<HTML>In a message dated 5/25/0= 3 10:31:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, classictouchent@comcast.net writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-= LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">> 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.</BLOCKQUOTE> 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 f= rom Liszt the performer and Liszt the improviser.  All three are happen= ing at the same time.  That would also hold true for other envelope pus= hers of their times, such as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc..  It was tha= t spontaneous creativity that made the music sound so fresh, and that probab= ly made the instruments they played on woefully insufficient to get across w= hat was going on in their minds and hearts as they played/composed/improvise= d.   Classical music allows improvisation only in the interpretation(read: &n= bsp;not in the notes, though some do take their liberties);  it makes s= ense to me that that parameter(interpretive powers) has to be maximized by h= aving the instrument in absolutely it's most expressive possible condition(v= oicing, tuning, regulation) for that interpretation to be fully realized. &n= bsp;In jazz, the notes are always changing, and the performer concentrates o= n the notes being played AND the interpretation of a piece.   When I play a jazz tune, the condition of the piano is far less importan= t 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 <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px so= lid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">>  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 ha= s > 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 befor= e.   > In the world of jazz, including composition and improvisation, that= > means expanding the "vocabulary" with which they can work.  Fo= r 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. &nbs= p;(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 al= l forms > of expression, like opera -- wow!) >  I wonder if the abundant "enunciation" and "punctuation" of j= azz > piano requires more of the instrument.  Or perhaps it only req= uires > *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, sl= ide 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 </BLOCKQUOTE> </HTML>