Jordan Rudess

Hello, I just wanted to bring attention to this guy. He was a classical pianist but got into the world of synthesizers. Want to know what you think about him. I think he's really an amazing musician. I have heard him playing really different styles. Some videos from him:

He has pretty remarkably facility, but I think it says a lot about modern musical attitudes that he apparently got bored of classical music and turned to such mind-numbing tosh. I don't wish to demean all electronic or popular music as being insignificant, but it's no surprise that he had to turn to alternative mediums in order to find a way of expressing himself. Watching him play, I think it's sad to see such remarkable facility coupled with such shallow musicianship. To think that people claimed that Cziffra was all fingers and no soul! He shows little interest in ANYTHING other than speed. There's virtually zero creativity in his monotone sound production and compositionally his playing sounds highly ordinary at best. Speed alone doesn't mask a lack of ideas. Give me Keith Jarret any day! What a pity that someone with such facility was apparently never made to take an interest in music as an art. Regardless of whether he simply didn't have teachers who were able to reveal the complexities of profound musical expression to him (or whether he simply wasn't interested) I find it sad to see a person of talent indulging in such lifeless note-spinning. He should go and listen to Cortot. Andrew

Those are improvisations on the spot, but probably improvisations reveal more of a musician that anything else could. I was interested more technique wise about him, because you see him playing sometimes with the wrists too low in my opinion, and when he is playing standing up he seems to be able to play his stuff with no effort. I mostly posted this videos because of that. What about this? It's from a live album he made with the guitarist of the band Dream Theater, John Petrucci. I think this is enjoyable.

Those are improvisations on the spot, but probably improvisations reveal more of a musician that anything else could. I was interested more technique wise about him, because you see him playing sometimes with the wrists too low in my opinion, and when he is playing standing up he seems to be able to play his stuff with no effort. I mostly posted this videos because of that. What about this? It's from a live album he made with the guitarist of the band Dream Theater, John Petrucci. I think this is enjoyable. I enjoyed that more than the other things I've heard. There was more variety and interest there. Playing 2nd fiddle to the guitar, seems to have prevented him from showing off his finger agility so much. When he plays fast however, I find him extremely uninspired- both in terms of the notes he plays and the way he plays them. His improvisation on the Christmas tune was simply awful, I'm afraid. I have plenty of respect for people like Herbie Hancock, but this guy really doesn't sound like he has a whole lot of musical ideas. He might as well have been playing hanon exercises. It looks to me as though the wrise issue is actually caused by sitting too high. He certainly wouldn't need to slouch if he lowered the stool a little. In order to get his fingers at good angle in relation to the key, he has to lower his wrist. Otherwise it would be so far above the line of the keys (regardless of whether it were aligned with his forearm of not), that the plane of movement from the knuckle would not offer a good angle to get into the keys. If he just lowered the stool a little, he could maintain that angle of the hand, while keeping his wrist aligned more naturally.

I am going to go out on a limb and say I like his playing! I guess I like playing devil's advocate, and I also have slightly different criteria for evaluating something like this. Let me explain why. When I listen to someone play, one of the things I keep an eye (or ear) on is the degree to which the person manifests themself, or rather, their potential. For a long time I couldn't for the life of me figure out why so many audiences respond so positively to really mediocre pianists, until I noticed the following strange phenomenon: they are responding to the fact the he or she is fully fulfilling HIS OR HER particular potential musical gift. In other words, a pianist of greater talent might not satisfy, if, on that particular day, it is plain that he is not playing well - for HIM. Although his bad, unsuccessful playing may have way more musical worth than the mediocre pianist's best playing, the audience will respond more to the "success story" than to the greater musical value of the unsuccessful performance by a greater musician. Look at all the negative comments on Horowitz's 1983 Japan concert - an excellent illustration of my point. That is one of my favorite concerts of all time - a Carnaval to die for, an Op. 101 that's completely ethereal - but people shit all over it. It is music making far superior to just about anybody, but because it is UNDER HIS PERSONAL BEST, people respond negatively. And yet there are plenty of musical nonentities out there getting wild applause and rave reviews - because they really are doing the best they can. Audiences like that. And so I decided to do something strange - to take each person at their own worth, and to feel pleasure when someone is really fulfilling their own potential - even if that potential is worth only a pinhead compared to the great musicians... Strange, eh? AFF

I think we have to point lyus in a good direction.If I am right, this guy used to be or he is a keyboard player in Dream Theater!?With all the respect, arpeggioing c major is not what makes a great piano solo. What kind of music are you into? Funk, Rock, Latin...?