Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Posts 1 to 29 of 29
  1. #1

    User Info Menu

    Hi guys, I would like to share our new ebook with all the bebop progressions by Charlie Parker fully analyzed. We took a long time to finish it but at last is done. We also put a nice video together that kind of shows what’s inside the book. Check it out!


  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #2

    User Info Menu

    But Bird didn't use chord scales per se, isn't that a post 70's "thing"....

  4. #3

    User Info Menu

    Looks great, but when is Mapping Tonal Harmony Pro coming to PCs?
    Jazz isn't dead. It just smells funny. FZ

  5. #4

    User Info Menu

    The piano series for chord upper structures and quartal voicing's is very complete. "No voicing is left behind" indeed. Nice work mDecks Music!
    "You've got to be in the sun to feel the sun. It's that way with music too." - Sidney Bechet

  6. #5

    User Info Menu

    CST is taken for granted too much today...

  7. #6

    User Info Menu

    dorian b9. who comes up with such shit?

  8. #7

    User Info Menu

    Where’s a picture of a disgruntled looking Barry Harris looking over his glasses at the camera when you need one?

  9. #8

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    Where’s a picture of a disgruntled looking Barry Harris looking over his glasses at the camera when you need one?
    He was so disgusted he jumped on his bike and left town.

    Charlie Parker fully analyzed-478d2e44-cc53-45b2-876a-f11e6dafed18-jpg

  10. #9

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    Where’s a picture of a disgruntled looking Barry Harris looking over his glasses at the camera when you need one?

    I've got a brilliant framed shot by Alan Dawson of Barry giving that absolute withering look in my practice space. No wonder I never practice.

  11. #10

    User Info Menu

    it's quite shocking what passes for analysis these days. the information age seems to be over.

  12. #11

    User Info Menu

    Past realities are often understood through a lens applying the analytic methods
    of the present. It is highly likely that this will not lead one directly into the mindset
    of the creator simply because they lived in a time before said analytic method
    came into prominence. The best person to explain how Charlie Parker conceived
    of what he played would be Charlie himself. Secondarily would be musicians that
    worked closely with him. The rest of us are just applying the tools of understanding
    we are familiar with and "best guessing".

    Two Common Contemporary Analysis Filters:

    Note/scale content equating everything in relation to the chord symbol.

    Arpeggios/chord tones combined with diatonic and chromatic passing tones.

    Two Others:

    Some people say that Parker's most important contributions were rhythmic.
    This one seems to receive far less attention.

    Others explain his usage of certain note sequences to be best understood as
    "alternate paths" to a harmonic target.

    Each perspective can potentially yield something useful to a practitioner
    regardless of how inaccurately they replicate the mindset of the creator.

  13. #12

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by bako View Post
    Past realities are often understood through a lens applying the analytic methods
    of the present.
    "analytic methods of the present" my arse. did you watch the video?

  14. #13

    User Info Menu

    djg,

    I watched the video when 1st posted and rewatched it after your comment.
    I would say the numbering of progressions has long been a basic tool of harmonic analysis.
    So is the process of trying to explain the appearance of different notes.
    Modes are just another filter applied to this task.

    Analysis without serious listening study will always be lacking something fundamental.

    What relationships or info would you deem most worthy of presenting to help others
    increase their understanding of the music of Charlie Parker?

  15. #14

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by djg View Post
    it's quite shocking what passes for analysis these days. the information age seems to be over.
    My favourite one is Polyphonic. A YouTube channel mostly concerned with explaining the lyrics of songs to (I must presume) the very young.

    It really is remarkable how obvious the ‘analysis’ in this channel is and how everybody in the comments raves about it as if it’s frickin genius.

    Grumble grumble brains melted through video games something something get off my lawn etc

  16. #15

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by bako View Post
    djg,

    I watched the video when 1st posted and rewatched it after your comment.
    I would say the numbering of progressions has long been a basic tool of harmonic analysis.
    So is the process of trying to explain the appearance of different notes.
    Modes are just another filter applied to this task.

    Analysis without serious listening study will always be lacking something fundamental.

    What relationships or info would you deem most worthy of presenting to help others
    increase their understanding of the music of Charlie Parker?
    Well I think you know my answer to that lol.

    But I’ll always say, go to the primary source and find out what works best for you. If you can seriously get something out of the modal approach looking at Parker’s music, than fair enough. All I ask is that you use your lugholes.

    That’s what led me to Barry.

