Any jazz pianists whose technique has matched the best classical virtuosi?

[cuberdrift]

I understand this is a silly question, but I want to know your opinion.

We all know that generally, classical training in the piano is much more heavily based on technique practice than in jazz piano.

Therefore, some of the greatest technicians of the piano who have ever lived, such as Gyorgy Cziffra, Martha Argerich, Marc-Andre Hamelin, and so forth, are classical pianists.

The evidence is too obvious to be doubted;
- Cziffra's 'Flight of the Bumblebee' hovers, IIRC, around 220 bpm
- Argerich's Chopin Etude op. 10 no. 4 is about 219 bpm, even faster than Richter's (I actually thought Richter's was the fastest there is!)
- Hamelin is known to play extremely difficult, not-so-well-known pieces with much ease

Now I want to know if there are, or have been, ANY jazz pianists at all who have achieved similar (if not greater) feats, from a purely technical standpoint, than them.

Are there?

[adodd81802]

.

[adodd81802]

.

[dogperson]

Dick Hyman-- amazingly in his 70's hr wrote and performed a concerto for piano and orchestra.  Sadly, it hasn't been published  Some others below

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I believe the likes of Tatum and Peterson are on the level of classical virtuosi. The problem I have is that I don't think Cziffra is. I think he's on a higher level altogether and I think very few virtuosi compare technically to him, Michelangeli perhaps (it's a fire and ice thing). Cziffra's pianism is a very odd thing: it's evident that much music is technically very easy for him, and perhaps you only gain insight into his full capacity by studying his self-made paraphrases, which I think are some of his finest and most natural recordings.

The flipside is that most classical pianists play jazz abominably; exceptions that I can think of offhand being Thibaudet and Previn. Cziffra's jazz is rather peculiar: he can't resist hyperornamentation and his own rather individual harmonic sense.

[philolog]

Keith Jarrett has recorded any number of "classical" pieces, from the Barber piano concerto to Shostakovich preludes and fugues: he's also done an album of improvisations on the clavichord. Whether the results "match the best classical virtuosi" you'll have to decide.

In general, I'm not sure one can evaluate the technical level of jazz pianists vis-a-vis the classical repertoire merely by listening to performances in their preferred style. The demands are so different, with an emphasis on improvisation on the one hand and the resulting limitation in compositional complexity on the other. That said, there are numerous examples of improvisations at a very high level, musical and organizational, both in jazz and in the realm of improvisation (in a classical mode) on the organ. Also, many jazz pianists have been classically trained, including, I believe, Tatum and Peterson.

[cuberdrift]

I also am inclined to suggest that your generalization is probably inaccurate at best.

Factually the classical era is referred to as the years 1750 to 1830. But it would be negligent to forget pianists past this date including the very famous Liszt, (Liszt was born in the classical era yes but surpassed this with his life and compositions) as well as Debussy, Rachmaninoff etc etc who have composed music also featured and performed by the same pianists you refer too.

Sorry, I meant 'classical' meaning any pianist who specializes in playing music from the Western art music tradition.

I think any style of music if dedicate to the instrument it was written can be equally difficult, however I will agree that Jazz is a different style and while the piano is heavily involved (as evidenced by some mighty solos) as a whole, Jazz isn't solely dedicated to the piano in the same way that a Sonata by Beethoven or a Waltz by Chopin would have been.

Perhaps you could expound more on this idea?

Quick google search suggests Art Tatum?

Allegedly - When Vladimir Horowitz, the famed classical pianist, was asked who the best pianist was, he responded with Art Tatum’s name.

I don't know Jazz piano, not keen on it myself in terms of learning.

Ahh...the famous, almost 'mythical' Art Tatum. One of my favorite jazz pianists, a big reason being his ear-tickling runs.

