Buy 'Hands' - my new recording with Dave Binney, Tom Rainey, and Chris Guilfoyle!

Thursday, May 30, 2019

Unusual Subdivision in Jazz Improvisation - a Step By Step Guide



Finding a way to use unusual subdivisions in an effective way in jazz is challenging. Especially if you're using the traditional jazz language of swing over changes. And if you're trying to do this, it's important that you should be doing this for musical reasons - i.e these subdivisions are being used for expressive purposes, rather than it being some kind of science project - a trap many fall into. The reason I use these kinds of unusual subdivisions in improvising is because they feel different to the more conventional subdivisions  - not better by the way, just different. No subdivision is of itself better than any other - it's how they're used that gives them their value.

Bearing that important point in mind, it is true to say that using 5s (quintuplets), or 7s (septuplets), or indeed triplets in unusual groupings (4s or 5s for example), does give a different feel to the music. And this is the reason why they are worth exploring and incorporating into your language - they can give you a greater variety of expressive possibilities if used creatively.

So this is the aesthetic and musical reason for exploring this world. The challenge is then how to work with these unusual groupings and to make them sound, and indeed be organic.

The first step is to just get used to the different subdivisions and, like most things in music, the best way to do this is to be able to 'sing' them. By sing I mean recite them, over a fixed pulse. The best way to do this in my opinion, is to use Konnekol - the South Indian rhythmic solfege system, where syllables represent numbers.

Konnekol

The system is very simple - it consists of five syllables, each one representing a number:

Ta = 1
Taka = 2
Takita = 3
Takadimi  = 4
Tadigenaka - 5

All other numbers are created using combinations of these syllables, for example 7 could be Takadimi/Takita, or 9 could be Taka/Takita/Takadimi

In this first video, I divide the clapped beat from 1 up to 9, and back down again. This a great exercise on its own, as it really shows you how accurate you are with regular subdivisions such as 4 or 3, as well as the more unusual ones



So once you're comfortable with that, (and be honest with yourself on this - this kind of thing usually takes weeks to become second nature, and patience is definitely a virtue in this instance!), you can look at putting it on your instrument in some way. And a good way to do that is to combine scale practice with rhythm practice


Combining Scale and Rhythm Practice

In this next video I combine playing a scale (in this case Bb Dorian Minor) with using different subdivisions - 1 through 8 over a slow metronome beat in 4/4. In this case I am playing up to the 11th, so each subdivision needs to be played a set number of times in order to align the beginning of each new subdivision with the downbeat of the bar. Apart from being a good exercise for your subdivisions, this is a good rhythmic relationship exercise too, as you have to hear how the pattern relates to the 4/4 cycle





Once you can do that accurately and comfortably, I would suggest trying to play and improvise over a static chord or scale (a major key is fine for this), using different subdivisions. Maybe set up a drum groove in a sequencer, (or use an app such as the great Drumgenius). Once you're comfortable with that, you can move on to playing over changes.

Using Different and Unusual Subdivisions Over Swinging Changes


Using unusual rhythmic devices for improvising becomes a completely different animal when played over changes, and in the swing idiom. It's definitely more challenging - that's probably why so many avoid it. In suggesting you try this I'm assuming two things: 1) You're comfortable playing over changes in a conventional setting (if not you've got some basic work to do before trying this!), and 2) You really have practiced the earlier exercises and they are second nature to you.

So, assuming that, what I'm doing here is using four different subdivisions over four choruses of the great standard 'Alone Together':

1st Chorus: Behind the beat - a classic feel from the jazz tradition, but one that requires great rhythmic control to bring off successfully - it must be behind the beat, but must not slow down!

2nd Chorus: Quintuplets - 5 over 2. These really have the feel of lazy triplets

3rd Chorus: Sextuplets - 6 over 2. Not such an unusual subdivision in itself, but when they're regrouped into groups of four as they are here, then they take on a very different feeling.

4th Chorus: Septuplets - 7 over 2. These have the feel of 8th note triplets after a lot of coffee



So these then are some possibilities for jazz improvisation using unusual subdivisions. Of course in the video I am exaggerating them for demonstration purposes, I would not play a whole chorus with any one subdivision in the real world! But I think they have great expressive possibilities and when you get them in your ear and under your fingers they definitely open up some new and exciting vistas for the improviser. 

