Charlie Parker fully analyzed

[Jimmy Smith]

Really? What theories did Bach produce?

So you're back to semantics. How childish are you? All his compositions follow theoretical guidelines.

[Christian Miller]

Frustrating thread, I don't think one side is understanding the other.

What do we know about Charlie Parker's theoretical framework? Not much. We knew he was a creative individual who had a ravenous appetite for music, devouring classical music and the music of his time like Lester young. But while he did memorize things like Lester young solos, he had an improviser/composer's heart to try to use the material to improvise. Most classical musicians cannot improvise despite playing lots of music and even studying watered-down theory like roman numeral analysis.

I read an anecdote where he told someone who asked him what he played over a tune and he replied: "Bb7". Was that the chord Bb7 with passing notes, appoggiaturas, and ornamental notes or a Barry Harris style omni-scale called Bb7 (a dominant scale). We just don't know.

Barry Harris came close to describing CP but i'm afraid used all the wrong terminology while understanding how it all worked implicitly. In a sense, he was a great and terrible teacher at the same time. It would have been better if he used classical music melodic terminology instead of street theory. He was absolutely right in trashing CST and modes though, which are dreadful in explaining how bebop works.

Well I’m not sure I agree here as a sometime Barry student myself. The terminology is a barrier to understanding, but it is also, unlike mainstream jazz edu terms, very consistently applied and unambiguous once you knew what they were. In terms of someone who appears to have not only been an extremely talented musician but also a first rate mind decoding the music he was interested in, I am tempted to argue it’s everyone else who has the terminology wrong lol. But in my own teaching I tend to adapt what he said into more familiar forms. ‘Surrounds’ become ‘enclosures’, I use ‘arpeggio’ to refer to all broken chords not only the triad with the doubled root, ‘pivot’ can be called ‘octave displacement’ and so on.

Im not sure how much ‘better’ it would have been had he used classical terms, for his academic career perhaps, but Barry was never going to be at home in an institution... Most of his terms are short and punchy, while classsical terminology tends to be rather long winded. Maybe there are some people who think it inherently better to say ‘supertonic’ than ‘the two’ but I don’t think that’s what you mean

Re modes. I remember a class where we taught ‘a Db scale with the G natural’ on ATTYA. Me and my neighbour looked at each other and decided it was best to say nothing.

-----

Dear Jimmy Smith, CST did not exist during CP's lifetime, they are an invention for university students in the 2nd half of the 20th century for pedagogues to systematize and make money off college kids. CST may be good for post-modal fusion styles, which were largely the product of CST education to begin with but is rather hopeless in generating an authentic-sounding bebop musician

I’m going to do something odd here and stand up for CST. As others here have often commented cst is a theory of harmony. It’s unreasonable to expect it to do a good job of talking about bebop lines. But in fact it is a useful tool for, post modal jazz as you say.

And as others here have commented to say that CST is used to teach bop is a strawman. Maybe at some music schools that don’t have real jazzers on faculty, but from talking to my colleagues in jazz and current jazz students, all the music colleges continue to teach bop as a matter of acquiring vocab and encourage students to transcribe, which is one more reason why this idea of bird learning jazz out of a theory book is so … questionable.

Kids don’t learn jazz vocab like that now even, let alone back in the 30s and 40s. We know Bird learned everything Prez released by ear.

So to be fair to CST it was never meant to be a way to teach jazz line construction. It is a theory of voicings, in fact. The fact that it is often used as a method to teach improv is more a reflection of ‘mission creep’ or ‘meme-ification’ of a simple idea beyond its remit.

Is cst a useful framework for understanding bop harmony? Yes and no. There are quite a few instances, like Bird playing C7 over Cm in the Celerity example I posted above where CST sort of breaks down as a tool of analysis. But there are other instances, such as the B of his Moose the Mooche solo where it seems a bit dogmatic not to say he’s using lydian dominant.

There are also convergences with Barry’s teaching and CST as heretical as some find it. The main thing I would say is that CST just discusses pitch sets as if they were interchangeable, not dealing with melody, and Barry deals with melody. And the two things are not incompatible. You can apply added note scale rules to any scale you like, for instance.

