cross-posted at About Last Night
Oscar Peterson, who died on Sunday, was one of a handful of jazz musicians to have cultivated a virtuoso technique comparable to that of the greatest classical instrumentalists. In part for this reason, he never got along well with jazz critics, most of whom were (and are) too musically ignorant to appreciate the near-unique nature of his achievement. Peterson’s peers knew better. He was very, very popular—every great virtuoso is—but it was his fellow artists who gauged his worth most accurately. Like Buddy Rich, he left a trail of collegial awe behind him wherever he went.
Peterson got more bad reviews than any other major jazz pianist, and on occasion he deserved them. Miles Davis, one of the few musicians of importance to have said anything unpleasant about him, famously remarked that Peterson “makes me sick because he copies everybody. He even had to learn how to play the blues.” That was both nasty and untrue, but it did point to the chink in his armor. Unlimited virtuosity is a snare for the unwary artist. “Only in limitation,” Goethe wrote, “is mastery revealed.” Peterson’s extreme technical facility, by contrast, sometimes lured him into the trap of glibness. When he was coasting, all you heard was the fireworks. Nor did it help that he recorded so prolifically throughout his seven-decade-long career. No one can make that many records save at the price of consistent inspiration, and Peterson paid that price too often for comfort.
He was at his best from 1953 to 1958, when he led a drummerless trio featuring the guitarist Herb Ellis and the bassist Ray Brown that was celebrated for its aggressive, unrelenting swing. Peterson and his colleagues modeled themselves on the legendary King Cole Trio, but unlike that deliciously easy-going ensemble, the Peterson Trio was a straight-ahead group whose members favored fast tempos and liked nothing better than to light the afterburner and take off. Most of their recordings are out of print, but The Oscar Peterson Trio at Zardi’s, a thrilling live album recorded in 1955 at a Los Angeles nightclub, captures them at their most characteristic.
When Ellis decided to quit the road, Peterson replaced him not with another guitarist but with a drummer, the tasteful and elegant Ed Thigpen, thereby recharging his creative batteries for another half-dozen years. It was this version of the Oscar Peterson Trio that recorded most frequently, and one must pick and choose carefully among its many albums to get a clear sense of how good the group could be. Fortunately—and not coincidentally—the most popular of its recordings, Night Train, is also one of the finest. An after-hours 1962 studio set devoted to blues tunes and blues-flavored pop songs, Night Train shows how deeply Peterson could dig when he felt like laying back instead of showing off.
Peterson’s later albums are typically less interesting than the ones he made with Brown, Ellis, and Thigpen, but My Favorite Instrument, a 1968 collection of unaccompanied piano solos called that was privately recorded in Germany under optimal circumstances, is worthy of special mention. His playing here is both carefully controlled and consistently inspired, and even his harshest critics have singled it out as noteworthy. I also like The Trio, a live set from 1973 featuring the guitarist Joe Pass and the bassist Niels Pedersen, which contains a version of Nat Cole’s “Easy Listening Blues” that shows how much Peterson learned from his nonpareil predecessor.
In addition to recording with his own groups, Peterson cut hundreds of albums as a sideman, most of them made in the days when he was barnstorming with Norman Granz’s Jazz at the Philharmonic concert troupes and doubling as house pianist for Verve, Granz’s record label. He recorded with everyone who worked for Granz—Louis Armstrong, Roy Eldridge, Ella Fitzgerald, Billie Holiday, Charlie Parker, Ben Webster, Lester Young, even Fred Astaire—and his sensitive, discreet support rarely failed to stimulate those for whom he played. Stan Getz and the Oscar Peterson Trio, recorded in 1957, is an especially choice example of his prowess as an accompanist.
