Jump to content

Oscar Peterson -- further thoughts


Larry Kart

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, mjzee said:

I've been debating whether to get that ultra-cheap 3-CD Garner set on Sony (current price is $3.61 + shipping).  Do I really need it/him?  

You don't need it.  But I think you might just enjoy it.

Those Columbia sides (and his Savoy recordings) feature Erroll Garner at his best.  At least in this listener's opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, HutchFan said:

 cause dislike for figures like Wynton and Kenton has as much to do with their personalities as it does with their music. With OP, on the other hand, it's entirely about his music.

Everyone I've read about who worked with Kenton seemed to love him even if they weren't nuts about the music.  

Edited by medjuck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2017 at 11:21 PM, sgcim said:

He told me another story about a pianist who lived in the same building as BE, but was unaware that BE lived on the floor beneath him, so BE heard him practicing every day.

The pianist was introduced to BE one day by a mutual friend, and was asked if he ever heard of BE. The pianist felt sick when he realized who had been listening to him practice every day.

BE proceeded to recite a long list of what the pianist was doing wrong. He never touched the piano again...

 

19 hours ago, BillF said:

What a sad story! :(

On the contrary, Evans liberated this guy from wasting his life being a mediocre musician. So it's a happy story! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AllenLowe said:

 If you are casting a movie, would you cast someone who you thought was the worst for the job, if that actor was popular? more likely you would let your own taste supersede popular opinion, if you thought it was best for the film 

 

Yes. But I wouldn't go around telling other people not to cast them.  I'd rather spend my energy promoting art I like than putting down art I don't get. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JSngry said:

Peter Nero is an excellent musician, as was Oscar Peterson.

Peter Nero did a good Mancini-esque film score in the early 1960s called Sunday In New York.  I assume that he wrote the themes and that they were orchestrated by his arranger, Marty Gold.  

Anyway, I occasionally make compilations of what I call "bustling metropolis" music, and I often include two of the tracks from this soundtrack which capture that vibe, "Taxi" and "On Frantic Fifth."  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Dmitry said:

 

On the contrary, Evans liberated this guy from wasting his life being a mediocre musician. So it's a happy story! 

How do you know he was mediocre?  Just because Bill Evans said so?  I mean I love Bill Evans's music but in just about every interview I've read with him he's said some really stupid things-- particularly when putting down  players who were more avant-garde than he was. 

 

Edited by medjuck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, medjuck said:

How do you know he was mediocre?  Just because Bill Evans said so?  I mean I love Bill Evans's music but in just about every interview I've read with him he's said some really stupid things-- particularly when putting down  players who were more avant-garde than he was. 

I don't know. It's just an anecdote. BillF thought it was sad, I think it was happy.  Maybe after quitting playing he became a great farmer or a podiatrist or a firefighter.

Do you have any examples of BE putting anyone down unjustly?I've read an interview with him in an issue of DownBeat from mid-1970s , seemed pretty level-headed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Larry Kart said:

Joe -- How about this? In an artist's work that is in one's opinion not that successful at times (and I do like some OP) there are almost certainly certain underlying principles at work (or not at work). And it then can be worthwhile/interesting/etc. to talk about what those principles are/might be and about why  one feels that in this artist's case there are problems with the way they function or don't function. For instance, there's OP's tendency to fill up most if not all of the space that's available to him or his sometime reliance on a stock of familiar bluesy licks. The point would not be to take away anyone's pleasure in OP but by suggesting that there are higher levels of musical mastery in, say, in the two areas I just mentioned (use of space and blues feeling) and by making relevant comparison to other players (e.g. Monk for use of space, Horace Silver or Sonny Clark for blues feeling)  to thus sharpen one's awareness of what those higher levels of mastery might be. That's a bad thing?

But maybe they already like and appreciate Monk,Silver and Clark.  I  don't know enough about OP's work  (I have none of his records except as an accompanist) to know why that might not be possible.  Though all this talk about how busy he is makes me want to hear the record he made with Count Basie-- that must be a study in contrasts.  

(Actually I saw OP twice with 40 years between the performances but they didn't really make an impression.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, medjuck said:

But maybe they already like and appreciate Monk,Silver and Clark.  I  don't know enough about OP's work  (I have none of his records except as an accompanist) to know why that might not be possible.  Though all this talk about how busy he is makes me want to hear the record he made with Count Basie-- that must be a study in contrasts.  

(Actually I saw OP twice with 40 years between the performances but they didn't really make an impression.)

 

Maybe they do already like and appreciate their work. I'm just saying that talk about the underlying principles/differences involved doesn't amount to some would-be elitist attempt to deny anyone the pleasures they already feel. Rather, looking back on my own life as a listener, it's an attempt to add to the overall pleasures that might be experienced -- one's own and those of others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's nonsense. Keith has done great work, silly things, and all sorts of things in-between. I know of no prevailing board blockade of any pro-Jarrett comment, that would be stupid.