He does have a formidable technique, but I think maybe he has already been outclassed by the likes of his protege, Oscar Peterson. Peterson seems to have a stronger hold on the keyboard, and although Tatum could play really fast, Peterson seems to have a more well-rounded touch. Maybe he took up classical more than Tatum.

And by the way, I once was intrigued by the Horowitz story thing. But sorry man, unfortunately I can't find any first-hand evidence of their encounter. I have seen neither pianist acknowledge that they did indeed meet each other. I didn't even hear or read from either pianist that they even mentioned the others' name. It's a well-known legend, and I'm not entirely sure who started it.

Dick Hyman-- amazingly in his 70's hr wrote and performed a concerto for piano and orchestra.  Sadly, it hasn't been published  Some others below

Hmm...Dick Hyman. I have watched some of his videos. I have even e-mailed him a few times and got replies.

As far as I know he has great technique. But do you think he can play as well as Hamelin or something? I'm not sure, I haven't explored his performances that much yet.

I believe the likes of Tatum and Peterson are on the level of classical virtuosi.

Why do you think so? From what evidence do you base your assumption on?

I'm not actually trying to say "no, no, no, no, that's not true" at all. I just am eager to know why you think so.

The problem I have is that I don't think Cziffra is. I think he's on a higher level altogether and I think very few virtuosi compare technically to him, Michelangeli perhaps (it's a fire and ice thing). Cziffra's pianism is a very odd thing: it's evident that much music is technically very easy for him, and perhaps you only gain insight into his full capacity by studying his self-made paraphrases, which I think are some of his finest and most natural recordings.

Cziffra is a really fascinating pianist! He had an extraordinary technique and I love the 'spontainety' of his playing. It has that quality that seems like one performance of his cannot be ever played the same way again...kind of like a jazz improvisation (I read that he actually jammed once with an African American jazz band, where he was himself stunned by the black musicians. And their bandleader said of Cziffra something like, 'You know, I know of only one other pianist who plays like you; Art Tatum. And if his playing is prodigious, yours is miraculous!' or something like that, IIRC.

The flipside is that most classical pianists play jazz abominably; exceptions that I can think of offhand being Thibaudet and Previn. Cziffra's jazz is rather peculiar: he can't resist hyperornamentation and his own rather individual harmonic sense.

My listening knowledge is not that great, but have you heard Andre Previn and Oscar Peterson play together? It's great!

And yeah, Cziffra's 'hyperornamentation' both amuses and slightly frightens me. I once thought those weird hyper-virtuoso runs could only be done by him. Well now, I think it isn't that hard after all.

Keith Jarrett has recorded any number of "classical" pieces, from the Barber piano concerto to Shostakovich preludes and fugues: he's also done an album of improvisations on the clavichord. Whether the results "match the best classical virtuosi" you'll have to decide.

How hard is the Barber concerto/Shostakovich preludes and fugues? Are they like Alkan's Concerto for Solo Piano, etc.?

In general, I'm not sure one can evaluate the technical level of jazz pianists vis-a-vis the classical repertoire merely by listening to performances in their preferred style. The demands are so different, with an emphasis on improvisation on the one hand and the resulting limitation in compositional complexity on the other. That said, there are numerous examples of improvisations at a very high level, musical and organizational, both in jazz and in the realm of improvisation (in a classical mode) on the organ. Also, many jazz pianists have been classically trained, including, I believe, Tatum and Peterson.

I find this to be very true. The problem is that jazz is done on the spot, while hours and hours are spent practicing a difficult classical etude, so naturally maybe a classical performance should ideally sound more 'polished'...though I am not even entirely sure of this.

Anyways, however, I believe maybe we can still compare the technical facility of a classical player and a jazz player...maybe like, compare Cziffra's transcription of the Sabre Dance with Art Tatum's Tiger Rag, try to play them both, and say which is harder, and which performer did a better performance of said piece.

I think we can still see whose runs are more crisp, faster, or whose leaps are bigger, etc. Come on. Technique is technique. It isn't as hard as deciding who is the 'better artist', in which case huge areas are left to subjectivity.

