Jazz Standards - says who?

[K1969]

http://www.jazzstandards.com defines a jazz standard as "a composition that is held in continuing esteem and is commonly used as the basis of jazz arrangements and improvisations"

Sounds innocent enough.

But to get a little polemical, they say that only a handful of tunes became standard since the 70s, and none since 1981. Can that really be fair? The only ones that they seem to accept and that I recognise are Chameleon and Superstition. But what about Red Clay, Butterfly, Mister Magic, Cissy Strut, - any other offerings out there? Or any one want to suggest a candidate for "Best jazz standard that never was?"

[Guy Berger]

http://www.jazzstandards.com defines a jazz standard as "a composition that is held in continuing esteem and is commonly used as the basis of jazz arrangements and improvisations"

Sounds innocent enough.

But to get a little polemical, they say that only a handful of tunes became standard since the 70s, and none since 1981. Can that really be fair? The only ones that they seem to accept and that I recognise are Chameleon and Superstition. But what about Red Clay, Butterfly, Mister Magic, Cissy Strut, - any other offerings out there? Or any one want to suggest a candidate for "Best jazz standard that never was?"

I'm guessing that their argument, while somewhat hyperbolic in nature, is pretty much right.

This has a lot to do with "developments" in straight ahead post-bop music in the Wynton and post-Wynton era.

Guy

Edited May 28, 2007 by Guy

[GA Russell]

The last jazz song that became a standard that I can think of was Peacocks. Was that about 1977? I think but I'm not sure that it came after Birdland.

[K1969]

http://www.jazzstandards.com defines a jazz standard as "a composition that is held in continuing esteem and is commonly used as the basis of jazz arrangements and improvisations"

Sounds innocent enough.

But to get a little polemical, they say that only a handful of tunes became standard since the 70s, and none since 1981. Can that really be fair? The only ones that they seem to accept and that I recognise are Chameleon and Superstition. But what about Red Clay, Butterfly, Mister Magic, Cissy Strut, - any other offerings out there? Or any one want to suggest a candidate for "Best jazz standard that never was?"

I'm guessing that their argument, while somewhat hyperbolic in nature, is pretty much right.

This has a lot to do with "developments" in straight ahead post-bop music in the Wynton and post-Wynton era.

Guy

Maybe but more to do with developments in the MINDs than in the actual MUSIC itself. Throughout the 80s and 90s contemporary jazz musicians never stopped turning to material by Prince, Radiohead or Nirvana for inspiration, seemingly in spite of Marsalis. It's just that this was no longer perceived as proper jazz. No one had any problem with Coltrane turning My Favourite Things into a jazz standard even though it came from a a dodgy Rogers and Hammerstein musical sang by famed jazz heavy weight Julie Andrews. So why does the establishment have a problem with Nirvana? At least they played their own instruments! I think that the only real difference is that the people who confer "jazz standard' status on music, stopped listening to contemporary music in 1980, the year of the "last jazz standard'. Meanwhile, the label non-obessed world kept listening, borrowing and copying from whatever source around them, just like Coltrane did decades earlier. Perhaps more jazz musicians would've played stuff like Karma Police, Kiss or Come as you are, had the establishment been as ready to give them "standard" status as My favourite things in 1961 It's a bad state of affairs when you have to wait for Paul Anka to give Oasis "Standard" credibility:

[Guy Berger]

I'm guessing that their argument, while somewhat hyperbolic in nature, is pretty much right.

This has a lot to do with "developments" in straight ahead post-bop music in the Wynton and post-Wynton era.

