I saw Pete Townsend smash a guitar on stage (made me sick). I saw Billy Joel knock over a Yamaha CP80 on stage in Russia (he offered it to them as a souvenir, they told him to take his trash home with him). I heard that Jerry Lee lit his piano on fire at a show (what a waste) ...

Jaimie is not the first piano man to stand on a piano or kick the keys with his feet, but I admire his stage presence, his energy and his musicality, in spite of the unorthodox ways he gets through some changes.
He was quoted last month in Keyboard mag as saying that he only tours with his favorite Yamaha model because it stays in tune the whole show. I really don't see it as abuse, but it's not my style of performance either.

As long as he doesn't ruin anything, it's ok with me. I especially love the Rhodes 54 that he has on stage ... beat up a bit by the road, but still sweet sounding. Then again, I am an admited Rhodes junkie.

You know that Rhodes pianos are being made again to Harold Rhodes's specs and even addressing some of the corners that CBS cut in the 60s, to currently make a Rhodes electric piano that is probably the best ever made. It is even being made now with MIDI output as an available option. http://www.rhodespiano.com/

Liszt used to break strings regularly at his concerts. He often had one or even TWO spare pianos so he could finish the concert... I guess you would be sick at HIM 'mistreating' his instrument that way too?

Here's a question for Russ, and maybe some other jazz purists out there...

What does a tune need, to qualify as a legitimate jumping off point for a jazz exploration? Are there certain complex chords or changes, is there a certain melodic line, or is it simply one of those 'unwritten' rules..?

Something that strikes me is, back in the fifties and sixties, as jazz exploded out of the 'dance music' confines it used to have, the players and writers of their day used tunes that were quite contemporary - pop music, with changes no more or less complex than many of today's tunes. But as jazz has increasingly become a niche 'academic' music, it seems contemporary players (or at least the older ones from back in the heyday) are increasingly unwilling to make those contemporary references that, to be honest, got the original jazzers more of a listen back in the day than if they had chosen less popular heads...

Jazz is a process, it's a treatment, it's a 'style'. But its' source could quite easily be more contemporary tunes, and possibly, garner a bit more interest from the younger generation when they can recognize the head as being something from THEIR generation.

You mentioned a while back about the need to 'educate' your audience as well as just playing to them. But to educate them, first you have to engage them. Don't ignore their generation's music. To be quite honest, I see no difference between taking a fifties pop song and jazzing it up and a 21st century tune and doing the same thing. But I bet a youngster would feel differently! They would be ecstatic...

UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with what he said...

Did he break them by dancing on them or just by striking the keys very hard?!?!? ... And yes, I would be upset with him, the same as I would be upset with Townsend, Joel, Jerry Lee or any other 'jack-ass' who destroys a musical instrument "because they can" and because they are not paying for it ...
My parents taught me something at a young age - a long time before Aretha was singing about it ... that was R-E-S-P-E-C-T ... for people and for property ... mine or anyone else's ... and it is something that is slowly but surely disappearing from our world ...
t.

That's a great question Diki, and one I've often asked but could not get a good - make that 'satisfying' - answer to ... What makes a song Such as "Autumn Leaves" or "That's All" or "Misty" so popular with jazz players???
Also, why were jazz players so caught up with bossa-novas ... they weren't written as 'jazz tunes' were they? ... or WERE THEY? ...
t.

First of all, 'JAZZ' is too general a term to be used in any meaningful way. There is as much difference between Dixieland jazz and bebop and avant garde' jazz and jazz funk and jazz fusion and afro-cuban jazz and and and ....the list goes on. There are different rules for each, including non-improvisational jazz where every single note is scripted (think high school jazz band). It sort of fits Henry Miller's description of porn; "you can't define it, but you recognize it when you see it" (or something to that effect). I guess if you can't handily fit a piece of music into ANY OTHER category, then it must be jazz. Here's another definition; if you can't PLAY it or don't understand it, it must be jazz. Here's another; if it's best played by hollow-eyed junkies, it must be jazz (as opposed to 'regular' addicts, in which case it must be ROCK). BTW, if said junkies have been clean and sober for at least three months, then it must be 'Country' or 'Christian contemporary'.

Here is a SURE-FIRE way to know that it ISN'T jazz; and that's if it's played on an arranger .

chas

You might be right, Chas...but it sure is a lot of fun trying.

Ian

Liszt broke the strings simply playing too hard... but, of course, you could easily say that he shouldn't play that hard, if he knew they were going to break!

Pushing an instrument into sonorities and performance techniques it wasn't designed for can often have consequences. But where would we be if those guys didn't TRY those techniques?

Still playing the fortepiano? Or the virginal or harpsichord? Instruments are the way they are now BECAUSE they were built to withstand the 'abuse' that earlier generations put onto the instruments of their day. And if being more percussive and using a piano as a source of sounds you don't get simply from tickling the ivories ends up in a more modern piano that resists going out of tune when banged around, we are going to be THANKING guys like Jamie Cullum, just as we thank Liszt for the strength of the modern piano.

PLENTY of mistreatment of instruments in the legit avant garde world... I've dabbled my share in 'prepared piano' back in my college days You would probably have hated that, too, Tony