[adodd81802]

.

[visitor]

I understand this is a silly question

yes.

We all know that generally, classical training in the piano is much more heavily based on technique practice than in jazz piano.

no.

Now I want to know if there are, or have been, ANY jazz pianists at all who have achieved similar (if not greater) feats, from a purely technical standpoint, than them.

Are there?

this is non sensical. technique is technique.  When I play jazz and I press the keys for a chord , or do a scale based run, or arpegio, i don't execute those movements differently than when I encounter them in std lit ie Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Debussy, etc.

sound and efficient mechanics are just that and work in both the Jazz and classical and pop space, just the same as sloppy playing is sloppy if one plays jazz, classical, pop etc. There's little to be gained by changing the physical approach and technique (it mechanics of operating and executing on the instrument in as easiest a fashion as one can) because you play jazz or classical.

What does change is the subtlety of how the music is shaped by nuances in physical movements due to the sound you want in that musical context, but there are sounds i produce in jazz that I also want in some classical pieces and there are classical piece appropriate tone qualities that I want to use in some jazz pieces ie tone, accents, etc.

[dcstudio]

I am also interested in what prompted this rather loaded question..    name one jazzer whose technique matched classical... hmmm... have you been arguing with jazzers?? lol


what Art and Oscar could do and what Vladimir Horowitz could do are so far removed from each other that they really don't bear comparing.  it's apples and oranges.

as a jazzer who has also had a solid classical foundation and who works in both genres...  classical pianists who can't improvise are generally fascinated by it.  This is not reciprocated by the jazz community... as most of us started out traditionally, we can read, and we can play classical pieces if the need so arises.

this is not absolute and of course there are exceptions but after 20 years of freelancing this is a pretty general rule out there in the real world..

there are really only two kinds of piano gigs...

..you are expected to play from the score precisely... or
..you are expected to be able to follow along, improvise, transpose, think on your feet and not follow the score....  there are plenty of both...

but, of course, sometimes you are expected to do both at the same gig... that's when I will get the gig over the most amazing sight-reader, with the most incredible technique...because I can work in their world but those kinds are generally completely lost in mine

so I do smirk a bit at this argument...  we jazzers are not devoid of classical piano in the same way that the classical piano community is with jazz...and nearly all the big guys of jazz... Tatum, Peterson, Monk and the like... had very SOLID classical foundations..

so my question is name a classical virtuoso who could match Art Tatum or Oscar Peterson in jazz technique.. who could sit down and improvise --and play for hours without reading a single note...that's a better comparison

[adodd81802]

.

[dcstudio]

I like your take on this. GOOD JOB DC

thanks

... I have made this argument quite a few times as I was the only jazzer in a family of staunch classical traditionalists... lol.  jazz was my rebellion!

[thalbergmad]

The flipside is that most classical pianists play jazz abominably

Anyone who has heard Mayer play Tatum would agree. His Thalberg is not a great deal better.

Thal

[dcstudio]

Sorry, I meant 'classical' meaning any pianist who specializes in playing music from the Western art music tradition.

Perhaps you could expound more on this idea?

Ahh...the famous, almost 'mythical' Art Tatum. One of my favorite jazz pianists, a big reason being his ear-tickling runs.

He does have a formidable technique, but I think maybe he has already been outclassed by the likes of his protege, Oscar Peterson. Peterson seems to have a stronger hold on the keyboard, and although Tatum could play really fast, Peterson seems to have a more well-rounded touch. Maybe he took up classical more than Tatum.

And by the way, I once was intrigued by the Horowitz story thing. But sorry man, unfortunately I can't find any first-hand evidence of their encounter. I have seen neither pianist acknowledge that they did indeed meet each other. I didn't even hear or read from either pianist that they even mentioned the others' name. It's a well-known legend, and I'm not entirely sure who started it.

