Keith Jarrett is a great artist. I have always had a love/hate relationship with his music. Any criticism of his playing will surely come accross as stronger than warranted. But comparison to giants like Bill Evans is going to be tough (on Jarrett). It is hard not to love and appreciate a player with so much passion, and understanding of the language of jazz. But...(there is often a "but" when I listen to him), for me, there is a feeling that his playing shouts: "listen to this, listen to how I well I understand this language!"
Clearly, this is a subjective thing. Even the most tender moments in his playing sometime have a premeditated quality; as opposed to the more organic, purely spontaneous, poetic quality in Bill Evans' playing. There is no question that Jarrett has a lot to say, and he says it very well. But, I sometimes get the feeling that the reason his improvisations are so long is that he doesn't know how to stop.
Jarrett plays with a certain earnestness that is sometimes offputting for me. Evans played with a deep sense of melancholy, and a more subtle sense of swing. Technically speaking, Jarrett produces a more percussive, brilliant tone on the piano, as opposed to the more covered, mellower tone that Evans produced. There is very little ambiguity in Jarrett's technique; every note is distinct. Evans' pianistic approach was more subtle, and he liked to play upbeats as "ghost notes"; notes barely heard before the stronger downbeat; but there is far less musical ambiguity. As far as the logic of their respective improvisational styles goes, listen to the examples in the links below, and listen to each of the two players' improvised choruses, and ask yourself which of the two improvisations more easily lets the listener follow the melody of the song while it is being improvised upon. That is one of the basic tenets of improvised jazz: stretch out as much as you want, but can one still folllow the tune?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io1o1Hwpo8Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV4-j8eLl10&feature=related
Clearly, this is a subjective thing. Even the most tender moments in his playing sometime have a premeditated quality; as opposed to the more organic, purely spontaneous, poetic quality in Bill Evans' playing. There is no question that Jarrett has a lot to say, and he says it very well. But, I sometimes get the feeling that the reason his improvisations are so long is that he doesn't know how to stop.
Jarrett plays with a certain earnestness that is sometimes offputting for me. Evans played with a deep sense of melancholy, and a more subtle sense of swing. Technically speaking, Jarrett produces a more percussive, brilliant tone on the piano, as opposed to the more covered, mellower tone that Evans produced. There is very little ambiguity in Jarrett's technique; every note is distinct. Evans' pianistic approach was more subtle, and he liked to play upbeats as "ghost notes"; notes barely heard before the stronger downbeat; but there is far less musical ambiguity. As far as the logic of their respective improvisational styles goes, listen to the examples in the links below, and listen to each of the two players' improvised choruses, and ask yourself which of the two improvisations more easily lets the listener follow the melody of the song while it is being improvised upon. That is one of the basic tenets of improvised jazz: stretch out as much as you want, but can one still folllow the tune?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io1o1Hwpo8Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV4-j8eLl10&feature=related