Saturday, May 4, 2019

Salt, Sugar, Fat: Food, Music and Things We Like




There's an artist whose music I believe to be hugely overrated - definitely a case of recognition deserving of wider talent - but who is very popular with a certain section of the listening population. Although a newcomer to his music would probably hear nothing remarkable in the heard-a-thousand-times chord progressions, simple melodies and stock song forms that make up his oeuvre, he has nevertheless built a mythology around himself, a mythology that suggests his music represents some kind of deep genius, despite this same music providing no evidence to back this up. But because he has been deified by lazy critics, by people who believe lazy critics, and by nostalgia buffs, it's a given that if you express an opinion suggesting that said artist is not at all the genius he is made out to be, you will receive blowback. And I have, many times. Most recently it was pointed out to me by a defender of this god-like artist, that if I was right, and he wasn't very good, then how come so many people liked him?

I have a one-word riposte whenever I'm presented with that line of argument - McDonalds




The idea that the popularity of something must have a direct correlation with the quality of that something, is an idea that not only doesn't hold water, but leaks like a sieve. McDonalds - the fast food chain that the word ubiquitous could have been created to describe - is the biggest individual retail seller of cooked food in the world. It trounces everyone else in terms of the sheer volume of food it sells, and the popularity of its brand. But even the people who eat McDonalds would be unlikely to argue that it is the greatest food in the world. It is mass produced, has no variation, is made to a formula, and requires no culinary input from the individual sellers working in the McDonald's restaurants that sell the food. So why is this mass produced, bland food so popular all over the world?

Salt, Sugar, Fat.

Human beings are hardwired to like salt, sugar and fat, and Mc Donalds' food is loaded with all three. We have a fairly primal positive response to all three of those food elements, and food that is high in salt, sugar or fat content is an easy sell for the purveyor. One or more of these constituents is an integral part of all processed food in general and that, along with the ease of mass production, (and the concomitant cheapness that goes with that mass production), explains the popularity of such food, despite it having no nuance, subtlety or variety. Eating such food provides an instant hit to receptors that are primed to welcome them.

There is a correlation to this in the music world, certain musical constituents that evoke an almost immediate response in most people. These responses and why they have this effect on people is extensively detailed in 'The Music Instinct (how music works and why we can't live without it)' by Phillip Ball, a wonderful book that goes into evolutionary history, psychology and many other aspects of how we're wired towards certain musical responses and resist others.




In the book Ball shows how there are musical elements that could be described as being the equivalents to salt, sugar and fat - consonance, repetition, simplicity and predictability. He shows how popular melodies are nearly always contained within the intervallic scope of a fifth, contain ascending and descending scale steps, have very little dissonance and are structurally simple. Now even a limited observation of very popular music can see that simplicity and predictability are the stock in trade of this genre, but what Ball shows is how these elements are not just the product of taste, but have evolutionary origins - in other words we are hot-wired to respond to these things, in the same way that we are to the food elements mentioned earlier. You'd really have to read the book in order to get a fuller explanation of these musical responses, but it's fascinating to read for example how wide interval leaps are generally not positively responded to by most people, and Ball shows how very few hit songs have had any wider intervallic leap than a major sixth, and how intervals such as the tritone or minor sixth, (which flirt with dissonance), are rare in popular music.

So the obvious lesson from this is that the more you load your music with the elements that fire the receptors in the average listener, and keep away from the elements that are not universally appreciated, the more likely it is that your music will be popular with large numbers of people. In fact, the analogy that can be made between global commercial fast food and global commercial pop music are very striking.

As an example, I'm going to take the third paragraph of this post and repeat it, but replace salt, sugar and fat, with consonance, simplicity and predictability, and replace the word food with music, and McDonald's with commercial pop music -

Human beings are hardwired to like consonance, simplicity and predictability, and commercial pop music is loaded with all three. We have a fairly primal positive response to all three of those music elements, and music that is high in consonance, simplicity and predictability is an easy sell for the purveyor. One or more of these constituents is an integral part of all commercial pop music in general and that, along with the ease of mass production, (and the concomitant cheapness that goes with that mass production), explains the popularity of such music, despite it having no nuance, subtlety or variety. Hearing such music provides an instant hit to receptors that are primed to welcome them. 