Hmm...Dick Hyman. I have watched some of his videos. I have even e-mailed him a few times and got replies.

As far as I know he has great technique. But do you think he can play as well as Hamelin or something? I'm not sure, I haven't explored his performances that much yet.

Why do you think so? From what evidence do you base your assumption on?

I'm not actually trying to say "no, no, no, no, that's not true" at all. I just am eager to know why you think so.

Cziffra is a really fascinating pianist! He had an extraordinary technique and I love the 'spontainety' of his playing. It has that quality that seems like one performance of his cannot be ever played the same way again...kind of like a jazz improvisation (I read that he actually jammed once with an African American jazz band, where he was himself stunned by the black musicians. And their bandleader said of Cziffra something like, 'You know, I know of only one other pianist who plays like you; Art Tatum. And if his playing is prodigious, yours is miraculous!' or something like that, IIRC.

My listening knowledge is not that great, but have you heard Andre Previn and Oscar Peterson play together? It's great!

And yeah, Cziffra's 'hyperornamentation' both amuses and slightly frightens me. I once thought those weird hyper-virtuoso runs could only be done by him. Well now, I think it isn't that hard after all.

How hard is the Barber concerto/Shostakovich preludes and fugues? Are they like Alkan's Concerto for Solo Piano, etc.?

I find this to be very true. The problem is that jazz is done on the spot, while hours and hours are spent practicing a difficult classical etude, so naturally maybe a classical performance should ideally sound more 'polished'...though I am not even entirely sure of this.

Anyways, however, I believe maybe we can still compare the technical facility of a classical player and a jazz player...maybe like, compare Cziffra's transcription of the Sabre Dance with Art Tatum's Tiger Rag, try to play them both, and say which is harder, and which performer did a better performance of said piece.

I think we can still see whose runs are more crisp, faster, or whose leaps are bigger, etc. Come on. Technique is technique. It isn't as hard as deciding who is the 'better artist', in which case huge areas are left to subjectivity.

seems you already had an answer to this question... again I am wondering why you asked it.

what you are forgetting is the element of spontaneity that is present in jazz that is not present for the most part in classical piano.  THAT is the amazing part about jazz not how fast you can play--(although that is part of it, too.)   What a jazz pianist can do almost effortlessly is so foreign to most classical pianists that they tend to ask these silly questions that all mean the same thing..

"classical piano is harder than jazz and therefore more respectable or better or more technical...so why can't I play jazz..?"

the question "who can play faster?" is pretty ridiculous to begin with and to clock someone's speed on flight of the bumblebee and use this to support your claim that classical is "better" or more technically demanding than jazz is confusing me....  where is the other side of this argument?  where is your clocking of art tatum's speed--ever hear him play Humoresque?  Why is the art of improvisation which is often done at blinding speeds not even considered to be in any way technically demanding?  please...lol   We play that fast and make it up as we go along..  I suggest that you try it before using  finger speeds as your evidence that classical is technically better...


  with all due respect...you have  experience on only one side of this issue...  so therefore you really should study more about "all this jazz" stuff and then draw your conclusions on which you personally feel is ... "better" or technically "harder."  I mean that in a very friendly way... I am inviting you to try it and then tell me what you think about how technically demanding it is.

I, at one time, felt the same as you did...  and learning to improvise on a very classical foundation was incredibly painful...lol...   but it changed the way I thought about music, performing, composition...everything.


here's Keith Jarrett and Chick Corea performing Mozart...  quite well.  To support my claim that jazerrs are not devoid of classical chops I present this.. and I ask for two virtuosos that play jazz as well as these two play this.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Quote from: ronde_des_sylphes on Today at 11:53:14 AM
I believe the likes of Tatum and Peterson are on the level of classical virtuosi.

Why do you think so? From what evidence do you base your assumption on?

I'm not actually trying to say "no, no, no, no, that's not true" at all. I just am eager to know why you think so.

