Was Charlie Parker the Culprit Behind the Chord-Scales?

[Tal_175]

"I remember one night before Monroe’s I was jamming in a chili house on Seventh Avenue between 139th and 140th. It was December, 1939…I’d been getting bored with the stereotyped changes that were being used all the time, all the time, and I kept thinking there’s bound to be something else. I could hear it sometimes but I couldn’t play it. Well, that night, I was working over “Cherokee,” and, as I did, I found that by using the higher intervals of a chord as a melody line and backing them with appropriately related changes, I could play the thing I’d been hearing. I came alive."

Charlie Parker

[GuyBoden]

The famous quote is from Down Beat 1949, the authors were Michael Levin and John Wilson. If Charlie Parker actually said these words is open for debate.

But, are talking about using the 9th, 11th and 13th notes?

And, is that the same as using the 2nd, 4th and 6th notes?

[Christian Miller]

"I remember one night before Monroe’s I was jamming in a chili house on Seventh Avenue between 139th and 140th. It was December, 1939…I’d been getting bored with the stereotyped changes that were being used all the time, all the time, and I kept thinking there’s bound to be something else. I could hear it sometimes but I couldn’t play it. Well, that night, I was working over “Cherokee,” and, as I did, I found that by using the higher intervals of a chord as a melody line and backing them with appropriately related changes, I could play the thing I’d been hearing. I came alive."

Charlie Parker

You’ll find a few different wordings. Apparently this is not a Charlie Parker quote. I did have a look at the original Downbeat article and it appears to be copy, not a quote from the man himself.

(This is picked up in Conrad Cork article discussing the ‘myth of harmony’ in jazz education and theory. Very influential on me.)

It’s a classic line. It’s one of the first things I heard in jazz education (and didn’t know what it meant haha.)

It’s interesting though - obviously the concept of ‘higher intervals of the chord’ existed in jazz circle’s back when the article was written. So it may well have had something with what bird was saying. Hard to know.

Obviously the concept of extended chords also predates chord scale theory by - oh a couple of hundred years, albeit governed by the grammar of common practice harmony. There’s also plenty of them in earlier jazz. Take the melody of In a Sentimental mood (1935.) for example. Furthermore Bird’s use of the ‘higher intervals’ (assuming that means extensions) is actually quite sparing which is a point Cork makers

(What I would say is that Parker’s heavy use of the b9 on the dominant chord is quite stylistically distinctive.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

I also think the wording is interesting - a melody line on the high intervals sounds like using upper extensions on the chords, but ‘backing them up with appropriately related changes’ sounds like changing the chords under the melody line? This doesn’t seem to obviously relate to what I hear Bird doing but it’s hard to work out what exactly is meant here.

Maybe it’s a music journalist trying to explain new and unfamiliar music in technical seeming terms?

Don’t know. From what I’ve read in old articles, I don’t think 40s downbeat had very good quality journalism tbh. It was a bit of a rag.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tal_175]

The famous quote is from Down Beat 1949, the authors were Michael Levin and John Wilson. If Charlie Parker actually said these words is open for debate.

The quote also appears in Ralph Ellison's essay: "On Bird, BirdWatching, and Jazz".

But, are talking about using the 9th, 11th and 13th notes?

And, is that the same as using the 2nd, 4th and 6th notes?

The most natural interpretation of the quote would be that he started thinking chord tones and upper extensions together linearly as a scale, that is the 9th, 11th and 13th (or their alterations that fit the chord) and the primary chord tones.

[Christian Miller]

The quote also appears in Ralph Ellison essay "On Bird, BirdWatching, and Jazz".

The most natural interpretation of the quote would be that he started thinking chord tones and upper extensions together linearly as a scale, that is the 9th, 11th and 13th (or their alterations that fit the chord) and the primary chord tones.

Is it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tal_175]

Is it?

"... by using the higher intervals of a chord as a melody line and backing them with appropriately related changes ..."

It seems reasonable to me to treat term "changes" as synonymous to "chords". The chord being the 3 or 4 note tetrian structure. So upper extensions with their appropriately related chords then could indicate chord-scales as we understand it today, no?

I agree that it is not a super clean reading of the sentence since the wording in the second part is a bit ambiguous.

What would your simplest interpretation of that sentence be?

[pamosmusic]

Is it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was thinking the same thing

Assuming he said it, it would seem more a justification for something like the important chords or whatever … which can be chord scaley or not.

