Oscar Peterson album for those who don't like much OP

[mjzee]

I predict this thread will be closed within two days.  It's too bad we can't have a civil conversation about OP.

[A Lark Ascending]

A (sometimes) frustration I have with this board is that listeners are often not critical enough.  A collector might want all of Thelonious Monk's recordings, but are they all really equally good?  Critical listening can establish "this recording date is better than that recording date, and here's why."  And it's interesting to read why, because only in that way can I get a sense of what someone else hears (as well as helping me to better articulate what I hear).  It would be useful to establish a guidepost, as in "The 5 Best Thelonious Monk Recording Dates," to truly force a critical evaluation of why and how one date is better than another.  I think this would enable us all to be better listeners, or at least to better understand how different people hear differently.

 

Being critical is a dicey thing -- especially on a board like this one.  I'm neither a musician nor a critic; I'm just a guy who loves listening to music. So I'm always much more comfortable talking about music that I enjoy. Ironically, by focusing on my own subjective experience I'm able to be MORE objective -- because that subjective enjoyment is an incontrovertible fact.  And that subjective part -- the "inner experience" is what's most valuable to me. Honestly, more often than not, I'm not particularly concerned about the "outwardly objective" aspects of music. (Perhaps this is due to my lack of training. Most of the time, I can't articulate in musicological terms what I'm hearing. But I know what I'm feeling!)

So I guess, given those preconceptions, that I'd love to see others' lists of their five FAVORITE Thelonious Monk recordings.  But I'd be very wary of any list that claimed to be the "BEST" of anything.

Bringing it back to OP: I don't hate his music. Sometimes I enjoy hearing the way he plays. At times, there's something impressively athletic about it. His power is -- occasionally -- marvelous. But I also agree with other that his almighty proficiency can (often?) be an impediment to musical expression. But I know that there are many other folks who LOVE his music. And they likely love the very thing that might be turning me off. (I'm thinking of OP's biographer Gene Lees, for instance.) And why would I want to tell him (or anyone?), "Stop enjoying that. It's no good. Look at it, hear it like I do." That doesn't interest me.

Excellently put. What 'those who pronounce' often forget (well, choose to ignore) is the differing contexts of listeners. What might be deemed unacceptable from those working from an experience within one tradition might sound perfectly marvellous to someone with a very different listening experience. 

Now your expert musicologist can do a really in depth study of a musician or area of music and come up with very clear, well supported and evidence backed reasons why piece X is 'better' than piece Y. Expressed with a degree of humility that can be very interesting. And yet...as individual listeners we might still connect more with piece Y for completely unknown reasons lying in our own contexts. Do we really need to be taught the 'correct' interpretation?

When it comes to evaluating music what I do enjoy reading is the views of someone immersed in a particular musician or style explaining why they prefer or value X over Y (again with humility - the OP, Wayne Shorter or Joe Pass are rubbish line of 'discussion' is a complete turn off). It can give you a place to start with music you don't know; and get you thinking differently about music you do. Doesn't, of course mean, you'll accept their preferences.    

Jeff's writings on this board about Ellington are, to my mind, worth a thousand articles by the sort of critic who delights in being unimpressed. Models of actually writing about what is happening in the music in a way a non-musician can understand. 

Edited September 4, 2015 by A Lark Ascending

[Guy Berger]

A (sometimes) frustration I have with this board is that listeners are often not critical enough.  A collector might want all of Thelonious Monk's recordings, but are they all really equally good?  Critical listening can establish "this recording date is better than that recording date, and here's why."  And it's interesting to read why, because only in that way can I get a sense of what someone else hears (as well as helping me to better articulate what I hear).  It would be useful to establish a guidepost, as in "The 5 Best Thelonious Monk Recording Dates," to truly force a critical evaluation of why and how one date is better than another.  I think this would enable us all to be better listeners, or at least to better understand how different people hear differently.

To bring the discussion full circle back to OP, a great example of this sort of exercise was Ethan Iverson's dissection of an OP performance.  While I could hear OP playing in a facile and routine way, Iverson helped me pinpoint the moments in the performance that are facile and routine, and what makes them so.  You can read his piece here: Do The Math.

Some examples:

This helped me understand what Peterson played, i.e., how we can identify OP when hearing a recording: Peterson's language was perhaps not truly innovative, but it certainly is distinctive.  Major elements of his style include a precisely calibrated piano touch that executed both swing and bebop phraseology with crystalline clarity, a rigorous insistence on the blues, a left hand that could play nearly as fast as his right, exceptionally large voicings (his hands were enormous) and complicated small ensemble arrangements.  His phrasing when improvising is breathless, with very little space. 

