You got to show me something more!

I sense a softening in your attitude Coltrane1. You will find that you yourself might learn something from the contributors to this site. You are correct it is "about thought, and the sharing of ideas". The hardest thing is balancing one's convictions with some objectivity and an open mind. We are not all created equal as far as our hearing acuity nor our openness to music that is challenging or emotionally demanding. But most can learn and learn to appreciate the more subtle aspects of any form of music. Pick up any recording of Marriner cunducting Bach with The Academy of Saint Martin In The Fields. If that doesn't swing, I don't know what does. There has been no presumption, assumption nor misquotation in response to your comments. Just go back and reread your own posts with a bit more objectivity and you'll see what I mean. It's OK man, we all sometimes let our exuberance get in the way a bit. I'm reminded of when I was in conservatory and it was hip to put down the "classical cats" for not being able to swing and the classical cats stereotypically assumed that the "jazz cats" wouldn't be able to play in tune nor with finness. Not! Any really good musician knows that the dividing line is not nearly as wide as often thought. Take the edge off of your exuberance and you might make a good contributor to this arena.

"Any decent jazz pianist can play circles around a classically trained player."

Frogman
"Give me a break. You can't possibly believe this. If you do, you obviously haven't listened to the great classical pianists."

Frogman: Let me elaborate on my initial statement. I've not wanted to go there because this is not a music study venue. But, since you insist.

For instance, if one aspires to learn Jazz Piano, one has to approach the instrument from a totally different mindset than a Classical player approaches it.

Let's examine the similarities first:

Both musicians must acquire a working knowledge of music theory.
The Classical player is content with studying traditional theory, and for the most part, he/she is off and running.
The Jazz player acquires the same theroretical knowledge, and after mastering that, he/she must roll up their sleeves and really get to work! In order to become a consumate player, one has to know when/how all of the traditional rules can be changed, substituted, omitted, or downright replaced or broken.
Theoritical knowledge (study) alone of an average Jazz player requires much more than a classical player.

Scales, Rhythms, etc.

The Classical student masters Major, Minor, and Diminished Scale Harmony, and his/her study of scales for the most part ends here. Standard rhythmic forms are also explored.
The Jazz student must master the above, but in addition to them he/she must also master a working knowledge of Melodic Minor scale, Whole Tone scale, Pentatonic scale, Blues scale, Bebop scale,etc., etc...I could go on, but you get the idea.
Rhythmically, the Jazz player must acquire a vast working knowledge of everything from Latin, Salsa, and every known rhythm under the sun, for who knows when the moment may arise that a particular rhythmic tempo is required.

While Classical theory is fairly complete at this point, a Jazz player has to address the following:
Basic Reharmonization (Tritone substitution, slash chords, half diminished chords, V chords and each of their alternate extensions, Lydian, Lydian Augmented)
Advanced Reharmonization: Contrary motion, Parallelism, Ascending/Desceding bass lines, pedal points, changing the melody...it goes on, and on, and on, as this but scratches the surface. One also needs to spend time learning the styles of the past, while working on their own voice. There simply are not enough hours in the day!

This is but a very brief glimpse into what a Jazz piano player must master before he/she even takes on the task of attempting to learn to improvise.

I have some personal working knowledge and experience of the piano. I'm what one would probably classify as an average player. I write, read, transcribe and improvise music as a hobbyist. I've never had any formal study in a scholastic environment. I've many a musical friend that has. If I or any of them were merely limited to studying (learning repetoire), and focusing on technique only, we'd all be professional. It should be pointed out to the unfamiliar, that Jazz piano is no easy undertaking. It is far more involved than the average listener is hearing. And to become good, really good, takes a great investment of time, sweat, and passion for the instrument.

I dig the classics too, but nothing I've ever heard impresses me personally as much as what I've heard the Jazz greats creating. Probably because, on an average recording I can hear what's happening, and know first hand what they've mastered to get there.

Like classical, it's a lifetime undertaking. One simply cannot do justice to it as a hobbyist, but it is no less rewarding...Jazz music sells on average make up less than 3% annually. So even professionals struggle to make a living.

So, you and I share a different view between a classical and a jazz player. And that is entirely as it should be. LOL...Hey man, just call me SOFTY from now on!

It's been fun man!

Enjoy!
Coltrane1

Hey Softy, there's a great story popular among my professional colleagues that goes like this; and it is absolutely verifiably true: Gerry Mulligan is on a plane on his way back to N.Y. and meets Zubin Mehta (then conductor of the N.Y. Philharmonic). They're chit-chatting and before you know it the maestro invites Mulligan to play the soprano saxophone solo in "Bolero" (by Ravel) in an upcoming series at Lincoln Center. Bolero is a very deceptively difficult solo to play well. During rehearsals it was one mishap after another, when came time for the soprano sax to play. Late entrances, inaccurate rhythms, very sharp high register...On the first performance, Mulligan played the entire second half of the solo one beat behind where he should have been. The second night he started the solo in the wrong octave (one too low) and the tenor saxophonist was about to finish the solo for him as he was about to run out of notes, when he suddenly jumped to the correct octave to finish the solo. The last performance whent fairly well and at the end the piece as the orchestra was taking it's customery bow, Mulligan turns to the tenor saxophonist and says: "We played the shit out of it, didn't we?"

Hmmm...All the more reason they should have hired 'Trane instead? :)

Enjoy!
Coltrane1

I think frogman and coltrane1 (softy) are comparing apples and oranges here. In my conversations with musicians I've gathered that the kind of theoretical background that coltrane is talking about is necessary for the kind of intense improv and avant guarde composition that jazz performers must be able to do. Less important to a jazz musician is being able to accurately reproduce a score, because in the end much of the technical aspects of his playing is controlled by intense interaction with his fellow musicians. Classical musicians are judged on their ability to recreate a score (especially in a symphonic setting), thus technical mastery is extremely important. Of course these are generalizations and all generalizations have exceptions. There are technically adept jazz musicians, and there are classical musicians who are geniouses of improv, but I think it's safe to say that these groups approach their instruments with a different mindset. Depending on the context, I think both groups are quite capable of playing circles in my head. P.S. to 'trane - I'd say that any modern composer of 'classical' (is this the not most abused vocabulary word in musicdom?) music must be extremely familiar with the compositional ideas which were formulated in this century.