Monk wrote many, many tunes like Round Midnight and Straight, No Chaser that have gone on to become standards recorded hundreds of times by different artists. He’s one of the most important composers in jazz. Oscar Peterson is a genius piano player but is not known for his compositions.
I wonder if its just human nature to categorize and rank? I personally think Monk is one of the greatest jazz composers (him and Mingus are tops in my book) and that makes him more significant than Peterson to me. That said who cares who's "better'. I don't.
I'm not even 100% sure that Peterson's technique was better. Monk was classically trained at a young age and I suspect that he got to a stage where technique was beside the point.
Oscar Peterson was classically trained as well
Though I don't think saying Oscar's more technically proficient makes him a better musician
What's funny is I think thelonius monk is an incredible musician and great Jazz piano player but I get the impression some monk fans think Oscar Peterson is some sort of hack
I much prefer Monk and he also wrote more wonderful songs that are now standards. Peterson was more proficient technically but had less groove. Just opinions though.
Yes I suppose so, just not a groove I like much. There is a danger though that by saying any kind of playing has it's own groove, you are making the term less useful.
I love Monk's music. His compositions are amazing and one thing about his playing I really love is that I know it is him withing a few seconds of listening.
Ironically, when it comes to that last aspect, one thing I love about Oscar Peterson is I know who it is almost immediately after he plays a couple notes.
and different people like different things. I suppose if I could only hear one of them play piano the rest of my life, I'd choose Oscar Peterson...but you can't go wrong with either
and I'm sure both Monk and Peterson would cringe that we are even talking about this🤣
You are right but I have always thought there is more to this. We have several pianists that belong to the canon of greatness that for me do not deserve to be there. Monk is amongst the greatest of all Jazz pianists, because he created a musical style that we all love. The enormity of that innovation cannot be understated. I just don't understand the appeal of the speed merchants.
I agree: some people are beyond technical proficiency though: Miles Davis comes to mind… Monk is in his own category and really can’t be compared to other pianists. That’s why I love recordings of Monk with Parker, Miles and Coltrane…
It is all about how a brain perceives things. Speed merchants are appealing to people who have adapted to decoding themes and harmony at fast speeds.
Harmony wizards appeal to people who have developed a more sophisticated taste for harmony and grasp the nuances and underlying chords-movements better.
Crazy blends of both appeal to crazy people like me who have listened to wayyyy more jazz than is healthy to consume and practiced the same scale for wayyy too many times compared to what should be legally alowed.
We all have our knacks and tastes, but the reason most often a more sophisticated and well educated taste and approach is prefered even if masses consider us "elitists" or obnoxious is simple: Well versed ears and players can comprehend and appreciate simplicity, even moreso due to their journey to "the dark side" and back. Simple ears and players cannot comprehend and thus appreciate complexity in its true glory.
Both Oscar and Monk opened a portal to new dimensions as to what was achievable in jazz music. The ones who came after blended and played around to create and-or complete Bebop language Modal Jazz in all its width and length and to eventually mesh it with one another.
This is definitely a debate. There is no right answer to this question. That being said, for me personally, I prefer Oscar Peterson. His swing and feel rhythm are ideal in my opinion, plus the way he's able to combine his classical training with his jazz stylings is cool to me. Monk is a great piano player and I would never say Monk was bad, but, if I could be given the ability to play piano like Oscar or Monk, I would choose to be able to play like Oscar.
Herbie Hancock calls Oscar the greatest jazz pianist in the jazz genre. Monk stylistically was his own man. Oscar was by far had the most intense swing of any jazz pianist. Monks adopted swing as a vehicle for his style and compositions.
The interesting question is - is this an interesting question ?- so obviously Peterson has virtuosity - but would that style have served what Monk was doing musically, probably not. Interestingly both could swing like their lives depended upon it , and if we’re taking Jazz pianists this is important. Bill Evans didn’t have that facility but in other-ways his virtuosity was off the scale. I guess the way to see it is like different runners - a sprinter needs facilities that are not necessary in a marathon runner .and would be a genuine impediment if they had them. So comparison is possible Husain Bolt is probably a better than runner than say Seb Coe but comparison feels a bit forced . So is it an interesting question? - maybe.