[Christian Miller]

You mentioned you noticed evidence of chord scales or chord scale thinking in CP's playing, I'm just asking for examples to continue this scholarly discussion but it appears that you are not interested so I'll desist.

Sensible idea

[Reg]

yea... what's wrong with understanding common practice jazz harmonic usage. It could definitely help many on this forum. I mean the product is nothing new... just a nice easy way to look at and use. If you don't understand the approach... you should at least be able to hear feel where tunes can go. Last time I checked... (last night), jazz isn't notated out and rehearsed music.... it changes. CST does really help with arranging for big bands even just arrangements with a few horns , (wednesday nights gig)... which was generally the reason for CST.

I've posted many times what CST is and what it can work with etc... who cares. Do you think the old bebop players played the same tune the same way every night.

I've performed with a few players who toured with CP ... and the stories weren't about CST... LOL.

You need to use some approach to get past the chord tones, and subs ... if it's embellishment without theoretical organization... great, if you like harmonic organization great. Again if your a good or even a great played... any approach can work.

Knowing what scales can work with harmonic contexts or tonal targets is not understanding CST... it's just becoming aware of the tools... not the applications. Kind of like getting your fingerings together doesn't imply you understand or can play Jazz.

[charlieparker]

This is an excerpt from Louis Moreau Gottschalk's Le Bananier. Charlie Parker, who was an enormous fan of classical music, would have known stuff like this all day long (he knew for instance Debussy's arabesque). He would have practiced etudes that looked like this. Stuff like this draw directly from figured bass, counterpoint, and diminution. CST is really quite radical in its approach while bebop in my opinion is much more "classical".

Attachment 95443

I'm no musicologist but this is exactly how I think about Parker's playing and bebop. In fact, for me bebop is like Bach but with different rhythms and a bit more freedom in voice leading and chordal options.

What we really should be discussing here was how Bach created his music and improvisations.

[humphreysguitar]

I'm no musicologist but this is exactly how I think about Parker's playing and bebop. In fact, for me bebop is like Bach but with different rhythms and a bit more freedom in voice leading and chordal options.

What we really should be discussing here was how Bach created his music and improvisations.

It's actually, to my mind, extremely straightforward how Bach created his music because we know his framework which was thoroughbass (not the analytical tool with Roman numerals and harmonic function theory but the total system of composition without fundamental bass).

I must disagree with those who say that Bach was this idiot savant who was brilliant, didn't use theory, and then was analyzed by future composers.

He was extremely highly trained by working as a professional church musician his entire life. He was also a teacher for many decades. He wrote a testimonial about one of his students achieving skill in the art of thoroughbass. His son wrote a keyboard textbook that had a very comprehensive and detailed chapter on thoroughbass (his father being his only teacher).

Most musicians back then studied privately with masters, not at conservatories. It doesn't mean he wasn't exposed to the methods that church musicians employed (counterpoint and thoroughbass). He was like Brahms, divinely endowed with natural talent, very hard working, copied scores and knew a ton of theory.

Every note that Bach wrote can be explained through figured bass and counterpoint. Most people can't because they're trapped with Roman numerals and 19th century function theory but his method was extremely straight forward: figures above a given bass and common practice voice leading of that period, consonances and dissonances.

I think Charlie Parker is very similar. (In that he understood melodic diminution in perhaps a self didactic way.. he was a figure of his time though, fundamental bass and chords symbols.. Not thoroughbass)

[Marinero]

I did not say he is one, I said he started to remind me of one. Have you ever had discussions with right-winged radicals? I have tried. Several times. Stubborn willfull ignorance and no way to convince them of anything. I unfortunately am a person as well who takes other’s statements seriously and spends too much time in discussions that turn out to be useless.

I grew up knowing several people very well who were lucky enough to survive the Shoa in England or the USA (RIP all of you). I owe them very much. I do not make jokes on that matter.