  17. #16

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by bako View Post
    djg,

    I watched the video when 1st posted and rewatched it after your comment.
    I would say the numbering of progressions has long been a basic tool of harmonic analysis.
    So is the process of trying to explain the appearance of different notes.
    Modes are just another filter applied to this task.

    Analysis without serious listening study will always be lacking something fundamental.

    What relationships or info would you deem most worthy of presenting to help others
    increase their understanding of the music of Charlie Parker?
    edit: nevermind. it's just a waste of time.

  18. #17

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by bako View Post
    djg,
    ....
    What relationships or info would you deem most worthy of presenting to help others
    increase their understanding of the music of Charlie Parker?
    Hey Bako, I've noticed over the years that your knowledge of Pitch Collections is probably second to none on the forum, consequently I'd guess that you're more of a modern player (ie, post mid 60's) as opposed to a Bebopper ... Perhaps I'm wrong? Either way, I think the handful of Bird's successors that carried his torch for a while cracked the bop code somewhat by first copying Bird's solos - a lot - then gradually recognised how he applied his 2 or 3 hundred favourite devices in various situations, then learned to develop their own bag of tricks which were deployed in a similar way. Chord tones, extensions, chromatics, patterns, embellishments sure, but also a predilection for melody as well as a deep understanding of the Blues - all against the background of the music they heard all their lives, including thousands of hours of Swing ...

    All of which makes it nearly impossible to produce a modern day Bird. Not to say there is no merit in studying some of Bird's solos, but to analyse them through a post 70's lens by associating chord types to chord scales seems like an odd thing to do. I remember people trying to apply the Aebersold recommended chord scales at the back of the Omnibook to Bird tunes and thinking how lame it sounded. Then again, some people might actually like the idea of, say, John McLaughlin playing Blues for Alice...
    Last edited by princeplanet; 09-01-2019 at 09:39 PM.

  19. #18

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet View Post
    Hey Bako, I've noticed over the years that your knowledge of Pitch Collections is probably second to none on the forum, consequently I'd guess that you're more of a modern player (ie, post mid 60's) as opposed to a Bebopper ... Perhaps I'm wrong? Either way, I think the handful of Bird's successors that carried his torch for a while cracked the bop code somewhat by first copying Bird's solos - a lot - then gradually recognised how he applied his 2 or 3 hundred favourite devices in various situations, then learned to develop their own bag of tricks which were deployed in a similar way. Chord tones, extensions, chromatics, patterns, embellishments sure, but also a predilection for melody as well as a deep understanding of the Blues - all against the background of the music they heard all their lives, including thousands of hours or Swing ...

    All of which makes it nearly impossible to produce a modern day Bird. Not to say there is no merit in studying some of Bird's solos, but to analyse them through a post 70's lens by associating chord types to chord scales seems like an odd thing to do. I remember people trying to apply the Aebersold recommended chord scales at the back of the Omnibook to Bird tunes and thinking how lame it sounded. Then again, some people might actually like the idea of, say, John McLaughlin playing Blues for Alice...
    Jazz educators IMO are at their worst when they try to second guess the way they learned themselves. Do as I say, not as I do. You might not have to write the Omnibook, but, well... You'd learn more by writing a couple of pages than reading any amount of Aebersold scale suggestions.

    The reason for this back in the 50s, 60s and 70s, I think, was always an attempt to make jazz education respectable, academic seeming, but distinct from classical. Hence more written material, including the Omnibook, and overarching theories such as CST.

    The joke now is the classical educators are starting to want to emulate the apprenticeship and ear based training approaches traditionally used by jazz musicians....

    I always found it annoying that Aebersold, in common with many jazz transcribers, left out key signatures. Parker looks a lot simpler in a key, because rather a lot of his music is basically diatonic, with the type of chromatic embellishments that you might also find in Bach and Mozart. It's like the received wisdom that Parker was some sort of harmonically crazy post tonal music affected the analysis from the get go.

    Of course the rhythmic language is the main thing that distinguished Parker from his predecessors, and even quite a few of his successors.

    I'm transcribing Joel Frahm's solo on the Prophet is a Fool ATM, and one of the things I notice - in common with a lot of modern stuff - is that much of the language is derived from bebop, even where the harmony is very out and modern. The reason why people study bop is because it teaches language. They don't need it to teach harmony. The harmony is straightforward enough most of the time.

