Is a Jazz Musician Just a Pianist (should we say Instrumentalist)?

In my opinion, both are pianists but of a different type... Each with their own specialization.

It's like talking about two IT professionals: one specializing in cybersecurity, the other in web applications, but both are still IT professionals nonetheless.

The IT specialist is to the musician, as the systems administrator is to the pianist.

In my opinion, the difference lies in comparing the performer to the composer (even if they operate extemporaneously, see jazz musicians).

The catch-all word, in my opinion, is musician

Honestly, I don't understand the distinction between a jazz pianist and a classical pianist. A pianist is a pianist, just as a musician is a musician. Music is such a vast world that reducing it to the words "jazz and classical" makes no sense... All the music in the world can live within the same person, see Gulda, but also Petrucciani himself, who played Chopin... Just listen from 3:50 here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUxQLU_eqfU

P.s. To be clear, using words to contextualize a musician is normal, but focusing too much on them is limiting in my opinion.

Open content (youtube)

I find that they are two completely different professions, with different approaches... clearly one is always talking about musicians

I don't see any major basic differences; let's just say that those who play Jazz (but not only) have a greater margin of interpretation, being able to improvise or otherwise manipulate the piece more than a "classical" pianist. This certainly entails a different approach, but let's not forget that many musicians of the European tradition were excellent improvisers. It is only recently that this practice has been lost in the academic world. Perhaps the "fault" lies in the setting of the schools, which tend (even Jazz ones) to "crystallize" music by imposing clichés. I find that recently even in jazz environments there are many more virtuosos than composers of substance. A new Ellington or a new Monk is a long way off...

But Dr, I would say that Jazz musicians tend to have terrible sight-reading skills and performers generally understand little to nothing about harmony

camy86 wrote:

... All the music of the world can live within the same person, see Gulda, but also Petrucciani himself, who played Chopin... Just listen here from 3:50.

...verò, however, in a general discussion one cannot look only at the exceptions

This discussion has often led to unresolved (and insoluble) diatribes about what is better or worse among a jazz musician, a classical performer (if you'll excuse me for that), and a pure composer (excuse me for this one too, we understand each other, okay?). I have always thought that these are three very different aspects of making music, which were divided in a not-so-distant era. The turning point was the creation of a repertoire, a concept that emerges in the Romantic era and, precisely, after the death of Beethoven, whose compositions began to be re-performed, given the importance attributed to his work—something that had never happened for other authors, who were studied but not re-performed. I don't want to make a compendium of music history, heaven forbid, but it is only to say that, if until that moment the composer played their own music and, if they were capable, could even improvise entire recitals (it seems Beethoven was a stratospheric improviser, the same goes for Mozart, Bach... in short, we know this), from that moment on another figure is added: that of the performer of others' music. From there to the present day is a short step, and perhaps the jazz musician is the one who, even while engaged in another musical genre, is closest to the figure of the musician from the pre-Romantic era. The jazz musician is undoubtedly more versatile than a performer, exceptions notwithstanding, as JazzMania said above. In any field, in my opinion, specialization takes something away on one hand, but gives it back on the other. I envy jazz musicians the natural aspect of making music, the improvisational capacity, the instrumental instinct elevated to an art, but I am aware that they—by choice, of course, certainly not due to any kind of deficiency—lack, compared to the performing musician, the depth of excavation of a musical text, which is not part of their specific interests.

JazzMania wrote:

However Dr, I would say that Jazz musicians tend to have terrible reading skills and performers on average understand little to nothing about harmony

This is partially true (at a high level there are many jazz pianists who have incredible reading skills and I doubt that great classical performers are starving for harmony), anyway from a strictly musical point of view it does not involve major differences.

I largely share what Carlos says regarding the depth of delving into the musical text; reading these posts brings to mind a consideration I made quite some time ago: for some bizarre reason, especially musicians with a classical background see Jazz as a 'mysterious object' and quite distant from their way of making music (even in Carlos's post when he speaks about the natural aspect of making music etc.). In reality, it is one of the musics of the 1900s, I think closer to the 'classical' music of the last century than a Gregorian chant is. And yet, a classical musician moves easily across an arc of several centuries but shows a certain perplexity when faced with a jazz piece, regardless of the improvised parts. Not even that long ago, great performers used to improvise concert cadenzas, and organists still improvise over figured basses that are quite similar to the chord symbols used in Jazz. The practice of improvisation does not presuppose a particular predisposition: it is merely the result of study. Of course, from here to improvising like Keith Jarrett is a long way, but even many jazz musicians envy him ;-)

JazzMania wrote:

performers generally understand little to nothing about harmony

Well, maybe they understand little or nothing about the way jazz musicians name harmonic formulas that are normally called something else. I don't think any given jazz piece can be much more complicated than a Tchaikovsky symphony, with all due respect... Let's not generalize...

Interesting discourse, do you think the Jazz musician reads or USES the next chord?

Because things change between reading, analyzing at a desk and performing ... and instead creating a succession live... and we all know what levels of improvisation can be reached.

Here it is not a problem of complexity or rather it is a problem of diversity of complexity ... so I too side with those who maintain that they are two different professions.

I like this discussion, and I also like all the responses/questions from those interested.

I propose some questions to stimulate reflection

Is a distinction between the "jazz musician" and the "classicist" truly necessary?

Why do we always feel the need to build walls of distinction between musics that are simply different and use adjectives like "normal," as if another music were not?