The music of Justin Bieber, Britney Spears, Spice Girls, Ed Sheeran etc. are all loaded to the gunwales with enough musically consonant saccharine to give you diabetes, are as predictable as night following day, and are devoid of all but the most simple structures. In fact their music meets all the criteria for attaining the kind of mass following that they have. Of course there can be other factors in play in deciding why a listener might choose one over the other, but the bottom line with all their music is that they follow the simple recipe of consonance, simplicity and predictability, that guarantees they will alienate as few listeners as possible.

Thankfully there are people who don't want to eat a diet completely comprised of sugar, salt and fat, and there are people who want more from music than constant consonance and bland predictability. I was lucky enough to be brought up on a nuanced musical diet, and in the same way that someone is brought up eating a wide range of foods, it has remained with me for the rest of my life. I do enjoy sugar, salt and fat in food, and I do enjoy consonance in music and simplicity, but in both food and music, those naturally endearing elements have to be balanced, contrasted, and even contradicted by different elements at various times. Sometimes those elements have to be absent for a considerable time in order for them to be all the more welcome when they do return.

And to be fair to the artist I mentioned at the beginning, he's not the musical equivalent of McDonald's. More like a Domino's Pizza perhaps.....


Wednesday, March 20, 2019

The Blog Is 10 Years Old Today!




It's hard to believe, for me anyway, but this blog is 10 years old today. In that time I've covered a lot of ground musically, learnt a lot about the online life - both positive and negative - connected with some great people, got a chance to interview many great musicians, and had the opportunity to write about many more. The act of writing about music has meant that I've had to distil my thoughts on many subjects and tease things out in my own mind before putting it into electronic print. I've learned about the power of words, how they can be empowering, and how, in the online world, they can be used against you by people who do not wish you well. I've been touched by the generosity of people who have contacted me, and sometimes been repelled by the cowardly malice of anonymous commentators.

So it's been a steep learning curve, but overall a very positive experience for me.

I started it having read Ethan Iverson's great blog 'Do The Math', (still the gold standard of jazz blogs in my opinion). Seeing how well he wrote about music, I felt that it was important that more musicians wrote about what they do, rather than leaving it all to the critics, many of whom, however well intentioned, often knew little or nothing about the realities of making music and playing jazz. So this prompted me to start writing, and once I got going I found that I really enjoyed it, and it also had a beneficial musical effect on me, making think deeply about things before committing to write about them.

I think what surprised me the most was the interest people had in reading the blog. I thought it would be read by a handful of people, and though it's all relative, (I wouldn't be in the same universe as some bloggers in terms of readership), it never ceased to surprise me just how many people did read it. Looking at the stats as I write this, I can see that people have accessed and read the blog 611,816 times, which probably means that somewhere between 250,000 - 500,000 people have read it. That staggers me! I would never have thought that it would have had that kind of reach, and am pleased and of course flattered that it has.


Dave Liebman

I've written about many things in the jazz sphere, from technical things to composition, from stuff that is out and out jazz, to thoughts about music and society, composition, and interviews with great musicians such as Dave Liebman, Kenny Werner, Steve Coleman, Eric Ineke, and Jim McNeely. I've looked back at the music of my heroes, and great figures in the music, and speculated on the future of the music.

I can never predict which posts are going to attract the most attention - sometimes I think a piece will be of interest to many people but it attracts relatively few viewers, and other times something I casually put up there takes off. If I look at the stats, these are the top five posts according to the number of views:

1. '21st Century Bebop?' - the relevance of teaching the music of the jazz tradition in the 21st century
2. 'Six Reasons Why I Love Jazz' - no explanation needed
3. 'Steve Coleman on Rhythm' - again, no explanation needed
4. 'The Singer and the Song' - some thoughts on the position of the singer in contemporary jazz
5. 'When Drums Stop, Big Trouble!' - on bass solos!

I have had my ups and downs with keeping up with regular posting, and sometimes when things are very busy in the rest of my life I find it hard to find time to write. And there are definitely fewer jazz blogs these days than there were ten years ago, and some discussion about the continued relevance of blogs. But for me, I do enjoy writing about music, and hopefully people still enjoy reading about music, so I'll keep going.

A very sincere thanks to all who have read the blog and especially to those who have taken the time to comment in an engaged and constructive way. Here's to the next ten years!