Or this, about a major deficiency in OP's approach; even if one can hear this and react negatively to it, it helps me to read an explication of what's being played: Peterson’s piano solos aren’t the problem, but Peterson participating in a rhythm section is: behind the horn solos, the piano comping (short for "accompaniment") is incessant.  It begins to feel quite nervous and jittery after a while.  A good example is the Peterson trio backing Lester Young with little-known but totally solid J.C.  Heard on drums.  Peterson cannot stop playing the piano for even a second.  ("He leaves no holes for the rhythm section.")

Although I do wish Iverson addressed what I hear, which is that OP could sound oppressive even when playing solo, with his carpet-like playing determined to avoid a real emotional connection to his vision of the tune.

Anyway, I guess I'm just pointing out some things that I like.  People don't sign up to this board to be given more work to do; they're just enthusiasts for the music, and more power to them.  I do like the posts that are well written.

Yes, I really enjoyed that Iverson analysis too, though I think he is too negative about OP as an accompanist.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Guy Berger

[JSngry]

"Best" vs "Favorite", that gets tricky sometimes, because...it does. Take Sonny Rollins, ok, by any standard Saxophone Collussus, not just one of his best, but one of the best, a monumental accomplishment. And I wore it out back in the day, that's just what you do with monumental accomplishments.

But - Falling In Love With Jazz...that's one of my favorite Rollins albums, bar none, and its in no way one of The Best Sonny Rollins Records Ever. Same thing (to a much lesser extent) with Nucleus. Why? Basically just because I just like how he plays the saxophone on those records. there's a little more to it than that, both albums (especially Falling In Love...) have moments where it sounds like he forgets he's recording and just rips loos with all that left-field uber creative virtuosity that is implicit in everything he plays, but, you know, sometimes explicit is a treat.

If I listen to any music/artist long enough, it gets to be an investment in a conversation, a years-long conversation. And sometimes the "favorite" conversations have nothing to do with being the "best" ones, sometimes it's just something meaningless that hits you just right at the moment. I've been having these conversations with Sonny Rollins, for about 45 years now, so...it's the little things that  get noticed, the great things, they're pretty much a given, if you want to look at a figure in a textbook or something, yeah, you get the facts of greatness and you're good. But should you desire past that, little things. Lots of little things.

As far as OP goes, musical (which means at at least some level, personal) masturbation is what I hear, seriously. I don't ever hear winks and grins and chuckles that this is a shared activity, and/or at least that we're all in on the joke, I just hear GOING AT IT HARD, OH YEAH. 64K BLUE64thNOTES DAAAAAAAAAAZZZZZZZZZZLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllleeeee.....Towel, please. I'm kinda like, get your own towel, dude.

Nothing wrong with masturbation, I'm a fan of it myself (thus the thread stays open), but also, it's a private act as far as do I want to be around somebody else  that on my jazz record music, do I want to be their spectator, and no, I don't. Maybe if they had their own towel, but, even then, it would have to be some kind of ironic, I'm not getting in on that just because it's happening.

Or if masturbation is too masturbatory a reference, try bullfighting...visceral gratification from flashy execution of predetermined outcomes, "chance" as much illusion as actual possibility. Poor bull, but there's a market for that type of thing, so whaddya' gonna do?.

[Big Beat Steve]

So his grunting isnt' chuckling enough for you?

My, my, if that freewheeling "free"-cum-streetwise soloing of yours such as in posts like this one had been around in the 50s it might well have ended up in some diatribe against Art Tatum (like they were indeed written then - all ornate, all virtuosity, all flash, all pianistic, all overpowering, pulling all stops, but not jazz-drenched enough, etc. etc.)

 

 

[JSngry]

Do you ever grunt when you masturbate? I know I do!

Tatum...a little goes a long way, mostly because of density, though, not paucity of value. And really, that's his shit, so, yeah, power of ownership always respected. and Tatum had gears, he had his routines, but when he got the bee up his butt, he could fly, fly, fly away, play shit ain't nobody thought to play. So, Tatum...deep cat.

OP, not deep. Take away Tatum and Nat, and...what's left? The crime is not having obvious influences, the crime is just sitting on them and never hatching them, the hen that lays but never hatches. Suitable for field trips, but not a useful resource on a real working farm.

Listen again to that clip from 1949 that Joe posted, and then listen to most/damn near all OP records since...what change has their been, what deep and lasting evolution? If those sides would have been cut in 1979 instead of 1949, how would you know?