.......I'm giving my two cents and providing an example..... a friend of mine recently attended a Pollini concert here at the Rome Auditorium, and she had the luck of attending from the seats on the stage, right behind him...... well, she "stole" a couple of minutes on video of an encore during which he played Chopin's Etude Op.10 No. 12, Warsaw Lament...... During the listening, I thought: "my goodness, how boring! always the same music" and I was surprised by my own thought....... because obviously I wasn't referring to the performance but solely and exclusively to the piece played by Pollini, which at this moment I am not truly interested in.......

I want to go listen to music composed by Frank or Carlos or any other user of this forum rather than re-re-re-re-re-re-re-listen to any Chopin piece or whoever else......

I want to be able to talk with the composer and understand, ask, discuss, share, exchange, laugh, play........

In short, I want to listen to what the living have to say! I prefer evolution!

It would be interesting to return to the coincidence between composer and performer, as when Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt, or Chopin were alive......

It is obvious that this only applies to me and it is just my personal thought; it is obviously neither right nor wrong......

What do you think?

Bye

Italian is definitely a terrible language.

I don't want to belittle anyone, but reading a harmonization (which jazz musicians commonly call a lead sheet/siglato) or devising a harmonization LIVE are two different things.

It is clear that if someone spends a lifetime reading, they will be better at that, and if someone spends a lifetime re-harmonizing, they will be better at that.

Then there are all the shades of gray; you (Carlos) are a conductor and as such you have pursued studies based on composition, whereas a pianist generally does not go beyond basic notions, and for what purpose? To decipher a lead sheet and not to write one.

So on paper, the performer in the topic (the pianist or the instrumentalist) has few skills unless they have developed them on their own... for the jazz musician, however, it is daily bread.

I'm not the one saying it; interview a newly graduated pianist and we'll talk again.

Then there is Pollini who has a diploma in composition... but how many are there? I used the word "on average," which means, taking graduates or degree holders, ehm ehm, which is more current, just look at what they can do.

Furthermore, it's not just syntax; it's one's own taste in using harmony, which isn't formed by reading Chopin's notes but by using these colors.

Etc. etc.

Therefore, completely different professions with different skills

Some immediate thoughts

Feliciano wrote:

It would be interesting to return to the coincidence between composer and performer, as when Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt or Chopin were alive......

Not a chance; I would be confined within my performing limits, my music would only be that which stays in my hands... instead, I want my music to be that which is at least in the hands of Pollini.

I want my music to be playable by an entire ensemble; the instrumental technique and that of the instrumentalists was not so evolved and was very horizontal. Now everything is very vertical; the strong specialization of each individual allows one to reach extremely high levels and infinite nuances.

Compare any symphony by Haydn (even the late ones) with Rachmaninoff's third piano concerto for pf and orchestra; Haydn is beautiful, but it's not even comparable.

And I am not putting it on the level of competition, but on the level of possibilities from which to choose.

Think about the implications, even just regarding the figure of the conductor. Can you see Beethoven playing the piano part of the Rach3? We would never have arrived here if there hadn't been a process of specialization of the performer behind it, which over time reached unimaginable levels, thanks to the evolution of instrument technique.

Now I say:

- in the 1300s, the composer studied the cadences and was done. What was the orchestra?

- in the 1500s, they added a bit of counterpoint and were done. What was the orchestra?

- between 1700 and 1800, they even added a bit of harmony and were done. What was the orchestra?

- we all know what one needs to know about the '900s?: Twelve-tone technique, serialism, jazz, electronic music, etc.

- Today, is there an established performance practice? No. As soon as everything that has already been done has been studied, one can finally seek a personal style without falling into anachronism.

How can you compare how much I must study and know versus the Leoninus and Perotinus of the time? Therefore, there is not only a technical limit but also a limit to the sustainability of instrumental study, which would be dedicated to playing worse than Pollini.

But it's not just like this with music; I have a physical friend who works abroad, he studied his whole life to barely know how an airplane wing is made... I hope that makes the parallel clear.

... Leonardo da Vinci's times ended a while ago, in the sense of the 360° genius.

Feliciano wrote:

I would rather go and listen to music composed by Frank or Carlos or any other user of this forum than ririririririririririririslisten to any piece by Chopin or whoever...

Hmm... then never come to one of my concerts, because I am not a composer: you would have to ririririririririslisten to the usual music...

I was thinking back to Feliciano's writing and in particular to

Feliciano wrote:

.......I'll give my two cents and provide an example.....a friend of mine recently attended a Pollini concert here at the Rome Auditorium, and she had the luck of attending from the seats on the stage, right behind him......well, she "stole" a couple of minutes on video of an encore during which he played Chopin's Etude op.10 no. 12 "Revolution" (The Fall of Warsaw).......During the listening I thought: "my goodness, how boring! always the same music" and I was surprised by my own thought....... because obviously I wasn't referring to the performance but only and exclusively to the piece played by Pollini, which at this moment I am not truly interested in.......

I would like to take the example to the opposite extreme; once in a lifetime "The Fall of Warsaw" is too little, it also means that my children would not have the chance to hear it. We are the ones choosing what to go and listen to.

... and to think that once it tended to be that way.

I'll add a question: in your opinion, why did Bach feel the need to put notes down on paper?

How do you consider the director of a Big Band? Is he a jazz musician or not?

In Jazz, the figure of the conductor is a bit unique: often they are the bandleader, or a musician, or the composer. Currently, there are big bands with conductors who limit themselves to conducting, but in almost all cases, these are musicians who know how to play Jazz regardless. Keep in mind that in this context, the conductor does a slightly different job than in a symphony orchestra: the big band can easily play on its own; the conductor does most of the work during rehearsals, so they must have a perfect knowledge of the jazz language.