Sunday, February 3, 2019

Rhythm Geekery 1


In this post I’ll show some of the structural underpinning of an improvisation I did on the old standard ‘There Will Never Be Another You’. I made a video of this improvisation and explained a little of what I was doing at the beginning of the video. However I’ve been asked several times to explain in more detail what is going on, so for those who like to be able to have a look under the hood, here is a score of the structure of the subdivisions I used for the improvisation. This gets a little bit rhythm geeky, so if you’re interested in that kind of thing then read on, and if not then just have a listen to the video performance and hopefully you can enjoy it on pure musical terms.

In this improvisation I set out to use asymmetric structures of 5 and 7 and layer them across the very symmetric structure of this well known standard. This creates constant movement of tension and release as the asymmetric structures cross the changes which are grouped in the conventional 4s and 2s. 

The challenge is two-fold:

1. To hear the relationship between the 5s or 7s and the underlying 4, and hear how they move around each other

2. To make the voice-leading work over the changes while using the asymmetric groupings

Here's how the groups of 5 work over the tune. If you do the maths, the two patterns meet every five bars of the 4/4 meter. But of course the changes are based on eight-bar groupings, and the tune is thirty two bars long - a number not divisible by five without using decimals. So your ear has to be attuned to the many different ways the 5s relate to the changes as the tune goes on.

For example the form of this tune is ABAC, both A sections having the same changes. Well because of the asymmetry of the 5s, the subdivision will be different for the two A sections.  Here's a comparison of the first four bars of both A sections:

So here is the full tune, with the subdivisions of 5:

And here is the same tune, and same principal, this time with groupings of 7:



And here is the video I made which explains this a little and then demonstrates it. I want to stress that this is an improvisation, the notes I chose were not worked out in advance, I just practiced this a lot to enable me to hear the voice leading. I intersperse the 5s and 7s, with regular choruses and finish by improvising various combinations of 5s and 7s. Big fun!



Saturday, January 19, 2019

Jazz Shorts 3 - Billy Harper


In an era where globalisation is cutting a swathe across everything, including culture, uniqueness is a scarce commodity these days, both in life and indeed in music. Billy Harper is one of those unique treasures, a sui generis master who is not even close to getting the type of recognition he deserves. He has that quality of uniqueness and genuine individuality which is at a premium in contemporary jazz. Like all great tenor players before him, he can play just one or two notes and you know it's him.

Harper is from Texas and he has the sound that defines the Texas tenor. Listen to Arnett Cobb and especially Booker Ervin and you will hear the classic sound of Harper's antecedents, a dark, powerful wail, the signature tenor sound of a sonic tradition for which he has been a flag bearer for more than fifty years.

In addition to his sound, Harper is a saxophonist of formidable power and technique, and one who plays with the kind of intensity only found in players of the generation who came to the fore in the late 60s, and were around New York when the post-Coltrane ferocity was at its height. But another thing I love about Harper's playing is the soulfulness and indeed spirituality of it. There's a powerful cry in all his playing and he writes extremely direct and grooving pieces, perfect vehicles for his blend of power and passionate forward motion.

One of my favourite Harper albums, one I bought on LP as a Japanese import many years ago, and long unavailable, is 'Soran Bushi', and here he is on the opening track "Trying To Get Ready" where, after the typical Harper declamatory melody, he hurtles into a ferocious solo, riding the crest of the waves created by TWO great drummers - Horacee Arnold and Billy Hart. Check out the 2nd solo where he takes on both drummers single-handedly, and wins!

Sunday, January 6, 2019

Jazz Shorts 2 - Andrea Keller



I'm guessing that any Australian reading this will know who Andrea Keller is, and others from elsewhere may not. If you don't know her music, then getting to know it will be one of the better things you will do this year. Andrea is a pianist and composer, living in Melbourne, who is rightfully lauded in her own country as being at the forefront of jazz and creative music in Australia. Her output is prodigious and encompasses many different formats from conventional quintet, quartet and trio formats, to more unusual instrumentation and various solo piano approaches, including looping.

I first met Andrea in an almost accidental way on a gig in Scotland in the early 2000s where she was part of a collaborative project put together by two jazz resource organisations, and I loved playing with her and playing her compositions. I asked her to send me a recording of her music and she sent me 'Thirteen Sketches', which blew me away and I've been a diehard fan ever since. A couple of years ago I had the good fortune of having her play on my 'Shy-Going Boy' project, and again it was a great experience.

