Talk:Art Tatum/Archives/2019

Is enotes a reliable source?
Anyone know? Vmavanti (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Specifics (sourced)
In going through the Style and Technique sections, I've cut some unsourced specifics of what Tatum played. I've kept what's sourced, but there's a lack of detail. It's easy to find sources saying broad things such as 'Tatum was harmonically ahead of his time', 'his runs were fast', 'he used the pedals well', but what I'd like to be able to add is specific detail on exactly what these harmonies were, what fingering he used on runs, how he used the pedals, etc. Unusable sources can be found for some of this stuff, but that's no use. It's not essential, but such detail would be good to have. So: can anyone find (sourced) info on any such specifics? EddieHugh (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the difficulties. I would, of course, recommend adding links to as many actual examples of his playing as possible (copyright compliance permitting). Critical commentary is valuable for any encyclopedia article, of course... and then there's the actual music. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Discography
Is anyone prepared to work on the discography section? It's a mess and I don't really have the resources to sort it out. If not, I'll split it off into a separate article. EddieHugh (talk) 13:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to delete some of the compilations unless you object.

Evidently not worthy of the main article, here are some of the "compilation" albums that were deleted:

I Got Rhythm: Art Tatum, Vol. 3 (1935–44), Decca, 1993 Fine Art & Dandy, Drive Archive, 1994 The Art Tatum Solo Masterpieces, Vol. 2, Pablo, 1994 Marvelous Art, Star Line, 1994 House Party, Star Line, 1994 Masters of Jazz, Vol. 8, Storyville, 1994 California Melodies, Memphis Archives, 1994 1934–40, Jazz Chronological Classics, 1994 1932–44 (3-CD Box Set), Jazz Chronological Classics, 1995 The Rococo Piano of Art Tatum, Pearl Flapper, 1995 I Know That You Know, Jazz Club, 1995 Piano Solo Private Sessions October 1952, New York, Musidisc, 1995 The Art of Tatum, ASV Living Era, 1995 Trio Days, Le Jazz, 1995 1933–44, Best of Jazz, 1995 1940–44, Jazz Chronological Classics, 1995 Vol. 16-Masterpieces, Jazz Archives Masterpieces, 1996 20th Century Piano Genius 20th Century/Verve, 1996 Body & Soul, Jazz Hour, 1996 Solos (1937) and Classic Piano, Forlane, 1996 Complete Capitol Recordings, Blue Note, 1997 Memories of You (3-CD Set) Black Lion, 1997 On the Sunny Side Topaz Jazz, 1997 1944, Giants of Jazz, 1998 Standard Sessions (2-CD Set), Music & Arts, 1996 & 2002/Storyville 1999 Piano Starts Here – Live at The Shrine (Zenph Re-Performance), Sony BMG Masterworks, 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.8.184.48 (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Doing it justice would be both a huge amount of work and result in something large, so I've split it off. EddieHugh (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Very high speed
The lead section currently says this:
 * "His playing encompassed everything that had come before, added great harmonic and rhythmic imagination and variation, and was often at very high speed."

That seems perfectly concise, accurate and fair to me. Why does to need to change? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "His playing encompassed everything that had come before". Really, did it encompass Beethoven, Haydn and Brahms?  And if you are trying to provide an overview of Tatum, simply referring to his technique as being of "very high speed" is woefully inadequate.  It was the combination of complexity and speed that was unique.  It is neither an exaggeration nor boosterism to say that he had enormous virtuoso technique.  It is fact.  But some editors can't accept it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.191.180 (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking this to the talk page. The context for that sentence comes from the preceding one: "Tatum is widely regarded as one of the greatest jazz pianists". The topic is thus Tatum as a jazz piano player. It can be changed if it's not clear. In response to your concerns, the sentence has already been changed: from "added great harmonic and rhythmic imagination and variation" to "added great harmonic and rhythmic imagination and complexity". The problem with something such as "virtuoso technique" is that it's not descriptive. It creates a positive impression for the reader, but doesn't really inform; in contrast, "great harmonic and rhythmic imagination and complexity, and was often at very high speed" presents the reader with information about key elements of his playing. ...But, the article's still being gone through, including the lead, so there may be a way to incorporate it without removing the descriptive wording. EddieHugh (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that virtuosity is not "a fact", but rather a subjective judgement or appraisal, usually made by an expert or, more usually, by a number of experts. Hmmm, a boosterism, eh? Is that like a Woosterism only more boostering? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)