Top ten Jazz Standards
Jazz Guy
I found this list of "Top ten Jazz Standards" at
http://igorogogo.com/igorogogo/Top_10_Standards.htm
The web site states "The Top 10" are:
1. All The Things You Are
2. Stella By Starlight
3. Autumn Leaves
4. Green Dolphin Street
5. Body And Soul
6. Take The A Train
7. Blue Bossa
8. There Is No Greater Love
9. Satin Doll
10.Have You Met Miss Jones
What do you think of the list content?
Thanks
Guy
mik...@mailinator.com
> 1. All The Things You Are
> 2. Stella By Starlight
> 3. Autumn Leaves
> 4. Green Dolphin Street
> 5. Body And Soul
> 6. Take The A Train
> 7. Blue Bossa
> 8. There Is No Greater Love
> 9. Satin Doll
> 10.Have You Met Miss Jones
>
> What do you think of the list content?
>
> Thanks
> Guy
where's "Summertime" :)
Guy Snape
It depends what you mean by "top" - and by "standard" for that matter.
If it's a list of the first ten to learn to play, then I'd say there
should be a blues and I Got Rhythm, or another rhythm changes tune. If
you're including original jazz tunes like Blue Bossa rather than just
the Great American Songbook type of standard, then I think So What
deserves a place (since it's one of the first tunes everyone learns).
Jobim is conspicuously absent - I'd include either Ipanema for its
ubiquity or How Insensitive because it's such a great composition.
If I'm really only allowed ten, I guess I'd take out There is no Greater
Love, Green Dolphin Street, and very reluctantly, Body and Soul. OK,
that leaves eleven. Best I can manage.
- guy (a different one, obviously)
--
Remove the obvious to reply.
Guy Snape
> Jazz Guy wrote:
>> I've been looking for a list of the most popular "Jazz Standards".
>>
>> I found this list of "Top ten Jazz Standards" at
>> http://igorogogo.com/igorogogo/Top_10_Standards.htm
Oh, and there's a longer list you might like at
http://www.geocities.com/scoguitar/standard.htm
- g.
Joe Finn
news:1187599883.9...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Does David Letterman have anything to do with this? ....joe
--
Visit me on the web www.JoeFinn.net
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Rick Ross
"Jazz Guy" <Recordi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187599883.9...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
top ten posters thread of the past:)
mik...@mailinator.com
learn for jam sessions etc a useful thing rather than frivolous.
btw can anyone tell me how to change my name to remove the @ .....lol
TIA
pmitc...@hotmail.com
http://www.jazzstandards.com/compositions/index.htm
Paul M Brown
Kevin Collins
> I've been looking for a list of the most popular "Jazz Standards".
>
>
> The web site states "The Top 10" are:
>
> 1. All The Things You Are
> 2. Stella By Starlight
> 3. Autumn Leaves
> 4. Green Dolphin Street
> 5. Body And Soul
> 6. Take The A Train
> 7. Blue Bossa
> 8. There Is No Greater Love
> 9. Satin Doll
> 10.Have You Met Miss Jones
>
> What do you think of the list content?
>
> Thanks
> Guy
Okay, I'm not much of a fan of these lists, so a mini-rant follows:
The list has a narrow focus - essentially asking what 10 chord
progressions will gain you passage in a jam session most rapidly. IMO,
boiling down songs into mere chord-frameworks is not a good idea at
any level of competency, and the results of such an approach suffer
from it musically. Isn't there a story behind each tune? A
perspective? A larger idea? A cultural issue, in some cases? If these
things are insignificant, then sure, "Blue Bossa" will make the list
and "Stardust" or "Love for Sale" won't.
The list, and this line of thought, may be geared towards the beginner
jazz musician. Thus, maybe the thinking is to start with the mechanics
of the music and get to the aesthetic stuff later. But it's too easy
to just get good at the mechanics and never move past that stage. Just
my two pennies.
-Kevin
Paul
On 8/20/07 10:27 PM, in article
1187663241.1...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com, "Kevin Collins"
<kevin...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not so sure Kevin. I'd think that anybody who works hard to get good
with the "mechanics" will necessarily get to the aesthetics. I think there
are more instances of players who are too eager to be artists but not the
work ethic to master the mechanics.