Guy

Maybe but more to do with developments in the MINDs than in the actual MUSIC itself. Throughout the 80s and 90s contemporary jazz musicians never stopped turning to material by Prince, Radiohead or Nirvana for inspiration, seemingly in spite of Marsalis. It's just that this was no longer perceived as proper jazz. No one had any problem with Coltrane turning My Favourite Things into a jazz standard even though it came from a a dodgy Rogers and Hammerstein musical sang by famed jazz heavy weight Julie Andrews. So why does the establishment have a problem with Nirvana? At least they played their own instruments! I think that the only real difference is that the people who confer "jazz standard' status on music, stopped listening to contemporary music in 1980, the year of the "last jazz standard'. Meanwhile, the label non-obessed world kept listening, borrowing and copying from whatever source around them, just like Coltrane did decades earlier. Perhaps more jazz musicians would've played stuff like Karma Police, Kiss or Come as you are, had the establishment been as ready to give them "standard" status as My favourite things in 1961 It's a bad state of affairs when you have to wait for Paul Anka to give Oasis "Standard" credibility:

Perhaps my naming of Marsalis was unfortunate -- I don't think he (or the "establishment") is responsible for this trend, they are symptoms.

I think it's worth keeping in mind that jazz standards don't come only from the world of popular music, but also from jazz itself. And there simply aren't many of those post-1970.

Guy

Edited May 28, 2007 by Guy

[K1969]

I'm guessing that their argument, while somewhat hyperbolic in nature, is pretty much right.

This has a lot to do with "developments" in straight ahead post-bop music in the Wynton and post-Wynton era.

Guy

Maybe but more to do with developments in the MINDs than in the actual MUSIC itself. Throughout the 80s and 90s contemporary jazz musicians never stopped turning to material by Prince, Radiohead or Nirvana for inspiration, seemingly in spite of Marsalis. It's just that this was no longer perceived as proper jazz. No one had any problem with Coltrane turning My Favourite Things into a jazz standard even though it came from a a dodgy Rogers and Hammerstein musical sang by famed jazz heavy weight Julie Andrews. So why does the establishment have a problem with Nirvana? At least they played their own instruments! I think that the only real difference is that the people who confer "jazz standard' status on music, stopped listening to contemporary music in 1980, the year of the "last jazz standard'. Meanwhile, the label non-obessed world kept listening, borrowing and copying from whatever source around them, just like Coltrane did decades earlier. Perhaps more jazz musicians would've played stuff like Karma Police, Kiss or Come as you are, had the establishment been as ready to give them "standard" status as My favourite things in 1961 It's a bad state of affairs when you have to wait for Paul Anka to give Oasis "Standard" credibility:

Perhaps my naming of Marsalis was unfortunate -- I don't think he (or the "establishment") is responsible for this trend, they are symptoms.

I think it's worth keeping in mind that jazz standards don't come only from the world of popular music, but also from jazz itself. And there simply aren't many of those post-1970.

Guy

That's what I mean - they're just the symptoms of an attitude that pretends that the jazz world stopped spinning - or swinging - to anything new circa 1980.

[Jim R]

The Jazzstandards.com site is a terrific resource, and it's been mentioned here before, but...

Once AGAIN... re "standards" vs "jazz standards" (and I'll quote Mike Fitzgerald instead of my own post from the same 2005 thread... http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20423 ):

"Generally" speaking, both standards and jazz standards are part of the repertoire of jazz musicians. So are originals, so are collective improvisations, etc. But there are fairly easily made distinctions that I believe are helpful in the discussion.

Broadway tunes have a life outside of their jazz interpretations. These jazz versions are invariably alterations - they've been "jazzed" up. Harmony and melody and rhythm are NOT the same as what the composer wrote. You can find examples of jazz guys doing the same thing to folk tunes, classical pieces, etc.

Sonny Rollins did compose what quickly became jazz standards - Oleo, Doxy, Valse Hot - but his interpretations of Broadway tunes doesn't all of a sudden make those tunes into jazz standards. "There's No Business Like Show Business", by virtue of its birth, will remain something borrowed from a non-jazz world, a standard, never a jazz standard.

Jazz standards are designed to be jazz tunes right from the start. They've got the appropriate harmony, melody, and rhythm. They're written by jazz musicians.

I'm definitely not the only one to make this distinction. It's addressed in New Grove under "standards".

Very few pieces that can prove jazz "pedigree" have become "regular" standards. We've discussed this here (and elsewhere). Some pieces by Ellington, Waller, Legrand, Mandel - not many jazz guys have been able to cross into the true mainstream.