[Christian Miller]

"... by using the higher intervals of a chord as a melody line and backing them with appropriately related changes ..."

It seems reasonable to me to treat term "changes" as synonymous to "chords". The chord being the 3 or 4 note tetrian structure. So upper extensions with their appropriately related chords then could indicate chord-scales as we understand it today, no?

I agree that it is not a super clean reading of the sentence since the wording in the second part is a bit ambiguous.

What would your simplest interpretation of that sentence be?

It is not clear to me that this is meant by whoever wrote this sentence.

It talks about ‘higher intervals of the chords’ which we could reasonably understand as chord extensions. That makes sense and is the usual reading. I don’t think this actually relates that much to what makes Birds music new and distinctive (for the era) but it makes sense on its own terms and I think most people reading the quote have taken that from it.

The bit I don’t get is ‘backing them up with appropriately related chords’ which sounds to me like chord substitutions. Backing sounds like something the rhythm section would do, but quite honestly I’m at sea here.

But this doesn’t seem to map onto how birds rhythm sections played. Even on the occasions where bird plays a 9th on a chord, the band doesn’t play a iiim7 sub or whatever. So assuming he said something like the quote, this can’t be what he meant.

Perhaps what is meant is that he used chord subs in his playing. So the higher intervals being say, 5 7 9 on a chord, he’d play a sub triad on V. And he does indeed do stuff like that sometimes. He likes the augmented triad/major seventh on the b7 of the dominant chord (b7 9 #11, 13) and so on. So maybe it’s that? I think again it’s a fairly standard reading.

But this stuff is more like a special sauce bird uses than the main recipe and he certainly wasn’t the first. Bird’s rhythm is much more unique.

I don’t see where scales enter the picture. I think you are associating the word melody with scale use, which is making an assumption that I don’t. Bird certainty played plenty of scales, but just going on the exact wording I don’t see that being discussed here.

All in all I think the student is best to focus on what bird actually did on the records. I’m not sure this apocryphal quote is very helpful.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

I was thinking the same thing

Assuming he said it, it would seem more a justification for something like the important chords or whatever … which can be chord scaley or not.

Cork said it sounded like a technical justification for a more intuitive musical process.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

Btw if you are looking for a culprit for chord scales, I would say Lennie, who according to Peter Ind was teaching melodic minor subs as far back as the late 40s. He might not have been the first, but he was certainly highly influential. He may well have chatted with Bird about it, I don’t know. Maybe bird had his own theoretical conception, but it’s hard to say.

Recognisably modern CST would not appear in print (to my knowledge) until the 60s but you can obviously see elements of it in earlier theorists and educators, with George Russell being probably the most celebrated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bobby Timmons]

Listen to that, Francis. The swing bands used to be all straight tonics, seventh chords. And then with the Basie band, I heard Lester Young and he sounded like he came out of the blue. Because he was playing all the color tones, the sixths and the ninths and major sevenths. You know, like Debussy and Ravel. Then Charlie Parker came on and he began to expand and he went into elevenths and thirteenths and flat fives. Luckily, I was going in the same direction already. You just don't go out and pick a style off a tree one day. The tree is inside you growing naturally.

- Dale Turner

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

The quote also appears in Ralph Ellison's essay: "On Bird, BirdWatching, and Jazz".

The most natural interpretation of the quote would be that he started thinking chord tones and upper extensions together linearly as a scale, that is the 9th, 11th and 13th (or their alterations that fit the chord) and the primary chord tones.

In his "Grundlagenharmonik" ("Basic Harmony") Werner Pöhlert who was a jazz practitioner in the late 40ies and the 50ies and 60ies interpreted the quote as Bird using upper structure arpeggios like the major 7th chord arpeggio on the seventh of a dominant seventh chord. (He quoted the quote from "Bird Lives" and that is where I had read it as well before coming across Pöhlert's very practical pedagogy that prevented me from CST.) That to me is also the most natural interpretation.

[RobSilver7]

But, are talking about using the 9th, 11th and 13th notes?

And, is that the same as using the 2nd, 4th and 6th notes?

