Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Who influenced Tatum?

Here's another interpretation of Autumn Leaves, this time by Wynton Marsalis and Marcus Roberts on piano. Compare what they are doing rhythmically to Denis Matsuev's rendeition and the difference is tremendous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xi-emWNePw

People want to defend their corners. That's only natural.

Benny Goodman, when he played Copland's Clarinet Concerto (as jazzy a piece of classical music as they come) played it very stiffly, whereas pure classical clarinettists let loose and swing in the jazzy finale. Even when he played Bernstein's Prelude, Fugue and Riffs (tailored for a jazz band), he was stiffer than most classical clarinettists. When Keith Jarrett plays Bach's and Shostakovich's Preludes & Fugues, his playing sounds so metrical.....

Is that what jazz musicians think that's what classical music should be? No rhythmic freedom? Everything by the book?

Listen to Baroque specialists playing Bach's WTC on the harpsichord, and you'll hear quite a bit of rhythmic licence.

Interestingly, as to the question of whether classical pianists can ever play jazz properly, I recorded a few tracks of Jean-Yves Thibaudet playing Bill Evans (from his CD) and Denis Matsuev in a solo improvisation (from a live radio show) and asked my two jazz friends to comment on them, without telling them that the pianists were classically bred and trained. They were very impressed........until I told them that both the players were classical pianists moonlighting in jazz for fun. At which, they became very sniffy, and even cross that I'd 'deceived' them .

In case people think I'm having a rant at jazz because I'm steeped in classical, as I said earlier, I actually enjoy quite a bit of solo piano jazz (but not the kind where the drummer overwhelms the proceedings, as I once had the misfortune of hearing at Ronnie Scott's in London); it's just that when jazz enthusiasts look down their noses at classical pianists whenever the subject of jazz crops up, citing the so-called inability of classical pianists to improvise, play on the hoof, or 'swing' - just because they've never heard classical musicians do so; I feel duty bound to correct them . Yes, improvisation isn't taught as part of normal classical music teaching, and we read music from day one. But that doesn't mean we cannot improvise, if we choose to have a go at it. I used to have fun with a violinist friend at school where we took a tune (usually from a pop song - for some reason, Abba's tunes were our favourite....) and played around with it as a duo. No, it wasn't jazz improvisation, but it was improvisation. These days, I improvise on the piano by myself, and occasionally with others, but it doesn't form a major part of my piano playing. There's far better written music by great composers to be learnt than my doodlings at the piano.

It's also interesting that jazz people love to quote well-known classical pianists' enthusiastic praise of jazz pianists (like Horowitz's on Tatum, which was also in my Tatum CD box's booklet), but never the other way round. Do jazz pianists have an inferiority complex, that they love praise from people like Horowitz who can't even swing or 'displace' his rhythms? After all, what does Horowitz know about jazz?

I completely agree with purists on both sides. And perhaps we are all purists in some way, In fact I actually don't care too much for most Avant Garde Jazz or some 20th century musics like Expressionism & Futurism but definitely understand the high degree of technicality and have respect for those composers and musicians.

One does not need to have any corner or be defensive.

But this is just personal opinion although you state it as if it was factual. However, even if Goodman's performance was as you describe it, I don't see any relevance. It's easy to see how a jazz musician might feel constrained or uneasy by a written score even if it was in the jazz style. Trying to say that the classical clarinetists who recorded the Copland were better at playing jazz is frankly nonsensical.

Now that you've mentioned Wynton Marsalis, I think he's the only professional musician that I can think of who as actually professional excelled in both Classical & Jazz music. He is also an outspoken opponent of the modern jazz movement and has been criticized as well by other jazz musicians (modern jazz purists?) for his criticisms about the modern jazz art form. Personally I think he's OK at jazz and excellent as a classical musician but nonetheless he has Grammys in both areas.

[/quote]

Kindly, if you please, re-read what I wrote.

It's very silly to criticize someone for something he didn't say.

Have you actually heard Goodman's recording of the Copland Concerto? And compared it to, say, Richard Stoltzman's?

Have you ever heard Copland's Clarinet Concerto at all?

Miguel Ray

I had conversation with some well known jazz musicians about this, and the consensus is that at one point in his career he was a brilliant jazzer with lots of potential. You don't get to play with likes of Kenny Kirkland, and Jeff Tain watts unless you are really good. The problem is that he was put in the spotlight too early and pursue a wrong path. There are plenty of people who wished Wynton continued experimenting like he did on "Black Codes from underground", which IMO is one of the seminal jazz album of last 20-30 years.

bennevis

It seems like you are being really defensive about this. In my experience most jazz musicians are very respectful of classical musician and vice versa, and jazz musicians are very aware of the fact many classical musicians improvise and improvise very well.

The only time we have a real beef is when classical musicians tries to play jazz and try to pass it off as if it's a real thing. Of course you'll get a reaction from jazz musicians when someone tries to pass of Mei Ting or Denis Matsuev as jazz. It's the same reason you have negative reaction about Keith Jarret recording classical music.

