Talk:List of jazz pianists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of jazz pianists article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, set up to organize and expand entries on jazz and related subgenres, as well as other related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).

This stylistic division is really stupid. First, it's largely subjective. (What constitutes a "pioneer" or a "giant"? What distinguishes a "major figure"?) Second, none of these categories are mutually exclusive. It's fine to list Duke as an Early Pioneers -- but then you've got a section called Important Pianist-Composer/Arragers, and it's pretty dumb to omit Duke from that. You haven't allowed for overlap. Third, your qualifications for Major Figures are non-existent -- but you've listed people like Ketil Bjornstad, Billy Childs, Marc Copland, etc. Copland himself would scoff at the notion that he's a "major figure" -- especially when you've got someone like Toshiko, who's been nominated for Grammy after Grammy, or Alan Broadbent, probably the most successful jazz pianist/arranger today, excluded from that category.

I'm not getting into an edit war with some WikiNazi over this -- but for the record, it's a really stupid way to overcomplicate what should be a simple, alphabetical list. [Stop patting yourself on the back over the breadth of your jazz knowledge (which is sorely lacking, by the way), and stick to building an encyclopedia.] **please don't veer from legitimate discussion into personal attacks

I agree. An alphabetical list will be less confusing and definitely more NPOV. The latter is reason enough to go with it since NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable" on Wikipedia.
The previous post gave good examples deficiencies of the present scheme. Here are a few more... When you can't find Mingus, Krall, Connick Jr. etc. in any sublists labelled either "important" or "great" or "well-known" or "major" or "giants", you know you've got a confusing system of organization. (Hint: Apparently, their additional singing ability relegates them to a lesser sublist, preventing them from being "well-known".) Likewise, Jazz musicians who double on piano should really be rolled into the same list as the others, since they are bona-fide Jazz pianists. --Ds13 16:19, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

I agree. And as one of the original contributors to this list, I've corrected the problem. This is exactly what the talk page is supposed to accomplish. Cribnotes 00:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] I'm off for a bit

Well for this list. I've been trying to fill in the red links and worked both directions(A-N, Z-U) on it. I've not worked on the names from O-T. I'm kind of wondering if some of the red-links are non-notable people, but I don't know for certain.--T. Anthony 01:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are all these people pianists?

I really don't remember Gerry Mulligan being a pianist. He wrote for pianists sometimes, but what piano playing is he known for?--T. Anthony 07:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

There seems to be rather a lot of unreferenced names in this list.In the interests of tidying-up I propose removal of the names here that do not link to other Wikipedia pages Paul210 (talk) 08:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Mark A Gerrard

This inclusion is not appropriate and has been removed. He is not of any notability or of the calibre of the others on the list. A Google search revealed nothing. There is a link to a poorly-written, possible ' vanity' Wikipedia article. Paul210 (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)