Mike

[Guy Berger]

Once AGAIN... re "standards" vs "jazz standards" (and I'll quote Mike Fitzgerald instead of my own post from the same 2005 thread... http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20423 ):

That entire thread is worth reading, because it pretty thoroughly discusses K1969's question. So is this thread.

Guy

Edited May 28, 2007 by Guy

[K1969]

Once AGAIN... re "standards" vs "jazz standards" (and I'll quote Mike Fitzgerald instead of my own post from the same 2005 thread... http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20423 ):

That entire thread is worth reading, because it pretty thoroughly discusses K1969's question. So is this thread.

Guy

thanks I'll check them out. Just for the record, I searched by "jazz standard" before starting this thread and found nothing of relevance, much to my surprise. There's even a thread somewhere on the limits of Organissimo's search facility - but good luck finding it!

[BruceH]

http://www.jazzstandards.com defines a jazz standard as "a composition that is held in continuing esteem and is commonly used as the basis of jazz arrangements and improvisations"

Sounds innocent enough.

But to get a little polemical, they say that only a handful of tunes became standard since the 70s, and none since 1981. Can that really be fair? The only ones that they seem to accept and that I recognise are Chameleon and Superstition. But what about Red Clay, Butterfly, Mister Magic, Cissy Strut, - any other offerings out there? Or any one want to suggest a candidate for "Best jazz standard that never was?"

I'm guessing that their argument, while somewhat hyperbolic in nature, is pretty much right.

This has a lot to do with "developments" in straight ahead post-bop music in the Wynton and post-Wynton era.

Guy

Maybe but more to do with developments in the MINDs than in the actual MUSIC itself. Throughout the 80s and 90s contemporary jazz musicians never stopped turning to material by Prince, Radiohead or Nirvana for inspiration, seemingly in spite of Marsalis. It's just that this was no longer perceived as proper jazz. No one had any problem with Coltrane turning My Favourite Things into a jazz standard even though it came from a a dodgy Rogers and Hammerstein musical sang by famed jazz heavy weight Julie Andrews. So why does the establishment have a problem with Nirvana? At least they played their own instruments! I think that the only real difference is that the people who confer "jazz standard' status on music, stopped listening to contemporary music in 1980, the year of the "last jazz standard'. Meanwhile, the label non-obessed world kept listening, borrowing and copying from whatever source around them, just like Coltrane did decades earlier. Perhaps more jazz musicians would've played stuff like Karma Police, Kiss or Come as you are, had the establishment been as ready to give them "standard" status as My favourite things in 1961

Wow, I can't wait to get a four-disc box of jazz versions of Kiss songs.

[Rooster_Ties]

I think "Kiss" refers to the song by that same name by Prince.

[K1969]

http://www.jazzstandards.com defines a jazz standard as "a composition that is held in continuing esteem and is commonly used as the basis of jazz arrangements and improvisations"

Sounds innocent enough.

But to get a little polemical, they say that only a handful of tunes became standard since the 70s, and none since 1981. Can that really be fair? The only ones that they seem to accept and that I recognise are Chameleon and Superstition. But what about Red Clay, Butterfly, Mister Magic, Cissy Strut, - any other offerings out there? Or any one want to suggest a candidate for "Best jazz standard that never was?"

I'm guessing that their argument, while somewhat hyperbolic in nature, is pretty much right.

This has a lot to do with "developments" in straight ahead post-bop music in the Wynton and post-Wynton era.

Guy

Maybe but more to do with developments in the MINDs than in the actual MUSIC itself. Throughout the 80s and 90s contemporary jazz musicians never stopped turning to material by Prince, Radiohead or Nirvana for inspiration, seemingly in spite of Marsalis. It's just that this was no longer perceived as proper jazz. No one had any problem with Coltrane turning My Favourite Things into a jazz standard even though it came from a a dodgy Rogers and Hammerstein musical sang by famed jazz heavy weight Julie Andrews. So why does the establishment have a problem with Nirvana? At least they played their own instruments! I think that the only real difference is that the people who confer "jazz standard' status on music, stopped listening to contemporary music in 1980, the year of the "last jazz standard'. Meanwhile, the label non-obessed world kept listening, borrowing and copying from whatever source around them, just like Coltrane did decades earlier. Perhaps more jazz musicians would've played stuff like Karma Police, Kiss or Come as you are, had the establishment been as ready to give them "standard" status as My favourite things in 1961

Wow, I can't wait to get a four-disc box of jazz versions of Kiss songs.

that's "Kiss" the prince hit , not the glam rockers!!!!!!!!!!! . I'm all for openess in music but I draw the line at men in make up.