One does often hear a statement like "his playing is all chops" but
usually the statement masks some other agenda.
Paul K
Jazz Guy
I am more of a listener at gigs than a player, but as a hobby
guitarist I am looking for ten songs I could learn for Jam sessions,
so I can have some fun. I already know a few on the list I submitted,
but I don't have time to learn a lot of songs or to play the
instrument correctly. I do enjoyed listening to the other talented
players, professional and non-professional at gigs.
Thanks
Guy
Peter Huggins
list; he specifically requested no blues numbers, jazz standards
exclusively. I still suggested "Stormy Monday"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
" I`d dance with you Maria, but my hands are on fire " - Bob Dylan
" We had a knob, and all we had to do was turn it." - Les Paul
Grins, Peter
http://community.webtv.net/guitarmaniax/THISISTHE
http://community.webtv.net/guitarmaniax/unfinished3
Des Higgins
> "Jazz Guy" <RecordingMu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Here is my 10 ten list of jazz guitar related lists that are most
guaranteed to create endless arg ehhhh emmm discussion.
The top ten x of all time where x is one of:
1. Jazz Guitarists (not so hard to pick 10 greats but who to leave
out?)
2. Guitarists (this is guaranteed to see Hendrix versus Segovia death
matches)
3. Jazz Guitar albums (but was The Bridge a Guitar album or a sax
album?)
4. Jazz Albums
5. Favourite changes for Autumn Leaves (I only know 4 or 5 so this
should be easy)
6. Jazz Guitar teachers/educators (fasten yer seat belts folks)
7. uses of the Hungarian Major (who would have thought this could
arouse such passion)
8. ways of avoiding persecution by MI5
9. ways of getting a pick out of an archtop on stage without looking
like an idiot
10. Jazz Standards
Des
Paul
>
> Here is my 10 ten list of jazz guitar related lists that are most
> guaranteed to create endless arg ehhhh emmm discussion.
>
> The top ten x of all time where x is one of:
> 1. Jazz Guitarists (not so hard to pick 10 greats but who to leave
> out?)
> 2. Guitarists (this is guaranteed to see Hendrix versus Segovia death
> matches)
> 3. Jazz Guitar albums (but was The Bridge a Guitar album or a sax
> album?)
> 4. Jazz Albums
> 5. Favourite changes for Autumn Leaves (I only know 4 or 5 so this
> should be easy)
> 6. Jazz Guitar teachers/educators (fasten yer seat belts folks)
> 7. uses of the Hungarian Major (who would have thought this could
> arouse such passion)
> 8. ways of avoiding persecution by MI5
> 9. ways of getting a pick out of an archtop on stage without looking
> like an idiot
> 10. Jazz Standards
>
> Des
>
expensive looking archtop and a pick while the drummer is taking his four
bar solo.
paul
Kevin Collins
Good points below, man! I'll do the annoying piece-by-piece response,
just to try and not let any of them slip by...
> On 8/20/07 10:27 PM, in article
> 1187663241.196550.184...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com, "Kevin Collins"
>
> > Okay, I'm not much of a fan of these lists, so a mini-rant follows:
>
> > The list has a narrow focus - essentially asking what 10 chord
> > progressions will gain you passage in a jam session most rapidly. IMO,
> > boiling down songs into mere chord-frameworks is not a good idea at
> > any level of competency, and the results of such an approach suffer
> > from it musically. Isn't there a story behind each tune? A
> > perspective? A larger idea? A cultural issue, in some cases? If these
> > things are insignificant, then sure, "Blue Bossa" will make the list
> > and "Stardust" or "Love for Sale" won't.
>
> > The list, and this line of thought, may be geared towards the beginner
> > jazz musician. Thus, maybe the thinking is to start with the mechanics
> > of the music and get to the aesthetic stuff later. But it's too easy
> > to just get good at the mechanics and never move past that stage.
>
> I'm not so sure Kevin. I'd think that anybody who works hard to get good
> with the "mechanics" will necessarily get to the aesthetics.