Again, nothing wrong with being/doing that, but just call it what it is - Display Playing. And damn successful Display Playing at that. I'm cool with that. Where it gets weird is when people get upset when it gets called that. Again, masturbation, everybody does it, but who cops to it?

Now, time to wash the towels.

And really, what kind of Evil Knievel-ish leaps of logic lead to not really caring for OP being predictive of a dismissal of Tatum? You'd have to be deaf to hear them as the same thing except on the most superficial of levels.

Serious discussion? About Tatum=Peterson? That math don't work, even with cheating.

[John Tapscott]

Some people have a real gift of stomping on others' musical enjoyment .

[JSngry]

And some of them are piano players named Oscar Peterson!

Just sayin'...all enjoyments get stomped on, fact of life.  Life is not stomp-proof, nor should it be. And even if it maybe, in some theoretical system should be, it never will be. Not unless and until everybody has the same mind about everything.

 

[John Tapscott]

And some of them are piano players named Oscar Peterson!

Just sayin'...all enjoyments get stomped on, fact of life.  Life is not stomp-proof, nor should it be. And even if it maybe, in some theoretical system should be, it never will be. Not unless and until everybody has the same mind about everything.

 

Oscar Peterson doesn't have to spoil anyone's musical enjoyment because as far as I know, no one is tying someone to a chair and forcing him/her to listen to OP's music. If OP spoils your musical enjoyment don't listen to him.  Maybe I'm just getting too old and too set in my ways and my listening habits. But I have come to the conclusion that life's too dam# short to listen to stuff you don't dig (unless you're a professional critic or a music student, maybe).  

Edited September 4, 2015 by John Tapscott

[JSngry]

I have no Oscar Peterson records in my "real" collection, but as a sideman, he's intrinsically unavoidable, unless one wants to not listen to any number of fine (or better) records by any number of great players over any number of decades.

Those who like him should be aware of just how quasi-omnipresent he is over the latter half of the 20th Century, and how that might affect the perception of those who no not particularly warm to his contributions. It's not like "just don't listen to him" is a serious plan.

Just like not listening to Donald Byrd is impossible if you're gonna delve into 1950s Hard Bop at any kind of real level. And I'm not really annoyed by Donald Byrd, but...the guy made a lot of records and plays more or less the same thing on many of them. At some point, I have to tolerate him more than enjoy him, and again, he does not annoy me like Oscar Peterson does, not even close. But avoiding him is impossible unless you want to get all eccentric about it.

[Big Beat Steve]

Oscar Peterson doesn't have to spoil anyone's musical enjoyment because as far as I know, no one is tying someone to a chair and forcing him/her to listen to OP's music. If OP spoils your musical enjoyment don't listen to him.  Life's too dam# short.  

Nicely summed up, John. Thumbs up.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Big Beat Steve

[JSngry]

I hear grunting!

[Big Beat Steve]

Close your ears to what you are doing!

[JSngry]

[mjzee]

Y'know, at a certain point (and we're now past that point), this abusive tone is a disrespect to the original poster and to the other board members who've posted here.  We have every right to be here, to discuss what we'd like to, and to expect a friendly atmosphere.  Many of us also consistently support the board through our contributions to the fund drives.  We don't deserve to be treated this way.  Jim, you've made your point.  Please refrain from posting further in this thread.

[JSngry]

Treated what way? All comments have been about Oscar Peterson, not about people who enjoy him, except the Evil Knivel logic thing to BBS. But he do that with me, I do that to him. Shouldn't be any surprises there, smilies implict on both sides.

Simply put - if I have insulted anybody personally on this thread, sincerest apologies. If it's just that I don't really like Oscar Peterson and don't see a need to censor those options because Oscar Peterson fans get upset, sorry, can't help you with that. Whatever the thing is about the "right to be here" and all that, hey, true for you, true for me. Friendly? Again - none of this is personal towards posters, and oh btw3, I do not have nightmares about Oscar Peterson, now that's personal! I just get drug by his playing.

And oh, by the way, expecting me to not respond when commented directly to assumes a level of personal rudeness I do not have. You speak to me, i'll speak back, it would be uncivil of me to do otherwise.

And please, do tell us again how you feel about Ornette Coleman.

[mjzee]

Hey, I occasionally mention that I don't like Ornette's music.  If I do mention it, I mention it once in a thread, and then I move on.  I don't try to kill the thread.  On the other hand, there was an OP thread that had to be closed because of the bad feelings engendered there (see here), and another that got so hostile that you quit as moderator here (see here).  You know what you're doing.  Please don't do it again here.

[JSngry]

I "know what I'm doing"? No offense, but that's kinda weird...