Cziffra is a really fascinating pianist! He had an extraordinary technique and I love the 'spontainety' of his playing. It has that quality that seems like one performance of his cannot be ever played the same way again...kind of like a jazz improvisation (I read that he actually jammed once with an African American jazz band, where he was himself stunned by the black musicians. And their bandleader said of Cziffra something like, 'You know, I know of only one other pianist who plays like you; Art Tatum. And if his playing is prodigious, yours is miraculous!' or something like that, IIRC.

My listening knowledge is not that great, but have you heard Andre Previn and Oscar Peterson play together? It's great!

And yeah, Cziffra's 'hyperornamentation' both amuses and slightly frightens me. I once thought those weird hyper-virtuoso runs could only be done by him. Well now, I think it isn't that hard after all.

My comments about Tatum and Peterson are a gut feeling. I very much doubt either could have played, for example, the Alkan Concerto for solo piano (we are of course talking supervirtuoso rep here, far removed from Mozart concerti and other more "standard" classical repertoire), but the fact is that when classical pianists have tried to play their stuff it's normally been quite poor/staid in comparison.

Cziffra's runs don't in principle seem that much different from Tatum's: often shared between the hands, and just about as fast as possible. I think the really scary part of Cziffra's technique is left hand octaves and double notes: the Romanian Fantasy is completely insane.  I see you've read Cannons and Flowers It's a good anecdote.

@dcstudio: I find the typical classical pianist's inability to improvise quite incomprehensible. It's also a desertion of tradition: it was an expected facet of a performer's capabilities prior to the late 19th century. Btw Cziffra was a demon improviser: before he became famous it was his job as a "bar pianist" in Budapest to improvise on anything and everything.

[dcstudio]

@dcstudio: I find the typical classical pianist's inability to improvise quite incomprehensible. It's also a desertion of tradition: it was an expected facet of a performer's capabilities prior to the late 19th century. Btw Cziffra was a demon improviser: before he became famous it was his job as a "bar pianist" in Budapest to improvise on anything and everything.

yes and I really like Cziffra...cause I have had that same job.  I would say that also makes him not the norm and he really shouldn't be used an example to prove this point.  I believe we agree on his amazingness and uniqueness whether it is more from his classical side or his "bar pianist" side is really not important. Most concert pianists don't have this kind of background and we can also all agree on that.


I have heard all kinds of theories on why improv is all but ignored by the modern classical crowd.   My favorite is a passage in the Bible --in one of the psalms I think--that refers to only "heathens" improvising music.  The Bible says it's bad...lol.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

yes and I really like Cziffra...cause I have had that same job.  I would say that also makes him not the norm and he really shouldn't be used an example to prove this point.  I believe we agree on his amazingness and uniqueness whether it is more from his classical side or his "bar pianist" side is really not important. Most concert pianists don't have this kind of background and we can also all agree on that.

Agreed he's not the norm. The thing is he's one of my selections as "best classical virtuosi" so it's hard to leave him out of my argumentation. Then again, I did say "I think he's on a higher level altogether and I think very few virtuosi compare technically to him".

I suspect that much modern conservatoire training conditions any improvisational capacity out of students and replaces it with "correctness". There are some good classical improvisers around, but generally they are not famous pianists, and when the famous pianists of today improvise, it's usually pretty generic/poor.

[dcstudio]

"I think he's on a higher level altogether and I think very few virtuosi compare technically to him".

we are in total agreement on that.      I like to think that his bar room demon improvising skills aided in his achieving this level of prowess...  or maybe they were a result of it... but it really doesn't matter.. Cziffra was awesome.

[chopinlover01]

I have heard all kinds of theories on why improv is all but ignored by the modern classical crowd.   My favorite is a passage in the Bible --in one of the psalms I think--that refers to only "heathens" improvising music.  The Bible says it's bad...lol.