I mean, there are certain people who just don't dig him, but so what? There are people who love everything he's done, and again, so what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm just questioning some notion of consensus.  

If anything has been proven, it is that there is NO consensus--witness all those who are defending OP.

I am one of those (like almost everyone, I suspect) who just does not "get" certain artists, even "major" ones.  I'm happy to read people on the forums praising these same artists; it just may help me to "get" them.

I saw Archie Shepp receive a negative comment. I can't say I ever had an appreciation of Shepp, but then I recently got the Goin' Home record with Horace Parlan--and I find myself enjoying that.

 

 

  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine we all have are artists we feel defensive about, for whatever reasons, but really, and again, so what? We like what we like, we dislike what we dislike, and if we're going to be all fragile about it, that's probably a bigger issue than simple musical taste. When it goes from "like" or "dislike" into "passion", it's definitely more than just musical taste, but and yet again, so what? That's all part of what makes us human, so...roll with it when it goes your way, roll with it when it goes the other way.

Happy rolling to one and all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been thinking about this thread. I think that the wide differences in posts about certain musicians could possibly reflect the fact that working musicians and composers are commenting here at the same time as non-musician jazz fans. For a non-musician fan, a lot of music sounds pretty good, and the highly negative comments made by musicians and composers may seem harsh and disproportionate. But the working jazz musician or composer probably looks at it all differently. This is their art, their passion, and their job, their livelihood. They can tell about differences in artistry at a much more involved and higher level than fans.

It occurred to me that if people who were not members of my work profession, law, posted relatively uninformed opinions about attorneys or judges, or Court decisions, which I knew were simply not correct, and which mischaracterized issues important to me, it would be difficult for me to agree with them that all of it is pretty good, there are no real distinctions to be made.

Should only musicians be allowed to post here on music topics? I would not go that far. But I think that non-musician fans like me should step back and think about the deeper level of insight that musicians and composers are bringing to the discussion.

But then I am curious about this. Just for fun I Googled Oscar Peterson's name yesterday, and looked through some of my jazz books, and came up with quotes from several musicians who were his contemporaries, in which they strongly praised his playing and his accompaniment. For example, Ben Webster was quoted as saying that Oscar Peterson was the best accompanist he ever played with. Dizzy Gillespie, Count Basie, Duke Ellington and Art Tatum all praised Oscar Peterson in print. What were these musicians, who worked with Peterson or heard him play in person often, missing in their evaluation of his playing? Or was it customary back then for jazz musicians to just highly praise all other jazz musicians at all times?

Edited by Hot Ptah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oscar Peterson was one helluva pianist who had one helluva career, of that there should be no dispute. The disagreements are esthetic, and if they are to be meaningful, they should be based on a respect of the craft and the professional accomplishments. So when I agree to a large extent with allen that the majority of Oscar Peterosn't work offends, or at least irritates me in some primal way, that is strictly esthetic. I mean, the guy was a master pianist. It just gives me the creeps what he did with it most of the time.

And no, it's never been customary for jazz musicians to just highly praise all other jazz musicians at all times. Was Peterson praising of Monk? Was Eddie Condon falling all over himself to pimp Bird? Was Mingus not highly cynical about Ornette? I could go on, and that's just public pronouncements. What people will say in private is a whole other matter, because, yes, it is a business. Norman Granz was a business. But even past that, there is no unanimity of taste, none. None. Why should there be? People are crazy, all of us. A broad orthodoxy and conformity of thought is not a natural thing, it generally has to be instilled or enforced, and that just makes us more crazy than we already are.

Here is an excellent peer-to-peer conversation between Oscar Peterson and Andre Previn, ca. 1975. It's actually pretty enlightening as far as what can make somebody either love or loath Peterson to whatever degree possible, and there is a not so subtle inference that apparently not everybody loves Errol Garner after all!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFNsywQOW1I

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JSngry said:

I imagine we all have are artists we feel defensive about, for whatever reasons, but really, and again, so what? We like what we like, we dislike what we dislike, and if we're going to be all fragile about it, that's probably a bigger issue than simple musical taste. When it goes from "like" or "dislike" into "passion", it's definitely more than just musical taste, but and yet again, so what? That's all part of what makes us human, so...roll with it when it goes your way, roll with it when it goes the other way.

Happy rolling to one and all!

Yeah. That.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, medjuck said:

Everyone I've read about who worked with Kenton seemed to love him even if they weren't nuts about the music.  

medjuck,

I was referring to some of Kenton's comments regarding race that can strike a person as... um, perhaps "racially insensitive" is the right word?  After a quick Google search, here's an example of the sort of thing I'm talking about -- from an article on A Blog Supreme:

Accusations of racism also plagued [Kenton]. Annoyed by the exclusion of what he felt were worthy players in the 1956 Down Beat critics poll, he sent a telegram to the magazine protesting on behalf of "a new minority, white jazz musicians." Though Kenton regularly employed African-American musicians and professed friendship and admiration for black jazz pioneers, he never fully shook the stigma.

