What pianist would have better technique than Art Tatum?

[cuberdrift]

You know, I think Art Tatum was good and possessed an extraordinary technique, and of course was perhaps the greatest jazz piano innovator, but...

...I think he may have an overrated technique. He may be virtuosic, but for some reason I feel there are others who can match, or even outdo him. For instance, could Tatum play as cleanly as Hamelin, as fast as Cziffra, or as loud as Horowitz? And, speaking of jazz pianists, I think Oscar Peterson had a much more well-rounded technique, being able to play every bit as fast as Tatum but with more nuance and contrast.

What do you think? 

[hardy_practice]

I agree.  Most jazz pianists are limited by their technique - odd bits of tension.

[j_menz]

What do you think? 

I think we'd all be making better use of our time and brains thinking about our own shortcomings.

[stevensk]

Classical music isnt a question of speed or loudness

[lisztomania7]

I feel there are others who can match, or even outdo him. For instance, could Tatum play as cleanly as Hamelin, as fast as Cziffra, or as loud as Horowitz?

No....but he could do it without looking....    


Loudness isn't ever impressive, really - in fact it can be detrimental if done with a harsh tone.  Horowitz has a very particular tone and could produce an amazing quality and variety of sound.  Though, there was always a part of me that wondered what he would sound like if he wasn't playing his 'only' piano.

[mjames]

That is why I love J-Menz, fantastic answer.

[dfrankjazz]

IMO Oscar's solo playing was completely screwed up by him having grown up around Tatum. I don't blame Oscar, with Art around how could anybody do anything? Oscar was such a great pianist that he couldn't help but try to come close to what Art did, in his case I think it made his solo playing compulsively rushed and tight and totally TOO MUCH, whereas Tatum could do 10x more than Oscar and still sound relaxed. I dig Oscar's group playing much more, much more relaxed without the inevitable competetiveness driving him insane. I still really dig Oscar anyway in any context, a great master and pioneer of jazz). But he's not even in the same universe as a solo player as Art.

[cuberdrift]

IMO Oscar's solo playing was completely screwed up by him having grown up around Tatum. I don't blame Oscar, with Art around how could anybody do anything? Oscar was such a great pianist that he couldn't help but try to come close to what Art did, in his case I think it made his solo playing compulsively rushed and tight and totally TOO MUCH, whereas Tatum could do 10x more than Oscar and still sound relaxed. I dig Oscar's group playing much more, much more relaxed without the inevitable competetiveness driving him insane. I still really dig Oscar anyway in any context, a great master and pioneer of jazz). But he's not even in the same universe as a solo player as Art.

I must first inform you that I'm rather new to jazz, so I won't try to pretend to disprove you.

I say these based on my listening/watching their performances and recordings. Tatum had undoubtedly THE best stride technique in history, but virtosity isn't based solely on that. In terms of tempo, you may or may not have heard Peterson's 'Caravan' - which includes a short solo by him that goes around 220 bpm. By comparison, Tatum's fastest recording - "I Know that you know" - I believe hovers around 214 bpm.

You are correct that Tatum sounds more 'relaxed', however I believe it is Oscar's choice to sound hotter, rather than his incapacity to play quickly with a similarly calm demeanor. We know this because he hardly sounds sloppy, either. And not only can he play as fast, Oscar seemed to have a finer overall technique - being able to accentuate certain notes at will, while "shredding" - and could play with a stronger sound, with a firmer touch. These may lead you to think he's having difficulty, but I disgress.

I haven't even begun to discuss the classical virtuosi. There are many who could play as fast as Tatum - Cziffra is a good example. Most of his blisteringly fast transcriptions are every bit as quick as Tatum's double time recordings, sometimes faster. And he also could produce a more virtuosic sound, accelerating and decelerating like a flash of lightning, all because he could practically do any single thing he wanted with the instrument.
Horowitz may not normally play as fast, but he had a greater command of tonal color. While Horowitz cleverly utilised dynamics, Tatum usually played at mezzoforte, often staying there.

I say all this because I had long idolised Tatum as an unreachable technician, but am discovering that my idea needs to be challenged. Many people often describe him in mythical terms, but they forget that a lot of classical virtuosi are capable of doing whatever he could, too, if they chose to imitate him.

[mjames]

I must first inform you that I'm rather new to jazz, so I won't try to pretend to disprove you.

I say these based on my listening/watching their performances and recordings. Tatum had undoubtedly THE best stride technique in history, but virtosity isn't based solely on that. In terms of tempo, you may or may not have heard Peterson's 'Caravan' - which includes a short solo by him that goes around 220 bpm. By comparison, Tatum's fastest recording - "I Know that you know" - I believe hovers around 214 bpm.