Peterson also wrote a memoir, A Jazz Odyssey, about which I wrote in COMMENTARY when it was published in 2002:
I can think of no other jazz autobiography that has made the mysteries of music-making so readily accessible to the lay reader. Even those who dislike Oscar Peterson’s playing will find his book informative—surely a near-unprecedented achievement…. Despite his gifts as a raconteur, Peterson is not a natural writer—his ghostwritten prose is too often stiff and ostentatious—but when he speaks of music, the results have a clarity and specificity rarely found in books of this genre. And unlike most jazz memoirists, he is even willing to be critical of other players, including some of the most admired musicians in jazz. Peterson’s analysis of the “uneven and unfinished” playing of the bebop pianist Bud Powell, for instance, cuts sharply against the grain of conventional critical wisdom, and whether or not one agrees with his conclusions, they merit close scrutiny, not only in their own right but for the perspective they offer on his own remarkable technical achievements.
Alas, A Jazz Odyssey is out of print, but Gene Lees’s Oscar Peterson: The Will to Swing is still available in paperback. An intelligent and warmly sympathetic biography by one of the few jazz critics who appreciated Peterson properly, it profits from Lees’s close friendship with his subject.
Peterson was crippled by a stroke in 1993, and though he continued to play in public, his last performances added no luster to his reputation. Now that the long sunset of his post-stroke career is over, my guess is that he will fade from view for a time—perhaps even a long time. But sooner or later some patient and industrious critic will sift through the mountain of variably inspired recordings that he left behind, separate the wheat from the chaff, and tell a later generation of listeners what those who admired Oscar Peterson in his lifetime already know: when he was good, no one was better.
“Katon Dawson tells the New York Times the concern about his more than decade-long membership in a whites-only club is “so bogus.” (What is he– in sixth grade?) That’s probably what Harry Reid (Senate Majority Leader Democrat Nevada)said about concerns over the backlash which might be triggered by throwing Burris out in the rain. What do you think is the first fact every single MSM outlet will mention if Dawson is eliminated? But it doesn’t matter what the MSM says because the GOP doesn’t have an image problem with minorities and has plenty of adherents, right? Oh, wait.”
Fixed
“The President-elect’s credibility is a precious thing and shouldn’t be frittered away with silly stunts like this.”
Yeah, he should use it to start more imperialist wars and slaughter lots of brown people! If only the Capri-Sun Crew had their druthers….
>>>Yeah, he should use it to start more imperialist wars and slaughter lots of brown people! If only the Capri-Sun Crew had their druthers….<<<
Brown people are quite adept at slaughtering each other. israel will have to kill a lot more Palestinians in Gaza to catch up with Hamas, for instance. And, as compared to Saddam Hussein, we are not meeting the slaughter quota in Iraq, ourselves. And then there is Sudan. . .
Regarding imperialist wars, if only we would simply pick up the imperial mantle laid at our feet, maybe the world would be better for it. As it is, we are the most reluctant imperialists the world has ever seen, and have to be dragged kicking and screaming into meeting our responsibilities. Even then, I think we’ve done quite a bit more to SAVE brown people from being slaughtered than any other country in the world, countries that are so enamored of the sound of their own voices praising their own moral rectitude that they have no time to roll up their sleeves to do the dirty work of fixing the parts of the world that are broken. There is always time, however, to kibbitz and second-guess the actions of the United States.
If the American people count, then the Obama presidency is shaping up as a resounding success.
Latest Rasmussen: Overall, 69% of voters somewhat or strongly approve of Obama’s performance so far while 28% disapprove. By way of comparison, 13% of all voters Strongly Approve of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president. Forty-five percent (45%) Strongly Disapprove. That gives the current President a -32 rating on the Presidential Approval Index.
I guess PJ ORourke, David Broder and Jennifer Rubin are just sore losers.
The reason Mitt Romney has fared so well is because we all know he is a liberal pretending to be a conservative.
Context, Jack, context. We aren’t even into Obama’s honeymoon yet — we’re still in the marriage ceremony — and the major conservative pundits have all been beating the “support the President, we’re pleasantly surprised by his nominations” drum, not stirring up sore-losership. Given that, if only 69% approve of his performance and as many as 28% disapprove, that’s not really strong support.
