Oscar Peterson – why did those greats disliked him

[brownie]

Hans, that's OK. I'm no fan of a number of highly-rated musicians

brownie,

This is a little bit off topic, but please give me names. Maybe this is a good topic for a new thread.

Bentsy, I am a man of peace. Don't want to start any war. Besides the subject has been dealt before on various threads.

But just two names to satisfy your curiosity: Keith Jarrett and Charles Lloyd! I have had doubts about their sincerity and their originality and remain unimpressed by their recent efforts.

Lloyd the first time I heard him (at Slug's in New York in 1965 where he played with a smashing quartet that had Herbie Hancock, Henry Grimes and Pete LaRoca!) was the weak link in the unit. The fact that I had heard Coltrane, Ayler and Shepp (the Shepp of 1965!) at about the same time did not help him stand the comparison. I heard Lloyd later with the quartet that had Keith Jarrett and Jack de Johnette. Was again unimpressed by Lloyd. But I liked Jarrett then. And I loved him when he played with Miles. Also enjoyed the quartet he had with Dewey Redman, Charlie Haden and Paul Motian. As far as I am concerned things went downward when he went solo. When I hear his trio nowadays I listen to Gary Peacock and deJohnette. Jarrett's improvisations leave me cold.

But that's just me. And if anybody enjoys Jarrett and Lloyd, good for them!

I have hundreds of other musicians I prefer to listen to...

[John Tapscott]

Yes, there are recordings where Oscar's "flashiness" is over the top (esp. on some of the later MPS recordings, perhaps some of the early Verves) . Oscar has always been someone who impresses with his technique, but I think he really did learn to reign in that tendency, especially as he entered the Pablo years. He was a great "group" pianist, too, and blended very well with horn players, often bringing something to the stand which inspired them to play at a very high level. And Oscar never steals the show from them, either. I think of the Roy Eldridge 4 set at the Montreux Jazz Fest. 1977 or the Lockjaw Davis/Zoot Sims set at the '75 Montreux fest. And Oscar played beautifully with Milt Jackson, esp. on the duo recording they made for Pablo.

But I urge those of you who are troubled by Oscar's flash and technique to check out his latest recording - a DVD/CD recorded 2003 in Vienna with his quartet. There is no doubt that since his stroke in '93 Oscar's technique has diminished considerably. On this recording the uses his left hand sparingly and without a whole lot of strength. His right hand, while still fast, is not as strong as it used to be, either. (Granted the man is 78 years old). On this recording OP even plays some clams in some heads, something unheard of previously. Oscar was clearly struggling at times in this concert, BUT this whole performance is very moving and satsifying, a nice balance of blues, burners, and OP's original ballads. What it proves to me is that OP is not all about flash and technique. Even with his current limitations he performs jazz at a very high level. That to me, is real artistry, and my appreciation for him has only grown over the years.

[neveronfriday]

If Oscar Peterson was good enough for jazz giants like Coleman Hawkins Ben Webster, Lester Young, Roy Eldridge, Dizzy Gillespie, Count Basie, Billie Holiday, Stuff Smith, Louis Armstrong, he was good enough for me...

[B. Goren.]

Hans, that's OK. I'm no fan of a number of highly-rated musicians

brownie,

This is a little bit off topic, but please give me names. Maybe this is a good topic for a new thread.

Bentsy, I am a man of peace. Don't want to start any war. Besides the subject has been dealt before on various threads.

But just two names to satisfy your curiosity: Keith Jarrett and Charles Lloyd! I have had doubts about their sincerity and their originality and remain unimpressed by their recent efforts.

Lloyd the first time I heard him (at Slug's in New York in 1965 where he played with a smashing quartet that had Herbie Hancock, Henry Grimes and Pete LaRoca!) was the weak link in the unit. The fact that I had heard Coltrane, Ayler and Shepp (the Shepp of 1965!) at about the same time did not help him stand the comparison. I heard Lloyd later with the quartet that had Keith Jarrett and Jack de Johnette. Was again unimpressed by Lloyd. But I liked Jarrett then. And I loved him when he played with Miles. Also enjoyed the quartet he had with Dewey Redman, Charlie Haden and Paul Motian. As far as I am concerned things went downward when he went solo. When I hear his trio nowadays I listen to Gary Peacock and deJohnette. Jarrett's improvisations leave me cold.