You are correct that Tatum sounds more 'relaxed', however I believe it is Oscar's choice to sound hotter, rather than his incapacity to play quickly with a similarly calm demeanor. We know this because he hardly sounds sloppy, either. And not only can he play as fast, Oscar seemed to have a finer overall technique - being able to accentuate certain notes at will, while "shredding" - and could play with a stronger sound, with a firmer touch. These may lead you to think he's having difficulty, but I disgress.

I haven't even begun to discuss the classical virtuosi. There are many who could play as fast as Tatum - Cziffra is a good example. Most of his blisteringly fast transcriptions are every bit as quick as Tatum's double time recordings, sometimes faster. And he also could produce a more virtuosic sound, accelerating and decelerating like a flash of lightning, all because he could practically do any single thing he wanted with the instrument.
Horowitz may not normally play as fast, but he had a greater command of tonal color. While Horowitz cleverly utilised dynamics, Tatum usually played at mezzoforte, often staying there.

I say all this because I had long idolised Tatum as an unreachable technician, but am discovering that my idea needs to be challenged. Many people often describe him in mythical terms, but they forget that a lot of classical virtuosi are capable of doing whatever he could, too, if they chose to imitate him.

Sure but lets not forget that Tatum could also create music on the spot, you know, improvising. Which many many many classical virtousi are incapable of doing. Well, at least in front of an audience that is.

[chopinlover01]

Horowitz was not. Though it was not in front of a concert hall, he freely improvised for the Steinway technicians working on the piano in his NY apartment.
Even in his documentary he did.

[polishookm]

It's true that Art Tatum inspires a lot of controversy among pianists. For a fascinating look into what contemporaries of Tatum thought of him visit this NPR link

https://www.npr.org/programs/jazzprofiles/archive/tatum.html

It can be eye and ear opening to hear what "knowledgeable" musicians–some of who where practicing their art at the same time as Tatum said. Through that link Oscar Peterson, Lester Young, Hank Jones, Jon Hendricks and others discuss Tatum. Billy Taylor talks about when Tatum and Horowitz met.

Here's a link that talks about Tatum's influence on Charlie Parker and also what Teddie Wilson had to say about Tatum

https://jazzipedia.com/blog/art-tatum-even-charlie-parker-washed-dishes-to-listen-to-him.html

Here's another link where Hank Jones discusses Tatum's influence on jazz (and John Coltrane).

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/02/arts/music/02jone.html?_r=1&

When the great players speak about the pianists they looked up to it's worthwhile to listen! Because most of the great players quoted in those links heard Tatum in person and they spoke with him and knew him. And they knew, first hand, exactly how Tatum influenced the jazz tradition.

But having said all of that taste is taste. So while great players can speak to Tatum's accomplishments it's up to us as pianists and listeners, amateurs and professionals, to decide if we want to follow the trails.

[stevensk]

"improvising. Which many many many classical virtousi are incapable of doing"


-And which even more jazzpianists should refrain

[mjames]

"improvising. Which many many many classical virtousi are incapable of doing"


-And which even more jazzpianists should refrain

k

[dfrankjazz]

I can digg much of Oscar's nuances in his solo playing, but to me his solo playing really neurotic and compulsive, same dumb runs over and over, running after Art to no avail.

Dave Frank

[cuberdrift]

Technique doesn't always have to go with artistry.

That being said, Tatum may have had wackier ideas, but that doesn't that he's the better technician. I myself believe Peterson had a more thorough understanding of piano technics; Tatum was sort of like a really fast harpsichord player, maybe like Glenn Gould.

Art Tatum plays in a really clear, crisp way, and there's no denying that although some can match his speed, they most certainly can not match the finesse and relaxed manner in which he does so. However, once we hover into the realm of Peterson, Cziffra, or Barere, things become a different matter.

Point being, Art Tatum can play fast yes, but is he really that much above the rest? Think twice.

Also, I don't really understand the issue of being a good improviser or not. What the heck does that have to do with raw technique? We all wonder if Oscar Peterson could play Chopin's Torrent at the same speed as the Sviatoslav fellow, for instance. Really, I can't see how it matters.

[8_octaves]

Hi all,

i think it would be interesting if we could hear Art Tatum play these three, being recordings by some of the most dangerous men "at the keys", that existed, in my opinion. (You surely know about them.) :

Mephisto-Waltz, (Busoni-version, played by his student and friend):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a5RS0NBI4U

Mephisto-Waltz, (normal version), Kilenyi:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDrpUhbl0Vw

Campanella, (Busoni-version), Pollack:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1v0yOWi1jk

The question, I think, is still: Would Art Tatum succeed, yes or no. He could do incredible things - are his abilities sufficient?