Hi, B,
You could easily substitute the word "right-wing" with "woke." However, JS is neither. Simply, an educated person with serious knowledge of music who is trying to dispel the "Black Magic" theory of Jazz. Your remark is unfair since you do not know him and to make such harsh and unprovable criticisms based on his very realistic comments about Parker is patently unfair. I believe you have a higher standard as witnessed from previous discussions. Conversations are never won when we stray from the facts or use emotionally-charged words that have nothing to do with the discussion.
Marinero

[Marinero]

Where did I say formal music theory didn't exist in the 20th century?




Why do you expect me to do this? Are you incapable of reading up on the matter yourself? Are you asking me this because you think music theory hasn't changed during the last several hundred years? Well it has, it has changed as music has changed, from the modal theory of medieval and renaissance music from figured bass of the baroque through functional harmony, Schenker and 'composing out' a triad, Riemann for more chromatic triadic tonal music through to the set theory used to analyse and think about atonal music. Schoenberg as far as I am aware didn't know set theory, though, when he wrote 'Erwartung' but intuited the lot, described it as a written out improvisation that he wrote feverishly over a few weeks IIRC.




No, what gave you the impression I thought these things?

The point that was made was that the kind of theory Bird and others used and how they thought about the music was different from that which many people, perforce retrospectively, used to analyse it and think about it.

To summarise - musicians obviously use theory and learn from it. But theory, as detailed above, changes and is always something that FOLLOWS new music. The theory that Bird learnt did not teach him to be an original genius. He assimilated the theory that existed up to the point in history where he was and went BEYOND.

How quickly some birds change their tune . . . no pun intended.
Marinero

[Marinero]

"You have the honour of being the first JGO member I have ever added to my ignore list, so the bar is quite high."
ChristianMiller

Come on, C . . .
You're too smart of a guy to go down that road. A difference of opinion does not make someone a criminal. C'mon back to the pack and take your spanking like a good bloke . . .
Marinero

[James W]

How quickly some birds change their tune . . . no pun intended.
Marinero

Eh?

[Christian Miller]

"You have the honour of being the first JGO member I have ever added to my ignore list, so the bar is quite high."
ChristianMiller

Come on, C . . .
You're too smart of a guy to go down that road. A difference of opinion does not make someone a criminal. C'mon back to the pack and take your spanking like a good bloke . . .
Marinero

No, i must disappoint you.

I am not nearly smart enough to continue in a repetitive exchange with an internet random who is not likely to be open to changing his mind on anything, doesn’t seem sufficiently interested to read, parse or respond to anything I write and accuses me of being a liar or worse every second post.

Silly dumb old me. Ah well, what can I say, I’m a B student.

Isn’t the definition of madness doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

I tell you what, I’ll let you fight it out for who gets be the big dog on this thread and I’ll go and do something worthwhile for a change - how about that? Whoever is the last person ranting here after everyone else has finally realised that they could be doing literally anything else gets to be the Top Dog of JGO. I could get a little trophy cup made up and everything.

[Marinero]

So, yesterday, I was working on my boat and listened to an outstanding program on NPR about CP--his life and music. It was based on his life as witnessed by those around him and any person serious about CP's music needs to hear this excellent biography with outstanding musical examples. I hope you enjoy!

P.S. There is, without doubt, a huge generation gap in the perception of Music between my generation(Boomer) and older generations juxtaposed to those born, roughly, post 1970. I learned music like most in my generation: lessons, some formal theory, and years of "on the job" experience. Music, in accordance with Literature and Visual Art, is a form of human communication. And, if it fails to communicate to one's deepest levels of their psyche, and to those who hear it, it has failed. This is my problem with Post-Boomer generations of musicians where playing fast and reducing music to a math equation inundated with a formulaic approach has overridden Music as Communication. I listen to younger musicians today and, with rare exception, I hear a cold, dispassionate display of technique and nothing to say. When you hear Dexter, Chet, Coltrane, Miles, Bird, and Ammons playing a ballad, you are hearing a poetic, musical representation of their voice and their life. It is deep, profound, and moving. I don't hear it, with rare exception, in younger players playing Jazz because, I believe, they lack what we called in my generation "Soul." However, yesterday, I listened to "Mona Lisa" played by Stringman5 and he remarked whenever he plays the song, it reminds him of his father. This IS what music is about--Communication, not technical pyroclastic flow. So, I have nothing more to add to this conversation (which I hope stays at a higher level) but it has revealed to me the huge gap that exists between the generations and how we perceive life and Art. Do you wonder why Harris said, "Jazz is Dead?" You haven't been paying attention.
Marinero