Well, the Bible (when taken literally) also bans women from teaching, shaving your head, cursing your parents, wearing mixes of two fabrics, and eating shellfish... 

[dcstudio]

Well, the Bible (when taken literally) also bans women from teaching, shaving your head, cursing your parents, wearing mixes of two fabrics, and eating shellfish... 

...all that and much, much more!



I agree that improv has been replaced by correctness for the most part and that something has been lost by music education almost universally moving in that direction.

on the other hand, I am also glad...my improv skills have allowed me to work...and not because I am technically the best pianist (LOL). 

[visitor]

sorry if I missed a nod to Gulda in the thread. I thought he did a fine job at dabbling on both sides of the fence. Heck even played on top of the fence by composing jazzy-ish based works in manner that appears more in the classical real (not too unlike Kapustin - which actually, he is a phenomenal painist and has ties to Goldenweiser as a teacher at the Moscow conservatory, so is odd OP  did not look there).

Still, some of what he did was pretty cool and I like his playing on either side of it ie

[philolog]

Among the younger crowd, Lucas Debargue obviously likes to "fool around" at the piano:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=owTWl66QcTA. Not a bad effort for a "classical" guy...

Also, Fazil Say and Gabriela Montrero often improvise in public (often in a quasi-jazz idiom): How their efforts compare in quality to the best jazz solos is another matter. However I must point out that from my point of view there's just as much dull, prosaic so-called jazz out there as there are poor classical imitations of the genre.

What I would enjoy seeing is someone improvising a fugue, as Bach was reputed to be able to do. Those were the days...

Apropos of which: www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfj3rSZ0D34 (not a fugue, of course, but pretty impressive nonetheless)

[dcstudio]

. However I must point out that from my point of view there's just as much dull, prosaic so-called jazz out there as there are poor classical imitations of the genre.

no doubt! lol.

[irrational]

@dcstudio

I think you'll find that the most famous of keyboard composers are all very well known for improvising amazingly well.

Bach could improvise polyphonic fugues easily when many people don't even compose them because they are so hard to get right!
Liszt is well known for taking themes and improvising on them and he was an undisputed master.

In fact, quickly from memory. Bach, Scarlatti, Handel, Dussek, Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt of the old masters are all well known improvisers and even though they are known as composers, they were performing keyboardists!

[dcstudio]

@dcstudio

I think you'll find that the most famous of keyboard composers are all very well known for improvising amazingly well.

Bach could improvise polyphonic fugues easily when many people don't even compose them because they are so hard to get right!
Liszt is well known for taking themes and improvising on them and he was an undisputed master.

In fact, quickly from memory. Bach, Scarlatti, Handel, Dussek, Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt of the old masters are all well known improvisers and even though they are known as composers, they were performing keyboardists!

Why yes...of course they were--and that is exactly the point... why is it that the master composer's could all improvise but today many concert pianists cannot.   

The amount of focus there is on Bach at nearly every single music school in the world---you would think that aspect of his genius would be further expounded upon...  that it would be expected of the students who study him... to also learn the skill of improvisation.  wouldn't you agree?  Bach rep was required at my school every semester for juries.   He is/or was the only composer that they forced you to play..  not that it was a terrible thing... but he was such an incredible improviser.. why is there almost NO focus on that?

[irrational]

Well I think there are a few angles to this.

Teaching is one of it. Through a line from probably Liszt who established methods to teach, teachers are taught a certain way and that is what they teach. Their focus may simply be to develop technique and music appreciation to a standard that takes a lot of time. Can you teach improvisation? I think musicality is not a taught thing as my teacher says. I am sure if a student shows interest and skill in that area, a good teacher will develop it. But I think you may also have to get lucky to be with the right teacher at the right time...

There are great improvisers existing. Pianists like Gabriela Montero is most entertaining. And Kapustin can do pretty well too.