I would like it to be that way, but I have heard (what seem to me to
be) examples of the opposite. That parenthetical bit is important,
because there's obviously no way of knowing what's going on in a
musician's head; can't draw for Artist Enzyme A or Mechanic Enzyme B.
Neat science-fiction idea, though. Hmmmm...
> I think there
> are more instances of players who are too eager to be artists but not the
> work ethic to master the mechanics.
>
True, but generally the weak technical foundation gives them away,
especially in jazz. Otherwise, they're working in an idiom that
doesn't place the same technical demands on them, and their aesthetic
reaches a bunch of ears anyway. In which case, more power to 'em.
> One does often hear a statement like "his playing is all chops" but
> usually the statement masks some other agenda.
>
No, sometimes it really does sound that way! Haven't you ever just
been left "cold" by someone who obviously has it together technically?
Again, there's no denying that this is all subjective, but there
doesn't necessarily need to be an agenda involved for someone to feel
that way. At some point one has to trust their impressions, and even
trust that they might change.
I wouldn't necessarily spill any ink or pixels about that feeling
about anyone in particular, and maybe that's where there's an agenda,
whether it's as simple as a deadline to meet, or as dubious as the
author venting his own insecurities. There's always something I could
be working on in the time it would take to publically make such a
statement, and I can't help but hear echoes of past statements about
Coltrane and others ("damn scales" comes to mind!).
But having that opinion, or even discussing it, is perfectly valid.
Sometimes the expression of it, even in a debate, can help clarify
one's aesthetic viewpoint which, like I said, is subject to change and
refinement. And I think it can be done without any maliciousness
intended or perceived, though unfortunately it rarely is in this kind
of medium!
Paul
On 8/21/07 8:25 AM, in article
1187699120.2...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com, "Kevin Collins"
<kevin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 20, 11:12 pm, Paul <p...@none.edu> wrote:
>
>>> The list, and this line of thought, may be geared towards the beginner
>>> jazz musician. Thus, maybe the thinking is to start with the mechanics
>>> of the music and get to the aesthetic stuff later. But it's too easy
>>> to just get good at the mechanics and never move past that stage.
>>
>
>> I'm not so sure Kevin. I'd think that anybody who works hard to get good
>> with the "mechanics" will necessarily get to the aesthetics.
>
> I would like it to be that way, but I have heard (what seem to me to
> be) examples of the opposite. That parenthetical bit is important,
> because there's obviously no way of knowing what's going on in a
> musician's head; can't draw for Artist Enzyme A or Mechanic Enzyme B.
> Neat science-fiction idea, though. Hmmmm...
Actually, what I need tonight is some "blazing sight reading" enzyme.
>
>> I think there
>> are more instances of players who are too eager to be artists but not the
>> work ethic to master the mechanics.
>>
>
> True, but generally the weak technical foundation gives them away,
> especially in jazz. Otherwise, they're working in an idiom that
> doesn't place the same technical demands on them, and their aesthetic
> reaches a bunch of ears anyway. In which case, more power to 'em.
>
>> One does often hear a statement like "his playing is all chops" but
>> usually the statement masks some other agenda.
>>
>
> No, sometimes it really does sound that way! Haven't you ever just
> been left "cold" by someone who obviously has it together technically?
Yep, those recently posted Jon McLaughlin youtube vids do absolutely nothing
for me. (or Strunz and Farah, while I'm at it). But I've heard enough
McLaughlin stuff to know he has artistic depth.
> Again, there's no denying that this is all subjective, but there
> doesn't necessarily need to be an agenda involved for someone to feel
> that way. At some point one has to trust their impressions, and even
> trust that they might change.
I didnt intend to suggest you have an agenda. I was just thinking that
typically when people criticize someone's chops (which I'm bringin up as an
example of "mechanics") it is because they are jealous they can't play
that well, and hence dismiss that skill as unimportant musically, usually to
boost their own standing or self-worth. That's certainly why I do it! Most
of the time, however, once I become familiar with what the musician is
trying to accomplish the initial impression dissipates.
In any case, once one gets out of puberty, attracting the opposite sex stops
being a compelling reason to keep working at jazz guitar, and so some kind
of aesthetic motivation has got to enter into it, it would seem to me.
