I remember reading somewhere that Miles didn't like Oscar's playing. In his famous downbeat blindfold test Thelonious asks the way to the toilet when Leonard Feather puts Oscar on.

blindfold test by monk

My question is why?
Do you agree with the giants in this case?

Personally I like Peterson very much. Every recording he did before his stroke is a gem. It's true that his playing is flashy but he is fast and brilliant.

So why Miles and Monk didn't like him?
Have you heard other opinions about him (positive and negative)?

thanks for posting the blindfold test!

Perhaps because Monk heard Art Tatum in person and Oscar Peterson is just a decent imitation of Art Tatum?

That Monk BFT is a classic.

If that's true that Miles & Monk didn't like Peterson's playing, I would guess that it's because they, especially Miles, were very serious about "space" in music, something Peterson sometimes neglects.

Seems like Monk didn't like ANYONE that day. A strange cat, but we knew that, didn't we?

Well, Peterson has always had his detractors (critic Martin Williams, among others, didn't like him), but musicians who've actually played with him, like Ray Brown, seem to hold his playing in very high regard. Hank Jones has spoken highly of OP, and that's someone who knows something about piano.

But does it really what others think of him? What matters is what you think of him. If you enjoy him (as I do), then listen to him. If you don't, then listen to someone else. But I have to tell you - I can't imagine anyone listening to the 5 CD's from the London House and not being very, very impressed and often moved by the brilliance of OP's playing. Peterson has matured and developed considerably since his earliest recordings (one of the signs of a true artist in my view). I don't think he sounds all that much like Tatum (and I'm not alone in that opinion), though he freely acknowleges Tatum as his idol. But listen to them back to back, and I think you'll notice quite a difference.

Miles didn't like anybody else who was successful.
Monk just needed to take a leak.

London House was the Peterson that finally made me a big appreciator. I can't listen to Peterson for days, but I do like his playing and its swing and energy. It's a whole nuther animal than Monkian piano, and that's all to the good. There probably was a nonmusical reason that added to Monk's dramatic reaction. . . .

I certainly like his playing very much. After I started the thread I recalled an article by Gene Lees that I read few years ago (about Bill Evans of course). The interesting fact is that they both had an admiration for each other (another interesting trivia is that they were born almost on the same day: Oscar – August 15th, Bill – August 16th). So I guess there were many greats that liked Peterson either.

I don't agree w/ the sentiment that Miles didn't like anybody else that was successful. He liked Sinatra, Hendrix, Prince, Ahmad Jamal...etc. I think that a more erudite explanation would include OP's style.

Peterson had previously made some derogatory comments about Monk's playing in an interview or some such, something to the effect that Monk wrote prety ballads but was a poor pianist. Monk's reaction in the BFT was his response to those comments.

Myself, with only a few exceptions, I don't really dig Peterson simply because I find his playing to be a glorification of the obvious.

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...

I think it's fair to say that both Miles and Monk were minimalists to some degree. They were also both innovators. Miles, stylistically. Monk, harmonically and compositionally.

It's not entirely about leaving space but it's about contemplating what you're gonna play in your solo that brings something new to the table. Monk and Miles playing on anybody else's tunes would invariably bring something new to the table. OP, though a great pianist with tremendous technique, would not always do so. It would be a rehashing of Tatum, Bud Powell and James P. Johnson.

Also, OP played the same ideas over and over and over. Listen to any OP record and tell me where he doesn't repeat himself in a solo. Rhythmically his triplet patterns get really old really fast. He could play but so what if Miles and Monk didn't dig?

Guys like Miles and Monk were into originality. I think they lived by a mantra that went something like this: "If it ain't new or you played it already on this tune on this sitting, lay out until you think of something entirely fresh or a different way to phrase it."

Perhaps that's the reason for the space in Monk and Miles' playing.

Hans, agree with you. But the subject of this thread was about how other jazz giants view Oscar Peterson.
I also happen to be a fan of Oscar Peterson!

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

I've changed my mind somewhat on OP. I don't really like a lot of the trio with bass and guitar material, I think a drummer gives me more to be interested in and helps OP somewhat to be a bit sparer. As I said above the London House box, which I got rather cheaply on ebay along with some other members, helped prod me further into his camp, though listening to his work as an accompanist/musical director (?) for Granz helped me on my way (he occasionally put down some brilliant solos on those records, and his general organization and the cohesion he helped foster in his section mates helped a lot of sessions to gel). I think if you get deeper into his music some of these excesses appear eventually to be less about flash and drama and more about fleet thinking and trying to get more in there than others may . . . . Anyway, I can't listen the man all day, but I can enjoy his music, in solo and trio (with bass and drums) formats the most. . . .

I don't really think it matters TO ME why Monk or Miles or any number of other "greats" disliked him. . . . In many cases there are going to be extramusical reasons (I find that often to be the case with Miles!)

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.

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.

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....

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.

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.)

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.

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."

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.).

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.

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.

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.

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

I do

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

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.

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!

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.

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