Bebop is about “play on the chords (or chord substitutes)” not “play on scales that fit the chords”. So you’ll see a lot of arpeggiation of the chord tones, landing often on what would be the 9ths (sometimes altered), 11th (often sharped) and 13 (sometimes flatted). Although all these equate to 2nds, 4ths, and 6ths, they are meant not as passing scales tones but as exposed “upper tensions” of the chord and thus are considered by their higher-valued names. In C, for example, in the run C D E F G, “D” serves (and sounds) as a 2nd; in the run C E G B D F#, D serves and sounds as a 9th.

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

This video talks about the Downbeat quote and what Bird might have meant:

Isn't Andy Shaw, the guy behind the Bebop Review YouTube channel, a strong proponent of George Russel's Lydian Chromatic Concept Of Tonal Organization?

[Christian Miller]

Bebop is about “play on the chords (or chord substitutes)” not “play on scales that fit the chords”. So you’ll see a lot of arpeggiation of the chord tones, landing often on what would be the 9ths (sometimes altered), 11th (often sharped) and 13 (sometimes flatted). Although all these equate to 2nds, 4ths, and 6ths, they are meant not as passing scales tones but as exposed “upper tensions” of the chord and thus are considered by their higher-valued names. In C, for example, in the run C D E F G, “D” serves (and sounds) as a 2nd; in the run C E G B D F#, D serves and sounds as a 9th.

So this narrative is what Cork calls ‘harmony as the engine’ in his article and aims to debunk it in favour of what he calls the ‘freedom principle.’

I would centre Parker’s innovations on his very original phrasing and rhythmic sense. For example, the first few bars of the head anthropology contain only simple chord tones and yet are unmistakably bop.

Otoh people massively stereotype pre bop jazz. Tbh I get the impression a lot of the modern jazz educators and so on didn’t play or listen much to that music. (Although I don’t think this is as true as it was in the UK.)

So, it’s not true that early jazz was just on the chord tones and it’s also not true that birds melodies were mostly on the extensions. You can take Levine’s analysis of Louis solo in the theory book as an example. Wynton points out that Louis is playing a lot of interesting notes on chords and so on.

While I think there’s much that’s true in it I don’t 100% buy corks narrative though … bird did do a lot of things harmonically that are distinct from Lester young, say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bobby Timmons]

I would centre Parker’s innovations on his very original phrasing and rhythmic sense. For example, the first few bars of the head anthropology contain only simple chord tones and yet are unmistakably bop.

What made his phrasing so original was that he outlined the harmony very effectively, highlighting the extensions and color tones. He did this so effectively, that imo became the archetype for modern jazz single note soloing.

[Christian Miller]

What made his phrasing so original was that he outlined the harmony very effectively, highlighting the extensions and color tones. He did this so effectively, that imo became the archetype for modern jazz single note soloing.

No it wasn't. I mean it’s a true observation about Bird’s paying, he does absolutely do that, but it’s not the thing that makes bop bop. Really, bop is a feel thing.

Many pre war improvisers were already doing this. For instance, Coleman Hawkins and Art Tatum, both very harmonic and harmonically progressive improvisers (who also influenced Parker tbf) do not sound like bop. On guitar, go and check out Django.

Young, Bird's main model was a little more melodic, harmonically generalised and blues oriented, but Prez's rhythmic feel was much more modern than those guys - he sounds more like bop especially with a more modern rhythm section behind him. This became the basis for bop phrasing and swing. But Parker takes it to the next level by playing more irregular phrases and more complex syncopations. In fact he's much more rhythmically progressive (as Barry points out) than the second generation boppers he influenced directly.

(It is true that there was more diversity in approach in pre war jazz - not all soloists worked from the chords, bit then the same is true of post-bop music including Art Pepper, Stan Getz and arguably, Miles Davis.)

Again, people make assumptions about pre war jazz based on not listening to it. I've heard some hilarious nonsense over the years. One was that pre war jazz didn't use the diminished seventh chord which is just gobsmacking. Levine has a few howlers. These arguments are made with striking confidence from a place of ignorance. I'm glad to say these type of sweeping statements are rarely made by younger improvisers who are more likely to have an integrated understanding of jazz history and respect for the older music. Wynton had a big role in this. Again, Cork also highlights this eloquently (wish I could link to the article, it's a good'un.)

But don't take my word for it (as if you would) transcribe and draw your own conclusions.

[Tal_175]

I don’t see where scales enter the picture. I think you are associating the word melody with scale use, which is making an assumption that I don’t. Bird certainty played plenty of scales, but just going on the exact wording I don’t see that being discussed here.

