Stella by Starlight

[thekid]

I really like the melody but I can't solo over it at all!
What tips do you guys have for soloing over this standard.

[bwv1005]

Stella by Starlight has many small cadences that, put together, can be a little intimidating. Try breaking it up, get each individual part together, and then put it back together. See where the modulations happen and use those for breaking points. When you put it back together, try and erase the seams...

mo

[Valerie]

ah, one of my favorite tunes for many decades!! stick with it!

[Phil Kelly]

This is DEFINITELY one of those songs you shouldn't approach by trying to figure out by the Berklee
"chord /scale" method.

Because is is such a classic melody ( like All the things you Are ), you should take the time to thouroughly understand ( as BVW suggested ) all the many key centers this song moves through, and then try to construct Thematic Fragments to fit each section that will eventually tie together to form your "own" melody.

Learn to play the changes on a keyboard and "sing" ideas to yourself.

In other words: try thinking compositionally instead of improvisationally ... work slowly ( preferably with a pencil and music paper ) as opposed to just
"blowing over " the changes.

This approach will pay off big time in your improvising ability.


:tanz: :banana: :tanz: :banana: :tanz: :banana:

[thekid]

Because is is such a classic melody ( like All the things you Are ), you should take the time to thouroughly understand ( as BVW suggested ) all the many key centers this song moves through, and then try to construct Thematic Fragments to fit each section that will eventually tie together to form your "own" melody. :

So, you shouldn't think in scales while improvising on Stella?

[Jakeweiser]

lets avoid this constant debate about scales and soloing please.

Stella is my favorite standard that I know everyone knows. It is not an easy tune and this is because it is deceptive. The melody is diatonic to Bb with 2 exceptions however the harmonic progression is all over the map.

Think about the chord tones first when starting to improvise over this tune. In fact only think about the triad based off the root. Use those notes and try to connect the changes by 1/2 steps as much as possible. Only think in simple rhythms first.

Limiting yourself in what to play can be the key to unlocking this tune. Thinking about 7 to 9 note scales will over complecate things as they stand right now. You should be more interested in how to create your own melody over these changes right now rather then running scales

start simple.

[thekid]

lets avoid this constant debate about scales and soloing please.



Sorry, man.

[Phil Kelly]

lets avoid this constant debate about scales and soloing please.

You should be more interested in how to create your own melody over these changes right now rather then running scales

start simple.


Thank you Jake:

That was exactly the point I was trying to make!

take the first chord: it is an extended diminished pitch set that can work with any number of roots and YES ..a diminished scale ( or any of its extensions ) will work on it ..but just for kicks, this time, try to construct a ,say, four motif for a start:

( to this rhythm: 8th note rest > 3 eight notes
> half note )

1. C F# G Db
2. F# G D# E
3. A Bb C C# ..whatever

next:

Try applying this motif to the next pitch set
( basically a Cmi11 ) using a similar melodic contour:

1. Bb D Eb G
2. D Eb B C
3.A Bb D Eb

or, possibly an inversion of the original contour:

1. C F# G Db
1a. F G D Eb etc.

once you start string these motifs together , you'll be creating a MELODY with some internal logic ...as opposed to just running a bunch of scales!!

try it ..you might like it!

:gavel: :gavel: :gavel: :gavel: :cheers :cheers

[jazzbluescat]

I like the tune in G concert better'n Bb.

[EdByrne]

I really like the melody but I can't solo over it at all!
What tips do you guys have for soloing over this standard.

Kid:

This is a beautiful through-composed composition in Bb throughout. I play off the melody, guide tone lines, and root progression. I paraphrase these elements while running repeated choruses. BTW, I have written an entire exercize book on this tune (instrument specific), which applies 10 chromatic targeting groups (one at a time) to each of these essential functions on Stella. If interested click on the web site below.