I think it's pretty clear most of the comments here are saying comparing jazz and classical is like comparing apples and oranges and should be compared on it's own merits.. but for some reason you keep on making this about classical musicians being more capable than jazz musicians and keep on making these crass statement (Art Tatum being one trick ponies and what not) about jazz when you don't understand it all. With all due respect, you are the one who started attacking jazz first.

I am not attacking classical pianist or classical pianist improvisers, but I have problem with people making it about who is superior and who isn't. I brought the example of rhythm because there are certain areas of jazz music improv that classical musician don't really understand.. and IMO excel at far more than classical musicians do. I'm just trying to get you to stop pretending like you know what jazz is and stop comparing it to the merits of classical improv.

as far as your last paragraph is concerned... do you realize how often great jazz musicians cite classical composers as their influence? These quotes only show how people of different musical background can appreciate music of different genre respect each other's achivements

Well, you DID deceive them, at some level.

But, yes, it is funny how some anonymous classical musicians can play jazz just fine, until it becomes known that they are classical musicians, at which point it suddenly becomes apparent to those who fancy themselves to be jazz aficionados that the musicians aren't playing "real" jazz at all, or can't really swing.

Of course, sometimes that really is true. As is the reverse (e.g., Chick Corea playing Mozart). Playing idiomatically in any genre can be tricky for those outside of the tradition - I've heard some Russian classical players doing some mid-20th-century American classical music in a way that somehow gained a distinct Russian Romantic inflection (which could be heard either charming or merely unidiomatic). And I remember that Hamelin was offended when critics said his Iberia was unidiomatic - he seemed to think that his idea of being "true to the score" was all that should matter.

I've also heard some non-American jazz players and groups whose style sounded oddly stilted to me on first hearing, even though they were full-time jazz players. But then, why should they sound like American players? It is only if they tried to claim that they sounded exactly like their American counterparts that a problem arises, IMO. Of course, there are those who say that jazz is just what they think it is, and nothing else is allowed. I think that's not very useful, since it is clear that many jazz musicians themselves have gone through all sorts of stylistic developments - think Miles - and unless they themselves say "What I am doing is not jazz", then it still must be.

wr

I don't have any problem with people playing music outside of their tradition and making a sincere effort, but I have a problem when people say something like "Art Tatum frankly couldn't hold a candle to his(Denis Matsuev's) brilliant and intricate runs" when it's clear to me and others here that the person who made such comment doesn't seem to understand(or care to understand) what jazz is.

IMO It's great that Jean-Yves Thibaudet is doing a tribute to Bill Evans, he plays very beautifully. But I am pretty sure he is doing so with the awareness that he is coming from a different tradition. He is not trying to pass his effort off as jazz, nor does he think his output to be superior to Bill Evans' output(I think). I'd imagine that's an attitude commonly shared by most classical musician attempting jazz and they probably wouldn't care for this who's better nonsense either.

From my experience, it's jazz aficionados who are openly contemptuous of classical musicians who venture into jazz, rather than the other way round - as is already obvious from many posts here. (As well as my own experiences with my jazz aquaintances). When Benny Goodman played Mozart's Clarinet Concerto, noone in the classical world (as far as I know) turned up their noses at a jazz player playing a venerated classical masterpiece. Nor when Keith Jarrett ventured into Bach and Shostakovich - his CDs were reviewed in the classical press in the same way as any classical pianist's recordings would be. Nor when Chick Corea played Mozart with Friedrich Gulda.

But when a classical player plays jazz, it seems jazz musicians can't wait to join the queue to lay on the criticism - 'no swing', 'no sense of jazz rhythm', etc, etc. I've heard some laughable comments from such people when Thibaudet's Bill Evans CD was released. One even criticized his dress code (Armani suits, I think) as if labeling him as a 'cocktail bar' pianist is valid music criticism.

As for my comment on Matsuev, I didn't say that what he was doing was true jazz (whatever that means) - he does lots of stuff that no jazz pianist would do, like interlocking octaves and chords, double octaves and the like (the sort of stuff that's bread and butter to someone who plays Liszt and Rachmaninoff). What I meant was that Tatum can't compare to Matsuev in purely technical terms, nor in the variety of the latter's pianistic 'tricks'.

I agree with you - even in jazz, there're 'accents', for want of a better word. David Gazarov's jazz sounds to me Russian-inflected, though as far as I know, he's long been accepted into the jazz fraternity.

And Hamelin's Iberia is certainly a far cry from Alicia de Larrocha's or Rafael Orozco's more typically Spanish inflection. And his Scriabin isn't very Russian-sounding either. But it's still wonderful playing, on its own terms.

bennevis,

Where i am I've heard plenty of classical players talk trash about Jazzers doing classical music too. I've read some really negative and mean spirited reviews on Uri Caine's classical arrangements. I've also met plenty of people who claim classical music is the only legit music and jazz is garbage too. So don't pretend like you guys are the only victim and the problem goes only one way.


