Talk:Giant Steps (composition)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Jazz High‑importance

	Jazz portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JazzWikipedia:WikiProject JazzTemplate:WikiProject JazzJazz articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Talk moved from Giant Steps (song)

The article is currently entitled "Giant Steps (song)". Why "song"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it much better known as an instrumental number than sung? How about we move it to something like "Giant Steps (tune)"? Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation 04:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are there other pages that have "(tune)" in the title? The word is rather non-encyclopedic in feel. Perhaps something like "(melody)" would be better? But then it isn't strictly the melody--the associated chords are very important. "Head"? "Leadline"? I think it's okay to leave it as "song", even if it's not sung (at least not originally), just to keep things simple. - mako 22:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I object to having the article at an inaccurate and misleading title, and think that has a more pronounced "non-encyclopedic" feel. I fail to see any way that calling something that isn't a song a "song" in any way promotes simplicity. I am certainly open to other options than replacing the description "song" with "tune". Possible options that come to mind include having the tune at "Giant Steps" and the album at "Giant Steps (album)". Other thoughts? I'm sure we can do much better than the current dubious title. -- Infrogmation 06:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Calling this article "Giant Steps" is a good solution. - mako 03:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. - mako 04:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The dab pages are setup to help people find what they are looking for the first time around. Due to this change, a user searching for Giant Steps will be brought to an article about the composition, not the album. The correct dab would to leave Giant Steps as the album with the term pointing to that album, and dab the song as Giant Steps (composition). Currently there is no need for a separate article on the tune, so there should only be one link to the album. --Viriditas | Talk 04:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think this article should go back to Giant Steps (song). The fallacy in the original reason for moving the page, is that "songs" refer to music that is sung. I can come up with a myriad of 'songs', that are refered to as such, that have no lyrics. Even in the opening line of this article, Giant Steps is refered to as a 'song'. Lachatdelarue (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Infrogmation's arguments that "song" is a misleading label. "Composition" is a much more accurate characterization of the nature of the work, as "Giant Steps" was indeed composed with certain aspects of theory in mind. The opening line of this article should be amended to "track", probably. - mako 22:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have heard some people sometimes casually say "song" when talking about instrumentals. This is not something a musician or someone with music education would be likely to say. For encyclopedia articles I think we should try to use precise and accurate language. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 18:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it's going to be Giant Steps (composition), then shouldn't the description in the first line match that, describing it as a piece of music composed by Trane, instead of simply as a recording that must be exactly so many minutes and seconds long? This isn't Ascension, you know.

Quality

The article shifts between past- and present-tense, and its wording is sometimes redundant. C1k3 18:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned it up a bit and removed the tag. -- Ci e lomobile ^minor7♭5 03:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is full of inaccurate and irrelevant information. I'm tagging it for cleanup. Someone else can do it, cos I broke my hand. Dextrose 07:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright?

There is a sample on the page... what is the copyright status?Dndn1011 08:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up

OK, I'm going to do my best here. I'll be happy to explain all the edits I'm about to make.Jazzzguy (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Giant Steps.ogg

The image Image:Giant Steps.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chord progression was definitely not improvised

I removed the word "improvised", which formerly was used to describe the chord progression, because the chord progression was NOT improvised, even though there was (like usual in jazz) improvisation in the recording. I doubt anyone will care to disagree. Jazzmusician94 (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Bop or Bebop

why is this tune considered classified as hard bop and not bebop? It has fast chord changes and isn't at the slower tempo most hard bop tunes are associated with. Also, there isn't a significant blues/gospel influence either. Any insight as to why this qualifies as hard bop and not bebop? Even if this isn't bebop, I feel like hard bop is still not an accurate category for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.53.59.231 (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move and modification

The move from the dab of composition to jazz standard should have been discussed. That there is no type of "jazz standard" at template:Infobox song#type. Valid types are automatically linked. I'd like to know why it was moved and modified and why it shouldn't be returned. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only source for it being a standard is not a reliable source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz, I see what you are getting at. Apologize for moving it without approval; mistake on my part. However, the past version was still mostly unreferenced. Let's move it back to (composition). –Adamilo (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for a discussion to create WP:CONSENSUS. That's not the same as approval. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Can a discussion to create WP:CONSENSUS still be made? –Adamilo (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a discussion at another location. Let's see if anyone from there comes over the next few days and then I'll add my opinion. If not, no one else cares and I will probably drop the matter of location as well. Although the infobox change and the claim it's a standard are going to take a lot more work. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copied relevant discussion from WT:SONGS:

Giant Steps (composition)‎‎ was just moved to [[:Giant Steps (jazz standard)‎‎] and the infobox was modified so that the type is not Jazz standard. The first problem is that the only "source" for it being a standard does not appear to be a reliable one (http://www.jazzstandards.com/compositions-2/giantsteps.htm). The second is that jazz standard is not a type that is supported at the template. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And now to Giant Steps (jazz composition). Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure why this is here: it's clear that the new article titles don't follow existing policies (WP:ATDAB, WP:NCDAB) and the infobox doesn't follow Template:Infobox song#Parameters. "Giant Steps" is included in the List of post-1950 jazz standards, with citations to fake books. Jazzstandards.com is used extensively as a source in the list and write-ups in its "About Personnel" section [1] make them appear to meet "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." (WP:SPS). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because I didn't feel like being in a one-man discussion with a fairly new editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 April 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved (closed by non-admin page mover) Danski454 (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Steps (jazz composition) → Giant Steps (composition) – The name should be reverted to the former name Giant Steps (composition), that followed WP:ATDAB and WP:NCDAB: Giant Steps is the primary and there are no other song, composition, etc., articles that would require further DAB (see above discussion). Propose to delete the existing redirect from Giant Steps (composition) and move Giant Steps (jazz composition) to Giant Steps (composition) with Giant Steps (jazz composition), Giant Steps (jazz standard), and Giant Steps (song) as redirects (also applies to talk pages). Thanks, Ojorojo (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. While the fact it's a jazz composition is very important, to be consistent with Lady Bird (composition) let's go with the shorter title. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It looks like someone just mistakenly moved it to "jazz standard" on 9 April and then had second thoughts but couldn't move it back. Seems uncontroversial. Station1 (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It was moved twice and the editor who made the initial moves recognized that it should not have been moved, but would not (or could not) move it back. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Importance to Coltrane's repertoire between 1960-1967? Impact on other jazz composers?

Most casual Coltrane fans know 'Giant Steps' represented the apex of a sort of 'middle period' in his recording career, when he was on Atlantic and exploring certain harmony concepts . Did he continue to play 'Giant Steps' into his more modal and free periods that are represented by his Impulse Records output? For example, did he ever play the tune live, and if so, what's the last know instance of him doing so? Any comments to interviewers about the tune? What are some early examples of his peers or followers using "Coltrane changes" in their own compositions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.23.15 (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]