Best,
Ed

[ChrisLNZ]

Hey man, I'm currently working this song out for the first time aswell, with a struggle, yes.. a teacher at my university explained a good way to play through this song - using continuous pentatonics. that is, over a Cm7 use 1,b3,4,5,b7, - minor pent, and over Ma7's use 12356, and dominants you use 1235b7. the tricky'ish part in this song (at least for myself, anyway..) is the many minor 11-V's. for these, you can use what is called a minor 6/9 pentatonic. this is spelt 1,2,b3,5,6. first you must get this pattern under your fingers all over your instrument. once you know it a little bit, you can start applying. to use minor 6/9 pentatonics over a minor 11-V-1, you use 3 different minor 6/9 pents (for the three chords in the sequence) starting on different notes.

let's take the first chord of 'Stella', E-7b5 - the '11' in a minor 11-V. for this chord, you can use Gminor 6/9 pent - the notes G,A,Bb,D,E. this is a minor 6/9 pent starting a minor third away from the root note (E -> minor 3rd -> G). if we go back to what we are playing over - E-7b5, we can see this pentatonic scale takes care of the minor 3rd (G), the 4th or 11th (A), the b5 (Bb), the minor 7th (D), and it also has the root, (E). so playing G minor 6/9 pentatonic fits wonderfully over the E-7b5 chord, as you are playing great notes over the whole thing.

Next, the second chord of the song, and the 'V' in the minor 11-V, A7altered. Once again, use of the minor 6/9 pent can be used here - use a Bb minor 6/9 pentatonic over A7altered, that's a minor 6/9 pent starting a minor second away from the root (A -> minor 2nd -> Bb). The notes of Bb minor 6/9 pentatonic are: Bb,C,Db,F,G. over A7altered, they are the: b9 (Bb), #9 (C), natural 3rd (Db/C#), #5 (F), and dominant (flattened) 7th (G). this scale works fantastically well over this chord, as it contains strong altered tones, plus it doesn't contain the root, which we know is a weak tone.

although the song doesn't go there yet, if we were to complete the minor 11-V-1, we would end up on D-7 as our '1' chord. playing Dminor 6/9 pentatonic works well over this chord aswell.

one of the most interesting and fascinating parts to this method is the relationship between the notes we use to start each minor 6/9 pentatonic. if we re-look at our minor 11-V-1, it was a D-7 11-V-1 consisting of E-7b5, A7alt, going to D-7. The notes we use to start our minor 6/9 pentatonics were G (for E-7b5), Bb (for A7alt), and D (for D-7). G,Bb,D, the notes we used as starting points for our minor 6/9 pents, spells a minor triad! this relationship makes it a little easier to work out where the starting notes of each pentatonic are.

the most interesting thing I've noticed about jazz in my short time playing it, is that there definately appears - now more than ever - to be no 'right' way of playing anything, instead, it appears to be about subjective choice. the more choices we have, the more relaxed we can be about what we're playing. I hope this can be one more option for you to play this song with.

Hope this helped, cheers, Chris

[Mario Abbagliati]

In order to hear the harmony of the piece I would follow this routine:

1.Playing the arpeggios in constant eight notes changing to the next available tone of the upcomming chord in the direction I’m moving. If that’s too hard start with quarter notes.

2.Follow the same method but with the correct chord scale.

3.All that with the metronome in two and four.

4.I play guitar so I’ll make sure that I have 5 positions for each arpegio and scale, and run the exercise in each one. Then move it to different keys.

After that, the ear is ready to start working on the improvisation. Key center playing sounds quite different, and richer, once you have dealt with the chords that way.

Then it’s just a matter of applying different strategies to get deeper into the song. Hal Crook’s How to Improvise offers a good number of options of what to do, like using the melody as a send off, controling activity (play/rest), motif development, etc. But it all starts with the arppeggios, it’s the fundamental building block.

http://www.jazzwise.com/catalog/images/IT059C.jpg

[Phat Boi]

I agree with all the people that said chord tones and melody. When I solo over this tune I play off the melody and use my personalized licks but what makes this tune so fun to play is the all the cycle 5 stuff going on. What I do when I'm first learning a tune is workout 4 bars at a time. The first 4 bars of the tune are Emin7b5|A7alt|Cmin7|F7. Isolate those bars for study and work out some stuff on them. Once you have done that you can apply the same stuff all over this tune. That is the beauty of it. I would recommend Miles version of this tune. Listen to the way he plays the head. Beautiful!

[EdByrne]

I agree with all the people that said chord tones and melody. When I solo over this tune I play off the melody and use my personalized licks but what makes this tune so fun to play is the all the cycle 5 stuff going on. What I do when I'm first learning a tune is workout 4 bars at a time. The first 4 bars of the tune are Emin7b5|A7alt|Cmin7|F7. Isolate those bars for study and work out some stuff on them. Once you have done that you can apply the same stuff all over this tune. That is the beauty of it. I would recommend Miles version of this tune. Listen to the way he plays the head. Beautiful!

1. Reduce the melody down to whole notes or half notes, depending on the melodic rhythm of the particular tune. This is done by putting every note squarely on the beat, removing all repeated notes, pick-ups, and non-harmonic tones. This leaves you with the song's essential basic elements.

2. Play this on the piano.

3. Sing it repeatedly.

4. Sing the first four measures repeatedly until it sinks in.

5. Do the same for the second four.

6. Put the two phrases together.

1. Go through the entire tune in this manner: real simple and corny, so it will stick in your memory's sub- or semi-conscious.

2. Do all the above with a metronome; take care never to add or drop a beat, since you want to program your memory to remember the exact melodic rhythm for later development.

In this way, especially provided the essential reduced melody is at all interesting, it will sink in and you will remember it.

Since there are usually repeated sections in the tune, this is not all that difficult a process. It will also help to listen repeatedly to a recorded performance of the tune.

After you finish with this process, you can then develop your own personal phrasing style and improvisations on the tune without fear of forgetting its' essentials or getting lost.

[cedar]

This thread just highlights to me, again, how I just do things unconsciously.

I actually don't think I could improvise if I consciously made an attempt to think of everything discussed here. I think it would simply paralyze me.

These kinds of approaches may be occurring on a sub-concious level, but I'm definitely not aware of it.

[EdByrne]

This thread just highlights to me, again, how I just do things unconsciously.

I actually don't think I could improvise if I consciously made an attempt to think of everything discussed here. I think it would simply paralyze me.

These kinds of approaches may be occurring on a sub-concious level, but I'm definitely not aware of it.

Then you don't need to: congratulations!

I find that different individuals need to anal-ize on different things, while other things come automatically. If you can do this without inellectualizing, all the better.

Such systematic approaches as cited by me and others above are only for when you're blocked--then they can help.

[cedar]

I hope my prior comment didn't come across as bragging. I meant it more as a comment about my inability to take such an intellectual or analytical approach. And I'm sure that there are certain tunes, or certain contexts, where it would behoove me to try.

(But Stella isn't one of them.)

[EdByrne]

I hope my prior comment didn't come across as bragging. I meant it more as a comment about my inability to take such an intellectual or analytical approach. And I'm sure that there are certain tunes, or certain contexts, where it would behoove me to try.

(But Stella isn't one of them.)

Not at all. It brings up a pertinent point, I think, in that we all get some things without a hassle, and other things are a bear and need to be taken apart step by step.

[Slant]

I don't agree that just getting something intuitively or unconscously is enough. There is nothing wrong with intellectually understanding something. However, it must be noted that "intellectually" understanding something is, of course, limited to the language at hand.

Understanding something consciously, and being able to articulate it, comes in handy when technology transfer is to be used. Otherwise, how could you employ simile, metaphor, etc.?

[Mario Abbagliati]

This thread just highlights to me, again, how I just do things unconsciously.

I actually don't think I could improvise if I consciously made an attempt to think of everything discussed here. I think it would simply paralyze me.

These kinds of approaches may be occurring on a sub-concious level, but I'm definitely not aware of it.

Do you think that the study of gramma and vocabulary gets in the way of talking or writting this post? The whole thing it's about semantics, meaning. We have an intellect and if it's used properly it's a powerful tool. But it can also get in the way. That's the paradox.

[cedar]

Don't me wrong: I am certainly not suggesting there is no value to learning how to analyze on an "intellectual level." I merely meant that it is difficult for me to create in that manner.

The analogy to grammer is interesting. If I had to think consciously about grammar every time I opened my mouth, I bet I'd be doing a whole lot of stuttering. But the background, or subconscious, knowledge of grammar, I acknowledge, is necessary to effective communication.

[Mario Abbagliati]

Don't me wrong: I am certainly not suggesting there is no value to learning how to analyze on an "intellectual level." I merely meant that it is difficult for me to create in that manner.

The analogy to grammer is interesting. If I had to think consciously about grammar every time I opened my mouth, I bet I'd be doing a whole lot of stuttering. But the background, or subconscious, knowledge of grammar, I acknowledge, is necessary to effective communication.

Leonard Bernstein talks abaut the subject on his Harvard talks The Unanswered Question

http://www.leonardbernstein.com/studio/element2.asp?FeatID=7&AssetID=24
http://http://www.amazon.com/Unanswe...6313469&sr=1-3

[EdByrne]

Jazz as a Language: What the Improviser Does

Jazz is analogous to a specific language such as English or French. The linguistic model is a paradigm for improvisation. It is not a metaphor, but a true analogy with all that this implies.

Jazz is a language. Its practitioners are public speakers. Think of what happens when one learns to speak English, Korean or Japanese, for example. The process is the same as when learning jazz. You learn by listening and picking up figures of speech, then you learn to use them in your own personal manner to make statements by putting them together in paragraphs and sentences to tell your story.

If you were to speak publicly, you would want to know the story well (in this case the tune or composition), and you would want to know the vocabulary. You would practice telling the story, work out the rough parts, and then learn how to vary the story in a variety of ways, for example, short vs. long versions, different introductions, and endings, substitute words and phrases, rhythms, moods and pacing, and so on.

As with public speakers such as politicians, you get all kinds of jazz performer: those who are insincere, those who are slick, those who are brilliant and have their own voices and styles, those who are spontaneous, those who use easy to understand vocabulary (soft jazz), those who use complex language (Miles Davis, John Coltrane), those who are mediocre, and those who deliver a memorized or prompted (written) statement.

You get the comparison, so contemplate it in every aspect and you'll understand. The only difference between an extemporaneous art form such as jazz and the spoken language is the fact that you can't use it for such practical purposes as ordering a cup of coffee.

Note: This is excerpted from my 260 pg new book, Sundry Vignettes on Jazz Topics.

[Tarquin1986]

If nobody objects I want to resurrect this long dead thread. Never have I had more difficulty with a tune than I have with Stella. I've been practicing it for ages now and while I am improving it is happening pretty slowly. Am I right in saying that all the main melody notes are 9ths 11ths and b13ths above the root of the chord they're played against?

I have the Miles, Herbie, George Coleman, TW and Ron Carter version, live at the Philharmonic. Awesome playing but it boggles my mind when I try to analyse it. So man of the motifs in the solos are based on Bmaj7 chords but there are no Bmaj7 chords in Stella. Whenever I think I'm following the form on that recording I'll check by figuring out the chords in a certain passage and it's hardly ever what I'm expecting. So, any thoughts?

P.S: Thanks to all who posted already. It's good stuff.

[EdByrne]

If nobody objects I want to resurrect this long dead thread. Never have I had more difficulty with a tune than I have with Stella. I've been practicing it for ages now and while I am improving it is happening pretty slowly. Am I right in saying that all the main melody notes are 9ths 11ths and b13ths above the root of the chord they're played against?

I have the Miles, Herbie, George Coleman, TW and Ron Carter version, live at the Philharmonic. Awesome playing but it boggles my mind when I try to analyse it. So man of the motifs in the solos are based on Bmaj7 chords but there are no Bmaj7 chords in Stella. Whenever I think I'm following the form on that recording I'll check by figuring out the chords in a certain passage and it's hardly ever what I'm expecting. So, any thoughts?

P.S: Thanks to all who posted already. It's good stuff.

Tarquin,

You've prompted me to offer the following:

Stella by Starlight

The melody of Stella by Starlight is its strongest component. I recommend that you build your improvisations on a reduction of that, the guide tone lines and the root progression—all lines. While there are many melody notes in this through-composed (no repeated sections) tune which make 9ths, 11ths, and 13ths in their relationship with the chords, they mostly resolve in the fashion of late 19th century Western art music, as opposed to the 20th century practice of leaving such tensions unresolved.

While I rarely build my improvisations on the non-essential chordal accompaniment, it is even less important for that purpose in this piece, since this tune never modulates from its primary key of Bb Major. If you feel you must think chords, however, there really are only a few worth bearing in mind, such as: the Ab7 in m.8 and 21, and the G+7 in mm. 17-18 and 24—all of which occur in prominent places, and contain chord tones that are chromatic the key.

The three examples below show Stella by Starlight's Reduced Melody, Guide Tone Line and Root Progression. Internalize these by repeatedly singing and playing them on your instrument. Paraphrase, improvise on, and chromatically target them all. Gradually you will develop improvisational ideas organically. This process can be enhanced by chromatically targeting these essential elements of the composition.

Click below to see the examples:

http://www.freejazzinstitute.org/showposts.php?dept=analysis&topic=20070712153138_EdByrne

[Jay Norem]

This isn't really all that relevant but I heard a funny story about the song in question here. Two old jazz guys are talking and one of them says "The other night I had a dream where I heard the most amazing, beautiful melody. So I got of of bed, went downstairs and wrote the melody down. Feeling very contented by this, I went back to sleep. The next morning I went down to play this melody, and it was the B section of Stella By Starlight!"

[Phat Boi]

Transcribe Coltrane's solo when he's playing with Miles and Bill Evans. I have it on a CD "Love Songs". He is basically playing around the melody and it would be great to help you.

[dandan]

This thread just highlights to me, again, how I just do things unconsciously.

I actually don't think I could improvise if I consciously made an attempt to think of everything discussed here. I think it would simply paralyze me.

These kinds of approaches may be occurring on a sub-concious level, but I'm definitely not aware of it.

I am not dissing anyone else, but if you had limited time and wanted to work with just one idea here, reread Ed's.

[Shawn]

One of my all-time favorite standards...

...and the only one I can think of that came from a "horror" film...

http://image.allmusic.com/00/avg/cov200/drv300/v376/v37652lysut.jpg

Gail Russel's character is the "Stella" of the title. There is a scene in the film where Milland plays the melody for her on the piano.

[OnyaBirri]

Don't me wrong: I am certainly not suggesting there is no value to learning how to analyze on an "intellectual level." I merely meant that it is difficult for me to create in that manner.

The analogy to grammer is interesting. If I had to think consciously about grammar every time I opened my mouth, I bet I'd be doing a whole lot of stuttering. But the background, or subconscious, knowledge of grammar, I acknowledge, is necessary to effective communication.

I hear you, but it's important to draw a line between how you play and how you practice. The point of "intellectualizing" when you practice is to absorb the sounds and intervals, and to get certain patterns under your fingers. These will then inform your "creative" playing when you're making music.

[EdByrne]

I hear you, but it's important to draw a line between how you play and how you practice. The point of "intellectualizing" when you practice is to absorb the sounds and intervals, and to get certain patterns under your fingers. These will then inform your "creative" playing when you're making music.

Exactly! Thank you, OnyaBirri.:yeahthat:

[Jeff Lampert]

As with public speakers such as politicians, you get all kinds of jazz performer: those who are insincere, those who are slick, those who are brilliant and have their own voices and styles, those who are spontaneous, those who use easy to understand vocabulary (soft jazz), those who use complex language (Miles Davis, John Coltrane), those who are mediocre, and those who deliver a memorized or prompted (written) statement.

This is brilliant. The only thing I take minor exception to is the "those who are mediocre" because it seems so judgemental. How do you know that? .. Jeff

[EdByrne]

This is brilliant. The only thing I take minor exception to is the "those who are mediocre" because it seems so judgemental. How do you know that? .. Jeff

Thanks, Jeff. Of course that would be a private, subjective, opinion, but you know we all have such feelings with regard to certain artists and other public speakers. That is to say, I'm not telling YOU who you should view that way, but I still have that feeling sometimes. You might very well have different people who you feel are mediocre than me, but you probably nonetheless fell that way about some.

[Tarquin1986]

This is brilliant. The only thing I take minor exception to is the "those who are mediocre" because it seems so judgemental. How do you know that? .. Jeff


Ithink it is fair enough. There have been times when I know I have played mediocrely and other times when I reckon I played really well. So surely it is safe to assume that, if I have played mediocrely at times, then so have other people.

[EdByrne]

Ithink it is fair enough. There have been times when I know I have played mediocrely and other times when I reckon I played really well. So surely it is safe to assume that, if I have played mediocrely at times, then so have other people.

Tarquin,

What I was referring to is subjective, as I stated above. But it's a little like saying a woman is a C. This doesn't mean that everyone will see her in the same way. As impolite as this may seem, though, I think that we all do it.

But your comments remind me of another issue: While most practitioners will assess someone else's abilities as "Heavy" or "Lightweight," Chet Baker used to say, "He sounds good sometimes," or "He sounds good all the time" (as when he was talking about Stan Getz or Joe Farrell--in spite of the fact that he didn't like either of them personally). He viewed someone's abilities in jazz performance by how consistently one played on a world-class level. I found that interesting: While he sometimes sounded greater than at other times, Getz never sounded mediocre. Miles Davis, for example, was incapable of performing with bad time placement. Of course it's a different thing if they are sick or totally drunk or strung-out or haven't played in five years, in which case they shouldn't be on stage at all, and are incapable of any serious performance (as was the case, IMO, when Miles, Sonny and Curtis Fuller first "came back."

Ed

[Phil Kelly]

Ithink it is fair enough. There have been times when I know I have played mediocrely and other times when I reckon I played really well. So surely it is safe to assume that, if I have played mediocrely at times, then so have other people.


just curious:

Is "mediocrely" an acceptably real adverb ?