But that's just me. And if anybody enjoys Jarrett and Lloyd, good for them!

I have hundreds of other musicians I prefer to listen to...

Thanks brownie. I also prefer Jarrett's early recordings.

[Big Wheel]

I think it's more than just flash. To me, Oscar's playing is just TOO "perfect" much of the time, and being "perfect" just didn't interest Miles (and if there's anyone in jazz who REALLY didn't give a shit about perfection in the conventional sense, it was Monk). When I listen to Oscar as a learning musician, my goal is to try and take away how smoothly he makes the transition from one chord to the next, how all the notes are just "right" for the phrase, and how he manages to finger everything so cleanly. If you want to learn the rules, you listen to Oscar. If you want to learn how to start breaking them, you listen to Monk. Working on both is essential to me.

That said, I do enjoy much of Oscar's playing, especially his trio arrangements. The emotional connection you get on a Sketches of Spain isn't there, but occasionally he can approach that level.

[Free For All]

If you want to learn the rules, you listen to Oscar. If you want to learn how to start breaking them, you listen to Monk. Working on both is essential to me.

That's essentially where I'm at with OP. I love his playing, and often refer to him when asked for an example of someone who plays with a great sense of time and swing. I appreciate hearing a tight trio playing well-constructed arrangements.

I'm often in the mood to listen to OP- his recordings always elevate my mood. Sometimes I'd rather listen to Monk. Or Bill Evans. Or Tatum.......etc.

IMHO with OP there is a "sameness" to many of his performances. I might compare him to Stitt..........a great player who returns to a familiar repertoire and plays familiar licks and phrases. Not a lot of harmonic exploration, but a great sense of melodic construction. I've made the same comment about Carl Fontana, who I love. My intent is not to diminish any of these artists' talents or importance. Being able to play at that level requires a LOT of hard work. If you need more, look to other artists. I find a lot to like about OP, however!

Edited August 29, 2004 by Free For All

[Shrdlu]

If Oscar Peterson was good enough for jazz giants like Coleman Hawkins Ben Webster, Lester Young, Roy Eldridge, Dizzy Gillespie, Count Basie, Billie Holiday, Stuff Smith, Louis Armstrong, he was good enough for me...

Isn't that largely because Oscar was the house pianist for Granz's labels for several years? Also, I presume that Oscar and Norman got on well.

If I were Granz back then, I would probably have used Oscar regularly, too. He was a very competent, reliable player, not a drunk or a druggie, and provided very nice support for Norman's stable of artists, including a Lester Young whose health had gone down the spout and who needed to be helped very sympathetically at a session.

If I were a Coleman Hawkins, or a Roy Eldridge, and Norman said "you got a date and Oscar's on piano", I would feel very comfortable about that.

But, for me, he usually lacks that spark, that something that makes jazz satisfying. There's an attitude, and I picked up on that when I talked with him. (I met him when he was given an honorary doctorate at a Mickey Mouse university I worked at in Canada in about 1980.)

As others have said, it's too repetitious.

It is well summed up by what our pianist said once at my place, when we were playing some albums back in the 70s. His name is Stan Jones, and he came out of the London, England scene. Stan was well musically educated and liked tons of pianists, and was particularly into Monk, Silver, Evans, Tyner and Hancock. He had very broad tastes, and also liked Mendes and Stevie Wonder. Someone insisted that I stick on one of those "Exclusively For My Friends" LPs, so I did. Stan got kinda ticked off and said "I don't want to hear that ***@!"

[Shawn]

I always find it interesting that Peterson seems to cause so much controversy. As for me, he's never really caused any emotions pro or con...which is why I don't own any of his trio recordings (although I have heard plenty).

I think Oscar is very good on those Verve dates backing up famous horn players. Probably my favorite is the Ben Webster Meets Oscar Peterson, he really swings his ass off on that one. The single best album though is Oscar Peterson Trio + 1: Clark Terry - that album is going to the desert island with me....

[Alon Marcus]

Maybe the problem with Oscar is that he was to much pretentious and ambitious ?

Do you think if he limited himself to specific settings we would only praise him ?

When looking at such masters like Hank Jones, Mal Waldron etc. I think that Peterson was not less imaginative and creative, but probably he was too active and tried to force himself into jazz history while the others were more humble.