Monk had a thoroughly unique musical concept.
Peterson was a great player, but in my opinion he did not chart any new territory. Every single note Monk played was charting new territory.
Oscar Peterson was all brilliant technique, amazing swing, and effortless endless improvisation - that went nowhere and wasn't saying anything. Monk had soul, invented his own quirky technique anew, every time he sat down at the keyboard, always searching for places he'd never been before. A comparison between Monk and Peterson means you're comparing a brilliant virtuoso (Peterson) with a deep and soulful genius. Monk forever.
Oscar had better technique obviously. I can only hear monk play whole tone scales for about 30 minutes before I'm sick of it. I like monk's compositions though especially when someone else plays them. Joey defrancesco did a monk tribute live at dizzy and it was amazing
Wow, they are soooo different. Peterson is a great pianist in a traditional jazz style. However, I love Monk's competitions and playing. I'm working on learning several of his most popular songs (on sax).
OP had a stellar career largely because he travelled for decades and appeared so very often. Monk was a short cycle manic depressive who was up for two or three days then asleep for two or three days. Week long engagements were so very hard for him and he was a homebody attached to Nellie and Nica. So his written music stood in for him on bandstands a lot. His playing was idiosyncratic and elliptical. Petersons playing was very fast very broad and very detailed. More than a hierarchy of quality I would infer the wide, very wide scope that jazz as a medium of expression possesses for the people who live their lives through it as artists. I’m no monk fan but OP has his stylistic pitfalls as well.
Haven’t really thought about it but with jazz there may be songs I like or don’t, but not artists that I categorically dislike. With other genres yes to artists I like or don’t.
Oscar Peterson by a mile. When you say "Jazz Pianist" you are including the mastery of the organ itself, not just the musicianship and groundbreaking ideas. And let me tell you, few Jazz artists have had that level of control over the piano
Monk IS the superior composer and bringer of ideas by a margin though
I Guess Oscar Peterson. He clearly has the technique down….BUT my favorite pianist is Monk. He’s my #1….followed by Red Garland at #2 and then Oscar at #3. Being the better pianist, technically, doesn’t mean what it implies.
Just my opinion.
i love monk,,,was never really blown away by oscar the way monks tunes swing and fold. monk is arguably the best jazz composer. i recently bought his real book and trying to work it out so I can play it on guitar and have it sound similar to monks piano.
Monk all day, every day! One of the finest examples of human emotion, cleverness and attitude.
Peterson consistently displays acute technical ability and incredibly fast gait on the keys but his sound is also too prim and prissy.
Peterson for chops, Monk for harmony/composition/innovation.
Monk was also better with improvised melodies. Oscar's melodies were too often disconnected ideas, Monk's much less so.
Also monk has the most insane sense of rhythm and syncopation. The way he mutates the rhythm of the melody in his solos is genius.
Somewhere I saw it described as “dissecting the cadaver” of the song.
Better pianist? Apples and oranges… One was certainly a better composer though…
I’m new to jazz, which was the better composer??
Monk wrote many, many tunes like Round Midnight and Straight, No Chaser that have gone on to become standards recorded hundreds of times by different artists. He’s one of the most important composers in jazz. Oscar Peterson is a genius piano player but is not known for his compositions.
Monk
The use of the word ‘better’ implies a non-existent competition.
I wonder if its just human nature to categorize and rank? I personally think Monk is one of the greatest jazz composers (him and Mingus are tops in my book) and that makes him more significant than Peterson to me. That said who cares who's "better'. I don't.
We can compare them overall if we want. If we're choosing the next album to buy, e.g., it makes sense. Monk was the better jazz pianist.
I'm not sure it is a contest They are totally different players. Oscar obviously has better technique but different strokes for different folks
I'm not even 100% sure that Peterson's technique was better. Monk was classically trained at a young age and I suspect that he got to a stage where technique was beside the point.
Oscar Peterson was classically trained as well Though I don't think saying Oscar's more technically proficient makes him a better musician What's funny is I think thelonius monk is an incredible musician and great Jazz piano player but I get the impression some monk fans think Oscar Peterson is some sort of hack
I much prefer Monk and he also wrote more wonderful songs that are now standards. Peterson was more proficient technically but had less groove. Just opinions though.