But I would also say its a sign of the times. In the baroque era, whose music did they play? I am not a student of ancient history, but I would venture that keyboard music was still being developed, so they had no "Bach" themselves to learn. Also times were different. To my knowledge these composer-pianists were not forced through 12 years of school, socialising and linked activity. They were the entertainment of the era. Performing was happening everywhere and people demanded something new. These people had to play for their food. So they were forced to play on demand and jazz did not exist, so improvise in the style of the time. Its a different focus. Now a music career entails performing past works for the most part because that is what people want.

I think we suffer from having been fed on past knowledge. Now we are taught the music of 300 years of the masters, building on their knowledge and there is so much of it that perhaps the chance to develop innovatively is pushed into the background and there is no chance. People like Art Tatum was self taught, but how many self-taught pianists are actually great to us? Being actively taught is likely the most guaranteed way of achieving a certain level of skill. Perhaps to our own musical detriment! Do you know any budding child pianists that are composing their own themes and variations? Do they have time through all the school activities? (I was surprised one day to discover pieces composed by Kissin when young. I don't know much about him, not being a huge fan of his playing).
I myself would love to learn so much more about music, but there is no time between work and other things. Just learning to play with a reasonable technique is taking years and there is no space to learn about music. I completely lament that lack of depth of understanding the music I play and I am sure there are many students in the same boat.

It may very well be that there are amazing improvising pianists out there and we just don't know about them because perhaps they do not compose mainstream or perform. Perhaps there is a hidden Borodin that works as a scientist somewhere but in his spare time does amazing things in a shack in the woods!

[dcstudio]

. Can you teach improvisation?

well.. yes and no.   I can teach you modes, riffs, scales, note cells, sequences and chords... I can teach you how to walk a bass in your left hand and solo with your right.  I can teach you the fundamentals.. but it takes a while---especially for those who are formally trained--to really get it.  The trick to teaching improv is to get the student to get over his fear of incorrect notes.  Sometimes this fear is so ingrained that the student will just go "deer in headlights" and stare at the keyboard when the word improvisation is even mentioned.

Once you are past that, though and you start to enjoy what you are hearing... then things begin to roll pretty quickly.   After a while, you can sit for hours at the piano without preparing anything.  I play at a fine-dining restaurant on the weekends sometimes -- its a  3 hour solo gig... without improv I would be bored to tears--and I would have to make a set list...and I really hate to follow a set list. lol.  I play jazz for a living... but I can improvise in the classical formal tradition as well.  Just a matter of changing up the rhythm and the riffs a bit.

[philolog]

For dcstudio (you did post the earlier Hirumi clip, right?):

I think you'll like this.

[dcstudio]

For dcstudio (you did post the earlier Hirumi clip, right?):

I think you'll like this.

I didn't post it... just quoted it... but you're right I LOVE IT. Geez she rocked at 12.. that's freakin awesome...  THANKS     to see a 12 year old who plays better jazz than I do...like miles better...pretty humbling...lol.

[philolog]

For dcstudio once more: After I posted this one I remembered that you weren't responsible for
the original Hirumi video but had commented on it. By then it was too late to be strictly accurate. But anyway, doesn't really matter much, does it? The point is you admire good playing.

By the way, the 12 year old in the video is not Hirumi at that age but another very talented pianist named Mayuki.

[visitor]

On HU. .  Some might dig, neat talk prior to a sold out show she discusses her transition from classical to Jazzer
 Lot of kidz dont know shes one of those rare ones that switched.  Goes to argue with my early point. Tech and is equally applicable its all about context.  Shes incredible.

[dcstudio]

 Lot of kidz dont know shes one of those rare ones that switched. 

so rare...  I switched--not to say my skills are anywhere near hers... but even so.  It's not like you stop being able to play classical pieces..  or read standard notation..   switching isn't really a good word for it..  you become someone who is able to do both...     

but jazz is sooooo much fun

@phil--whoever the 12 year old is... she ROCKS   thanks for sharing that...and yes I always appreciate good playing.