:confused2 :confused2 :confused2 :confused2 :confused2


Actually, semantically, I prefer the "consistency" factor as stated by Ed R below to the more subjectively loaded terms you employed regarding rating ones playing continuum :

>>>While most practitioners will assess someone else's abilities as "Heavy" or "Lightweight," Chet Baker used to say, "He sounds good sometimes," or "He sounds good all the time" (as when he was talking about Stan Getz or Joe Farrell--in spite of the fact that he didn't like either of them personally). He viewed someone's abilities in jazz performance by how consistently one played on a world-class level.<<<

[EdByrne]

just curious:

Is "mediocrely" an acceptably real adverb ?


:confused2 :confused2 :confused2 :confused2 :confused2


Actually, semantically, I prefer the "consistency" factor as stated by Ed R below to the more subjectively loaded terms you employed regarding rating ones playing continuum :

>>>While most practitioners will assess someone else's abilities as "Heavy" or "Lightweight," Chet Baker used to say, "He sounds good sometimes," or "He sounds good all the time" (as when he was talking about Stan Getz or Joe Farrell--in spite of the fact that he didn't like either of them personally). He viewed someone's abilities in jazz performance by how consistently one played on a world-class level.<<<

Actually, Phil, the above quote is what I wrote. I'm note sure what you mean by "the more subjectively loaded terms you employed regarding rating ones playing continuum." :confused2

[Phil Kelly]

Ed:

sorry for the confusion :

What I meant using your quote was trying to point out that your observation on "consistency " was a more vaild way to judge a players performance over time that judgemental terms like "heavy" or "lightweight"

I was really just agreeing with you!

[EdByrne]

Ed:

sorry for the confusion :

What I meant using your quote was trying to point out that your observation on "consistency " was a more vaild way to judge a players performance over time that judgemental terms like "heavy" or "lightweight"

I was really just agreeing with you!

Thanks for the clarification, Phil. You can, of course, agree or disagree with me whenever you like; I just didn't understand what you were saying.

[EthanW]

May I just say, great thread. ~pimp:

[EdByrne]

One of my all-time favorite standards...

...and the only one I can think of that came from a "horror" film...

http://image.allmusic.com/00/avg/cov200/drv300/v376/v37652lysut.jpg

Gail Russel's character is the "Stella" of the title. There is a scene in the film where Milland plays the melody for her on the piano.

Yeah, Shawn, I remember this movie. Hmm. . . Wasn't there a trite movie that "Autumn Leaves" was from (1950's?--with the same title) with Troy Donahue as a middle class guy with a mental problem?

[Jakeweiser]

funny I was contacted today by a guy that I'm gonna give some lessons to who specifically said he wanted to figure this tune out.

Cute

[Jay Norem]

Ed:
What I meant using your quote was trying to point out that your observation on "consistency " was a more valid way to judge a players performance over time than judgemental terms like "heavy" or "lightweight"

I think that this is an important point. Jimmy Cobb might be considered a lightweight compared to Billy Cobham. Some guys go for huge chops and some don't. Those who don't are often times the more interesting players. A lot of guys, it seems to me, work on extreme chops because they don't have anything in particular that they want to express, and so all they ultimately express is a sort of athleticism on their instruments, but where's the music? I know this has nothing to do with Stella By Starlight.

[TehSuperFox]

Ah, I love threads like these - they always give me things to work on.

Great tune, too.

[Tarquin1986]

Tarquin,

But your comments remind me of another issue: While most practitioners will assess someone else's abilities as "Heavy" or "Lightweight," Chet Baker used to say, "He sounds good sometimes," or "He sounds good all the time" (as when he was talking about Stan Getz or Joe Farrell--in spite of the fact that he didn't like either of them personally). He viewed someone's abilities in jazz performance by how consistently one played on a world-class level.
Ed

I get how consistency is important as a gigging musician. On the other hand one of my big personal goals is to have an impressive legacy of recordings and in this area it is all about how good your best take is, while the others ultimately don't matter because only one gets released. Even when I go to other peoples gigs I prefer to leave thinking "wow, there were some great moments tonight" rather than "nobody made any mistakes tonight."

On a completely unrelated note: Billy Cobham had plenty to say, IMO.

[Shawn]

Actually, it's Cliff Robertson. Nat King Cole sings the song in the movie.
http://image.allmusic.com/00/avg/cov200/drv300/v321/v32110qrxwu.jpg