[Larry Kart]

Oscar as a comper is an interesting subject -- somewhat different from, but also akin to, the Oscar as a soloist theme, and one that to my knowledge has never been adequately explored because the only people who would want to look at the evidence that closely (and wading through a shitload of recordings probably is what it would take) are those who have already decided that Oscar is a comper par excellence, plus maybe one or two anti-Oscar semi-nutcases. (I'm more or less in the anti-Oscar camp but not a nutcase I don't think -- by and large I just take a pass on him whenever that's possible, with a few exceptions, e.g. the Ellis-Brown trio on fire at Stratford, the trio backing an inspired Getz, etc.). As it happens, though, I do have a pocket example of what I think the problem (or one of the problems) is -- the 2001 Verve reissue of the two 1954 Lionel Hampton Quintet Norgran 10-inch LPs, with Hamp, Buddy DeFranco, Oscar, Ray Brown, and Buddy Rich. There's some very good stuff here -- Hamp esp. is in topnotch form -- but Oscar IMO wavers between being a help and a hindrance in perhaps revealing ways. From track to track, even within tracks, his comping seems to shift from a relatively supple, relaxed, harmonically alert, Nat Cole-based approach to that kind of grinding, one size fits or tries to fit all bluesy (or in Miles' opinion) pseudo-blues manner, even when (or especially when) blues changes aren't involved. What's particularly striking when Oscar gets into the latter vein is how great the gap/clash is at times between where Hamp (a far more sophisticated though gut-level harmonist than one might think, and a gut-level melodist too) wants or seems to want to go and where Oscar's comping is trying to take him. This is especially apparent (almost amusingly so at times) because you can't bully Hamp -- once he's on a roll (and I don't neccessarily mean in terms of external excitement, though that often plays a part, but also or mostly in terms of his genuine musical thinking), he's going to get where he's going; the momentum (akin to Monk on a roll actually, as on the Prestige "Little Rootie Tootie" for example) just won't stop. DeFranco, on the other hand, can be deflected or pushed around, and Oscar does that a fair number of times, nudging Buddy into shorter, twittier, less interesting IMO phrasing than he might have come up with otherwise, or so it seems. I realize that I haven't cited particular portions of particular tracks, and probably I should -- but it's been several months since I last listened to the album, and I don't neccesarily feel in the mood to listen again and take notes. I probably will do that though if anyone is curious enough about this and/or says that they think I'm just full of shit here. Again, I know that we're talking about questions of taste (as in "I like"/"I don't like") here, not matters of holy writ. I'm just saying that I think the "evidence," however one wants to read it, is present in pretty stark form on this disc, which is also full of a lot of interesting music. (A final thought: dig the difference between Oscar's comping here and Lou Levy's on "Hamp and Getz" from the following year.)

[John Tapscott]

Maybe the problem with Oscar is that he was to much pretentious and ambitious ?

Do you think if he limited himself to specific settings we would only praise him ?

When looking at such masters like Hank Jones, Mal Waldron etc. I think that Peterson was not less imaginative and creative, but probably he was too active and tried to force himself into jazz history while the others were more humble.

Well, Oscar himself was not pretentious, nor did he ever try to push himself into jazz history. In fact, Oscar was quite content in his hometown of Montreal. (He had turned down Count Basie's offer to take him to the US, andmake him a featured soloist with the Basie band). But then Norman Granz visted Montreal one night in '48 or '49. Granz was on his way to the airport for the flight home when he heard Oscar on the cab radio from the Alberta Lounge. Granz had the cabbie turn around and take him to the Lounge where he introduced himself to Peterson. Granz soon took him to NY where he pushed him on stage to do a famous duet with Ray Brown at the end of one of the JATP sets. This was in '49, I think, and the rest is history.

If anyone "pushed" Oscar it was Granz, not Peterson himself. Canadians are rather a humble and modest people, and tend to underestimate our abilities. We're not known for excessive ambition or pushiness, and Oscar is no exception. In fact, Oscar worked so hard at developing his pianistic abilites was because he was not confident he could make it against all the giants "south of the border." (It's a typical Canadian story.)

