Hardbopjazz Posted July 21, 2011 Report Posted July 21, 2011 I was listening to some Pablo records today, mainly ones with Oscar Peterson. To me he plays too many notes and doesn't leave any sections of silences which to me can say more than playing so many notes. Anyone else ever take note of this when he's playing?
flat5 Posted July 21, 2011 Report Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) Yes, he played a lot of notes. So did his hero, Art Tatum. I never heard of any musicians who worked with either complain about it :-) There is room in jazz for this way of playing. Not everyone can do it :-) Can you point out a wrong note? Perhaps Eric Dolphy played too many notes - or John Coltrane - or etc. BTW, the same had been said of Mozart :-) Edited July 21, 2011 by flat5
Hardbopjazz Posted July 21, 2011 Author Report Posted July 21, 2011 Yes, he played a lot of notes. So did his hero, Art Tatum. I never heard of any musicians who worked with either complain about it :-) There is room in jazz for this way of playing. Not everyone can do it :-) BTW, the same had been said of Mozart :-) True, but for my ear, I like spacing. To me spacing gives it more of a voice than just constant runs up and down the keyboard.
paul secor Posted July 21, 2011 Report Posted July 21, 2011 I don't have a problem with too many notes. It's the choice of notes and phrasing that turns me away.
JSngry Posted July 21, 2011 Report Posted July 21, 2011 One note is too many if it's in the service of a message you don't want to hear.
jeffcrom Posted July 21, 2011 Report Posted July 21, 2011 I don't have a problem with too many notes. It's the choice of notes and phrasing that turns me away. When I saw this thread's subtitle, I was going to respond with something like this.
John Tapscott Posted July 21, 2011 Report Posted July 21, 2011 I was listening to some Pablo records today, mainly ones with Oscar Peterson. To me he plays too many notes and doesn't leave any sections of silences which to me can say more than playing so many notes. Anyone else ever take note of this when he's playing? I think it depends on the context. Left to his own devices it may seem that he overplays. I have a DVD of Oscar solo from Montreux '75 in which I would say he overwhelms the performance with too many notes. Oscar was a perfectionist and a very competitive cat and I think his atittude was that no one, but no one, was going to better him in public performance. There are times in some of his later MPS recordings where the sheer number of notes makes the whole performance seem more like flash than substance. On the other hand there are some pretty good examples of Oscar "cooling it" and fitting into the context very well. and and and Good balance on these:
Hardbopjazz Posted July 21, 2011 Author Report Posted July 21, 2011 Oscar Peterson has recorded and played with just about ever jazz legend, so there's no questioning his greatness, but I sometime don't get what he's playing.
Hot Ptah Posted July 21, 2011 Report Posted July 21, 2011 This topic was discussed at great length when Oscar Peterson passed away, and the discussion became unpleasant. A long time, well regarded member decided to leave the forum because of that discussion, and has never returned. I am specifically not going to participate in this thread because of that prior discussion.
Hardbopjazz Posted July 21, 2011 Author Report Posted July 21, 2011 This topic was discussed at great length when Oscar Peterson passed away, and the discussion became unpleasant. A long time, well regarded member decided to leave the forum because of that discussion, and has never returned. I am specifically not going to participate in this thread because of that prior discussion. I don't recall the discussion when he passed. I differently don't to start a war. It was just my own personal observation of his playing while playing some CDS today.
A Lark Ascending Posted July 21, 2011 Report Posted July 21, 2011 I imagine the thread title made more posters than me think about the criticism Emperor Joseph II was supposed to have made of Mozart - 'too many notes'. Nice explanation here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2004/jun/04/classicalmusicandopera Maybe it counts for Oscar too.
Guy Berger Posted July 21, 2011 Report Posted July 21, 2011 I think this Ethan Iverson post is a thoughtful discussion of why some don't like Oscar. It probably got brought up on the previous thread.
mjzee Posted July 21, 2011 Report Posted July 21, 2011 My general impression of Oscar's playing is one of franticness - he's trying to squeeze every note possible into his playing, and thinks people will judge him harshly if he allows more space. Just my impression, and one borne mostly by the '70's and '80's Pablo (though I've heard some '50's stuff like this too). I think one can critique his playing in a simple manner, by commenting on the music alone (also by stating your piece and getting out). The thread after his death had many crude, vindictive, hostile, nasty, and scary personal comments. Comments regarding Eric Dolphy or John Coltrane should be posted in threads devoted to their music.
king ubu Posted July 21, 2011 Report Posted July 21, 2011 I grew to like Peterson a lot - and me, myself, was most surprised of it! Got to check out the Iverson post, thanks for mentioning it!