Nobody's trying to kill this thread, and there's been no hostility displayed, just a rather jovial/robust expression of some rather serious dislike - about Oscar Peterson, period. But, jeez, no need to kill the thread, just carry on with the OP love if you're feeling it, it;'s ok, it's not a felony to like Oscar Peterson, nor to dislike him, and the longer the focus is on somebody who doesn't like him, the more the thread becomes about Hey Mister Mean Man, Stop Saying Bad Things About Oscar Peterson, which, really, you want a thread like that, this is how you go about creating one.

Otherwise, unless Oscar Peterson was a family member, surrogate father, sperm donor to your delightfully wicked French cousin, or something like that, anything like that, fuck it, you know? All pixels are equal, create your own, grow your own, thread's not getting killed, life remains safe.

 

[Big Beat Steve]

Sorry, but if you consider your smart-aleckish carrying on (and on and on) about "masturbating" (including "sperm donor"), etc. just jovial/robust, then those who like to discuss things in a SLIGHTLY more civilized and straight way (puns included, but still ...) would have to assume that describing your attitude as "streetwise" really is a gross understatement. Nobody's being prude (least of all by U.S. standards) but you are overdoing things in what MJzee calls an abusive tone.

In short, IMHO MJzee is quite right and it was about time he said it in all straightforwardness.

Edited September 5, 2015 by Big Beat Steve

[Daniel A]

To me, it seems like a waste of energy to be "annoyed" by someone's comping on a 60 year old recording. What's annoying to me though, is when attention is directed more and more to someone's personal dislike of something than the subject matter itself. Both "camps" may be blamed for that, but it doesn't help with this "sperm donor" nonsense.

[Quasimado]

Dumb, dumb thread Larry - low point reached with JSngry's public masturbation habits.

Q

[Larry Kart]

Dumb, dumb thread Larry - low point reached with JSngry's public masturbation habits.

Q

So now it's MY fault? All I did was point out that as a listener with mixed to negative feelings about OP I had found an album of his that I enjoyed and then tried to say why I enjoyed it. If you think that in doing so I was trolling or anything like it, I was not.

[AllenLowe]

1) you did cause me to have a bad dream, Larry, but I have forgiven you

2) geez, I said worse things about OP than Jsngry did; so I guess I am guilty as well -  but you people have to know that

     a) yes, we ARE forced to listen to OP because he is so damned popular; and

    b) I personally am deeply offended by his playing; seriously, it is the jazz equivalent, to my ears, of Donald Trump. So these reactions are understandable.

Edited September 5, 2015 by AllenLowe

[Milestones]

I'm surprised this thread is still going. It's getting pretty wild.  I didn't mind diverging onto Joe Pass and Mal Waldron, both of which really stemmed from my posts (especially Pass), but lately we seem to be repeating points on what we like and don't like; what is great and what is average or mediocre or annoying; and the nature of critical analysis.  And these have a place, but maybe they should be featured in a new topic.

Somebody mentioned OP being omni-present (or quasi-present).  That is certainly true.  So here is my final question. If OP is such a bad accompanist, why was he found so often backing Stan Getz, Benny Carter, Ben Webster, Clark Terry, Roy Eldridge (and the list could go on an on)? 

 

Edited September 5, 2015 by Milestones

[John Tapscott]

1) you did cause me to have a bad dream, Larry, but I have forgiven you

2) geez, I said worse things about OP than Jsngry did; so I guess I am guilty as well -  but you people have to know that

     a) yes, we ARE forced to listen to OP because he is so damned popular; and

    b) I personally am deeply offended by his playing; seriously, it is the jazz equivalent, to my ears, of Donald Trump. So these reactions are understandable.

 

.

 

Re: a) Sorry Allen that is not right IMHO. No one is forced to listen to OP. You simply do not have to listen to an OP recording or any recording that he's on. If you want to listen to a Lester Young or Coleman Hawkins or Ben Webster recording, choose one on which OP is not present. And I don't hear OP being played in department stores or elevators or even jazz record stores anymore (because practically speaking there aren't any, and even in those that do exist I'm sure the clerk would quickly put on some other  music if you are that offended).   

As far as b) goes, I suppose there are several things in life that deeply offend me. I'm sure that very, very few people care to hear me tell them about those things. What is anyone supposed to do with the fact that you are deeply offended by OP's playing? I take quick note, shrug and move on. 

Look, I'll admit that generally speaking I am a fan of OP. Not everything and not all the time, but to quantify it, let's say 80-85%. And yet I will also say that I can also hear and understand why some people don't like OP. It's just that the things about OP that seem to offend others don't offend me for the most part.      

 

Edited September 5, 2015 by John Tapscott