Best jazz pianists, living or deceased?

[Jazz+]

How about Wynton Kelly?

[MonksDream]

How about Wynton Kelly?

+100! Add you can add Red Garland, too.

[16251]

Wynton Kelly of course...

 

To continue the discussion

 

Barry Harris

Joe Zawinul (with cannonball)

Kenny Baron

Victor Feldman

Peter Martin

Mike Ledonne

of course Bud Powell

and his brother Richie Powell

Horace Silver

Hampton Hawes

Joey Calerazzo

 

[Legatoboy]

Why it's Bud of course, everybody knows that!

 

Bud Powell - John's Abbey live in Paris '59

 

This was after he 'came back' in the late 50-60's and not the strongest Bud (45'-54') but it knocked me out, there are more 'modern'/contemporary pianists but for pure improvised playing and feel/ears, I'll take Bud (Earl Rudolph) Powell.

[I-missRichardTee]

The whole exercise is subjective and academic. A more salient question would be "Your 10 Most Favorite Jazz Players" - then you allow for some personal opinion and taste, rather than trying to decide which is "best" when you have a whole basket of mixed fruit to compare!

 

I agree but I ask, there is no place for hierachy among jazz pianists?

Are you sure about that?

I believe your thinking reflects a movement that I have observed in the world esp USA, that says discrimination is only a negative word.

When I was very young, that same word, discrimination was a very good thing.

Yes, I know, amazing, but true. Civil Rights movement was the first time I noticed that word have another negative aspect. Somehow, since then, the positive aspect of being discriminating has been entirely eclipsed by the negative meaning of that word.

Need "proof"? It amazes me that we all take for granted this idea of IMO and IMHO. It seems to be highly redundant to say that, yet people feel compelled to make it crystal clear. For me this indicates an aversion to the "other side" of this topic: there are TWO aspects of this topic, the subjective side ( which is the ONLY side noticed these days ) and "another side", maybe for lack of a better word, the OBJECTIVE side to musicianship, or whatever the latest word is for a cat being a bad bad mother, or a player who is greater in musical abilities than most people around. WHAT ( as in OBJECTIVE not subjective ) exactly is this great player superior at creating on the piano?? What, is a word that points to the objective side.

This aspect is still present in martial arts, the best among the best.

 

Time for me to say, I realize comparing Oscar and Bill Evans is pretty darned difficult, but CAN we attempt to discriminate about these differences or is it taboo?

Personally, I CAN discriminate between players, and while x % of my rendering is certainly SUBJECTIVE ( I wanted to highlight that , so as to put anyone still reading this a little at ease ) ANOTHER aspect has to do with discrimination, the GOOD healthy side of discrimination. The side that says Eddie Palmeri's mid 70's playing ( I have not followed him much since, sorry ) was much much more rhythm oriented than, pick a pianist, ok, Bill Evans. There, I dared to discriminate. Am I a black sheep now?

I have never counted, but the number is high, I have played with a large number and variety of musicians. Just this number of musicians has a way of registering in your brain... their differences- you do find yourself discriminating, don't you? Be honest now! But you will say, that that evaluation is 100% subjective on your part, there is not a scintila of objectivity to it.

I differ. I say there ARE objective aspects to players playing.

 

I certainly want everyone's favorites, I thought I hinted at that!

My apology for forgetting to put Nat King Cole on the list , I thought I had, but failed to.

 

This is supposed to be fun and educational. This is NOT pitting any member nor player against anyone.

 

 

[I-missRichardTee]

W Kelly was on the list !!

Thanks for your additions.

 

Yes, Bud was a great, but so was Tatum.

One thing I have with mixed feelings, learned, it is best to hear people FREQUENTLY in person, to get a more true sense of their gifts. Obviously I cannot do that with most.

[I-missRichardTee]

I have noticed there are people who simply 100% reject hierarchy in music. They speak as if there are literally 1000's upon 1000's of great players.

I understand that position, and I am continuing to deepen my understanding of that "position". But I believe there is an Objective side that is 100% absent from discourse.

I absolutely DON"T have every pianist neatly filed away in some right winger hierachy, trust me, it is very difficult to attempt this, BUT let me share a few of my personal feelings, that are subject to change.

 

My comment by Eddie Palmeri in the mid 70's. I heard a bootleg tape of his band at that time.. it absolutely blew me away, the groove of the WHOLE band was awe inspiring. Only the greatest moments in jazz could compare on the rhythmic level.

I heard a 70's recording by his band, that was released that captured some of that amazing rhythmic magic, so I was not delusional when I heard the bootleg thing.

I have never heard ( to take an extreme example ) Bill Evans trio approach that kind of thing. For me Scotty with Bill was his height ( I could be wrong of course, but that is my impression after hearing him live z amounts of times ) and the intimacy they reached was as amazing as Eddie's band but in a very different way.

 

I took two equally great BANDS , but Bill was the greater pianist, to further complicate this, no question. Pianistically, few approach Bill Evans ability.

But the total music produced was what I was comparing ( daring to compare wooo ) . The results were vastly different. One soooo rhythmic, the other, I will leave it to other Evans lovers to tell me. ( I love Bill Evans mucho ).

Did Evans play complex rhythms, I don't know if that is the right question?

Eddie and Bill just played music, but the fantastic results of each, are very different, and can be objectified if one is willing to go down that taboo area.

 

This thread is partially a call to reconsider the old idea of discriminating in the positive sense.

Are all melodies equal to you?

Are all grooves of equal value to you... don't some groove much more strongly than others?

Was I dreaming the night I saw Elvin Jones get annoyed with his quintet, and suddenly magically turn on the intensity, that caused the band to suddenly sound so much better?

Is EVERYTHING about our experience of music 100% subjective?

 

If you believe that strongly; I apologize to you.

If you don't, welcome to this thread.

 

[jimkost2002]

+++++infinity to Kenny Kirkland!

Beautiful player, amazing lines and comping

Truly one of the most musical players EVER!!!

Taken too soon!

[Jazzwee]

missRT, nope, I guess I wouldn't call Bill Evans a groove player His rhythmic displacement would quickly ruin that.

 

I suppose one could say that Bill Evan's rhythmic thinking was highly intellectual. And one could say the same about Brad Mehldau's rhythmic displacement/polyrhythmic approaches.

 

Sometimes a listener looks to get some response to the music and at times it's about groove and at times it's about some other mysterious thing that draws us to the music.

 

I'm drawn to the non-groove based playing of a Evans and Mehldau. And then sometimes I just want to hear Herbie's feel. That's variety.

[Dana.]

I just don't understand the point of this thread. Let's say we could determine who is the best. What would we gain from that? Does it suddenly enhance the enjoyment of the person's music? Would it make us feel more secure in our choice to listen to that person? I think it's enough just to appreciate all of the wonderful players mentioned in this thread without having to objectively qualify and rank them. Enjoying music should not be reduced to a mathematical process.

[I-missRichardTee]

missRT, nope, I guess I wouldn't call Bill Evans a groove player His rhythmic displacement would quickly ruin that.

 

I suppose one could say that Bill Evan's rhythmic thinking was highly intellectual. And one could say the same about Brad Mehldau's rhythmic displacement/polyrhythmic approaches.

 

Sometimes a listener looks to get some response to the music and at times it's about groove and at times it's about some other mysterious thing that draws us to the music.

 

I'm drawn to the non-groove based playing of a Evans and Mehldau. And then sometimes I just want to hear Herbie's feel. That's variety.

 

Is that your humble opinion, or could it be said to be objective reality?

My point is, I feel it very constricting to hear every assertion on a forum associated with an urgent subjective moniker; as if nothing about a performer can be ascertained.

The reason this concerns me is a player needs some kind of objectivity when he is developing.

He needs to discriminate between this groove and this groove, which is the better groove. This gives him an ideal to aim for.

Whether groove or tone, or note choices, a musician needs to develop objective standards, or so it appears to me.

Was it crippling to my development to think in these terms ( because I was taught this way)?

 

Let me offer an example, and get your comments.

 

I was in a music store, listening to a much younger player playing.

He played a real book tune, maybe a bossa nova.

He played every single chord in a traditional way, every sound was traditional except at one moment in his playing.. he played something much more outside.

I made the mistake of pointing this out in a critical manner. He justified his choice saying something about the old rules didn't apply.

To me that is misguided..

If he had played more "outside" more than just one isolated sound, that would be different.

It was not as if he intentionally played this single outside sound for musical reasons. It felt contrived, not musically driven. eg such as for comic effect.

 

The term outside, isn't that an example of the objective in music?

Is "outside" 100% subjective thing?

I doubt it.

Outside presupposes inside... inside the scale and harmony and key.

Some of you members are maybe teachers and can help me make my point better??

 

And an Amen for the great Kenny Kirkland, of course In OUR egotistical opinions lol

[Jazzwee]

D-Bon, I was going to say something useful...but then I got distracted by your avatar. It's breakfast time and it made me hungry

 

...ok distraction temporarily averted. Yeah, I don't particularly think an actual ranking is important. Though, I thought it would have been interesting to group the players by the categories the OP brought up (innovators, chops, etc.) and the reasons for doing so. For example, was Wynton Kelly an innovator? One could say his swing style alone could put him in the category. But not as obvious as let's say Bud Powell.

 

But since nobody else is pursuing that I guess I'm beating a dead horse.

 

...as you were...

[Dana.]

D-Bon, I was going to say something useful...but then I got distracted by your avatar. It's breakfast time and it made me hungry

It's the maple bacon doughnut from Nickel Diner in downtown L.A. Have you been there?

[Jazzwee]

Is that your humble opinion, or could it be said to be objective reality?

 

Not sure what you are asking me. Do I think that Bill Evans/Mehldau intellectualize more than Herbie? Sure. That's how it affects me subjectively. But 'objectively'? I value groove differently at different moments. Maybe it dominates for you but I like the tension and release of counter-rhythms.

 

You see the difference? A fixed groove is a constant drive. The polyrhythms that exist in the players I mention cause micro-instances of tension and release inside the existing rhythm. I call it intellectualizing because not everyone can hear this so those that do will have to extend their mental energies to feel that. And when I do hear/feel it, I derive extra pleasure from it.

 

I'm acutely aware, for example, of dragging the beat that a player like KJ or Herbie will execute. This kind of positioning in the beat also generates tension and release. But if it were constant, then the story-telling is over simplified IMO. (I know you love IMO and IMHO).

[Jazzwee]

D-Bon, I was going to say something useful...but then I got distracted by your avatar. It's breakfast time and it made me hungry

It's the maple bacon doughnut from Nickel Diner in downtown L.A. Have you been there?

 

LOL. No. I don't hang out in downtown LA but now I must check it out

[I-missRichardTee]

The "silence" is deafening. Maybe I am over reacting by saying that, but I feel the idea of being objective about music, of having some some sort of hierarchy, is just too foreign to the modern mind.

 

I always go back to competitive fighting ( boxing or whatever )

in fighting there is a winner and a loser. A very imperfect analogy to be sure

But if one can use their imagination and SIT next to Oscar Peterson, there is something of a slight sense of awe and competition involved, not entirely unlike boxing.

We can talk all day about how no one can ascertain anything about John Tesh and Segovia and McCoy Tyner, saying it is entirely 100% subjective.

But in boxing, this is not so

And in music it isn't either.

Picture yourself seated next to Oscar, or whomever awes you.

Maybe solo piano is the best way to illustrate this.

All by yourself, you supply the groove and the rest of it. Is it REALLY a matter of opinion only?????

[Jazzwee]

missRT, who's the objective winner in this list?

 

1. John Tesh

2. Yanni

3. Kenny G

4. Brian Culbertson

 

Frankly, I can't decide. Unless I say NONE.