[Chuck Nessa]

I think "Kiss" refers to the song by that same name by Prince.

Silly me, I thought "Prince" referred to a song by Kiss.

[BruceH]

I stand corrected.

Can't wait for Cyrus Chestnut's version of Purple Rain, too.

[Chuck Nessa]

So, the music has changed. That's supposed to be a good thing.

[BruceH]

So, the music has changed. That's supposed to be a good thing.

Indeed! Bring on the jazz covers of Britney Spears!!

[ghost of miles]

Tony DeSare (singer-pianist) does a pretty good version of Prince's "Kiss" song on his most recent CD.

Re: post-1980 "jazz standards" as defined by Mike Fitzgerald et al, I can't think of any off the top of my head--but I'll be interested to see if any compositions by Osby (say, "The Watcher" from INVISIBLE HAND), Douglas, Allison, and other modernists eventually make their way into the repertoire. FWIW I've really enjoyed Frank Kimbrough's originals on his last two CDs.

Also FWIW I think a good deal of prime material from the 1950s, 60s, and 70s remains unmined by contemporary players... I'm surprised, for instance, that more Mobley tunes haven't been recorded in the past 10-15 years.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I don't want to defend this lot, because I think what they're doing may well be the result of a way of thinking that I detest. However, all that it claims to be is a list of the 1,000 most recorded songs (in jazz?). I think it's not entirely surprising that there would be more older songs than newer ones in the list.

They don't say how many recordings each song has racked up, so it's impossible to say whether some other well recorded song ought to be in the list or not. However, I did a bit of checking against the Lord discography.

According to Lord, there were 109 versions of "Please send me someone to love" - which is #322 on the standards list.

And there were 121 versions of "Since I fell for you" - which is #197 on the standards list.

And there were 180 versions of "Poinciana" - which is #334 on the list.

Something appears not to add up.

MG

[ghost of miles]

Are you implying that the Lord is wrong?

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

The Jazzstandards.com site is a terrific resource, and it's been mentioned here before, but...

Once AGAIN... re "standards" vs "jazz standards" (and I'll quote Mike Fitzgerald instead of my own post from the same 2005 thread... http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20423 ):

"Generally" speaking, both standards and jazz standards are part of the repertoire of jazz musicians. So are originals, so are collective improvisations, etc. But there are fairly easily made distinctions that I believe are helpful in the discussion.

Broadway tunes have a life outside of their jazz interpretations. These jazz versions are invariably alterations - they've been "jazzed" up. Harmony and melody and rhythm are NOT the same as what the composer wrote. You can find examples of jazz guys doing the same thing to folk tunes, classical pieces, etc.

Sonny Rollins did compose what quickly became jazz standards - Oleo, Doxy, Valse Hot - but his interpretations of Broadway tunes doesn't all of a sudden make those tunes into jazz standards. "There's No Business Like Show Business", by virtue of its birth, will remain something borrowed from a non-jazz world, a standard, never a jazz standard.

Jazz standards are designed to be jazz tunes right from the start. They've got the appropriate harmony, melody, and rhythm. They're written by jazz musicians.

I'm definitely not the only one to make this distinction. It's addressed in New Grove under "standards".

Very few pieces that can prove jazz "pedigree" have become "regular" standards. We've discussed this here (and elsewhere). Some pieces by Ellington, Waller, Legrand, Mandel - not many jazz guys have been able to cross into the true mainstream.

Mike

That old thread has died, so I'm commenting on this here. Mike - and others - seem to think that standard material for jazz improvisation either came from Broadway/Hollywood or from within the jazz community. The argument that jazz versions of Broadway tunes are different from the way they're performed outside jazz may be valid for those types of song. But it certainly isn't when considering songs like "Please send me someone to love", "I got a woman", "What's going on", "Drown in my own tears" or "High heel sneakers". But what's different about these songs from material by jazz musicians such as "After hours", "Please Mr Johnson", "Soul serenade", "Chitlins con carne" and "Way back home"? R&B as a source for jazz improvisation is rather overlooked - a prejudice I think. The same can be said for Gospel songs.

