Talk:Jazz standard

message: Its not clear what is meant with the inclusion of the following line:
However, time spent working through a respectable 'fake book', such as The New Real Book, will help in such situations.
:There are a number of 'fake books' available. There is a collection, known as 'The Real Books', which were produced without permission of the copyright owners and which are also often regarded as having many errors. Sher Publishing has released a series known as 'The New Real Books', which do have appropriate permissions and are regarded as being more accurate.
-Yes, the Real Books do have some questionable changes- however, they are universally accepted as the standard gigging books to carry. I smell astroturfing in the above comments!
:When was the last time you went gigging? The Chuck Sher books are the standard these days--Giggidy 00:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is a bit vague - perhaps you could spin out a new page about 'fake books', so that they can be mentioned without further discussion being needed on the range available and their relative merits. Basswulf 11:22, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Fake books

message: Well that sounds a lot better already. A wider discussion about standards should be held so that the corrections and changes could be done. For example List of jazz standards is a very mixed combination of adapted tunes, bebop era tunes and Davis` repertoire.
I suggest that the List should be very limited and for the definitive songs only. Therefore another list should be also made: for example List of famous jazz tunes.
--
An alternate definition of a jazz standard: A song, originally from a genre of music other than jazz, which has been adapted to be a vehicle for jazz improvisation. One example is "Lady Bird." Original jazz pieces, such as "Take Five," are not jazz standards under this definition.
:I think that the definiton of a 'jazz standard' is not clear, however it Should Be.
:As musician and a student, I think that a jazz standard is (only) a tune from the Broadway musicals and popular tunes in 20's and 30's, such as Some Day My Prince Will Come.
:This would mean that all the standards existed already in the 40's to 60's when Mr. Davis and Mr. Hancock wrote their repertoire.
:Nevertheless, I think that a strict definiton for a standard is needed, because with the current approach we will find ourselves putting every song of the New Real Book (vol. 1, 2 and 3) to the list. It cannot be like that...
:-a Finn
::I have some sympathy with this, but I think giving a strict definition would be misleading. I think a lot of jazz musicians would identify "Take The A-Train" or "Round Midnight" as "jazz standards" because they're "standard tunes that jazz musicians learn and play", even though both were created as jazz compositions. I don't think they'd necesserily be mistaken in doing that.
::Probably there are quite a few jazz musicians out there who don't really know (or care) whether a particular tune was written for stage, screen or bandstand. It might, however, be worth discriminating these two senses in the introduction if others agree.
::On another note, I think the list of tunes should go in a separate page. That way how long the list gets doesn't matter so much. Any thoughts?
::Ornette
:::Yeah, the list should be merged into List of jazz standards, and maybe put a few sentences with examples in the article.
:::I also think that the strict definition is not the whole story, but it should be mentioned more clearly, preferably with a book cite. - mako 02:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: The following tunes listed as bebop standards are not bebop:
Giant Steps: too advanced to be bebop ? Taking bebop further
Milestones: definitely not bebop - this is Modal jazz
Round Midnight and Well you Needn't are Hard Bop jazz standards, I'd have thought.
Anyone like to disagree with me ? Maybe I'm splitting hairs but if noone complains, when I get the time I'll do a thorough list on a separate page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.44.79.145 (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Bebop 

message: "The Jazz Age" didn't start at the end of World War I; it started in 1925; the music from 1918-1924 is not part of this era; it does have a specific name which I cannot recall, but it is different from its predecessor "Ragtime" and the Jazz Age that started in the mid-1920s.
Furthermore, The Great Depression didn't start the instant the New York Stock Exchange had its famous crash; The Depression actually started two years later; it took that long for the effects of The Crash to ripple through the economy; I am sick-and-tired of people claiming that the instant the market crashed, The Depression started; this simply is not so.
Lastly, "The Jazz Age," musically, lasted until 1933; stylistically, this music continued on until then, much as "The 60s" really ended in 1973-74.
Jazz Age music, at that point, started to evolve into "Swing" which essentially finally defined itself by the spring of 1935; it had great rivalry from "Sweet" music that started in parallel with the depths of The Depression.
In fact, it wasn't until 1936 that Swing "won" this battle with Sweet Bands for the soul of American popular music.
Where people get all this nonsense stuff from is a total mystery to me; I'd love to give this portion of the article one helluva an edit!!!
Satchmo Sings (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comments. I'll try to take a look at the points you mention and see if I could sort them out. In any case, you're certainly welcome to edit the article and make improvements yourself. Jafeluv (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start of "The Jazz Age" and The Great Depression