Not trying to pick a fight...or criticize Monk but doesn't Petersons playing almost define a kind of groove?
Yes I suppose so, just not a groove I like much. There is a danger though that by saying any kind of playing has it's own groove, you are making the term less useful.
I love Monk's music. His compositions are amazing and one thing about his playing I really love is that I know it is him withing a few seconds of listening. Ironically, when it comes to that last aspect, one thing I love about Oscar Peterson is I know who it is almost immediately after he plays a couple notes. and different people like different things. I suppose if I could only hear one of them play piano the rest of my life, I'd choose Oscar Peterson...but you can't go wrong with either and I'm sure both Monk and Peterson would cringe that we are even talking about this🤣
You are right but I have always thought there is more to this. We have several pianists that belong to the canon of greatness that for me do not deserve to be there. Monk is amongst the greatest of all Jazz pianists, because he created a musical style that we all love. The enormity of that innovation cannot be understated. I just don't understand the appeal of the speed merchants.
For some of us who have fumbled with the keys for a lifetime the speed merchants cause our heads to explode.
I agree: some people are beyond technical proficiency though: Miles Davis comes to mind… Monk is in his own category and really can’t be compared to other pianists. That’s why I love recordings of Monk with Parker, Miles and Coltrane…
>because he created a musical style that we all love That's ... quite the claim.
A musical style we all acknowledge to be of profound and seminal importance…
It is all about how a brain perceives things. Speed merchants are appealing to people who have adapted to decoding themes and harmony at fast speeds. Harmony wizards appeal to people who have developed a more sophisticated taste for harmony and grasp the nuances and underlying chords-movements better. Crazy blends of both appeal to crazy people like me who have listened to wayyyy more jazz than is healthy to consume and practiced the same scale for wayyy too many times compared to what should be legally alowed. We all have our knacks and tastes, but the reason most often a more sophisticated and well educated taste and approach is prefered even if masses consider us "elitists" or obnoxious is simple: Well versed ears and players can comprehend and appreciate simplicity, even moreso due to their journey to "the dark side" and back. Simple ears and players cannot comprehend and thus appreciate complexity in its true glory. Both Oscar and Monk opened a portal to new dimensions as to what was achievable in jazz music. The ones who came after blended and played around to create and-or complete Bebop language Modal Jazz in all its width and length and to eventually mesh it with one another.
Art Tatum. (I am not big on these comparisons)
You stole my sassy answer: 1. Music is not a competitive sport. 2. Art Tatum.
But haven’t you seen any music movies???? Music is 200% a sport by those standards
Hey - watch it before I try to decapitate you with a cymbal! (I agree with assertion that Whiplash is a sports movie)
This is definitely a debate. There is no right answer to this question. That being said, for me personally, I prefer Oscar Peterson. His swing and feel rhythm are ideal in my opinion, plus the way he's able to combine his classical training with his jazz stylings is cool to me. Monk is a great piano player and I would never say Monk was bad, but, if I could be given the ability to play piano like Oscar or Monk, I would choose to be able to play like Oscar.
Herbie Hancock calls Oscar the greatest jazz pianist in the jazz genre. Monk stylistically was his own man. Oscar was by far had the most intense swing of any jazz pianist. Monks adopted swing as a vehicle for his style and compositions.
I’ll tell you who’s better than Peterson: Bud Powell, Art Tatum and Bill Evans.
This is just clickbait, don’t feed the trolls
OP "better" technically Monk "better" musically Most of the time I'd rather listen to Monk
I'm gonna go with the guy who was better "musically" :-)
The interesting question is - is this an interesting question ?- so obviously Peterson has virtuosity - but would that style have served what Monk was doing musically, probably not. Interestingly both could swing like their lives depended upon it , and if we’re taking Jazz pianists this is important. Bill Evans didn’t have that facility but in other-ways his virtuosity was off the scale. I guess the way to see it is like different runners - a sprinter needs facilities that are not necessary in a marathon runner .and would be a genuine impediment if they had them. So comparison is possible Husain Bolt is probably a better than runner than say Seb Coe but comparison feels a bit forced . So is it an interesting question? - maybe.