If this quote is actually something Charlie Parker said then it means that he started conceptualizing upper extensions of chords as available notes for making melodies with over the corresponding chords. This idea became something he was conscious of and deliberate about rather than using it viscerally or accidentally. It also means that he was under the impression that this was something new to jazz at the time.

I am not sure what distinction are you making between "melody" and "scale use" if the melody uses the notes of the scale. Chord-scales are a way of conceptualizing note collections as melodic material in harmony oriented (or chord specific) playing in this context (they are also a way of conceptualizing chord voicing construction using these note collections).

So again if we assume for a moment that the quote can be attributed to Charlie Parker, his conceptualization of upper extensions as melodic structures suggests an early evolution towards seeing the chords as collection of 7 notes when playing the changes (obviously not always exactly 7 notes). That doesn't mean he only used upper extensions from that point forward but he conceptualized them as musical entities.

[Tal_175]

Bebop is about “play on the chords (or chord substitutes)” not “play on scales that fit the chords”. So you’ll see a lot of arpeggiation of the chord tones, landing often on what would be the 9ths (sometimes altered), 11th (often sharped) and 13 (sometimes flatted).

Why do you think arpeggiation negates the scale view? A line that can be analyzed with chord-scales doesn't mean that the line is built strictly using scale steps, right?

[Tal_175]

So this narrative is what Cork calls ‘harmony as the engine’ in his article and aims to debunk it in favour of what he calls the ‘freedom principle.’

What is this Cork article you speak of?

[Tal_175]

In his "Grundlagenharmonik" ("Basic Harmony") Werner Pöhlert who was a jazz practitioner in the late 40ies and the 50ies and 60ies interpreted the quote as Bird using upper structure arpeggios like the major 7th chord arpeggio on the seventh of a dominant seventh chord. (He quoted the quote from "Bird Lives" and that is where I had read it as well before coming across Pöhlert's very practical pedagogy that prevented me from CST.) That to me is also the most natural interpretation.

Chord-scales are descriptive tools, not prescriptive tools. So playing major 7th arpeggio from the seventh of a dominant seventh chord is perfectly compatible with viewing dominant chords linearly as chord-scales made up of the chord-tones and the extensions 9th, 11th, and 13th arranged as a scale.

[pamosmusic]

If this quote is actually something Charlie Parker said then it means that he started conceptualizing upper extensions of chords as available notes for making melodies with over the corresponding chords. This idea became something he was conscious of and deliberate about rather than using it viscerally or accidentally. It also means that he was under the impression that this was something new to jazz at the time.

This doesn’t imply chord scale theory more than it implies any other way of thinking. Jordan Klemons jumps to mind as someone who very deliberately categorizes upper extensions but he absolutely hates conceptualizing them as scales. So I think I’m just not sure why this quote has anything to do with chord scale theory. I mean … it COULD but there’s nothing in it that suggests CST more strongly than whatever else he was doing at the time.

Also let’s just pause for a beat and note that this argument keeps having to include the caveat “if it’s something he actually said.”

[Tal_175]

This doesn’t imply chord scale theory more than it implies any other way of thinking. Jordan Klemons jumps to mind as someone who very deliberately categorizes upper extensions but he absolutely hates conceptualizing them as scales. So I think I’m just not sure why this quote has anything to do with chord scale theory. I mean … it COULD but there’s nothing in it that suggests CST more strongly than whatever else he was doing at the time.

Also let’s just pause for a beat and note that this argument keeps having to include the caveat “if it’s something he actually said.”

Never have I said anything about chord scale theory (CST).

I did say this however:
So again if we assume for a moment that the quote can be attributed to Charlie Parker, his conceptualization of upper extensions as melodic structures suggests an early evolution towards seeing the chords as collection of 7 notes when playing the changes (obviously not always exactly 7 notes). That doesn't mean he only used upper extensions from that point forward but he conceptualized them as musical entities.

[Tal_175]

Jordan Klemons jumps to mind as someone who very deliberately categorizes upper extensions but he absolutely hates conceptualizing them as scales.

It seems like he conceptualizes scales in a very specific way that is prescriptive of a particular way to play them. I see scales as containing limitless melodic and harmonic possibilities of intervals and arpeggios, not just up and down runs. So to me, a triad is not a negation of a scale. It is one manifestation of it.