    But bop teaches useful little cells and ideas that can be applied in harmonically very modern ways. So really, most people are still playing bebop in one way or another. Maybe it's time to move on? ;-) (I have no idea how)

  20. #19

    User Info Menu

    Pitch collection practice for me is a form of ear training.
    The thought that is I will become more familiar with content by playing it consciously.
    I am not so interested in executing the "apply this to that" formulas.

    a predilection for melody as well as a deep understanding of the Blues - all against the background of the music they heard all their lives, including thousands of hours or Swing ...
    Well stated.

    2 or 3 hundred favourite devices, chord tones, extensions, chromatics,
    patterns, embellishments
    All of these can certifiably be found in the music if you go looking for them
    and can provide a path study/exploration.








  21. #20

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by bako View Post
    Pitch collection practice for me is a form of ear training.
    The thought that is I will become more familiar with content by playing it consciously.
    I am not so interested in executing the "apply this to that" formulas.



    Well stated.



    All of these can certifiably be found in the music if you go looking for them
    and can provide a path study/exploration.







    I'm sure you know that people like Thomas Owens have done this. But I'm betting that by studying it for years one may be none the wiser. Wasn't there a 12 year old kid from Sicily a few years back that sounded uncannily like Bird? Apparently he was improvising, if so, maybe we should all ask him about it, and not Thomas Owens, or Jamey Aebersold, or the OP.... ?

  22. #21

    User Info Menu

    So, in order for me to play An Oscar for Treadwell (exemplified in the video), I'll have to learn "Dorian b2" and "Lydian sharp somethin'". Why not learning to make a proper ventriculoperitoneal shunt?

    Here, I will try a shorter & concise harmonic analysis:



    PhD dissertation

    An Oscar for Treadwell

    by Charlie Parker

    Harmonic analysis:



    It's a friggin Rhythm Changes in C!

  23. #22

    User Info Menu

    If Charlie Parker was a guitarist he'd have been a shapes player.

  24. #23

    User Info Menu

    Somebody alluded to Jamey Aebersold's method of transcribing Bird solos being annoying. I concur. For me the C Omnibook is almost unusable. If the song's key is Bb, F, whatever, it's written out in the key of C! Gimme a break... how was this supposed to make things better, or easier, for the player? Had I realized this earlier I never would have bought the book.

  25. #24

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1 View Post
    If Charlie Parker was a guitarist he'd have been a shapes player.
    I don't agree. He was a rhythmic and melodic genius, and his ability to start/stop lines anywhere would have necessitated getting out of standard guitar shapes. He was an obsessive practicer -- could play anything in any key, which for a horn player takes an awful lot of work (there's a reason you don't see a lot of standards in A). And by all accounts, he had phenomenal memory and aural recall. All of that suggests to me he would have had little difficulty getting out of shapes.

    And on the flip side, the guitarists that sound the most like him (Jimmy Raney, Pasquale Grasso) aren't shapes players, either.

  26. #25

    User Info Menu

    I’ve had to think about this one. I need to talk to a horn player.

    Here’s the thing I guess, if Parker hadn’t been a sax player would he have played the same shit?

    Well he shares a main influence with the other Charlie (christian) in Lester young. So both represent a development of what Prez was doing. And Charlie was of course a heavy shapes player despite being the first guitarist to come not from banjo, but trying to imitate a horn.

    In terms of imitating what bird did historically play on saxophone on guitar, well that pushes you into some non guitaristic territory (though there are guitaristic ways to play some of that stuff, which Jimmy certainly used) and there are kind of lots of shapes and licks which Bird used. He was to some extent quite a lick oriented player.

    Which leads me to suspect a lot of what he did was natural to the horn. Which would suggest that his approach on guitar would have been to find things natural to that instrument.... But I’d need to ask a Sax player.

  27. #26

    User Info Menu

    Yea... looks like great work.... but most jazz players already know this shit or can already play it. I mean most parker tunes, like most single line players... don't really understand harmony.... they just play... You embellish... and when you get better those embellishments become collections of pitches. I could go on... but. I did think the analysis work and presentation looked great. Pretty standard... and really what most should have together. Could be great learning tool... Memorize and perform approach... most guitarist don't want to put in the time to actually understand etc... so if you just want to play and learn from playing... might work great.

    I mean... the trick is to be able to play analysis and new relationships from analysis, and develop them.... LIVE, in real time.

    When you play... there can be many analysis... harmonic organizational references ... going on simultaneously. If you don't know or can't hear the possibilities... that's what the results will be... not bad or wrong.

