Who's the Bach(s) in jazz improvisation?

[emanresu]

The only criteria - every piece and solo works, makes sense, worth another listen (thats optional).

When teaching and needing a piece quickly to read through or let them have it for the next exam... when
being lazy but needing something new, I always pick Bach. "when being lazy" is the key here. The reason is, a random one from this guy
works. Never failed for many many years.

So, when you are feeling lazy and don't want to experiment, who would you pick to put on through loudspeakers?

[pauln]

Early Miles Davis and Sonny Rollins
Guitar specific ideas, Django & Wes

[AllanAllen]

Benny Goodman Trio, Best of Duke Ellington, Gerry Mulligan Quartet with Chet Baker, Julie Is Her Name, Johnny Smith Moonlight in Vermont. Workin with Miles Davis.

I can do this all day.

[Doctor Jeff]

When you say Bach, I immediately think contrapuntal, and in particular that interplay between bass and treble that is so pivotal to the Goldberg Variations, Well-Tempered Clavier and Brandenburg Concerti, among others.

The duet albums that Bill Evans did with Jim Hall immediately come to mind. A conversation between 2 geniuses.

I think maybe what you mean though is a well-contained album that has an accessible musical language and brilliant, melodic soloing.

Gosh there are so many. Can't do any better though than Kind of Blue or Giant Steps and the other Miles/Trane albums of the era. Or Wayne Shorter's 60's/70's albums. Or Herbie Hancock's Maiden Voyage, or Chameleon if you're feeling funky. Or Getz/Gilberto. Or Sinatra's late-50's albums with Nelson Riddle. Or Ella's Songbooks.

[spencer096]

lee konitz, warne marsh, lennie tristano

[reventlov]

Lenny Breau

[joelf]

Pres, any period. He's perfection to me...

[Jimmy Smith]

Monk. I've never heard a performance of his that I thought was bad. Some tunes I may not be in the mood for, but if I picked any song live or studio and was in the head space to listen to it, I would think it was good.

[Bop Head]

Do not sleep on Mary Lou Williams.

[wintermoon]

Do not sleep on Mary Lou Williams.

I got a call tonight to turn the TV on and there was an old episode of To Tell The Truth.
One of the 3 contestants was the curator for a jazz museum in NY.
Then to my surprise (and delight) they had Mary Lou Williams' quartet w Walter Perkins on drums in studio playing a tune afterwards! Made my night.....

[princeplanet]

lee konitz, warne marsh, lennie tristano

The Bach of Jazz? Probably Lennie, but I'll throw in Keith Jarrett too.

[emanresu]

I'd let this go on without a comment but cant help it... Better than Bach?
-inspired solo each time?

[enalnitram]

Charlie Parker, for the win.

[dasein]

In order to answer this, you have to define what Bach means to you. For me:

- Bach is the greatest contrapuntalist ever (sorry Palestrina), the culmination of everything that came before him and quite a bit more. He did things that seemingly no other composer could do. Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Brahms, etc could all write great fugues, but to my mind and ears they sound like the products of immense struggle, lots of blood and sweat in the ink. Bach, otoh, could seemingly scribble 3 great fugues on a napkin before breakfast.

- As the OP alluded to, the overall quality of Bach's body of work is very high. There's some stuff I don't love -- does anyone really love all the cantatas? And his brass fanfare writing leaves a lot to be desired, although a big part of that is the instruments that were available at the time. But on the whole, if you just pick a random Bach composition, there's a very good chance it's going to be great and you're going to hear something that makes you stand up and pay attention.

- He wrote in a style that was considered old-fashioned by the time of his death, and wasn't used very much afterwards. Someone like Haydn or Beethoven might have been shocked by the harmonies in something like a Shostakovich symphony, but formally it would have seemed familiar to them. Not so with Bach. And even Bach's most ardent admirers would admit he was not much of a rhythmic innovator.

Based on that criteria, the obvious choice for me is Louis Armstrong. Charlie Parker is the only other person I seriously considered, but he would be closer to someone like Haydn in my ever-more-tortured analogy.

If classical music has harmony and counterpoint as its beating heart, jazz has rhythm. And nobody in the history of jazz has touched Armstrong when it comes to rhythm. Pick a random Hot Fives and Sevens track, and there's a good chance you hear him play something like a major triad or simple blues riff that is simply not possible to imitate correctly. His beat placement is so precise that he can sound like he's speeding up and slowing down in the middle of a phrase, but somehow everything comes out perfect by the end. There are also tracks I don't particularly care for (although a lot of his records from the 30's onwards are dismissed completely unfairly). And he was also playing a style that was considered very old-fashioned by the time of his death.

I think it was Beethoven who told young composers to "make the Well-Tempered Clavier your daily bread" and I can the same for the Hot Fives and Sevens for jazz musicians.