Where or When (1953) by Art Tatum

From the album, "Art Tatum Solo Masterpieces Vol. 7", Pablo.

Category:

Music

Tags:

• Art
• Tatum
• Piano
• Virtuoso
• Where
• or
• When
• 1953

[brabazon10]

I think Art was happier playing alone; his complex ideas didn't go well with others, unlike Oscar Peterson whose great work was with trios/quartets etc. Buddy de Franco said playing with Tatum was like chasing a train.

[justininfrance]

Tatum is revered as a genius, and maybe he was, but I tend to think his over elaborate runs and trills ruin the music. He can't help showing off. Perhaps he was on the boundary of melodic and 'abstract' music, but personally I find it confused. His collaborations with others were often unsuccessful because he just did his thing, almost ignoring what others were doing around him. Fantastic technique to be sure, but I'm afraid I'm still not a Tatum fan.

[bb1111116]

One can't deny that Tatum plays a lot of notes. That's obvious. But his influence on later jazz musicians is certainly clear if one listens to Parker onward.

The question for the listener is; does a person like brilliant piano technique and musicianship which Tatum has in abundance? It may be too much for some but I definitely appreciate Tatum. He's one of my favorite jazz musicians.

[redchannels]

@Dave78m That about says it.

[bluesinorbit]

@Dave78m That kind of touch was still rare among jazz pianists. Then the unmistakable techniques rolled in and I knew it was Tatum. The simplicity of the blues allowed me set aside my preconception of what the song was supposed to sound like, and I heard Tatum for who he was as an artist. He had absolute control of the piano and his craft, artistry, and underneath all that complexity, humanity poured into the music. Description is not good enough. One must jump down the rabbit hole.

[bluesinorbit]

@Dave78m I couldn't listen to Art Tatum for more than two songs when I first bought an album of his. It would literally give me a headache. It seemed like a lot of technique, which I don't have the musicianship to appreciate on its own, and emotionally rather barren. Months later, my computer was playing a randomized playlist of music and a tune I had never heard came on. It was a blues. First I thought, this has got to be Duke, just from that beautiful clarity and depth I heard.

[Dave78m]

@redchannels i must agree, and don't take this the wrong way, but I think i agree because I "get" erroll garner", but do not get Tatum nearly as well. i wonder if it is my failing, that I am not a good enough jazz listener. I think Tatum is too advanced for most people, too intense. Once in a while I really like listening to it, but most days it is just too dense to parse.

[kimpeccable]

You don't have to like his style to appreciate his musical genius. His extraordinary technique and ability to harmonize melodies, his perfect pitch, his ability to play across all musical styles made him revered in the eyes of his peers (Count Basie called him "the 8th wonder of the world"). Although considered a stride pianist, his facility to improvise influenced future jazz musicians but because he did not care for bebop he never became as popular as he might have if he'd followed the trend

[redchannels]

It may well be bad form to make the first post about this video in a critical vein, but I forgive myself because it's something I've been thinking about for a long time. All responses are of course welcome. It seems to me that Tatum's tendency to use elaborate runs interferes too much with his capacity to swing, and fails to make his solos melodically inventive in a genuine way. I can see how the elaborateness inspired Charlie Parker, but it doesn't work for me in Tatum's music.