Greetings from 8_octaves 

[cuberdrift]

Hi all,

i think it would be interesting if we could hear Art Tatum play these three, being recordings by some of the most dangerous men "at the keys", that existed, in my opinion. (You surely know about them.) :

Mephisto-Waltz, (Busoni-version, played by his student and friend):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a5RS0NBI4U

Mephisto-Waltz, (normal version), Kilenyi:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDrpUhbl0Vw

Campanella, (Busoni-version), Pollack:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1v0yOWi1jk

The question, I think, is still: Would Art Tatum succeed, yes or no. He could do incredible things - are his abilities sufficient?

Greetings from 8_octaves 

Hi all,

i think it would be interesting if we could hear Art Tatum play these three, being recordings by some of the most dangerous men "at the keys", that existed, in my opinion. (You surely know about them.) :

Mephisto-Waltz, (Busoni-version, played by his student and friend):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a5RS0NBI4U

Mephisto-Waltz, (normal version), Kilenyi:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDrpUhbl0Vw

Campanella, (Busoni-version), Pollack:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1v0yOWi1jk

The question, I think, is still: Would Art Tatum succeed, yes or no. He could do incredible things - are his abilities sufficient?

Greetings from 8_octaves 

If it's a question of "could he", then I think he could. However, if you ask "could he play as well?" then perhaps not. I think Tatum had classical training in his youth, but he did not pursue it seriously. I hypothesise that it is in this factor that distinguishes his sound from Oscar's.

When discussing pianists, particularly master pianists, the question of whether or not they "can" play a certain piece usually needn't be raised. I think extraordinary technical facility is automatically present in most pianists of considerable acclaim and recognition amongst serious musicians.

However, the more critical question is, how well can they play the said pieces? I am merely a conservatory student, but I know a lot of people who can already tackle Mazeppa, Rach 3, Prok 2, etc. but can they play it as well as Horowitz? Certainly not.

That being said, Tatum's hands are capable of many things, even things we probably couldn't do. But to test his skill against OTHER virtuosi deserves more discussion, in my opinion.

There are lots of pianists on Youtube who have tried their hands on Tiger Rag or Tea for Two (even Yuja Wang), but none of them I think play them in a really convincing way, that is, in a way that is pleasurable to listen to. I think Art Tatum, if he heard them, would just laugh it off and dismiss them as silly, since they are  merely imitating what was improvised (BTW I read this really happened once - a man played Elegie in front of Tatum, and all Tatum said was "Sure he knows how, but he doesn't know why").

Here's a compilation of passages that feature the upper stretches of Tatum's pianism, just so you can perhaps compare it to other virtuosi and if it says anything;

[8_octaves]

If it's a question of "could he", then I think he could. However, if you ask "could he play as well?" then perhaps not. I think Tatum had classical training in his youth, but he did not pursue it seriously. I hypothesise that it is in this factor that distinguishes his sound from Oscar's.

When discussing pianists, particularly master pianists, the question of whether or not they "can" play a certain piece usually needn't be raised. I think extraordinary technical facility is automatically present in most pianists of considerable acclaim and recognition amongst serious musicians.

However, the more critical question is, how well can they play the said pieces? I am merely a conservatory student, but I know a lot of people who can already tackle Mazeppa, Rach 3, Prok 2, etc. but can they play it as well as Horowitz? Certainly not.

That being said, Tatum's hands are capable of many things, even things we probably couldn't do. But to test his skill against OTHER virtuosi deserves more discussion, in my opinion.

There are lots of pianists on Youtube who have tried their hands on Tiger Rag or Tea for Two (even Yuja Wang), but none of them I think play them in a really convincing way, that is, in a way that is pleasurable to listen to. I think Art Tatum, if he heard them, would just laugh it off and dismiss them as silly, since they are  merely imitating what was improvised (BTW I read this really happened once - a man played Elegie in front of Tatum, and all Tatum said was "Sure he knows how, but he doesn't know why").

[...]

Hi cuberdrift!

You are an Art Tatum-Fan, and that's cool, thank you very much for your answer!
Here is a vid which is delighting, in my opinion:

Tatum, Chopin valse c sharp minor:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fylxor4zo0w

(Tatum: One eye blind, the other very much limited by cataract (an eye-disease, my grandma had it, too)).

And we shouldn't forget that technical abilities stay in direct inseperable connection to the musical ones.
So, ok, may be he could have done "the three".

Another really blind (from birth) pianist is, as we know, Nobuyuki Tsujii, of whom astonishing recordings exist on Youtube (check'em out!)

But as a blind person, Tsujii sometimes (e.g. in the Rachmaninoff-concerto(s)), has to "feel" the keys, before the touch happens. (An interesting method for those who aren't blind, too, in my opinion.)

Many greetings from: 8_octaves!