So I think Granz is mostly hero in the Peterson story, but also a bit of a villain. He brought Peterson to the international stage, gave him tremendous exposure, brought him great opportunities (and in the process, both men became very comfortable financially). But there's no question that Granz worked Oscar too hard, recorded him too often, and probably should have tried to record him in some more challenging settings.

[Alon Marcus]

I remember when listening to his "Night Train" album that in the liner notes there was a description of Oscar dissapointment with playing Parker's tune. Never understood it - the alternative take sounded great to me. Peterson was a great beboper but he didn't record much bop classics by Parker/Dizzy/Powell/Dameron or whoever. Maybe it's a good example of the underestimation he deeply felt, but generally I don't think that Oscar was so unsure in his abilities.

[Larry Kart]

In the back of my mind, I knew there was a spot-on Jim Sangrey thumbnail description of what it is about Oscar's comping when he's in his autopilot bluesy mode that makes it so hard for some of us to take. JS wrote of OP: " Twangity-splangity-fleep-floop-doo. Leave no third or fifth unflatted and/or unbent, it's the house rule."

[JSngry]

Thanks, Larry, but at this moment, I'm liking "glorication of the obvious" (from this thread) better...

(and for the record, there are many more moments of OP's comping that I find satisfying than there are solos)

(and yet agian for the record - no postcoutnpadding at this moment - I don't disregard/disrespect/get bugged by Peterson's virtuosity. That's not the "problem" for me at all. The guy seldom strikes me as somebody who puts a lot of DEPTH into his music, be that depth emotional, intellectual, whatever (and sure, depth is relative and/or subjective, so one man's obvious might be another man's revelation, and for each that is the right response, I suppose). That bugs me no matter what level of skills are on display. It sounds like a lot of what he plaays comes too easy for him, and I'm sure that technically it does. But there's that "obvious" thinkg again. I'd like to think that what he was playing had been at some level, at some time, been "examined" before being brought forth, and I just don't get that. Or if it has, there's a huge disconnect between what Peterson feels is "relevant information" and what a lot of other musicians, jazz or otherwise, do.).

Edited August 29, 2004 by JSngry

[Larry Kart]

Jim -- I think I know what you mean by "glorification of the obvious," but I'd say it almost amounts to, when comping, to a simple refusal/inability to pay sufficient attention to what's going on around him. That Hampton disc is such a good example because you'd think it would be almost impossible not to respond to Hamp's thinking in a like-minded manner -- not only because his thoughts are so damn groovy and (in this instance) freshly minted but also because they're so irresistibly logical/tuneful/rhythmically compelling, a la those of Hampton's one-time boss, Louis Armstrong. Now that I think of it, some of Oscar's most successful work IMO (e.g. the Stratford album) seems to have been more or less worked out, worked up. No blame for that; it really works, but maybe he wasn't always that comfortable without his guys and their routines around him.

[Chuck Nessa]

First I must say I was a big OP fan at first, came to hate his playing, came to accept it on "so many dates I loved in spite of him", etc.

I spent a night at a club OP was playing, and a friend was his duo partner. I knew my friend was being paid amazing bucks (by Norman) to tour with Oscar. At the first break my friend sat with me and outlined all the "tricks" (look and sound astounding at the moment but are really easy) to look for in the next set. He named them in order and they did show up that way. He said he only played the gig for the money and implied little "musical" respect for the boss, but tons of "show biz" respect.

[neveronfriday]

I'm always surprised how "in" it is and was to trash OP, how everyone but him seems to know how to play piano (much better, of course), how everything he can do is just showmanship, a bag of tricks, ***t and crap.

I'm a amazed how people can spend hours, days, months, years and entire careers glorífying some second-rate Blue Note "I sound like everyone else who ever recorded on Blue Note" guy while at the same time using all the often-heard, a thousand times repeated cliché arguments against Oscar Peterson ... and think that's really cool.

It's tiring.

And it doesn't make the criticism any more valid if you quote someone who distanced himself from the artist in question, presumably so he wouldn't be called "uncool".

Sickening, in fact, especially if you look at some of the artists promoted heavily around here, who don't have anything to show than, well, a bag of tricks.

Pretty small bag at that.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[EKE BBB]

Hey, Volkher, you DO LIKE OP, don´t you?

I do

[king ubu]

I guess you make a few valid points, deus.