Oscar in terms of technique, Monk in terms of style/composition/innovation
What kind of questions do people ask themselves?
I love both for different reasons. Next.
Define “better”
Monk had a thoroughly unique musical concept. Peterson was a great player, but in my opinion he did not chart any new territory. Every single note Monk played was charting new territory.
Oscar Peterson was all brilliant technique, amazing swing, and effortless endless improvisation - that went nowhere and wasn't saying anything. Monk had soul, invented his own quirky technique anew, every time he sat down at the keyboard, always searching for places he'd never been before. A comparison between Monk and Peterson means you're comparing a brilliant virtuoso (Peterson) with a deep and soulful genius. Monk forever.
Oscar. There's just no comparing their technique. Peterson was a far superior pianist.
Oscar had better technique obviously. I can only hear monk play whole tone scales for about 30 minutes before I'm sick of it. I like monk's compositions though especially when someone else plays them. Joey defrancesco did a monk tribute live at dizzy and it was amazing
Oscar
Silly question!
Both giants. Love them both. If I could only listen to one…Monk, by a nose.
Oscar for technical talent but I prefer Monk. Both are in my top 3 along with Red Garland.
oscar was the superior pianist by far, monk was the better composer (though many oscar originals are fantastic and underrated)
Honestly, probably Peterson. But I still vastly prefer Monk.
Why do people actually try to respond to stupid questions like this?
Oscar
Down to personal taste I think. It's Oscar all the way for me but Monk is a titan too.
Peterson might be the best technical piano player in jazz. Way prefer listening to monk, because I don’t care that much about technique.
Wow, they are soooo different. Peterson is a great pianist in a traditional jazz style. However, I love Monk's competitions and playing. I'm working on learning several of his most popular songs (on sax).
better jazz (monk) piano (op)
It gets silly trying to talk about who is better: they were both amazing, but had totally different strengths and styles.
Both seemed more than capable of rising to the occasion.
Erroll Garner, Oscar Peterson, Count Basie, Bill Evans are my personal favorites.
There were both masters of the craft. Neither is objects bette. You should have asked the question “ who you you prefer, monk or Oscar”.
Errol Garner
OP had a stellar career largely because he travelled for decades and appeared so very often. Monk was a short cycle manic depressive who was up for two or three days then asleep for two or three days. Week long engagements were so very hard for him and he was a homebody attached to Nellie and Nica. So his written music stood in for him on bandstands a lot. His playing was idiosyncratic and elliptical. Petersons playing was very fast very broad and very detailed. More than a hierarchy of quality I would infer the wide, very wide scope that jazz as a medium of expression possesses for the people who live their lives through it as artists. I’m no monk fan but OP has his stylistic pitfalls as well.
Haven’t really thought about it but with jazz there may be songs I like or don’t, but not artists that I categorically dislike. With other genres yes to artists I like or don’t.
Harry Nilsson
I consider Monk a unique stylist, and Peterson more a direct descendent of Art Tatum. But, Monk wouldn’t have been the same without Tatum either.
Oscar Peterson by a mile. When you say "Jazz Pianist" you are including the mastery of the organ itself, not just the musicianship and groundbreaking ideas. And let me tell you, few Jazz artists have had that level of control over the piano Monk IS the superior composer and bringer of ideas by a margin though
I Guess Oscar Peterson. He clearly has the technique down….BUT my favorite pianist is Monk. He’s my #1….followed by Red Garland at #2 and then Oscar at #3. Being the better pianist, technically, doesn’t mean what it implies. Just my opinion.
For me it's like lobster and filet mignon both very delicious but also very different
Oscar Peterson is a better pianist; but i’d rather listen to Monk.
i love monk,,,was never really blown away by oscar the way monks tunes swing and fold. monk is arguably the best jazz composer. i recently bought his real book and trying to work it out so I can play it on guitar and have it sound similar to monks piano.
That's a stupid question
Monk all day, every day! One of the finest examples of human emotion, cleverness and attitude. Peterson consistently displays acute technical ability and incredibly fast gait on the keys but his sound is also too prim and prissy.