How significant would jazz be if this was a piano only art form?

[Ian Thumwood]

Seeing as Radio 3 have been celebrating the piano, I though that it might be an interesting debate to discuss just how significant the piano is in jazz. For me, the piano is more than one of the core instruments in jazz for although during much of the development of the music the innovations have been made by horn players like Armstrong, Parker, Coltrane and Coleman, it has often been left to piano players to work out the harmonic and rhythmic solutions to the questions posed by these steps forward. I think that aside from these innovations jazz has made significant strides to two very different areas. The first of these is composition which has exploded into a range of possibilities since the early years of the 20th Century with the likes of Jelly Roll Morton. The other area is the piano where the instrument has sometimes had it's own traditions away from ensemble jazz and simultaneously has had practioners like Bud Powell and Herbie Hancock who have re-thought the role of the instrument in a band. More than any horn instrument, I would argue that the piano represents the apogee of the art of jazz and the lack of ability to make "extra musical effects" such as the growls and smears you might find in players as diverse as King Oliver, Ben Webster or Bob Brookmeyer are not an option with a piano (Don Pullen aside!!) presents pianists with more of a challenge in expressing themselves in the jazz environment.

[cloughie]

Seeing as Radio 3 have been celebrating the piano, I though that it might be an interesting debate to discuss just how significant the piano is in jazz. For me, the piano is more than one of the core instruments in jazz for although during much of the development of the music the innovations have been made by horn players like Armstrong, Parker, Coltrane and Coleman, it has often been left to piano players to work out the harmonic and rhythmic solutions to the questions posed by these steps forward. I think that aside from these innovations jazz has made significant strides to two very different areas. The first of these is composition which has exploded into a range of possibilities since the early years of the 20th Century with the likes of Jelly Roll Morton. The other area is the piano where the instrument has sometimes had it's own traditions away from ensemble jazz and simultaneously has had practioners like Bud Powell and Herbie Hancock who have re-thought the role of the instrument in a band. More than any horn instrument, I would argue that the piano represents the apogee of the art of jazz and the lack of ability to make "extra musical effects" such as the growls and smears you might find in players as diverse as King Oliver, Ben Webster or Bob Brookmeyer are not an option with a piano (Don Pullen aside!!) presents pianists with more of a challenge in expressing themselves in the jazz environment.

Unless you include them vocally ala Garner!

[Quarky]

My feeling is that Jazz would not have progressed much further than Art Tatum, and would have become an historical artefact of interest to musicologists only. It would not have had its great vitality, which permitted the development of bebop and free jazz. For example in many of Coltrane's recordings, the piano is there because - well you've got to have a piano - but contribution amounts to not more than a rest period, before the other instruments pitch in again.

And looking at Jazz historical roots, I think jazz piano may have been a separate development from the New Orleans marching bands, which I would regard as absolutely key to Jazz.

An unkind view of the piano in Jazz is that it is there just to give the music some "legitimacy".

As with the human voice, I would not rate it as one of the most important instruments.

[MrGongGong]

Maybe Jazz would be more widely appreciated (not that it doesn't have millions of aficionados ) if it didn't include the voice ?

[grippie]

http://youtu.be/In16H9J72HY

2.50 in

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

And looking at Jazz historical roots, I think jazz piano may have been a separate development from the New Orleans marching bands, which I would regard as absolutely key to Jazz.

I suspect this distinction is right - but perhaps the piano enabled/facilitated/made easier developments in Jazz harmonic language? (As distinct from the developments in communal/group Music-making - with their interplay of solo and ensemble playing - that owe their source to the marching bands?)

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

Interesting points Ian, although Ornette said it was the tenor sax that made the crucial statements in black music. Even so, a lot of horn players were also useful pianists, Ben Webster, Miles, Dexter, etc.

Talking of piano, just found some wonderful clips on Youtube of Bertha Hope talking to fellow musicians about Elmo and his genius. Made my day.

BN.

[Byas'd Opinion]

German critic Joachim Berendt argued that the history of jazz piano was essentially about trying to find an accommodation between the distinctive features of the piano as an instrument (basically the ability to play up to ten notes at once, hence opening up all sorts of harmonic and contrapuntal possibilities) and the expressive single line solo which came into jazz via the horns and had its roots in African (and later African-American) vocal techniques.

The more you played the piano as a piano, the less it sounded like jazz; but the more you played it like a jazz horn, the less it sounded like a piano.

[eighthobstruction]

Yes, well said....the complexities that the piano can produce gives so much to quintets and such....it's alway there as both a harmonic and percussive back bone (and ability to quickly change direction and texture)....I think it gave such as Mingus the ability to make his small ensemble arrangements sound like big bands....

Take Five ....50 years old

T Monk....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbDAq...eature=related

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

piano horns vocalists bass guitar drums ... all essential to jazz as we know it ... the interactions are as important as the individualities eh?

[Serial_Apologist]

Unless you include them vocally ala Garner!

And he ain't been lisnin' to Keith Tippett. either!

[charles t]

from Keith Jarrett's Scattered Words (an ECM book):

"Of course, in a group, there is a little room for air occasionally, but the truth of the process is still the same.

As a programmer of our sets of standard tunes and a solo improviser over the years, I ended up somehow 'programming'

even the non-existent material (for example on the Japan recording).

Yes, Gary (Peacock) and Jack (DeJohnette) have enormous input every second but I am the one with the chordal

instrument, the overwhelming experience of spontaneous composition, and anyway (as a friend of mine said)

'someone has to drive'".

[Serial_Apologist]

from Keith Jarrett's Scattered Words (an ECM book):

"the overwhelming experience of spontaneous composition".

...with them other two taggin' along behind, like...

[Tenor Freak]

...with them other two taggin' along behind, like...

Yes, makes you wonder why he bothers with his "passengers" when he could just play solo...or at least accompany himself on vocals.

[Tenor Freak]

The more you played the piano as a piano, the less it sounded like jazz; but the more you played it like a jazz horn, the less it sounded like a piano.

Agreed; I often listen to piano-less groups because I think it can overwhelm the rest of the group, not with volume but by filling up all the space. As Calum says there needs to be interaction between all the group members and unless the pianist is really sensitive and leaves space they can crowd out the others.

Other chordal instruments, on the other hand like guitar or vibes merely hint at the changes and leave room for the rest of the band. For example it's obvious why Dolphy chose to leave out a piano on Out to Lunch, it would have clashed horribly with the horns and bass, which thanks to Richard Davis' excellent playing is able to step forward.

Mind you, I'm beginning to enjoy piano trios more as well...