6
Context. Ancient Mariner. Context.
Read before you write. Here’s Jennifer Rubin quoting PJ ORourke:
“Is it too soon to talk about the failed Obama presidency just because Obama isn’t president yet? ”
If we are going to start assessing the Obama presidency prematurely, as Jennifer Rubin so wants to do, then at least let’s prematurely assess it fairly. By all measures that count, Obama is doing exceedingly well.
And if you had any sense of history, you’d know that 69% approval is extremely high and rarely seen. To say it’s “not really strong support” is preposterous.
Those of you still arguing that the Iraq war did not strengthen Iran should read today’s New York Times. Why did Bush deny Israel the right to strike Iran’s nuclear sites? Because Bush was afraid of the fallout in Iraq. So in coming years, when you look at a nuclear Iran, the preeminent power in the middle east, remember to thank the neocons who thought invading Iraq would unleash democracy and strengthen America and Israel.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Bush rejected several Israeli requests last year for weapons and permission for a potential airstrike inside Iran, the author of an investigative report told CNN.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insists Iran’s nuclear program is only intended for peaceful purposes.
Israel approached the White House in early 2008 with three requests for an attack on Iran’s main nuclear complex, said New York Times reporter David Sanger. His article appears in the newspaper on Sunday.
According to Sanger, Israel wanted specialized bunker-busting bombs, equipment to help refuel planes making flights into Iran and permission to fly over Iraq to reach the major nuclear complex at Natanz, the site of Iran’s only known uranium enrichment plant.
The White House “deflected” the first two requests and denied the last, Sanger said.
“They feared that if it appeared that the United States had helped Israel strike Iran, using Iraqi airspace, that the result in Iraq could be the expulsion of the American troops (from Iraq),” he said.
#8
The New York Times thinks that the Iraq war was a mistake? That is news.
An earlier post of yours says that, “If the American people count, then the Obama presidency is shaping up as a resounding success.” So, if the American people approve of it, then it must be right, right? Upwards of 2/3 of Americans supported the invasion of Iraq, so it must have been a good idea, right? Or don’t the American people count?
The notion that Israel, the Jewish Nation, striking Iran has anything to do with Iran becoming more powerful because of the Iraq war is patently absurd, and more wishful thinking than analysis. Look at a map. Iran is surrounded by US troops on every side, in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf. Ask the Germans how being encircled worked out for them in the two world wars. It’s clear even to an idiot, maybe not the ones who read the Times, but other idiots, why Bush didn’t want the Jewish Nation to attack a Shiite nation, and thought that the fallout in a majority Shiite Iraq might cause complications.
Question: Would a nuclear Iran be the preeminent power in the Middle East if Saddam Hussein was in power? If not, then why?
#8, The NYTimes? CNN? Can you honestly take these two media outlets seriously? These reports may or may not be true, but I certainly wouldn’t take their words for it.
#9
Let’s go to the families of the 4000 Americans who died in Iraq,and tell them what their sacrifices were for. To build a Shiite nation in the NE that one day may even be our ally if everything goes well. I’d like to see the response to that.
#11
How many veterans of the Second World War made sacrifices so that, if everything went well, we could be an ally with the Soviet Union?
Did we become an ally with the Soviet Union? Did they die in vain?
The core rationale for the Iraq war was the nigh universal contemporaneous belief that Saddam Hussein was developing WMDs. Given Iran’s parallel ambitions that meant a threat that both countries would soon have them. The elimination of the Baath regime took Iraqi WMDs off the table and temporarily intimidated Iran into suspending or slowing its own program. The success or failure of the neocon enterprise depends on the consolidation of that initial success. Having two rival rogue Muslim regimes with nukes would have been a nightmare as they would not have “balanced” eachother but competed to the detriment of their neighbors in the manner of Hitler and Stalin. But there were never any illusions that decapitating the Iraq dictatorship alone would fulfill the overall mission. At least not among those who championed it in the first place. Btw, brown people deserve exactly the same consideration today that white people gave eachother during the first half of the Twentieth Century.