I understand that technically Matsuev does things that jazz players can't do, I am not disagreeing with you there, but don't go around belittling what jazzers do as "Pianistic tricks". People work long and hard to develop those "tricks" and these skills are just as demanding, but in different ways. There are rhythmic aspect of Bill Evan's playing that Matsuev cannot touch too, and that's bread and butter stuff for jazz musicians nowdays. Technical prowess is not the sole determining factor for what makes a good improvisation.

Just to be clear, I only criticize classical pianist only in respect of how they improvised in jazz setting, That doesn't take away from the enormous amount of respect I have for their achievement in their field of expertise. I didn't go around dissing their musicianship as a whole by calling them "one trick ponies".

You said:"Benny Goodman, when he played Copland's Clarinet Concerto (as jazzy a piece of classical music as they come) played it very stiffly, whereas pure classical clarinettists let loose and swing in the jazzy finale. Even when he played Bernstein's Prelude, Fugue and Riffs (tailored for a jazz band), he was stiffer than most classical clarinettists.

Unless you think "stiff" is a compliment you clearly said what I said you did.

To very slightly detour this discussion, let me say that I listened to and enjoyed several video tracks that beeboss posted on YouTube. Very nice.

I always like to put a face to a name so to speak.

One way to look at who influenced Tatum is to listen (and, of course - that's obvious). Complement that with score study (of Tatum). Tatum transcription books from Hal Leonard exist and there are some other sources as well. One thing anyone might notice (and quickly at that) in a Tatum transcription is the sophistication of his rhythmic language. His voice leading skills and ability to create a kind of extended counterpoint are another delight. A look/listen to his harmonies and voicings will show some incredible stuff as well (Aunt Hagar's Blues in one of the John Mehegan books is a great place to see this). If you still feel after you look and listen that Tatum isn't the artist/innovator many say he is, well, at least a look/listen approach gives you something substantial and credible to support your point of view - which would be Tatum examples and your specific analysis of them.

Another great source is Ted Gioia's book: The Imperfect Art: Reflections on Jazz and Modern Culture. Gioia discusses the differences and similarities between so-called "classical" music and jazz in a very, very insightful way. The interesting thing is that Gioia isn't particularly critical about anything on either side (classical or jazz). But he's very skilled at identifying basic questions and pointing out odd (and often misleading) assertions that have been made when comparing assorted styles and streams and branches. Of course, if you've already read the book and didn't find it helpful or interesting - or if you found it to be just plain wrong much less not so interesting - well, please suggest something else that covers the same ground in a better and accurate way.

Hope this helps ... and if you've played Tatum transcriptions at tempo and if you're still not particularly impressed or inspired, well "C'est la vie" as the French say or "It is what is" as some in New Jersey say.

The techniques involved in playing jazz are just very different than those required to play classical. Concert pianists don't have time to spend a decade or so working on playing swing so consequently they can't do it to the same level as people who specialise in that (generally, there is always the odd exception). If you measure technique purely in terms of speed/eveness of fast notes played then obviously classical guys have the upper hand (in this imagined battle) but playing with swing is also a technique. In jazz the importance of what I could call 'pure' technique is relatively unimportant in comparison with the other techniques that it requires (such as doing something interesting with a chord progression, playing with swing, responding to what the other musicians are playing, knowledge of harmony etc). Jazz players should be evaluated by what they say in their music and not by how fast they can play double octaves. This is why Monk is regarded a jazz great despite having an extremely unorthodox technical approach. Of course having a good technique (in the pure classical sense) is going to be a help in the expression of ideas in improvisation but without the knowledge of how the music is put together it is by itself totally useless.

(I know you know all this etcetera, I am just using your quote as a way of putting down my thoughts)

Thanks Dave

There is a story about Tatum that once in a club a brilliant classical player came up to him and explained that he had worked out a transcription of one of Art's pieces and wanted to play it for him. Afterwards it was clear that Art was unimpressed and when asked why he said something like 'you played all the right notes but you have no idea why I played them'.





I didn't know that. I transcribed it myself once, it almost killed me. I could have saved the effort ;-)

'Jazzy' does not equate to jazz. Ravel's G major Concerto has jazzy elements - plenty of blue notes etc in the first movement, but it's not jazz. Copland's Clarinet Concerto has plenty of jazzy passages in the latter parts, but it's not jazz; it's not even anything like Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue. Its beginning, in fact, is very wistful and nostalgic, like the beginning of Appalachian Spring.

Goodman seems to be inhibited when playing fully-composed music, like the Copland and the Bernstein, unlike classical clarinetists. Whereas one would think (and expect) that he'd take the opportunity to really swing where Copland gives him the opportunity.

Then why even bring up the this example at all? This is just playing games with words.

If you want to distinguish "jazzy" from "jazz" then any relevance about the ability of classical musicians in playing jazz is lost because you say this piece isn't jazz.

So what? It's obvious why Goodman might have felt inhibited since, as I already mentioned, he was not used to playing this kind of music. Since you say this piece isn't jazz it's irrelevant to any discussion about the ability of classical performers to play jazz.