Talk:List of jazz pianists

Untitled
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Billy Joel
Has been removed from the list as, although he has dabbled in jazz piano, in no way is he regarded as being a jazz pianist of note Paul210 (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Adam Holzman
While he has been removed from the list as he has no corresponding article, I do accept he is of some note and have added him to Requested articles/music. Paul210 (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)