Oh, Jennifer, the incurable Gov. Palin cynic. Of course you agree with the WaPo commentary, it is consistent with your perspective from Day One.
I don’t know, dear Jen, if you are a parent. But what parents are inclined to do is defend their loved ones. And the media attack on the Palin family has persisted long after the campaign ended. Most recently they attacked unwed father, Levi, for working as an apprentice without a high school diploma. The problem for the media is that there is no mandatory requirement for having a high school diploma.
Can anyone seriously doubt the double standards displayed by the media? No. So, Gov. Palin is not going to roll over. Good for her. Come to think of it, I recall George Bush 41 taking on Dan Rather too.
Say, while on the subject, Jen, did the two most recent two-term presidents go off to finishing school before first being elected to the presidency? No.
President Clinton may have boned up on something before becoming a two-term president. President Bush 43 may have used his ownership of the Texas Rangers as his finishing school.
Gov. Palin is a conservative first Republican second. The last I checked the post-campaign analysis showed this country was still right of center.
@ #12 -
“How many veterans of the Second World War made sacrifices so that, if everything went well, we could be an ally with the Soviet Union?
Did we become an ally with the Soviet Union? Did they die in vain?”
Sorry dude, but that is some pathetic piss-poor logic that you’re attempting to use to legitimize the Iraq fiasco. You’ve obviously studied history, but you connect the dots incorrectly. I challenge you to provide credible evidence that US soldiers were indoctrinated/propagandized (whatever) into believing that the USSR would be a peaceful companion/ally in the post-WWII world. I’ve been studying WWI & WWII for a very long time. The general consensus among the US military and political leadership of the time in regards to the USSR could be summed up as “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. And there were many high ranking generals in the US and UK forces that were already contemplating the next war with USSR once the Germans had been defeated.
I respect your support for the Iraq war. I’m a former supporter of the invasion as well. I’ve since moved on. Regardless of our differences of opinion on this current war, you don’t do any service to the veterans of WWII by linking your current political agenda with legitimate sacrifices made by these men and women in the 1940s.
As for Sarah Palin, my advice to her is to ignore advice. She needs no advice. She is just fine the way she is. Don’t change a thing. In particular, reject any advice coming from East of the Missisippi. The most provincial duffusoids are the talking heads on the Right Coast. Ignore them all.
Personality and character are the only attributes that qualify or not. She qualifies.
Regarding Sarah Palin “boning up” on foreign policy, any candidate could benefit from that, but what she really needs (and needed) was a little better debate training in the area. Her knowledge of foreign policy certainly seemed the equal of Obama’s (too few ‘Arabic’ translators in Afghanistan) and Biden’s (remember how we and the French chased Hezbollah out of Lebanon). But, with the connivance of the msm, both of them were able to, repeatedly, say genuinely stupid things with a straight face and get away with it. Given that Sarah was not even permitted legitimate doubt (what did Charlie Gibson think the “Bush doctrine” was?) she needs to focus on form more than substance. A better commend of substance is, of course, always a good thing, but in her case no degree of mastery will be sufficient. Only debating skills will help her.
There’s a fair chance that some other Republican will emerge as the party standard bearer in three or seven years and that Sarah Palin will become a historical foot note to all but the most addicted political junkies. (How many people remember Christine Ferraro?) Nonetheless, Capehart’s silly analysis actually puts Palin in a better light. He calls her an “empty vessel with no policy prescriptions”. Since her interaction with the press and publlic was guided by party architects and McCain handlers, how is it possible to determine what the vessel holds? Did Obama and Biden display detailed solutions to national problems during the campaign? To say that Palin should forget about the press treatment her family received during the campaign is advice a bozo like Capehart would have a hard time accepting himself. Throughout the phony controversy of “Troopergate” and the insane media coverage during the campaign she was certainly correct to defend her family and most normal people understand that.