With me it's as Chuck said above, "so many dates I love in spite of him", and from there, I slowly start my way to liking him. I only have very few of his own records (maybe he was one who simply recorded a bit too much?), but I think I'll just slowly start exploring more.

ubu

[EKE BBB]

Now seriously.

Maybe it´s just my ignorance on technical musical affairs, but I find OP a highly capable player, with a very good sense of swing.

And I like the 15 CDs I have under his name, and the 25 CDs more I have with him as a sideman. Yes, maybe it´s just my ignorance.

Well, he is no Tatum:

-OP lacks the harmonic complexity of AT

-OP is technically skilled, but no one has ever been as technically skilled as AT

-OP sometimes shows the exhibicionist and flashy side of AT, that some people don´t like (not me)

And I agree with deus62 in most of his assertions.

There´s a strong tendency here to overrate each and every Blue Note musician and underrate every non Blue Note (and specially if he´s Verve-related) musician.

[neveronfriday]

Yes, I DO like Oscar Peterson, very much so. I have a lot of his stuff and although there's the odd dudd in there, I greatly enjoy his music.

The reasons are, as they should be in these matters, very personal:

a) I've had the good fortune of seeing him live many (!) times and the man has a great passion about music, about jazz and about giving an audience a good time. I have never come out of an OP concert dissatisfied.

b) The man swings, hard. In my eyes, few musicians were and are able to produce such energetically swinging music as OP ... you have to like that kind of music though.

c) He's very much a traditional player. He knows where he's from, he knows what he can do, and he does it. Now if you don't like that kind of very melodic (sometimes overly melodic to your ears, perhaps) playing, you won't like OP.

d) OP is NOT a man of statements, other than, perhaps, that music should be approached with a sense of professionalism. To my knowledge, he doesn't try to oppose this or that trend, he doesn't actively try to trash-talk others and their attempts at getting their art across ... he just "does his thing".

e) The players he surrounds himself with or has surrounded himself with are equally important (and are treated that way as well). Ray Brown, NHOP, Ed Thigpen, John Heard and the many, many other players didn't play with him because he's an ass or show-off. Just ask them (or read what they have said about playing with OP).

f) Liking OP DESPITE what he supposedly does when he plays with others is, if I read my many OP sources correctly, not exactly the way most musicians see it. Maybe my sources are one-sided, but what I've read and heard is that OP actually is very good at being a musician's musician, toning down his role and giving the others the spotlight. I don't really know many pianists who are able to do that to such an extent. And, correct me if I'm wrong, some statements above implied that OP either ruins other people's recordings or is unable to ruin them completely, despite his whatever way of playing. Bunch of BS, if you ask me.

There are more reasons, but I'm too busy right now.

Cheers!

Edited August 30, 2004 by deus62

[neveronfriday]

And I don't want to open THAT can of worms, but that Monk was more, err, experimental or whatever is certainly true. But how much sameness is there in Monk recordings? I have quite a few of them, and I like them very much as well, but Monk is as much Monk as OP is OP.

And, the word sideman can certainly not be given to Monk. Every tune Monk played on turned into a Monk tune. He definetely put his stamp on there, so if we want to talk about sameness, we've got lots of it here. It takes a few seconds, and you hear Monk. And that's it.

Fire away.

[king ubu]

deus, when I say "in spite of", I mean: I like the way he accompanies other players (notably Ben Webster and Coleman Hawkins on those Fifites Verve dates, but there are many many more), yet I've never been too keen on his soloing, on those records. I mean that there are piano players appearing on hornmen's dates and I wish they'd get more solo space, but with Peterson, I don't feel that way. It's just great what he plays on "Hawkins encounters Webster", and it's fine with me that he doesn't solo on each track...

But then, as I said, I start liking OP slowly, but it seems, surely. That twofer with Affinity (the Brown-Thigpen trio) is sure very fine, for instance.

ubu

[neveronfriday]

deus, when I say "in spite of", I mean: I like the way he accompanies other players (notably Ben Webster and Coleman Hawkins on those Fifites Verve dates, but there are many many more), yet I've never been too keen on his soloing, on those records. [...]

I was referring more to other people's comments on this thread.

Cheers!

[JSngry]

Monk is as much Monk as OP is OP.

Well, there you have it!