[Marinero]

"I tell you what, I’ll let you fight it out for who gets be the big dog on this thread" Christian Miller


Hi, C,
I believe everything fails if we buy into a "Top Dog" mentality for any discussion. Perhaps, when one no longer posts on a topic, they believe they have said everything they wanted to say and anything else would be repetitive. That's fine However, I disagree with many on this Forum as to "What Is Art" but I've tried to keep an open mind and realize that communication is the pathway to growth. There is no right or wrong in the Arts but rather "schools of thought" that defines one's philosophical/practical stance. I think this thread has been a prime example of this concept. So, although you might have finished with this thread, keep the lines of communication open. You're a better man for it!
Marinero

P.S.
And, I said I was done in my last post . . . I'm done . . . promise!
M

[Jimmy Smith]

Hi, sorry Christian and forum. The mustard really fell off the hotdog there. Sorry for raging at you Christian. We're both not leaving the forum so I can't be raging.

Thx for backing me up Marinero.

Thx for introducing thoughtful and accurate discussion humphreysguitar.

Moving forward, politely: this revisionist, music came about through black magic as Marinero put it, isn't acceptable tho.

Here's Bill in 1966 speaking facts about his process:

25:50 he says jazz is only creative and free in as much as it relates to the form of the tune.

26:40 the host says Bill emphasizes the importance of knowing the rules.

29:45 he says he learned classical first as a child then learned how to improvise on the job as a teen by learning about the changes. - This confirms what we have been hypothesizing about, that the musicians may not have learned theory at a university, but they did learn it elsewhere in informal instruction.

Yes, he likely refers to his theory paradigm as changes because cst hadn't been established yet.

32:30 he says he didn't have great (creative) facility immediately and so had to be more analytical. Confirms what I have said, that some musicians are more artistic and creative and some are more analytical.

36:00 he says some of his students didn't want to learn about chords (theory) to be more creative and he said that was ridiculously naive. Confirms what I have said that not learning theory isn't a viable path to learning for most.

PS: I vow to never again misuse the terminology of post golden age cst to refer to golden age musicians' working knowledge of what melodic devices to use over what chords in a tune.

[Christian Miller]

Hey Jimmy, I appreciate that. It takes two to tango, and I should probably let these things go more.

[djg]

Moving forward, politely: this revisionist, music came about through black magic as Marinero put it, isn't acceptable tho.

sigh. every improvising musician has some form of musical organisation. every theory is a form of musical organization. but contrary to your belief not every musical organisation is a form of theory.

[Jimmy Smith]

^ I'm aware of that. Notice how in my write up I said some musicians are more on the creative and artistic side and some are more on the analytical side.

Hey Jimmy, I appreciate that. It takes two to tango, and I should probably let these things go more.

No prob.

[AaronMColeman]

Hey, I'm far from a theory expert, I'm fairly newish to Jazz Guitar playing. But I am a huge Charlie Parker fan and have read everything I can find on him. He certainly was aware of the theory behind what he was doing. What exactly he was thinking and what theory lead to his style is likely lost to verbal history (could you imagine being a fly on the wall when he and Dizzy talked about music in general?). He certainly thought in a bit of CST way because he was constantly thinking about extensions and how chords lead to the next and built some direction and movement to a piece (think descending 12 bar blues).

So there is a lot of speculation. What isn't speculation is that these guys in the 30s - 60s lived music. They listened 24 hours a day 7 days a week. They spent more time on a bandstand before they turned 25 than I will in my lifetime. It stands to reason that there was A LOT of ear based playing. They were also surrounded by great musicians and I can't imagine they didn't discuss theory with each other as they were composing or jamming. Obviously a lot of what we consider classic bebop was a combination of great blues players and incredible musical minds.