The fact of the matter is that Palin is a charismatic, personable, attractive person that represents the things that many Americans hold dear. That’s why she’s still a topic of conversation in the liberal press. Even now, she inspires more press verbiage than truly pathetic Joe Biden. They must continue the drumbeat because they understand that she’s a threat. And she’s also correct in her assessment that if she had been the Democratic nominee she would have been the darling of the media, a statement that Capehart chose not to mention or comment upon. But, being basically conservative, a Republican nominee without military experience and not a member of the east coast or Hollywood glitterati, her positives are viewed as ignorant, unsophisticated, inelegant, and crude. Even after the election is over and she’s ostensibly no menace to the Harvard Square latte crowd the media just can’t forget her. She and people like her are a real danger to the utopian dreamers.
Why should I let this psuedo-journalist Capehart irritate me so much? A documentary film maker shoots a interview with Palin, then puts it on You Tube and this inspires Capehart to wish that she would disappear, get off the national stage? More people have watched that You Tube clip than have read his pathetic attempt at meaningful commentary.
#16
Sorry for taking so long to reply, I stepped out to watch Man United v Chelsea. Your criticism that I’m attempting to legitimize Iraq via WWII, is well taken. Initially I agreed that it was a stretch, but then I thought about the creation of the UN and Breton Woods and wondered how those two events would have come about if we didn’t see a “Partner in Peace” with the Soviet Union. If we were already “contemplating the next war with the USSR…” then why did we give the USSR a veto in the UN Security Council? Were the Democratic Administrations, Roosevelt and Truman, that approved of this stupid? Would we have given anyone the same veto? Would we have given Hitler the same veto?
Upon further reflection, why do we even have a United Nations or IMF, if we didn’t expect an alliance with the Soviet Union? It makes the Administrations in power at the time look kind of ignorant and naïve, don’t you think?
#16 et al:
Was the Soviet Union stronger as a result of our war versus the Axis Powers? Does that mean we shouldn’t have fought it?
Re: The Minnesota recount.
Those who are inclined to let the matter lie should take a look at Scott Johnson’s comments on the matter over at Powerline “Did Ritchie meet with the Franken campaign?”
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/01/022522.php
The money sentence at the end: “It would be nice if someone who does this work for a living got serious about some of the many stories underlying the recount.”
Having Franken, a left-field leftist, in the Senate will be great for Republicans. You would think that the Dems would want to let their buddies in the MSM gain a little bit of credibility. But as is generally the case with parties of will, there is never any limit.
Today, regarding Sarah Palin, Jennifer Rubin says, “And really the ‘media is unfair’ routine is getting old”. But regarding Al Franken, Rubin says, “enough with the ‘Al Franken stole it’ talk.” So tell us, Ms Rubin, why do you find a comedian-turned-politician so worthy of your empathy and admiration, when you find the governor of the most strategic state in the union, who commands the loyalty and support of millions of people, to be so lacking? Is it because Franken is a Harvard educated Jew, whereas Palin is an evangelical Christian who graduated from a no-name university in journalism? I’m not saying that this is your motivation, but your comments invite that interpretation. You owe your readers a full explanation of what you were saying and why.
By the way, the issue in Minnesota is the effort of the ACORN candidate Mr. Ritchie, now Minnesota’s secretary of state, and his fellow travelers, to throw the election to Al Franken. But Franken is insulated from all that’s being done in his behalf, just like Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago was. Ritchie is the quarterback in that game, but Franken is Ritchie’s wide receiver.
Hopefully wide-receiver Franken didn’t start out as a tightend.
Robert Graves: Your comments regarding Ms. Rubin’s motivation for seeking to call off the dogs on Franken are out of line.
What’s out of line?
To repeat: “Im not saying that this is your motivation, but your comments invite that interpretation. You owe your readers a full explanation of what you were saying and why.”
Joebek, you are in no better position to judge her motivation than am I.
Let’s let Ms Rubin speak for herself.