Customer Reviews

The Fifty Greatest Jazz Piano Players of All Time: Ranking, Analysis & Photos (Book)

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Ranking musicians/artists is wrongheaded but some of these picks are just beyond the pale. He ranks the number 1-4 top jazz pianists of all time as Oscar Peterson, Bill Evans, Bud Powell and Art Tatum. Reasonable picks. So who's number 5? Gotta be along the lines of Chick, Herbie, Keith, McCoy, Cecil, Fatha Hines, Teddy Wilson, Fats, or Jelly Roll, right? Get this- Monty Alexander! and who's number 6? Benny Green! I was in disbelief. As you wade through the rest of the picks you realize that the closer a pianist comes to duplicating Oscar's style the higher he is rated (Gene Harris rates 12 if I recall). Now I have plenty of Monty Alexander and Benny Green recordings and enjoy their playing, but they are hardly the sort of original pianists that would merit their rubbing shoulders with these giants. This book may familarize the jazz piano enthusiast with some players they didn't previously know but a better book in that regard would be Robert Doershuk's "88: The Giants of Jazz Piano." Doerschuk's book features more pianists, is more informative and comes with a CD. I will say that Rizzo's book has some nice photos.

Books like this are always good conversation starters. And of course the only palatable title--"My Fifty Favorite"--probably wouldn't sell any books let alone spark any conversations.

There's nothing wrong with the first 4 on the list--except with their order. If Rizzo's main criterion is keyboard command and forceful swing, then Oscar's lofty place can remain unchallenged. But if his aesthetic includes a depth and complexity of expression equal to the greatest composers--Bartok, Debussy, Shostakovich--Bill Evans belongs on top. If harmonic legerdemain deserves extra weight, put Art at the pinnacle; or for complex melodic-rhythmic lines on the level of Bird, give the nod to Bud.

After the number 4 position, Rizzo merely exposes the problems of a ranking like this, let alone the gaps in his (or any individual listener's) knowledge and listening experience. Monty Alexander belongs on the list--but in the number 5 position? (I have a hunch he'd be personally embarassed to find himself 19 places above Nat Cole.) And Benny Green and Andre Previn at 5 and 6? Or for that matter Erroll Garner in a lowly 25 slot? Worse, the seminal Earl Hines all the way down in 39? (More understandable if the author's exposure to the father of jazz piano is limited to post '75 recordings.) At least he gets Billy Taylor right.

The author plays it safe by pulling out a couple of comparative obscurities--Tete Montoliu and Derek Smith. But anyone can play that game. I would insist that any short list ought to include Carl Perkins. As for the "honorable mentions," where's Dave Catney? There's a list of women pianists, but where are Pat Moran, Ellyn Rucker, and Alice McCleod (Coltrane)? (At least Terry Pollard gets a mention.)

The bios tend to be general and aimed at the uninitiated. There are no attempts to "justify" the ranking of each pianist or to provide disclosure of the contributors to those rankings. Overall, a handsome coffee-table book. Buy it to test the rankings against your own. But first sprinkle some salt on the title.

An enterprise such as this one is a little bit goofy to start with, but people (including me) like lists. Part of the fun of lists is arguing about them, and I believe many list writers stimulate discussion -- and hopefully sales -- by including provocative entries. That's all fine and good, but this book goes way beyond that into the land of the dumb and ridiculous. Anyone who places Monty Alexander at number 5 on the list has some pretty fancy explaining to do, but here the explanation is seriously inadequate, both in terms of the criteria used to compile the list, and how each pianist fits the criteria. I like Benny Green a lot, but he has no business near the top of the list. Placing Andre Previn at number 7, far ahead of Fats Waller, Erroll Garner and Earl Hines, among many others, is nothing short of bizarre. It completely undermines the author's credibility, even if he knows more than most of us about jazz piano. It is not nitpicky stuff.
In the IMHO category, what about Ralph Sutton? Chucho Valdes? And if you're going to pull out all these relatively obscure names, why not make room for, say, Dick Wellstood or Michel Petrucciani?

Pay no attention to the elistist reviews that criticize this book because of the rankings. Their opinions are no better than the author's. There are a lot of overrated pianists in jazz history who remain overrated because the jazz elite throughout the years tend to repeat the assessments of jazz critics that came before them. Jazz is art. And as they say, art is in the ear of the listener. For example, I believe Keith Jarrett has created some fantastic material, but I feel he is overrated. But, it's just my opinion, and I don't expect it to matter to the next guy. Someone else can have an entirely different opinion, and that doesn't make either one of us wrong. There is no such thing as an objective assessment of piano ability - it's all subjective. I believe Andre Previn is typically underrated, like the author apparently does. Previn's phrasing and command of accents speaks to me. Nat King Cole headed some exceptional trios in his earlier years. I am hardly moved by his piano artistry, but am awestruck by his singing; he is my favorite vocalist. I love him, but I'm not sure he'd crack my list of top piano players. The major cristicm of this book is the thin biographies. There really should be more depth to the writing. And, like another reviewer mentioned, if you think Monty Alexaner is brilliant, at least tell us why. My critique is not the rankings - the disagreements make it fun. I give it only 3 stars because of the thinness of the text.

I was a litle dissappointed. Thought there would be more biography of the players. Haven't had the time to go through the whole book yet.

This book is attractively presented on high-gloss paper complete with photos of all 50 artists on the list. The ranking, however, makes absolutely no sense to me. It seems his ranking is based on one era of jazz piano, likely the era he grew up in, and I definately agree with the assertion below that retitles the book "My Fifty Favorite". If a novice of jazz was looking to learn more about the art form, not only would they be misled by the inaccurate ranking, they would find minimal biographical and stylistic information. It serves best as a great flip-through coffee table book for your guests.