JimMorrison

And I also have the television with digital terrestrial.

Terry, I have a house.

Alex, stop trying with Terry.

Count, I have the impression that we are saying the same things without understanding each other (and this happens more often when writing than when talking over a beer - shall I buy?). So, the term Standard refers, in music, only to Jazz and this is an undeniable fact. In the sense that (I’ll put it in simple terms) these are musical compositions on which musicians in Jazz (only in Jazz, this is important) improvise. However, I did not speak of pieces, but of "themes" and "sketches" that have become famous (and so I don’t understand your last post). It is correct that the matrix of the standard is not necessarily Jazz; initially, it was hardly ever the case (the reference to Broadway musicals is the classic example). However, later on, musicians began to write standards with a Jazz matrix (Round Midnight is extremely difficult to perform due to the harmonic progression). So if the note is only on this point, "The standard is a Jazz musical theme," I understand, because it is reductive but more current. But your statement "It is a POP musical theme" is worse, I believe. However, I appreciate your observations.

No Contemplation, what you say is partially correct because originally it was like that (the reference to the musicals is spot on). Subsequently, various musicians composed genuine musical sketches to improvise on. Of course, this led others to use them for their own performances as well.

(many pieces he invented were based on standards) --> Here it is. Finally, the right word: standards (less accurate is "invented"). A standard is a jazz musical theme (as I mentioned in the previous post) that over the years becomes well-known, revisited, played with a ton of improvisation on top. Usually, a standard has a simple structure, a few chords and a melodic line. Then it's up to the artist to create whatever they want from it. It's like having Play-Doh in your hands and facing off against Canova, not just any old thing. Jazz is improvisation, let's not forget, which is why in the review I don't speak of a pedantic reinterpretation of the pieces. Aloha.

Well Muff, Hold is right. Round Midnight, for example, is a very well-known theme by Monk, perhaps the most performed of all and one of the most difficult to interpret...

Well yes, it’s perhaps (without perhaps) an important detail that I should have included in the review. It’s just that pieces like Round Midnight or Night in Tunisia are almost as famous in the genre as Let It Be, and for this reason, I took it for granted. In reality, the pieces marked Parker are 4 out of 10, the album is dedicated to him, while the others are obviously by Gillespie, Raskin, Dameron, Monk, etc. But have you managed to listen to it? Pay particular attention to "Night In Tunisia."

Well, the rating is always relative to the artist and the context. And then on a scale from 1 to 5, there's not much choice for the score to assign. If an album is worth 90.325 to me in hundredths, it gets the 5 stars. Don't you think?

It's a fake or at best the child of some journalist from Gazzetta del Mezzogiorno, no doubt about it. Someone who writes "Meiden" and is a theorist in the same review is either a fake or a fool.