---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
In a message dated 5/25/03 10:31:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
classictouchent@comcast.net writes:
> > Hi Rich!
>
> Hi Sarah (fascinating questions and observations)
> >
> > I wonder if some of the difference might be that jazz pianists are so
> > often envelope pushers -- in the same sense that Franz Liszt was an
> > envelope pusher.
> Do you mean in the composer, improviser or performer sense or all three?
> Are we talking composition, technique, 'sound' sculpture, voicing? all
> of them? The answers (observations, extrapolations, wags) could
> probably fill a book or two, hotly debated by all. Perhaps I'm
> misunderstanding the focus of the question, but it just seems there are
> so many variables many of which point in the 'which comes first, the
> chicken or the egg?' direction.
Rich, Sarah,
As somebody who hacks away a bit at both jazz and classical, I'll put in my
two cents.
Rich, I think that it's impossible to differentiate Liszt the composer from
Liszt the performer and Liszt the improviser. All three are happening at the
same time. That would also hold true for other envelope pushers of their
times, such as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc.. It was that spontaneous creativity
that made the music sound so fresh, and that probably made the instruments they
played on woefully insufficient to get across what was going on in their
minds and hearts as they played/composed/improvised.
Classical music allows improvisation only in the interpretation(read: not in
the notes, though some do take their liberties); it makes sense to me that
that parameter(interpretive powers) has to be maximized by having the
instrument in absolutely it's most expressive possible condition(voicing, tuning,
regulation) for that interpretation to be fully realized. In jazz, the notes are
always changing, and the performer concentrates on the notes being played AND
the interpretation of a piece.
When I play a jazz tune, the condition of the piano is far less important
than when I'm trying to articulate a Scarlatti Sonata marked "allegrissimo." The
improvisation factor in jazz make it far easier to work around instruments
that might be of questionable quality.
On the other hand, having a great piano gives the improvistional artist a far
wider pallette to work with. Would I rather gig on a Fazioli or an
Acrosonic? That's a toughie....
Gotta go to work now. Forgot to schedule a holiday for myself....:-)
Dave Stahl
> > What they are able to write/perform depends very much on the
> > technology beneath their fingertips.
> I'm sure that this is true much of the time, but some composers seem to
> conjure sounds, and textures, articulations, voicings, temperaments
> without regard to whether or not the instruments, technology, or
> performers are capable of producing it. Sort of 'I have this idea ( by
> the way the system for notating this hasn't been created yet) and I'll
> describe it as best I can: can you figure out a way to make it happen?'
> > Classical pianists, on the other hand, are performing what has
> > already been written -- within the limitations of existing piano
> > technology.
> Perhaps this is why we see more 'classical' pianists crossing over or
> outright switching to jazz. Either way all are performing within the
> limitations of existing tech, until they aren't.
> > I suspect there may be more enthusiasm on the part of a jazz musician
> > when his instrument is suddenly able to "do" more than it did before.
> > In the world of jazz, including composition and improvisation, that
> > means expanding the "vocabulary" with which they can work. For a
> > classical pianist, that means being able to play better what has
> > already been played before.
> For sure the classical pianists performance role is more limited (jazz
> pianists is expanded). I don't know if 'better' is the word I would use.
> I remember Shura Cherkasky saying *(late 70's/early 80's) in a NY Times
> interview ~ 'I never play it the same way twice, it depends how I'm
> feeling in the moment'.
> > I'm also captivated by the expressiveness of jazz piano. (As a
> > classical pianist, I'm rather envious of the jazz masters and wish I
> > could "do" the things they do! But I'm also that way about all forms
> > of expression, like opera -- wow!)
> > I wonder if the abundant "enunciation" and "punctuation" of jazz
> > piano requires more of the instrument. Or perhaps it only requires
> > *different* things of the instrument. I'm not versed in jazz
> > performance, so I don't really know.
> Ditto. What is leaving me increasingly awestruck are the 'concert tech
> masters' and their ability to make a creation as liquid as a piano
> action
> 'behave'.
> >
> > I've often wondered why performance pianos don't ship with multiple
> > actions for different performer preferences. Take out one, slide in
> > the other. Different piano! Two pianos at far less the cost of two.
> I know of pianists who have second ('practice') actions, so I can't
> imagine a manufacturer would refuse such a request. Just a matter of
> writing the check? Probably easier to do this when piano is new.
> Otherwise I'm guessing the 'catch 22' is that you would have to ship
> your action to the manufacturer (or say Kluge) for duplication. Issues
> for institutions might include safe (from damage) flat, secure storage
> (and writing that check)? I'm guessing there might be issues associated
> with actions sitting dormant (for extended periods)?
> > It would make sense to me...
> >
> > Peace,
> > Sarah Diane Fox, Ph.D., NPT
> > Columbus, Ohio, United States of America
> Best,
>
> Rich Olmsted
>
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/ff/28/75/0a/attachment.htm
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC