Best jazz pianists, living or deceased?

[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?

 

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.

 

To your added thought

It is hard to argue your point.

I am not saying it is vital to say who is the king of the all time greatest among the great. that would be futile. But I am saying to discriminate about your feelings about various players, bacause they HAVE different objective aspects to their playing ( they "bring different things to the table" ) that ought to be brought into the young players awareness... as opposed to some vague, "it's all a matter of personal feelings". I am sorry, that is not entirely valid.

The young would do better to listen to other opinions that will alter and challenge their feelings about this and that player.

I remember the first time someone challenged my cherished opinion about an acknowledged player , in his book ( I will not mention the details because it will side track us ) I THREW the book vigorously and angrily across the room, never to pick it up again. 30 years later I had cause to reconsider this musicians authors point about said artists. He had compared two artists, and really pissed me off. But I learned from it. And this author was a hell of a player, who had transribed both players he had compared.

 

Since then other famous players names have come up, subject to discriminating opinions. I listened and learned.

 

[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

 

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...

 

Very nice, thank you for the courage to post that.

 

For MELODY, these names come up for me

Herbie is as good as it gets ( to HEAR Dolphin Dance, Butterfly, his Miles things, he is a melodic genius )

Chick

KJ

Ahmad Jamal turned down Miles for the gig, so I am told.

E Garner is amazingly melodic. I don't listen to him much, if we listen to others, with less melodic acumen, guess what, we are not helping our own sensitivity to melody.

 

Bill Evans too

 

I am sure I skipped many, but melody is a rare gift. tell your students this!!

-------------------------------------------------------------

Groove? Herbie is on top for that as well

Oscar

I have not heard enough Tatum regarding groove... anyone want to help me out?

Cedar Walton

Gene Harris

groove is a collective thing, so it is really difficult to choose players in this area

because of the surrounding players in their bands- (Like a great football player on a mediore team kind of thing )

--------------------------------------------------------------

Tone? Tone is one of my weakest aspects in piano. So I need all the help I can get.

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

Technique ( with musicality !! )

Tatum is the cat so they say.. Anyone differ?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

BEBOP highly influential, but few took it that far in its pure form

I am not an expert but

Barry Harris

Dizzy and Bird

Bud

 

---------------------------------------------------------

 

Solo

Tatum, Oscar, Fats, (McKenna I am less familiar with- any comments are welcome )

Bill Evans made comments about solo piano to the effect that he felt he was not as good as he would like to be- I imagine deferring to Tatum and the guys before Evans... stride guys.

 

Herbie did a concert opposite Oscar, where It was deemed that Oscar out did Herbie.

solo piano is its own thing, but it reflects a lot about a player

 

 

 

[Jazzwee]

missRT, it's not a ranking per se though. Often it's just based on who the 'originator' of the concept is.

 

[I-missRichardTee]

missRT, it's not a ranking per se though. Often it's just based on who the 'originator' of the concept is.

 

Are you referring to innovation?

[Jazzwee]

Well you included Dizzy and Bird under Bebop which might have been obvious had this not been about pianists.

 

But back to solo piano. During his time, Evans was the only one who brought the pianistic aspects of classical to jazz. So issues like dynamics and tone (and specifically applied in a jazz rhythm) never existed. Harmonically speaking, having the chops to play solo piano like a Dave McKenna is not the same sound as the full harmonic sound and the variations in voicings/rhythm to be found in Bill Evans.

 

Nowadays, everyone integrates the Bill Evans type of sound in their playing but he started it all. And he did this both in a trio setting and solo piano (e.g. Conversations with Myself).

 

From a ranking point of view, it's hard to judge if the newer artists have taken Evan's style and progressed further. I think they have but it doesn't diminish where it came from.

 

missRT - we need to further your Jazz education by having you listen to more Bill Evans

 

In the video below by Dave Frank, he discusses one tune by Bill Evans and you'd be surprised at the number of elements that exist in just one solo piano piece. Very multi-dimensional.

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpRpAShR9lQ

[Jazzwee]

missRT, it's not a ranking per se though. Often it's just based on who the 'originator' of the concept is.

 

Are you referring to innovation?

 

I'm talking about the learning categories I listed (swing, bebop, melody, etc.). Not that somebody couldn't do it better now, it's possible. But a teacher will often guide you to the original masters.

 

For example, do you tell a student: You want to learn swing?

 

(a) Go listen to Hiromi

(she swings quite well actually - so I'm not too facetious)

 

(b) Go listen to Wynton Kelly

 

well, the choice should be obvious. You learn from the original masters, unless there's some sub-category of the learning that's important to pick up from somebody newer.

 

[I-missRichardTee]

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.

 

I again, appreciate your courage and honesty too.

Words contain emotional states. You used a phrase that suggests to me that I am not communicating with you well enough.

You said you have neglected the history of jazz.

Now let's get real, who cares about the history of jazz, when we are so into the Now of pursuing excellence in 21st century!?

It sounds like drudgery, because it is couched in that historical thinking.

What I am saying is

jazz has various elements and certain players are the best at these different elements. History or my term "complete player" are beside the point.

To really grasp jazz you need to understand it in a deep way. And if anything is uniquely jazz, it is the rhythm and the blues aspects.

Typically in 21st century reality, both of these originating aspects ( call it old fashioned history or call it fundamentals of what jazz IS- a major paradigm shift, yes?) RHYTHM AND THE MANNER THAT RHYTHM IS PLAYED, PLUS A BLUES FEELING- these two aspects are minimized.

To me, that takes much of the life out of what animates jazz in the first place.

But Life itself goes beyond the limitations I have deduced from 20 century jazz- improv with a strong dose of rhythm and blues- in other words todays players are more than capable of ignoring my wishes that they go back to the origins of the music... and instead find much rhythm and feeling in other ways.

That is fine, I guess that is evolution of jazz. For me, though, a vital element is missing

[Dana.]

I have to bow out now. missRichardTee, Jazzwee, carry on.

 

[I-missRichardTee]

missRT, it's not a ranking per se though. Often it's just based on who the 'originator' of the concept is.

 

Are you referring to innovation?

 

I'm talking about the learning categories I listed (swing, bebop, melody, etc.). Not that somebody couldn't do it better now, it's possible. But a teacher will often guide you to the original masters.

 

For example, do you tell a student: You want to learn swing?

 

(a) Go listen to Hiromi

(she swings quite well actually - so I'm not too facetious)

 

(b) Go listen to Wynton Kelly

 

well, the choice should be obvious. You learn from the original masters, unless there's some sub-category of the learning that's important to pick up from somebody newer.

 

Have you noticed how "quiet it is in here"

 

Yes, you make an excellent point.

 

The problem is your point hints that the originator swings better. And better is a very dangerous word to use in our highly conformist society

[Jazzwee]

RHYTHM AND THE MANNER THAT RHYTHM IS PLAYED, PLUS A BLUES FEELING- these two aspects are minimized.

 

Now you're sounding like Wynton Marsalis. I think this is too narrow a view of the genre. Do we all want to sound like bop forever and ever? Some, like Mehldau and Chick have taken it elsewhere.

 

[I-missRichardTee]

I have to bow out now. missRichardTee, Jazzwee, carry on.

 

 

What is that on "your dish" dude, it is making me hungry, but I don't know for what?

[Skinny]

What is that on "your dish" dude, it is making me hungry, but I don't know for what?

From earlier in this thread...

 

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.

[I-missRichardTee]

RHYTHM AND THE MANNER THAT RHYTHM IS PLAYED, PLUS A BLUES FEELING- these two aspects are minimized.

 

Now you're sounding like Wynton Marsalis. I think this is too narrow a view of the genre. Do we all want to sound like bop forever and ever? Some, like Mehldau and Chick have taken it elsewhere.

 

You don't have to PLAY LIKE that, just ABSORB the tradition. Jazz is multi level- learning each stage makes you a better player.

The truth is that many players CANNOT play the rhythm and blues injected into jazz style, so they go Euro, or South America or India or some combination. The unique aspect of jazz, is quickly being forgotten because people say Oh that is too narrow.

It is no issue for me, because the rhythm and blues essence is a part of me... I have worked on it.

I am making disctinctions, I am discriminating,

 

Have fun with yiour music, I am just an old guy who doesn't know what he is saying. I meant this for educational fun, but the truth is that is hard work to open the mind.

[Jazzwee]

 

The problem is your point hints that the originator swings better. And better is a very dangerous word to use in our highly conformist society

 

Well the example is somewhat facetious but no, I don't assume older is better.

 

I happen to like polyrhythms in jazz (I think I've said that a million times now -- sorry). So who do I listen to? Polyrhythms surfaced heavily with Tristano, though rhythmic displacement itself was probably from Bud Powell.

 

But Mehldau has taken this to a new level IMO. So I listen to Mehldau.

 

However, it's quite educational to see how it started with Bud Powell doing the cross the bar-line stuff harmonically. Then Tristano actually using polyrhythmic patterns crossing bars. Or Afro-Cuban rhythms doing another take on that.

 

But in the older cases, they stuck to 4/4 as the base. Mehldau then mixes polyrhythms in odd meters and that is different.

 

Is that consistent with the Wynton Marsalis view of rhythm and blues? No.

[Jazzwee]

You don't have to PLAY LIKE that, just ABSORB the tradition. Jazz is multi level- learning each stage makes you a better player.

 

But I agree with that. And that's what I meant by studying the history of jazz. Not as a book, but by listening and understanding where things came from.

[Michelle ggurl]

How could I have forgotten Hilton Ruiz and Emilano Salvador? I've been on a listening binge of both those guys for MONTHS!!!

 

I just had my eyes dilated this morning. Is it dark in here? LOL.

[I-missRichardTee]

Jazzwee

 

A few points are surfacing

 

Your assumptions about who is polyrhymic and who is less so, is one

 

My point is not only, merely, where things came from, but much more importantly recognizing "it" ( the "thing" or aspect ) and then absorbing it.

 

For the sake of categorizing great players I chose to create these categories

innovator,groove, technique

you added to that list polymetric, citing Tristano and Bill Evans

 

A confusion is emerging- Oscar Tatum , Herbie are quite polyrhythmic as are most jazz pianists!

 

[fb000]

Left out one of the essentials:

 

Teddy Wilson

 

Also I would throw in

John Hicks

Marian McPartland

 

For New School

danny Grissett

Robert glasper

Anthony Wonsey

Bill charplap

Alex Levin

[I-missRichardTee]

We are getting closer to some uncomfortable unpopular "things"

All these players had it all . So why bother to study history?

Because truth be told, aspects of this thing called the ever changing music - jazz, were greatly de emphasized.

As great a player, and innovator as Pat Metheny is, he either won't or can't ( I have no clue, and my apologies to Him and all who like him ) play in a more traditional manner- Wes M,

 

I think Pat Metheny hears things that Wes never dreamed of, nevertheless, I admit to wishing this

I wish he would bring a little more traditional playing INTO his amazing world.

That is not an easy thing to say on a forum. I am going to get my share of indifference and fire for saying it, no fun.

Same idea with younger pianists- why not bring a little of Oscar or Wynton into what they amazingly play and hear?

I guess it's a case by case situation- maybe some CAN but choose not to.

Maybe some believe they are, and I am deaf?

And maybe some, CANNOT.

because they cannot ( whatever percentage ) I believe that takes away from the music- moves it towards Europe and away from American roots. But that is not convincing an argument.. and I just further pissed you off,, not my wish.

I DO have reasons for what I say, but I am not yet able to formulate them into words. I will be back with an attempt.

 

[I-missRichardTee]

Left out one of the essentials:

 

Teddy Wilson

 

Also I would throw in

John Hicks

Marian McPartland

 

For New School

danny Grissett

Robert glasper

Anthony Wonsey

Bill charplap

Alex Levin

 

Yes Teddy Wilson, great player.

[I-missRichardTee]

RHYTHM AND THE MANNER THAT RHYTHM IS PLAYED, PLUS A BLUES FEELING- these two aspects are minimized.

 

Now you're sounding like Wynton Marsalis. I think this is too narrow a view of the genre. Do we all want to sound like bop forever and ever? Some, like Mehldau and Chick have taken it elsewhere.

 

I loved and love John Coltrane- I believe few if anyone has surpassed his "musical outness" no easy trick btw.

I am not a moldy fig, as the old expression went.

 

I am not a fan of Wynton Marsalis, though I like his Dad the pianist Ellis.

 

What did Mr Wynton M say that reminds you of my words?

 

[I-missRichardTee]

I am not sure this thread is really doing much good, nor will continue as I had naively hoped, so before it is locked- let me suggest everyone here, make sure you spend time consulting much older players for their perspective.

[Jazzwee]

missRT, by polyrhythmic I mean rhythmic overlays. To some extent, every jazz pianist does that. For example, playing 2/4 inside 3/4. And of course Afro-cuban rhythms maintain a steady counter rhythm inside 4/4 (with various names for the Latin rhythms that Michelle/GeeGurl can articulate).

 

But there's some weird ones that are not common in jazz nor based on afro-cuban rhythms. I'm familiar with the more groove based rhythms from the afro-cuban influence.

 

Rhythmic displacement though is even more complex because the harmonic flow is also disturbed. Not just the rhythm. Or the odd meters from Mehldau. Here the meter seems to float since how the trio plays 7/4 may change from moment to moment (as a group).

 

And if you study some Tristano, you'll see some unusual things in there too though he's doing it over a 4/4 base. It comes from a different source than the Latin beats.

 

Bill Evans articulated that he worked hard on Rhythmic displacement specifically and this is a little different like I said because Harmonic displacement is part of this. Again, not connected with Latin rhythms.

 

Someone playing 12/8, 6/8 inside 4/4 isn't being particularly rhythmically unique since these are just triplets. But doing 9/8 inside 4/4 for example (I know Tristano and Evans did this), is not too common from what I know. It would take several bars to resolve back to the original beat (4 I believe).

 

Now if Dizzy Gillespie did this, I would find that educational. From the little I know of that, most the rhythms did not exceed 2 bars and most were inside a 4/4 bar. But maybe it's the same thing if subdivided more. Maybe I just perceive it differently.

 

But aside from being an fascinated listener, I don't claim to be an expert in this area. I just know that Mehldau has a very unusual rhythmic feel.

 

 

[I-missRichardTee]

Jazz is not only poly rhythmic it is polymeter

so what you are saying seems to be based on 4/4 time ( Euro classical ) one meter with overlays

but I am talking about simultaneously 4/4 and 2 going with it, 3, 5, 6 7 8 9 etc polymeter. Not triplets but 4's 6's 3's all going on at once. A vast conception

Dizzy's thing was over everyones head. The more I pay attention the more that broad claim seems true.

And of course, the beauty of music, is it can be instantaneous, you just get it. I get Dizzy, and he swings a lot more and deeper than most name jazz cats esp Bill Evans and Lennie Tristano- and it needs to be said Lennie and Bill are genius level. I am talking about rhythm here, not the whole enchalada that is jazz. Dizzy is not my favorite player, Bird is.

 

[JeffLearman]

Pretty much all my favorites are mentioned above, except John Lewis. Lewis seems to me to be the Bach of Jazz. Bach pieces sound great played on a cheezy synth. Lewis's arrangements are similar: while they do take advantage of skills, they don't rely on them; they speak to the fundamentals. Perhaps his skill is more of as an arranger than a pianist per se.

 

Though his chops are admirable, he's not an innovator in that regard. But like Evans his parts are always so perfectly matched to whatever else is going on, even when minimal, he deserves honorable mention at least.

 

MJQ tunes tend to be recognizeable in the first few chords of the intro, often before the vibes come in and seal the deal. Well, I think that's true of most of the players mentioned here.

[I-missRichardTee]

missRT, by polyrhythmic ...........

 

Someone playing 12/8, 6/8 inside 4/4 isn't being particularly rhythmically unique since these are just triplets. But doing 9/8 inside 4/4 for example (I know Tristano and Evans did this), is not too common from what I know. It would take several bars to resolve back to the original beat (4 I believe).

 

Now if Dizzy Gillespie did this, I would find that educational. From the little I know of that, most the rhythms did not exceed 2 bars and most were inside a 4/4 bar. But maybe it's the same thing if subdivided more. Maybe I just perceive it differently.

 

 

 

There are two aspects What you play ( rhythms ) and HOW you play them, HOW they feel when all is said and done.

 

That is what makes jazz so immediate- the rhythms and the HOW they are played. If I reduced funk tune What is Hip to steady eighths i would grossly over simplify tower of powers tune- reductionism.

Jazz is more than our definitions- it is the HOW part very much

 

So merely "interesting" rhythms is not enough, they have to swing, or feel very good to the ear.

Dizzy and Bird swung- although it took a while for people to catch on- and many NEVER did.

Most top jazz cats never fully grasped bebop, because it is that deep.

And why do you think younger players find jazz a little off putting? Because they gave the swing part of it away. In came funk, which feels good.

Jazz used to feel terrific my friend, but preoccupation with "interesting" rhythms is not going to take you there!!

[JeffLearman]

I'm talking about the learning categories I listed (swing, bebop, melody, etc.). Not that somebody couldn't do it better now, it's possible. But a teacher will often guide you to the original masters.

 

For example, do you tell a student: You want to learn swing?

 

(a) Go listen to Hiromi

(she swings quite well actually - so I'm not too facetious)

 

(b) Go listen to Wynton Kelly

 

well, the choice should be obvious. You learn from the original masters, unless there's some sub-category of the learning that's important to pick up from somebody newer.

Actually, sometimes it's easier to learn from those who followed. For example, if someone asked me about certain Hendrix songs, I'd say to first go copy SRV. When you think you have that nailed, then you're ready to listen to Jimi.

 

But your point is valid. The originals created it. While you can learn (sometimes more quickly) from those who followed, eventually you need to refer back to the originals (and those who preceeded them) to understand where it came from, what it was, what it is now, and maybe get a clue of where it's going.

[JeffLearman]

As great a player, and innovator as Pat Metheny is, he either won't or can't ( I have no clue, and my apologies to Him and all who like him ) play in a more traditional manner

I've heard Metheney play like that. He doesn't often, but he can do it in spades. I wish I could remember any specific recordings. I know who turned me onto them, though, so if you want to know just say so and I'll hunt down an old friend. I think it was more Charlie Christian than Wes M, but who's spitting that hair?

[Theo Verelst]

Jeff Lorber should be on the list.

 

It should be easier to distinguish between players tending to do good interpretations of Bach, Beethoven and the Beatles on the one side and players able to do good (mostly fusion) challenging Jazz on the other hand, including the concept of good improvisations. The latter group without question has the upper hand in most normal hierarchical qualification systems, unless it's a magazine from classical pianists, for classical pianist. What will be next after (good, not lame) fusion?

 

How many classical interpreters of "old" jazz can play a good boogie woogie? How many "organ course so and so" players will be able to play a performable rendering of "goodnight Irene" ?

 

Most keyboardists simply will not be able to play let's say "Techno" (Scofield c.s.) on stage which will hold ground on nice performance. Maybe some session keyboard players will be able to a great recording of a jazz solo with Donald Fagen...

 

Theo

[16251]

This thread is starting to break new ground. Someone keeps responding to their own posts. I wish Brad Meldah would join in. He likes to write long diatribes on his website.

 

An analogy could be when even the best pianist takes such a long solo you stop listening, which are like some of these posts I've been trying to read through. What's point of this exercise?