And I'm really sticking to jazz here since improv, even bad improv, is a
creative activity, and I've never met another jazz musician (wanabee, or
chopsmeister, or whatever) who had no thoughts about creativity.
I is probably true that a lot of people getting into jazz (for which this
top 10 list is supposed to be relevant) are mostly interested in sounding
like they know the language, which might be another aspect of the
"mechanics" of jazz. But even then some aesthetic sense draws them to do
that, I'd think.
I guess I've mostly just repeated what you say below.
Pqul K
kevso...@gmail.com
>
> Actually, what I need tonight is some "blazing sight reading" enzyme.
>
>
are low.
>
>
>
> >> I think there
> >> are more instances of players who are too eager to be artists but not the
> >> work ethic to master the mechanics.
>
> > True, but generally the weak technical foundation gives them away,
> > especially in jazz. Otherwise, they're working in an idiom that
> > doesn't place the same technical demands on them, and their aesthetic
> > reaches a bunch of ears anyway. In which case, more power to 'em.
>
> >> One does often hear a statement like "his playing is all chops" but
> >> usually the statement masks some other agenda.
>
> > No, sometimes it really does sound that way! Haven't you ever just
> > been left "cold" by someone who obviously has it together technically?
>
> Yep, those recently posted Jon McLaughlin youtube vids do absolutely nothing
> for me. (or Strunz and Farah, while I'm at it). But I've heard enough
> McLaughlin stuff to know he has artistic depth.
>
I can relate on both counts. It's tough to get yourself to investigate
further, though, when that's your overwhelming first impression of an
artist. In some cases you "come around" to them years later, but in
some cases not. Doesn't prove or disprove anything about them, but
it's still not an impression to take lightly or dismiss. Balance,
young grasshopper. Okay, enough of that...
> > Again, there's no denying that this is all subjective, but there
> > doesn't necessarily need to be an agenda involved for someone to feel
> > that way. At some point one has to trust their impressions, and even
> > trust that they might change.
>
> I didnt intend to suggest you have an agenda.
I didn't think you were suggesting that. I'm sure at least some of the
professional critics out there have monkeys on their backs of some
sort.
> I was just thinking that
> typically when people criticize someone's chops (which I'm bringin up as an
> example of "mechanics") it is because they are jealous they can't play
> that well, and hence dismiss that skill as unimportant musically, usually to
> boost their own standing or self-worth. That's certainly why I do it! Most
> of the time, however, once I become familiar with what the musician is
> trying to accomplish the initial impression dissipates.
>
> In any case, once one gets out of puberty, attracting the opposite sex stops
> being a compelling reason to keep working at jazz guitar, and so some kind
> of aesthetic motivation has got to enter into it, it would seem to me.
> And I'm really sticking to jazz here since improv, even bad improv, is a
> creative activity, and I've never met another jazz musician (wanabee, or
> chopsmeister, or whatever) who had no thoughts about creativity.
>
That's true, although at some point you realize that it's not the
chops that attract the opposite sex. In fact, I've never seen anything
in music illicit yawns from them faster than chops-flexing. Someone
with "no thoughts about creativity" might be someone with a thought
disorder of some kind, and is probably a rare case, especially in as
financially unprofitable and criminally unappreciated an area as jazz
improv.
Can't help but wonder how things would be going if I was working on
jazz guitar around puberty, rather than just starting to discover
recordings of jazz at age 15...
> I is probably true that a lot of people getting into jazz (for which this
> top 10 list is supposed to be relevant) are mostly interested in sounding
> like they know the language, which might be another aspect of the
> "mechanics" of jazz. But even then some aesthetic sense draws them to do
> that, I'd think.
>
I think you're right, especially on that last part. At some point,
though, you can lose sight of the visceral stuff that drew you in -
the groove, the soul, whatever it may have been. I'm gonna guess that
it most cases it wasn't "chord progressions", at least as the initial
draw. I think I was just surprised to see that the list was strictly
based on progressions, with no mention of melody or lyrics in sight.
Hopefully this all didn't come out as an attack on the OP, just a red
flag that popped up for me.
Anyway, I've got some mechanics of my own I'd better attend to...
-Kevin