This Down Beat quote is just one example. The are others where he showed a similar sort of "tone deafness" (at a minimum) when it comes to race. I'm not gonna bother to dig them up. Besides, I'm not making a case that Kenton was a racist.  I'm just saying that plenty of non-musical factors played into some people's distaste for the man. 

Edited by HutchFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(This is not referring to HutchFan's comments about Kenton, which posted before I finished writing this.)

Which is why I'm happy about the relatively dispassionate tone of this thread.  As a non-musician but avid listener, I "know" the differences I hear amongst musicians, and I know what I like and don't like.  The "why" will probably always remain mysterious, being bound up in personality, attractions, and other quasi-mystical realms.  But the "how" can be discussed here.  Peterson plays a lot of notes.  So did Tatum.  But how did they differ, so that someone can like Tatum but dislike OP?  Basie played few notes; so did John Lewis.  How does Basie sound coherent, appropriate and propulsive, but Lewis (to these ears) sound simplistic and obvious?  Sonny Clark played complex chords that he'd interject at odd times; so does Herbie Hancock.  So how, in what he played, did Clark spice up a tune and help a soloist play better, while Hancock (to my ears) sound turgid and uninvolved?  Some of this can be analyzed in choice of notes, areas of emphasis, and playing style, and I like reading about that.  These are obviously areas where musicians might have a deeper understanding than listeners, and might be able to communicate those concepts more clearly.

However, I firmly believe that mere listeners can express as valid an opinion on the music as musicians.  Indeed, there is no music industry without the mere mortals buying the music, attending concerts, and expressing enthusiasms.  And musicians make better music when they play for audiences, rather than just for fellow musicians.  The audiences keep the music real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, mjzee said:

However, I firmly believe that mere listeners can express as valid an opinion on the music as musicians.  Indeed, there is no music industry without the mere mortals buying the music, attending concerts, and expressing enthusiasms.  And musicians make better music when they play for audiences, rather than just for fellow musicians.  The audiences keep the music real.

Well put. Hooray for the mortals. We're part of the equation too! ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember that musicians are "audience" too. I don't know anybody who just plays without listening to what at least some other people are doing. You think Anthony Braxton talking about Frankie Lymon is some kind of a gag? Hardly!

Well, I have known a few with aural blinders on, but they were in the minority, and they were always creepy before it was all over, especially the ones who didn't even listen to the other people they were playing with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irritant # 764 -

Civilian: I don't like ______, it's just a bunch of noise/random notes/whatever/soulless noodling/etc/and so forth.

Musician: Well, actually it's not really that. Here's what's happening...(explanation in some sort of technical/sociological detail of varying accuracy).

Civilian: Well, I'm not a musician, so I can't understand that. All I hear is a bunch of noise/random notes/whatever/soulless noodling/etc/and so forth. And I don't like it.

That is SO much bullshit. "I don't like it", you can't argue with that. But the notion that you have to "be a musician" to "understand" any music, much less "like" it is total bullshit. In fact, the notion that you have to "understand" anything to "like" it is bullshit. "Understanding" is intellectual, "liking" is emotional, not the same thing.

It's such a cop-out to play the "well, I just don't like it" card without admitting that maybe you don't understand it because there is so much there that you're not familiar with. That is a fixable situation if you desire it to be, and although not liking something is about the worst incentivization for learning more about it, just sayin',...if you're incapable of learning about things like shapes, colors, balances, shifts in motion, all that stuff that is pretty much present in every aspect of your waking life...really? Incapable or just not that interested?

And equally bad is the "well, you don't like it because you don't understand it" tactic. Equally bullshitty bullshit. No - they don't like it because they don't like it. Edify as much as is gracious, but don't expect to convert, that's not the object of the game. Intellectual vacuums are meant to be filled, but a differing emotion is not an intellectual vacuum. At least not necessarily.

Unfamiliarity is always an opportunity to learn more, about both the stimulus and the self. Now of course there are stimuli that present an unwelcome opportunity, like that buzzing chain saw, should I put my hand on it because it sorta sounds like a really loud purring kitten, uh, oh HELL no, but a record or a gig, it that's going to result in something as potentially fucked up as a severed limb, then yeah, stay away and make no excuses. But otherwise, hey, it's a big world and nobody is going to want or be able to deal with all of it. so just say so, don't play all these circuitous logic games to make it seem like I'm OK, you're OK, But I'm More OK, because really, nobody's OK unless Everybody's OK, and most of us fall somewhere in between.

Learning - nobody I know was born playing or composing. Singing, maybe. Point just being, everybody can learn something, and most people can always learn more if they want to.

Keepin' it real since 5:15 this morning,

Yors Truly.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...