Leeway Posted July 21, 2011 Report Posted July 21, 2011 People who don't really like jazz tend to like Oscar: he's flashy, there's a lot of razzle-dazzle (too many notes), what he does and plays is easy to understand. None of that esoteric, spacey, strident stuff, with no beat. Hell, you can tap your toe to OP! It was a formula that brought him a lot of commercial success, the kind of commercial success that tends to squeeze out artistic development (I doubt OP cared about that anyway). You spend 40 years pumping out the same stuff in the same way. I daresay that there is not a heck of a lot of difference between early and late OP. Let me add that there are a lot of jazz-ers who like OP and find music that resonates with them and that's fine.
jazzbo Posted July 21, 2011 Report Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) Like Flurin, I've grown to like Peterson a lot as well. In my case it definitely was a taste I had to acquire. I credit Bill Fenohr for helping me get there. Edited July 21, 2011 by jazzbo
Jim R Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 My general impression of Oscar's playing is one of franticness - he's trying to squeeze every note possible into his playing, and thinks people will judge him harshly if he allows more space. I don't think most musicians (especially those with the natural talent of an Oscar Peterson) think that way at all. I think he squeezes a lot of notes into his playing partly because of the Tatum influence, and partly because that's what sounds good/right to his ear. People who don't really like jazz tend to like Oscar: he's flashy, there's a lot of razzle-dazzle (too many notes), what he does and plays is easy to understand. I think that may be a little simplistic/overstated, and unfair. I mean, consider the Tatum influence. If you think Tatum was "easy to understand", then I'll be among the first to shake your hand. None of that esoteric, spacey, strident stuff, with no beat. Hell, you can tap your toe to OP! It was a formula that brought him a lot of commercial success, the kind of commercial success that tends to squeeze out artistic development (I doubt OP cared about that anyway). You spend 40 years pumping out the same stuff in the same way. I daresay that there is not a heck of a lot of difference between early and late OP. Again, I'm a bit uncomfortable with this line of thinking. Saying that O.P. was not spacey or strident... well duh (sorry). So O.P. was a straight-ahead player, and didn't see fit to work hard at evolving or altering his style. How many other jazz musicians (most of whom did not have O.P.'s "commercial success") can you say that about? A lot, obviously. 40 years of the same approach. Yes, thousands of artists are like that. So what? Forgive me if I'm mis-interpreting your comments, but it always irks me a bit when people suggest (or infer) that all jazz artists should be thinking progressively and/or evolving their style. To that, I say nonsense. It may be more the exception than the rule. Not everybody can or should be a pioneer or a visionary or a chameleon or... etc. By the way, I suspect that a real die-hard Oscar Peterson fan might disagree that Oscar "pumped out the same stuff, the same way" for 40 years. A lot of this kind of analysis requires that you be a die-hard fan to really make any such comments with any real authority. Let me add that there are a lot of jazz-ers who like OP and find music that resonates with them and that's fine. Jazz-ers...? You mean artists/players, or are you referring to fans/enthusiasts in general? It seems like it's the latter, and (sorry again) that would be the quintessential "duh". I mean, few jazz artists were more prolific or popular than Oscar. It's fine indeed, and no apologies necessary.
John Tapscott Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 (edited) People who don't really like jazz tend to like Oscar: he's flashy, there's a lot of razzle-dazzle (too many notes), what he does and plays is easy to understand. None of that esoteric, spacey, strident stuff, with no beat. Hell, you can tap your toe to OP! It was a formula that brought him a lot of commercial success, the kind of commercial success that tends to squeeze out artistic development (I doubt OP cared about that anyway). You spend 40 years pumping out the same stuff in the same way. I daresay that there is not a heck of a lot of difference between early and late OP. Let me add that there are a lot of jazz-ers who like OP and find music that resonates with them and that's fine. I have Peterson recordings from every period of his career. I hear a significant difference between early and later Peterson. You can tell it's the same pianist, but I do think he refined his style and grew and developed artistically over the years. Yes, I believe he sometimes gave in to the flashy, razzle dazzle side, (and with his technique it would be hard to resist the temptation), but he was also capable of some very subtle and beautiful playing. And that began to emerge about mid-career. He also wrote some very nice tunes, including a number of attractive ballads. Edited July 22, 2011 by John Tapscott
Jim R Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 People who don't really like jazz tend to like Oscar: he's flashy, there's a lot of razzle-dazzle (too many notes), what he does and plays is easy to understand. None of that esoteric, spacey, strident stuff, with no beat. Hell, you can tap your toe to OP! It was a formula that brought him a lot of commercial success, the kind of commercial success that tends to squeeze out artistic development (I doubt OP cared about that anyway). You spend 40 years pumping out the same stuff in the same way. I daresay that there is not a heck of a lot of difference between early and late OP. Let me add that there are a lot of jazz-ers who like OP and find music that resonates with them and that's fine. I have Peterson recordings from every period of his career. I hear a significant difference between early and later Peterson. You can tell it's the same pianist, but I do think he refined his style and grew and developed artistically over the years. Yes, I believe he sometimes gave in to the flashly, razzle dazzle side, (and with his technique it would be hard to resist the temptation), but he was also capable of some very subtle and beautiful playing. And that began to emerge about mid-career. He also wrote some very nice tunes, including a number of attractive ballads. Well, that didn't take long.
JSngry Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 I've grown into an appreciation of the sincerity of both his talents and his message, as well as the delight that both continue to bring to his many fans worldwide. I just have absolutely no use (or less) for it whatsoever, musically or personally. It's a parallel universe as far as I'm concerned, and not one about which I feel any compulsion to be curious. Quiet the opposite, in fact. Hope that's ok.
Dave James Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 I find him much more listenable early on. The Mosaic box is a good example. For some reason, he changed his tune (so to speak) as he got older.
mjzee Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 I found OP Plays Count Basie very pleasant and enjoyable.
flat5 Posted July 22, 2011 Report Posted July 22, 2011 Comments regarding Eric Dolphy or John Coltrane should be posted in threads devoted to their music.
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts