Those pesky jazzmen

Hi all!

I just added the legendary Max Roach to EB after finding a few cymbals of his listed on Zildjian's site.

And creating his artist page got me thinking, what should/could we do when the time comes to add bands/groups to jazz artists like Roach who didn't have a "stable" band, but instead made collaboration albums with everybody?

I saw there are a few bands registered in the style of "Dizzy Gillespie & Miles Davis", or "Thelonious Monk & Charlie Parker", but what do you guys think could be done better, if not just leaving the artist without a band?

Just throwing it out there.

Often times, those musicians become so famous that they inevitably make a band named after themselves, like Ozzy Osbourne for example. I think it's acceptable to have an artist and a band of the same name. In Max Roaches case, I would say to add all the bands that he recorded and toured for under his bands list.

that style is called Bebop and it evolved into Free Jazz where its more noodling and even less structure... think of some of Miles Davis' records after Bill Evans left.Especially the ones with Herbie Hancock, Free Jazz... that evolved into that post-funk jazz on Bitches Brew and then Fusion. If you care about genres. Its all just jazz at some point. These are all just distinctions cooked up by the guys who wrote for the Downbeat!

Or are you saying the band is named after the players? because that's the whole small abdn Bebop convention. in jazz the band was typically named for the band leader but in situations with small bands where there were a couple of big draw stars like Bird and Diz then the band was named for both of them. This is totally normal. A band name like Black Sabbath is a more recent development and more of an anomaly in a historical sense.