear as Cziffra? From what I've watched, Peterson could be a terrifying creature to behold when he chose to play uptempo (like many other jazz pianists of his style, of course...) My point is that, whatever the technically complex patterns a great improviser utilizes, does this really make him a great technician (and hence, a virtuoso)? Or does he somehow find ways to make something easy sound difficult, making it easy to dazzle the audience during an improvisation.

Another thing that interests me is how a capable classical pianist does some 'virtuoso' improvisations. Cziffra fans should know this well. His facility at the keyboard is a terror during improvs (as if it isn't when playing actual pieces, of course...). But he doesn't seem to put much context into all those lush arpeggios and octaves. For instance Peterson, already a technical marvel, does not normally play as much notes (per second) as the former does, but whatever 32nd-note phrases he uses make complete sense, giving him more merit than all the flash Cziffra exhibits...

But on the other hand, when you're improvising, you're largely doing what comes naturally and thus it isn't "difficult".

So if playing extremely fast double notes comes 'naturally' to an improviser it still is easier than performing Feux follets?

[awesom_o]

Tatum or Wakeman are great indeed, but could they keep up with people like Hamelin?

Keep up with Hamelin in what?

If we're talking about a blues, I think it would be Hamelin struggling to keep up with Tatum!

[falala]

The composer doesn't provide us with any detailed ideas.... only detailed scores.

We need to have strong ideas as classical pianists, because our command of the instrument is deeply linked to the strength of our ideas themselves!

Certainly true. Maybe I didn't express it very well, but...

There's simply no denying that the process of playing a classical score where all the pitches and rhythms are worked out in absolute detail in advance by someone else, is qualitatively different from playing a jazz tune or a pop song where the player has to decide upon their own chord voicings, invent their own solos and adapt all of these spontaneously in response to the other players.

When people say that Oscar Peterson or Bill Evans are great players, part of what they mean (probably the greater part) is that they make great choices of what notes to play. This can never be the case with classical soloists because their job description doesn't involve making such choices.

[falala]

One thing I always wondered is whether the improvising pianist can pull off more ridiculously difficult passages extemporaneously than what he can do for actual pieces (i.e. improvise a line as hard as Liszt T.E.'s, but the pianist himself doesn't actually have the facility to do T.E.'s), or if the improviser actually had to tone down his technical flamboyance in favor of other aspects of creative spontaneity during the improvisation.

I'm not sure how one could ever measure something like that, but I'd suspect that it would have to be the latter. I say that only because someone playing a fully notated piece of repertoire has the ability to practise the same, specific sets of movements exactly the same way SO many times before the performance. An improviser, OTOH, would have practised general patterns that correspond partially to what they end up playing, but that's all.

When you consider the when we hear a great concert pianist playing a virtuosic piece, they've usually practised it literally for YEARS, right back from first learning it as a teenager, that difference in preparation is huge. It should therefore be possible to play more difficult and complex music from notation than from improvisation.

[falala]

How about this; if he learned it note-for-note, could Oscar Peterson play the runs in Chopin's Op.10/1 as fast and as clear as Cziffra? From what I've watched, Peterson could be a terrifying creature to behold when he chose to play uptempo (like many other jazz pianists of his style, of course...) My point is that, whatever the technically complex patterns a great improviser utilizes, does this really make him a great technician (and hence, a virtuoso)? Or does he somehow find ways to make something easy sound difficult, making it easy to dazzle the audience during an improvisation.

I don't think you can get around the point I raised earlier, of the fact that the improvising player is actually composing, actually deciding upon note choices, so the way he presents himself and the way we judge him will never be the same as the way we just someone who is "just" playing someone else's notes.

On "making something easy sound difficult", I think there can certainly be an element of that. People often think very fast right hand jazz solos show amazing technique, when actually that style of playing is not hard at all by the standards of the classical repertoire. When you consider the complexity and variety of how you have to put notes together in a single hand with absolute technical assurance in some repertoire, fast playing of a single line is nothing.

However it's interesting you ask about Oscar Peterson as an example, since I would say he's an example of a real virtuoso that that doesn't apply to. The really hard stuff he does, though, is not the fast right hand solos but the combination of these with amazingly thick, complex, varied and involved left hand parts, Including massive, fast jumps from octaves or even twelfths in the bass to chords in the middle. This is the part that's really daunting about stride piano and everything that came out of it: Those guys could play LEFT HAND parts that your average non-musician would barely notice or be impressed by, but when you actually try and reproduce the jumps involved it's like some kind of miracle. But for them, that's just a background upon which all the creative foreground in the right hand happens.

I

[ted]

So if playing extremely fast double notes comes 'naturally' to an improviser it still is easier than performing Feux follets?

Might well be. I am possibly an example of that myself. Trouble is, there are dozens of ways of using double notes, and some of those ways do not have continuous smooth motion as the ideal. It is quite possible, even within one specific technique, for an improviser to become proficient in those aspects of it conducive to his own musical drive while totally neglecting other implementations. He might also develop highly idiosyncratic fingerings for double notes which admirably enhance improvisational sound while being unsuitable for repertoire involving them. Listeners couldn't know the difference. Someone with time and inclination could do both though. I am just lazy.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

"But on the other hand, when you're improvising, you're largely doing what comes naturally and thus it isn't "difficult"."

So if playing extremely fast double notes comes 'naturally' to an improviser it still is easier than performing Feux follets?

They're not necessarily the same thing. My experience in improvising leads me to believe that I have a "bank" of preset patterns which can be used/slightly modified at will - using double notes as an example, seeing as you quoted it - part of that bank includes some double note figurations, and I can play them all with ease. That's not to say I find Feux Follets easy - I don't, whereas I find my preset figurations almost trivial. However it is possible that if you gave the various figurations to a "neutral" third party, they might find some of them harder than Feux Follets (probably not though, but certainly not trivial - hopefully I've got my point across)!

[charmsjr94]

You ever hear Eldar Djangirov play? Classically trained jazz pianist. The guys has chops up the ass (pardon my french.) I don't know if I would qualify him as strictly a jazz pianist as he has classical pieces on some of his records. Check him out though, he's the complete musician

[stefo78]

Mmmh, I discovered lot of names with this topic, I'm going listen...

Latin jazz : Michel Camilo, thinking about his latest interpretations of Caribe, or many other things I did not remember the names.
Sounds really crazy, never heard craziest things.