[I-missRichardTee]

Is that your humble opinion, or could it be said to be objective reality?

 

Not sure what you are asking me. Do I think that Bill Evans/Mehldau intellectualize more than Herbie? Sure. That's how it affects me subjectively. But 'objectively'? I value groove differently at different moments. Maybe it dominates for you but I like the tension and release of counter-rhythms.

 

You see the difference? A fixed groove is a constant drive. The polyrhythms that exist in the players I mention cause micro-instances of tension and release inside the existing rhythm. I call it intellectualizing because not everyone can hear this so those that do will have to extend their mental energies to feel that. And when I do hear/feel it, I derive extra pleasure from it.

 

I'm acutely aware, for example, of dragging the beat that a player like KJ or Herbie will execute. This kind of positioning in the beat also generates tension and release. But if it were constant, then the story-telling is over simplified IMO. (I know you love IMO and IMHO).

 

I am just attempting to seduce you into telling me your strong feelings about artists. Tell it like it is for you.

Saying IMHO is watering down any chance to maybe come to any sort of consensus about any aspect of the art of jazz in 20- 21st century music- groove- melodic ideas, etc.

By watering down, we send a weak message to the young.

I am not saying that IMO has no place, it is just overdone to an amazing degree.

I am challenging the current idea of EVERYTHING is a matter of opinion.

 

[Dana.]

I feel the idea of being objective about music, of having some some sort of hierarchy, is just too foreign to the modern mind.

Or pointless.

 

I always go back to competitive fighting ( boxing or whatever ) in fighting there is a winner and a loser.

If you want competition, watch American Idol.

 

Focus on being the best you can be and forget all this hierarchy business.

[I-missRichardTee]

missRT, who's the objective winner in this list?

 

1. John Tesh

2. Yanni

3. Kenny G

4. Brian Culbertson

 

Frankly, I can't decide. Unless I say NONE.

 

I have heard zero of #4... so he is out of the reckoning

 

 

I know next to nothing about Yawni

Just watching John Tush on TV suggests he might be a winner but of what is the question

 

There are people who argue that

John T vs Wynton Kelly is purely a matter of taste, opinion, and nothing more be said about it.

Using what for me, is an extreme, is kind of helpful, thank you for that.

Do todays musicians truly not see a major distinction between Kenny Kirkland and John Tush , I mean Tesh, is it Tush or Tesh, I am always confused on that?

My biggest concern is the lack of standards

And OT but for me one of the standards for an improvisor ought to be the tradition of playing a well known melody ( a standard or in future I suppose a Sting tune- well known is the key ) at least once during a concert.

 

[I-missRichardTee]

I feel the idea of being objective about music, of having some some sort of hierarchy, is just too foreign to the modern mind.

Or pointless.

 

I always go back to competitive fighting ( boxing or whatever ) in fighting there is a winner and a loser.

If you want competition, watch American Idol.

 

Focus on being the best you can be and forget all this hierarchy business.

 

Can you walk and chew gum? How about BOTH?

 

From what older players have told me- there was a healthy competition in jam sessions back in the day. Competition, is another concept that has been demonized... and you hail from Brooklyn?

[Jazzwee]

missRT, as I mentioned, I'm acutely aware that my enjoyment of music, particularly jazz, is my subjective response to tension and release. And this varies based on my awareness at the moment. If I'm paying attention, I might get goosebumps from some subtle thing I haven't heard before.

 

But like anything else, this is a mood thing. So some days, I can't stand Oscar Peterson because I think he's too lick/pattern-based. Sometimes, I come back and say, wow--this guy swings like an SOB. These are pretty extreme reactions here. However, quite opposite at different moments. I might say the same about any other player.

 

Objectively, I can list Oscar's assets like incredible chops, etc. Or even compare Tatum vs. Oscar. But it doesn't matter since I seldom listen to either. I tend to listen more to the styles I'm trying to emulate. So the objective ranking in this case is cold and unfeeling. I have no emotion attached to it. Nothing is at stake.

