Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner - Non Classical Is Keith Jarrett the greatest solo ballad player ever?

I am not just talking about interviews, I am talking about talking to these people in private, during lessons, workshops or talking to them after gig. It's one thing to not bad mouth a player in public, but it's a totally different thing when someone like Bill Cunliffe or Kenny Werner goes out of the way says he is one of the greatest in public.

That's cool and all, man. How about an album/track recommendation?

btw if anyone can figure out what keith is doing rhythmically on the "Heyoke" solo(especially the beggining), I'd like to know I've transcribed about 2 pages of this and I've never quite figured out what's going on exactly.

You are sitting round with the wrong people ;-)
You know what Miles Davis said? … “Keith, how does it feel to be a genius?"



Well, I doubt anything is going to convince you. I feel a little sorry you are missing out but I guess we all have our own tastes. In case you change your mind …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRPchnrZHh8

I did work that out once, i think it is triplets grouped in 11's or 7's, I can't remember exactly. I think the band was sight reading that tune ;-)

Yea I remember talking to you and others about this in this forum couple of years ago. I am glad someone finally figured it out I don't know how anyone can play with that kind of rhythmic freedom and does such insane displacements while sight-reading a tune. He is just out of this world.

Thanks for the links. I'll give my thoughts.
All The Things You Are. The first three minutes are exactly what I remember about Keith Jarrett. A style of solo piano that is good, and somewhat unique, but more of the classical leanings rather than pure jazz. The improvisation that comes afterwards is solid jazz improv. It's good. It's his own thing. He's got a strong touch and he does interesting things. Is it good, solid jazz? Yeah. But I can't call it outstanding - it does not grab my attention and keep me rivoted. It doesn't suprise my ears with something amazingly beautiful or unexpected. Instead he's doing a series of licks and phrases and it gets a bit monotonous after a while because the RH improv basically follows the same rythm throughout. Technically it's good, but *melodically* or *harmonically* somewhat monotonous. One thing that is a bit annoying after a while is that rather than build very long lines, he prefers to limit each idea to a short phrase of three beats or so, and then stop, wait and start something different. Nothing wrong with that, but tends to be a bit "stop and go" to my ears. Contrast this with Lou Levy or Russell Freeman where you've got two guys who can sit there and build a long improvisational line to tell a story and keep it fresh and interesting every time.
The second one, unfortunately, I cannot play because it's "not available in my country". So I'l leave my critique at that.

We could probably say the same thing about Joanne Brackeen, but it doesn't mean I can sit aorund listening to her all day long.

I like this better than the links the others have given. This is more of the harmonics I like to hear, but again not something I can listen continuously to for more than maybe 10 or 15 minutes. Its' too busy.
When all's said and done, it's a matter of taste. Jarret is a great artist, but for my personal taste I can name 30 other jazz pianists who I like better.
In my opinion, for art to be "great" it needs to strike a balance between sensibility and experimentation. It needs to know when to lay off the one and emphasize the other. It needs to know how to weave between the two, instead of concentrating strictly on one. This is because art is a refection of our life experiences and those experiences are never constantly in one extreme. With Jarret and some of the other avante-gard musicians, you've got a devotion to the experimental side of things, and sometimes this "busy, nonstop" style of improvisation as exemplified in the links. But great art strives for a complementary approach, knowing when is the time for refection and tranquility, for harmonic simplicity. Knowing how to transition from that into more complexity or discord or excitement. Putting an absolutely beautiful, subtle passage into a song, even when the rest of the song may be frenetic or harsh. The same thing with composers. Mussorgsky and Debussy created great works of art - a single piece of theirs could reflect many aspects of life, many nuances, some subtle, some obvious. They did this with harmonic (and rhythmic) simplicity and harmonic (and rhythmic) complexity and transitioning between the two. They chose when to use one, and when to use the other.

A film that's just a suspense with a film-noir mood throughout is cool, but not great. A film that that is suspense with legitimate moments or passages of drama or comedy that stand on their own, now that's interesting.

A comedy that is one series of gags after another may be fun, but it's not great art. But a comedy that has a bittersweet undercurrent or a legitimate dramatic section, now that's interesting.

Basta! Enough already! He is either your favorite or he isn't; You either like him or you don't! Either way its all good! To each his own - it is after all, what makes the world go round!

The best ballad player living today:

Oh man..

Single note melodies is something I do, but the "best ballad player" should be bringing more to the table. I also think the improvisation for ballads should be more empathetic.

I'm not sure what you mean "bring more to the table", and more emphatic on a ballad? Who living today for example?

I'm at work and can't find a youtube example. Bill Charlap or Aaron Diehl comes to mind.

I guess a better term for what I like to hear is "introspection." Keith's pyrotechnics seems out of place on that ballad.

"more to the table" - Hearing a melody that doesn't sound like it's being read out of a real book. A single note melody from one of greatest ballad player should be a contrast to a denser section, IMO. (not a rule, just thinking of taste.)

It's ridiculous if you are implying Keith Jarrett sounds like he is reading a melody out of a fake book. Single note melodies are of the highest expression.

I am sure a lot of greats have said this before, but it takes a lot to play something really simple and really make it mean something. If you can move someone with simple playing(i.e single-note melodies) stripped of all the pyro-technique and fancy technical stuff, then you are doing it right.

But then again, as far as I am concerned, Keith's simple style of playing really isn't as simple as it seems. I transcribed some of his solo stuff, and IMO he is one of the few jazz pianists I know that really tries to play each note of the chord as if they were separate voices moving in counterpoint. He is not playing series of chords and melody, but 4-5 independent melodies moving to form a harmony. IMO only few jazz pianist does that well(Fred Hersch, Clare Fischer, to name a few).

I never implied that Keith is reading and I have the highest respect for playing single-note melodies. Here's the thing - the bar was raised as to "the best piano player of ballads. Using that and being familiar with many of Keith's albums, my opinion hasn't changed. The greatest ballad player, IMO, should have more variety, that's all. Also, like I mentioned in an earlier post, he also uses the counterpoint build-up too much for "the greatest..."

I would like to bring up a point from my earliest post in this thread and that is I'm not a fan of labels for elite players. They all offer something different and all are worthy to be loved.

Nice start but then gets a little boring:

It's the consensus that Keith Jarret is the greatest ballad player.

Arguably one of the greatest, yes. I think most well-known musicians rate him as one of the greats, and IMO he deserve that spot among the jazz giants.

But saying so and so is the greatest is kind of silly. Music is not olympics and like other's have said, everyone brings something different to the table. IMO The more you think in terms of better/worse the more you miss out. I love Keith Jarrett, but I also love Alan Broadbent, Clare Fischer, who are not as well-known. IMO they are all very different. I also like Ethan Iverson and Tigran Hamasyan, Taylor Eigsti even though their ballad playing isn't traditional . Frankly I love them all and it seems pointless to say which one is the greatest.

Links?
I find all those others named to be a little more boring on ballads than Jarrett... Jarrett expresses a direct intimacy that captivates sensitive listeners. I don't think the others are as strong that aspect. It's hard not to become boring on a ballad.