Andrea's music is multi-faceted and multi-layered. Her playing and writing has a freshness about it that shines through in every project she undertakes. As a pianist every note she plays is genuine and musical, and there is not one lick or superfluous gesture. She makes a beautiful sound on the piano, is lyrical and her music is both completely informed by the jazz tradition while moving outward from that into all kinds of other sound worlds.

It's great for Australia that they have her as part of the scene there, but while showered with awards there, it's a shame, due to the geographical distance between Australia and the other major jazz scenes in the world, that her music is not better known elsewhere. Her output is quite prodigious, so it's hard to suggest a place to start (you could start anywhere frankly), but as a taster I could suggest the sublime solo piano album of Wayne Shorter's music that she made, or the 'Thirteen Sketches' album I mentioned earlier. Here's 'Blue Arsed Fly' from that recording.

Check her out!

Wednesday, January 2, 2019

NHØP - Still A Giant





Niels Henning Ørsted Pedersen, NHOP,  passed away in 2005. With that passing the jazz world, and indeed the wider music world, was deprived of one of the greatest players of the double bass who ever lived. That last statement is not hyperbole, it's just a simple statement of fact. NHOP played the instrument at a technical level that has perhaps never been equalled. His intonation, finesse, speed, lightness of touch, sound - all were of the very highest level. In addition to that he had fantastic time, harmonic knowledge and could swing as hard as anyone. Yet these days, among the younger generation of jazz musicians in particular, he's often a forgotten man. How could it be that such a giant of the instrument, who performed at the very highest level with some of the greatest jazz musicians of all time, have so soon become almost a marginal figure?

Niels was born in Denmark in 1946 and became that rare thing in jazz - a child prodigy. He began playing and studying the bass at the age of thirteen, but only two years later, at the age of fifteen, was already playing professionally on the Danish jazz scene, accompanying great players from that scene, as well as with leading visiting jazz musicians. In terms of a teenager playing with the very greatest players, and more than holding his own, perhaps only Tony Williams is comparable in jazz. Here is Niels, at the remarkably young age of 16, playing with one of the greatest ever jazz pianists, Bud Powell. Although there is no solo in this, the great note choice and time feel is already there. Hard to believe that Niels was only playing for three years at this point!





It's worth taking a look at this point at a particularly Danish aspect of bass technique that undoubtedly helped Niels to become the virtuoso he was, and to play the way he did. One of the giant figures of Denmark's jazz and broader music scene was the extraordinary bassist, producer, and force of nature, Erik Moseholm. I was lucky enough to get to know Erik in his later years and he was an amazing man, and someone who studied bass with a legendary Danish bass pedagog called Oscar Hegner. Hegner had a method that involved unorthodox left hand fingerings, using a cross-stringing technique that was closer to modern bass guitar technique than to traditional classical double bass techniques such as Simandl. Erik Moseholm adapted this technique for jazz playing and when Niels' father was looking for a teacher for his prodigy son, rather than take him on himself, Erik recommended he study directly with Hegner. Hegner's method undoubtedly contributed to the stream of wonderful bassists who came from Denmark and Scandinavia (Jesper Lundgaard, Mads Vindig, Anders Jormin etc.) and there's no doubt that Niels benefitted from this revolutionary teacher.

Here's NHØP three years after the Powell video, age 19, in very heavy company - with Sonny Rollins and Alan Dawson, soloing on Oleo and already showing the beginnings of the ability that was to go on to make him one of the greatest bass soloists in jazz.





At this point his right hand technique is more conventional than it later became. Shortly after this video was made, he adopted a very unusual three-finger approach for pizzicato, starting phrases with the ring finger, followed by the middle and then index finger. It's a technically difficult technique to master, especially in trying to have a good time feel and give equal weight to each note. But it's one he mastered early on, and here he is again with Rollins, (with Kenny Drew and Tootie Heath - more heavy company!), just two years on from the previous video, and the three-finger technique is in full flow.





At this point, at the age of only 21, he was probably the pre-eminent bassist in Europe in the field of playing with great American masters of the tradition, the number one call in Europe for such giants such as Rollins, Ben Webster, Art Farmer, Lee Konitz, etc.