[I-missRichardTee]

When one is trying to be the best THEY can be, do you not think having a a high standard is a good idea?

The older wiser players are supposed to guide the younger lions on where and what to look for, so they CAN be the best

[Joe Muscara]

D-Bon, thank you for your posts in this thread. Nailed it, IMNSHO.

[I-missRichardTee]

missRT, as I mentioned, I'm acutely aware that my enjoyment of music, particularly jazz, is my subjective response to tension and release. And this varies based on my awareness at the moment. If I'm paying attention, I might get goosebumps from some subtle thing I haven't heard before.

 

But like anything else, this is a mood thing. So some days, I can't stand Oscar Peterson because I think he's too lick/pattern-based. Sometimes, I come back and say, wow--this guy swings like an SOB. These are pretty extreme reactions here. However, quite opposite at different moments. I might say the same about any other player.

 

Objectively, I can list Oscar's assets like incredible chops, etc. Or even compare Tatum vs. Oscar. But it doesn't matter since I seldom listen to either. I tend to listen more to the styles I'm trying to emulate. So the objective ranking in this case is cold and unfeeling. I have no emotion attached to it. Nothing is at stake.

 

You brought up a point, perhaps unintentionally you say you seldom listen to Oscar and Tatum.

THAT is an important point in and of itself.

What I am saying is, certain players epitomize certain objective aspects of 20th century ( I am not sure about this century ) jazz.

 

To become a complete player, one might want to reconsider who they don't listen to.

[Dana.]

From what older players have told me- there was a healthy competition in jam sessions back in the day.

And you can be sure that it motivated players to be the best players they could be. See what I'm getting at here?

 

You don't need to determine who the best player ever is to have a desire to keep pushing yourself to improve. Certainly you can learn things from all of the players mentioned in this thread. Then make those things your own.

[I-missRichardTee]

D-Bon, thank you for your posts in this thread. Nailed it, IMNSHO.

 

What is it about the position I am failing to present very effectively, causes this reaction against it?

Am I too emotional in my presentation- aka shoving it down someones throat? If so I apologize.

I am trying to make points that are difficult to make with a receptive audience let alone a non receptive one.

 

[I-missRichardTee]

From what older players have told me- there was a healthy competition in jam sessions back in the day.

And you can be sure that it motivated players to be the best players they could be. See what I'm getting at here?

 

Absolutely, yes... that was a wonderful aspect of going to a session, maybe getting your ass handed to you, then going home and practicing.

It is a beautiful cycle. It certainly worked for Charlie Parker- you will recall he got laughed off the stage so to speak... but later on... !!!

[Jazzwee]

When one is trying to be the best THEY can be, do you not think having a a high standard is a good idea?

The older wiser players are supposed to guide the younger lions on where and what to look for, so they CAN be the best

 

Educationally though, it's too non specific. Here are some specifics for example to teach these younger lions as you call them. These are just examples so you don't have to agree.

 

If you want to learn:

 

--best swing -- Wynton Kelly, Oscar Peterson

--bebop -- Bud Powell

--polyrhythmic playing -- Tristano, Evans, Melhdau

--tone - KJ, Evans

--melodic construction - KJ

--melodic DEconstruction - Chick, Monk

--groove - Herbie

--harmony - Evans, Herbie

--locked hands - Red Garland, Dave McKenna

--Walking Bass - Tristano

--chops - Tatum, Oscar, Chick...(big list)

 

etc...

[Jazzwee]

You brought up a point, perhaps unintentionally you say you seldom listen to Oscar and Tatum.

THAT is an important point in and of itself.

What I am saying is, certain players epitomize certain objective aspects of 20th century ( I am not sure about this century ) jazz.

 

To become a complete player, one might want to reconsider who they don't listen to.

 

Actually, I agree this is a failing on my part. Maybe because I've focused on a particular style/voice and I've neglected the history of the genre.

 

My teacher recently just cited me about this and told me to go back and attempt to play other styles. He says it's part of my education and skill development.

 

So yes, to be a complete player, it should be reconsidered.