    So if someone soloing plays... a b9 on a minor chord with the context of a II- V7 with typical function.... what do you hear?

    Is that b9 just an approach to the V chord.... D-7 G7... the b9 or Eb could just be an approach chord ... Ab7 or F#7 etc... or does that Eb hint that the soloist is opening the melodic minor door... Cmm or maybe the har. Maj door ... obviously if your unaware of possibilities... your not going to think or hear what or where the improve might go.

    Sometimes.... playing basic chord tones... just doesn't work. Years ago.... soloist would use tune melodic references to cue or hint
    at possible directions for harmonic directions.... short melodic figures from standards, or well known solo figures .... most can hear Blues licks and get what they imply.... with reference to the Tune being performed. maybe even simple Borrowing concepts.... Borrowing usually implies use of Relative Minor or Parallel Minor... harmonic common practice harmonic practice... anyway I thought it looked cool... I wish more musicians who want to play jazz already knew these typical analysis possibilities.

    When I'm playing a tune at gig or performance... I always make quick mental analysis of any new tune or someone's composition. It only takes seconds.... it's just part of the Road map process before playing... It doesn't become easy by not doing it.

  28. #27

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg View Post
    Yea... looks like great work.... but most jazz players already know this shit or can already play it. I mean most parker tunes, like most single line players... don't really understand harmony.... they just play... You embellish... and when you get better those embellishments become collections of pitches. I could go on... but. I did think the analysis work and presentation looked great. Pretty standard... and really what most should have together. Could be great learning tool... Memorize and perform approach... most guitarist don't want to put in the time to actually understand etc... so if you just want to play and learn from playing... might work great.

    I mean... the trick is to be able to play analysis and new relationships from analysis, and develop them.... LIVE, in real time.

    When you play... there can be many analysis... harmonic organizational references ... going on simultaneously. If you don't know or can't hear the possibilities... that's what the results will be... not bad or wrong.

    So if someone soloing plays... a b9 on a minor chord with the context of a II- V7 with typical function.... what do you hear?

    Is that b9 just an approach to the V chord.... D-7 G7... the b9 or Eb could just be an approach chord ... Ab7 or F#7 etc... or does that Eb hint that the soloist is opening the melodic minor door... Cmm or maybe the har. Maj door ... obviously if your unaware of possibilities... your not going to think or hear what or where the improve might go.

    Sometimes.... playing basic chord tones... just doesn't work. Years ago.... soloist would use tune melodic references to cue or hint
    at possible directions for harmonic directions.... short melodic figures from standards, or well known solo figures .... most can hear Blues licks and get what they imply.... with reference to the Tune being performed. maybe even simple Borrowing concepts.... Borrowing usually implies use of Relative Minor or Parallel Minor... harmonic common practice harmonic practice... anyway I thought it looked cool... I wish more musicians who want to play jazz already knew these typical analysis possibilities.

    When I'm playing a tune at gig or performance... I always make quick mental analysis of any new tune or someone's composition. It only takes seconds.... it's just part of the Road map process before playing... It doesn't become easy by not doing it.
    Reg - the ellipses make it very difficult to read. Maybe I'm the only one that struggles with it. I only bring it up because you always post thoughtful answers with valuable information and it trips me up every time!

  29. #28

    User Info Menu

    Hey drbhrb... yes I'll try, sorry lazy habits etc. I try to type like I actually talk and think. Which can be pretty mixed up. Reminds me of a story.... a few weeks back was stuck in Anchorage airport for a few hours, had made some friends from Belize on flight that also were stuck in airport ..... (sorry can't help myself), anyway, there isn't much there, sushi and drinks, too many drinks... looked up and good friend, Tommy Politzer, was sneakin up to bear hug me... look back and Garibaldi, Marc VW, Roger, Doc.... Tower of Power was heading home from gig.... what did we end up talkin about.... who made the best meat balls. Go figure, some really good musicians... and where do we go........ Meatballs.

  30. #29

    User Info Menu

    Another story,
    One of my gigs last week, cool brewery playin mix of pop jazz. From Benson's My Latin Brother, Wes's Fried Pies to Sweet Georgia Brown.... and the bass player, Bill XXXX, playing stand up, (was great)... spent much of his life touring with Pop stars, he did Madonna's Like a Virgin tour etc... LOL.

    Sorry none of this means anything, but If you want to actually hear from working jazz Musicians.... get use to some different viewpoints.