Given his virtuosity and comfort with the standard tradition, it was probably inevitable that he would end up playing with the biggest public name in that traditional world, Oscar Peterson. Originally hired as a last minute replacement for Ray Brown he played as a regular member of Peterson's trio from 1974 till 1987, and given the kind of marquee gigs that Peterson commanded, his time with Oscar gave him his greatest public exposure.

Although the music created by the meeting of two such virtuosi could become a little glib at times, in this next video, from 1974,  you can see how suited Niels' technical brilliance and great time feel was to Peterson's world. Oscar doesn't even give him a chance to warm up, and Niels barely has the bass in his hands before Oscar launches into the quicksilver arrangement of 'Just Friends'. I don't think there was any other bassist of that time who could have played something this difficult, this relaxed. Check out the great walking time too



Around this time he also formed a duo partnership with Joe Pass and this was also a very popular pairing ensuring a lot of representation on Norman Granz' Pablo label, and copper-fastening him as one of the leading mainstream jazz bassists in the world.

And this was where his musical world was largely situated - in the standard repertoire, with swinging tunes and great players from that idiom. He made several albums under his own name, mainly for the Steeplechase label, and they did show some other sides of him, but he never strayed far from his traditional swinging jazz roots. Apart from his gifts as a straight ahead bassist, he also showed himself to be a great melody player and could play beautifully on ballads and Danish folk songs, (which he liked to play from time to time)

Here he is playing an exquisite version of 'Old Folks' with Joe Pass - his delivery of the melody is sublime in its lyricism, and the whole performance shows two masters playing as only masters can





So since he was such a giant of the instrument and the music, how is it that he is such a marginal figure now? When I was young, myself and all the bassists of my generation would have named him immediately if asked to name the top five bassists in the world at that time. If you did the same today with young bassists, not only have many not heard him, but have never even heard of him!

In thinking about this I've come to the conclusion that his chronological situation in arriving when he did acted against him when it comes to the view of him for jazz posterity. Niels came to the forefront at an amazingly young age and was immediately playing with the great masters of jazz, all of whom were in their late maturity while Niels was in his teens. He played with them extensively as a sideman, but over the next twenty years or so they all passed away, leaving him playing more with his peers. But by the time this happened, in the late 80s/early 90s, the music itself had changed hugely, and Niels was not someone with the experience, (or probably desire), to play in more free environments, (though he did play with both Archie Shepp and Albert Ayler), in the post-Miles electric/fusion world, in the ECM leaning European jazz scene, or in the more complex rhythmic music that was gaining a toe-hold in the early 90s. He was in some ways a man out of time with his age.

If we look at the age group of other prominent bassists who came up around the same time we can see that many famous bassists were around the same age as Niels but played completely different music. Niels was born in '46, and here are the birth dates of other prominent bassists who dominated and developed contemporary bass playing for many years in the same period that Niels was most active:

Dave Holland ('46), Miroslav Vitous ('47), George Mraz ('44), Eddie Gomez ('44), Stanley Clarke ('51), Jaco Pastorius ('51)

This is a list of great contemporary bassists who covered a huge range of music between them, and even the most straight ahead of them - George Mraz - played with John Abercrombie's Quartet and with Dave Liebman's groups. Niels on the other hand played in a narrower stylistic area, and when the great figures of that music passed on, in some ways his role as the super sideman to the giants disappeared too and I think he struggled to find something new and relevant to do in his latter years. If you've played blues and rhythm changes with Sonny Rollins, Bud Powell, Oscar Peterson, Dexter Gordon, Ben Webster and Count Basie, how do you keep your interest and motivation playing that same material when they've all gone?

And his association with these great players as a sideman meant that he never really got involved in the contemporary jazz of his own time, nor recorded a groundbreaking album of his own, nor was part of a groundbreaking recording in the way that the other bassists mentioned above were. So when he passed at the shockingly young age of 59, his legacy passed with him in some respects. And since his recorded legacy is mostly as that of a sideman, his phenomenal playing is unfamiliar to those who weren't lucky enough to see him play while he was still around.

That's my theory for what it's worth.

But he should never be forgotten, because he still is one of the greatest jazz bassists of all time and played the instrument at a technical level, in the tradition, in a way that still hasn't been surpassed.

To finish, here he is in a casual masterclass situation, playing that hoariest of old chestnuts, 'Autumn
Leaves' - the intro alone would be enough to ensure his place in the pantheon of the greatest instrumentalists in jazz