It all smacks of trying to define jazz in a certain way in order to exclude the bits that are regarded as "lesser" in some way. Bollocks to that.

MG

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Are you implying that the Lord is wrong?

No - though Lord isn't God

MG

[ghost of miles]

The notion that, say, "Embraceable You," "What Is This Thing Called Love?", and "I Got Rhythm" are not "jazz standards" while "I Remember Clifford" is has always struck me as strange, to say the least, and bizarrely separatist. And how many "jazz standards" composed by jazz musicians have their roots, either distantly or immediately, in the types of tunes to which MG & I are referring?

[ghost of miles]

Are you implying that the Lord is wrong?

No - though Lord isn't God

MG

You heretic!

[clifford_thornton]

http://www.jazzstandards.com defines a jazz standard as "a composition that is held in continuing esteem and is commonly used as the basis of jazz arrangements and improvisations"

Sounds innocent enough.

But to get a little polemical, they say that only a handful of tunes became standard since the 70s, and none since 1981. Can that really be fair? The only ones that they seem to accept and that I recognise are Chameleon and Superstition. But what about Red Clay, Butterfly, Mister Magic, Cissy Strut, - any other offerings out there? Or any one want to suggest a candidate for "Best jazz standard that never was?"

I'm guessing that their argument, while somewhat hyperbolic in nature, is pretty much right.

This has a lot to do with "developments" in straight ahead post-bop music in the Wynton and post-Wynton era.

Guy

Maybe but more to do with developments in the MINDs than in the actual MUSIC itself. Throughout the 80s and 90s contemporary jazz musicians never stopped turning to material by Prince, Radiohead or Nirvana for inspiration, seemingly in spite of Marsalis. It's just that this was no longer perceived as proper jazz. No one had any problem with Coltrane turning My Favourite Things into a jazz standard even though it came from a a dodgy Rogers and Hammerstein musical sang by famed jazz heavy weight Julie Andrews. So why does the establishment have a problem with Nirvana? At least they played their own instruments! I think that the only real difference is that the people who confer "jazz standard' status on music, stopped listening to contemporary music in 1980, the year of the "last jazz standard'. Meanwhile, the label non-obessed world kept listening, borrowing and copying from whatever source around them, just like Coltrane did decades earlier. Perhaps more jazz musicians would've played stuff like Karma Police, Kiss or Come as you are, had the establishment been as ready to give them "standard" status as My favourite things in 1961

Wow, I can't wait to get a four-disc box of jazz versions of Kiss songs.

that's "Kiss" the prince hit , not the glam rockers!!!!!!!!!!! . I'm all for openess in music but I draw the line at men in make up.

So I take it you don't listen to the Art Ensemble?

[Jim R]

The Jazzstandards.com site is a terrific resource, and it's been mentioned here before, but...

Once AGAIN... re "standards" vs "jazz standards" (and I'll quote Mike Fitzgerald instead of my own post from the same 2005 thread... http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20423 ):

...Broadway tunes have a life outside of their jazz interpretations. These jazz versions are invariably alterations - they've been "jazzed" up. Harmony and melody and rhythm are NOT the same as what the composer wrote. You can find examples of jazz guys doing the same thing to folk tunes, classical pieces, etc....

Mike

Mike - and others - seem to think that standard material for jazz improvisation either came from Broadway/Hollywood or from within the jazz community.

There. Do you see your mistake?

Mike's "Etc." would include R&B, Rock, Bossa Nova... you name it, so long as the pattern fits.

I get frustrated when people refer to "The Girl From Ipanema", "Corcovado", and "Wave" as "jazz standards", because I've spent considerable time and energy studying Jobim's music and Bossa Nova in general. It's not JUST about broadway tunes. I know this is all about semantics, and those who don't care are free to ignore this, but it still makes perfect sense to me.