Favorite size of a jazz group

love the big bands more variety and a bigger sound but small is perfect for a relaxing setting like dave brubeck etc.

Quintet - Drums, Bass, Piano, Trumpet, Tenor Sax 

It depends on what mood I'm in, but generally quintet.

Interesting results thus far.

Jazz Pianist wrote: Sextet for me. The ideal band for me would be piano, drums, bass, guitar, a horn player and a sax player. The texture variety would be absolutely perfect to my ears, not the mention the harmony capabilities and the opportunities for fours between the two lead players.

Sean Trane wrote: Freddie Freeloader wrote: Sean Trane wrote: While there are interesting trios, I'm not all that in favour of them, because it's kind of too repetitive and reduces the spectrum of possibilities and doesn't allow for many variety combinations...   I find that for jazz, quintets are are the minimum if there are wind instruments (despite Coltrane's legendary quartet), but if there are two horns, than the sextet should be the ideal, because I can't see modern groups without a keyboardist or a guitarist.         could not dissagree more! a soloist or a duo or a trio can be just as interesting as a larger band. Jazz is a genre that is all about the individual making their own mark and not the band. Why else would jazz radio be the only radio that names off every player on a piece rather than just mentioning the band name. It all has to do with the quality of each of the individuals involved and not on the number.   Some jazz specialist do, when they speak of a band, indeed.   But jazz has been about individualities much more so than rock, and a lot of albums are individualities' collaboration where the names are all spelled-out on the front cover   However the numerous Johnette-Hollannd albums could've had a project/band name   When a radio plays Return To Forever, they don't mention Joe Farrell or Lenny White....

this is true but the spirit of RTF is far more rock oriented than jazz oriented in my opinion. All the musos are jazz players but the style is verry much rock. Sound very composed to me atleast. (note that I only have one album) Honestly I find most 70s fusion quite boring. not messy enough for me.

Sean Trane wrote: While there are interesting trios, I'm not all that in favour of them, because it's kind of too repetitive and reduces the spectrum of possibilities and doesn't allow for many variety combinations...   I find that for jazz, quintets are are the minimum if there are wind instruments (despite Coltrane's legendary quartet), but if there are two horns, than the sextet should be the ideal, because I can't see modern groups without a keyboardist or a guitarist.

could not dissagree more! a soloist or a duo or a trio can be just as interesting as a larger band. Jazz is a genre that is all about the individual making their own mark and not the band. Why else would jazz radio be the only radio that names off every player on a piece rather than just mentioning the band name. It all has to do with the quality of each of the individuals involved and not on the number.

While there are interesting trios, I'm not all that in favour of them, because it's kind of too repetitive and reduces the spectrum of possibilities and doesn't allow for many variety combinations...

Edited by Sean Trane - 15 Jun 2011 at 6:49am

Matt wrote: You get to hear them streeeeeeeeeetch out

Yep, trios for me for this reason

Trio! You know why. But I like quartets and quintets too.