To a fairly novice jazz theorist, I see A LOT of arpeggios, chord outlines, and extensions in Charlie Parker's music (duh!). I also see a lot of breath in the chaos of the notes. He isn't known as one who uses rests often like say, Wes Montgomery. But Charlie would always bring the melody back in right when the listener is about to lose it, or revert to some tasty blues lick to provide something relatable. He was very aware of the need to keep the music relevant while still exploring new extensions and rhythms. Not a deep analysis, but my take away from Bird is to keep bringing the music back to the grounded basics no matter where else it goes.

This is a bit of detour from this thread, but every time the topic of how much did the founding fathers of jazz really know about what they were playing (theory), there is a lot of talk about natural talent. This has died down some as the decades move forward and we can't deny they were theoretical geniuses. I'm glad we are finally able to see them for what they were and throw out a lot of the crap that has been spewed about natural talent...they were smart, incredibly creative, and played more than any of us every will.

[Reg]

Yea... the tunes and his playing were and are great. I never got to perform with CP but have performed with many players who did. And I think I've posted before.... all the stories weren't about his playing.
I mean they were all addicts.... Is there a reason almost all of CP's tunes were AABA form or Blues etc...

Anyway... the man practiced his ass off.... they all talked of his years of marathon practice sessions. And as mentioned above... the gigs. A lot of stories of also not showing up etc...

I've posted what and how CST works.... but CP's use of extensions could easily be related to the use of modern day CST... just not as organized and complete.

Just as trying to use standard traditional Music theory... or technical understands etc.... as the way to understand and play Jazz doesn't work. Just using CST, (even though it's not theory), as the only approach to understanding and playing jazz also doesn't work. You want to play bebop.... get your chops together. Talking about it usually doesn't work ... Years of 12 hours a day...

[grahambop]

I never got to perform with CP

well he did die 67 years ago!

[Reg]

So yea I'm not that old, LOL. And I obviously did say the obvious.... thanks. Did get to perform with Frank Morgan... another great player with habits. But the point was.... he had chops from practicing his ass off.

[2bornot2bop]

Pedagogy not existing or existing but that we don't have record of isn't proof that they didn't use theory. Why are you so intent on pushing your agenda with disregard for the facts? Parker said he developed his playing through studying books! If his main pathway was a basic understanding of the instrument and music then a lot of playing, he would have said so! All 3 of them clarified and were in agreement that it wasn't solely a lot of playing and aural understanding.

We still don't understand that fully do we? The more light we can shed on it, the better.

Lol! Give it up. You can’t win with your hypothetical theories. No one knows what Bird was practicing or when, or what influence that had on his playing.

What’s mysterious though, is your insistence to suggest that jazz isn’t, wasn’t, created by black culture. That’s a serious take. Everyone knows jazz is, was, created and evolved by members of the black community. Full stop!

[2bornot2bop]

What position of ignorance? I went and got the interview with Parker himself saying his playing was due to his academic studies. I posted the scan of the omnibook with 100% functional cst. I specifically asked my top pro music teacher if his peers use theory, he said they all do. Why would Christian who is trying to spin things by definition be the one in position of authority? He's a regular member like everyone else. Look at my eagerness to deescalate and make amends with anyone, Reg for example. We disagree but we're on cordial terms and aren't going full retard at each other like Christian instigates.

Right. Parker’s playing wasn’t influenced by his peers. Okay, let’s simply be crazy.

[Jimmy Smith]

Wow, you're going to dig up an old argument to blatantly straw man me. The 3 points that you 'refute' me on appear nowhere in my 2 posts that you quoted.

1. No crap we don't know what Parker was thinking. We have evidence that points to the idea that he probably used theory tho. (In addition to his musicianship.)
2. No crap all good players learn a good portion from music around them and their peers. I never said anything of the sort to the contrary. Go direct me to the post where I said they don't.
3. No crap jazz evolved a large proportion from black blues/folk influences. I said it didn't only come from there. It also evolved from ragtime which came from 1800s classical marches. Joplin was black. Again, please direct me to my post where I said the opposite. I'd say quote me, but if you'll straw man me this severely, who's to say you won't purposely misquote me.

[A. Kingstone]

I'm glad I have no idea how Charlie Parker did it.