Bebop explained

[gguge]

I've been taking jazz guitar lessons 1/2 per week now for a couple of years from a great guy who attended (graduated) from Berklee. I could not read when I started and had poor sense of time, but really feel much at ease now with the entire fretboard etc. Got the basics for sure, but when it comes to Bebop I am still puzzled at how to describe it, and how to really assimulate it.

Can anyone put bebop in a nutshell in less than 20 pages? I know it when I hear it now, but still wondering how to jump to the next level playing it.

[princeplanet]

20 pages, that a pretty big nut shell!. Get the David Baker 3 pt Bebop series of books, although that's more than 20 pages.....

I'll have a "crack" at the nutshell- chord tones with chromatic approaches. Throw in a strong sense of melody, strong sense of swing and at least a coupla dozen or so bop cliche type lines in all keys and positions and you're on your way down a 20 year path to bebop bliss!

Best of luck.

[ksjazzguitar]

...I'll have a "crack" at the nutshell- chord tones with chromatic approaches. Throw in a strong sense of melody, strong sense of swing and at least a coupla dozen or so bop cliche type lines...

That's a pretty good start. The thing you have to realize is not as much scale based as it is chord based. Even the so called "bebop" scale is just an attempt to put an extra note (a chromatic passing tone) in the scale so the chord tones land on the beats.

If I had to put it into a simple summary, I would say:

1. Playing over a given chord, your line should heavily bring out the harmony, chord tones on beats and non-chord tones between the beats. Remember, if you are playing a ii chord in F, you are not playing an F Major scale, you are playing a Gm7. True, most of the notes you are using will come from the F Major scale, but the chord tones are the focal points.

2. The purpose of chromaticism is to accentuate the harmony. Chromatic lines (long or short) will always end on a chord tone. They will often start on a chord tone (maybe of a different chord, maybe not.) If it is not starting on a chord tone, then it is probably a chromatic tone a half-step below a chord tone, resolving to the chord tone.

3. Guide tones are handled with care. This is especially common when the chord moves around the circle of 5ths and is very common to resolve the b7 of one chord to the 3 of the next chord. This is very common when moving from a iim7 (or iim7b5) to a V7 or moving from a V7 to a IMaj7 (or im7.) The resolution may be simple (b7 on the last note of one chord to the 3 as the first note of the next chord) or it may be more indirect or hidden.

4. Dissonance must be handled. One of the most common dissonances used by bebop players is the b9, which can be used on any dominant chord resolving down a 5th. It wants to resolve to the 5th of the next chord. It can do it simply (b9 on the last note of 7b9 to the 5 of the first note of the next chord) or it may be more ornamented. The dissonance might not be resolved if you are handling something from #2 or #3.


This is the simplest explanation that I can come up with. True, it is impossible to do all of these things at the same time, and in the course of an improvised solo there will be notes that don't follow these patterns, but in most of the best bebop solos, there aren't many notes that can't be explained by the above. This is based on lots of reading and lots of analyzed solos. As mentioned before in a different thread, I recently did a detailed analysis of the Charlie Parker solo on "Confirmation" that neatly shows many of the above principles. Just drop me a line if you want a copy. Again, these rules are just a generalization.

Analyze some solos yourself. Pick up some bebop licks and move them to different positions and different keys. I keep a notebook of my favorite licks. When you find a great lick, practice it over and over and over until it is second nature. Practice some solos and use that lick over and over and over. When you are sick of that lick, then forget about it. The point is not to play licks but to start to hear them so they just integrate smoothly into your solo. Bird has one lick in that "Confirmation" that he uses over and over - starting on beat 3 of a A7b9 chord, he plays (in 8th notes) G-Bb-G-G#, this resolves to the A of the following Dm chord. Note that the Bb (b9) resolves to the A (5 of the next chord) but with an interpolated short chromatic run (which also targets the 5.) He uses this lick (and variations of it) no less than 7 times in a 64 bar solo. But it never sounds mechanical because he's not thinking melody (pause) insert lick (pause) continue melody. He had practiced that lick soooooo many times that he simply hears that as a resolution when he hears a b9. ( I don't know why he played that specific lick so many times, maybe it was stuck in his head.) It is so integrated into how he hears the line that it just flows organically.

Also compose your own licks. Write them in your notebook. Try to adapt what you've learned from studying other licks. Bend and twist your licks (and the ones you've learned) so that that you can change them. Don't just think b9 resolving to 5 of next chord, learn to hear. Hear it before you play it and hear it while you play it. The same goes for the guide tones.

As I've said before, the bebop approach is not the only approach, but it is an extremely important approach and is instrumental to learning how to "play the chord changes." (As I've said in other threads, many people who think they are "playing the chord changes" are really "playing the scale changes," which is quite different.) That being said, you also want to learn the other approaches - you don't want to just be a retread of bebop, you want to find your own sound.

Peace,
Kevin

[Tom Karol]

KS: "Remember, if you are playing a ii chord in F, you are not playing an F Major scale, you are playing a Gm7. True, most of the notes you are using will come from the F Major scale, but the chord tones are the focal points."

Yes!

[gguge]

Thanks for the insight on Bebop. I appreciate all of you who have probably relayed this same information to dozens of others with the same questions. The good news for me now is that I am understanding what you are saying, I just need to apply it. If it takes 20 yrs, so be it. It's the journey anyways. I hoping to retire next year, so my woodshedding should shorten the time frame a little bit.

I have taken one of the bebop cliche lines that Dirk put on the site, and I can already feel the sound of the bebop groove.

Thanks again everyone.

[musicalbodger]

No one has yet mentioned, probably, the most important aspect of bebop — rhythm. Think of the difference in phrasing between traditional jazz(for want of a better word), swing and bebop. It's such an important part of the bebop language.

ksjazz, that's a neat little summary.

[ksjazzguitar]

No one has yet mentioned, probably, the most important aspect of bebop — rhythm. ...

Good point. I guess that that should have been point #5 in my list. I think I tend to forget to mention it because it is so easy to pick up just by listening. You can listen to good bebop and pick up syncopation (et al.) without even thinking about it, just by osmosis, but it takes a little bit of study and toil to start understanding how a b9 works or how they are using chromatics.

But rhythm is definitely worth mentioning and it is definitely worth some time listening for it.

Peace,
Kevin

[max_power]

KS's post is great, very informative and very thorough. I'll just throw in a few more things:

1) Copious use of the (ii-)V-I cadence (and secondary dominants)
2) The solo is based entirely on the chord progression and has nothing in common with the melody
3) NO SCALES. Chord tones + extensions + chromaticism is the formula for constructing bebop lines. The extensions used are generally as follows:

Major 7 chord - 9, 11, #11, b13, 13
Dom. 7 chord - b9, 9, b13, 13
Minor 7 chord - 9, 11, b13, 13
Dim 7 chord - b9, 11, b13

[ksjazzguitar]

...Just mentioning: for the drummer it's about as much hard work and study as the other instruments, getting it all to swing. ...

That's cool, I didn't mean to imply that working on rhythm was easy and I am certainly not trying to say that being a drummer is easy.

But I think that it is fair to say that hearing and duplicating rhythms is easier for most people. If you listen to a recording, you can duplicate the rhythm pretty easily, but the melody and the harmony would take a lot more work to figure out. Something about the way our brains work makes it easier to absorb rhythms more easily than melody and harmony, IMHO. Most people don't need to sit down with a piece of paper and analyze a syncopation - they just learn what it is and learn to listen for it. They just learn to play it by instinct. That was my point. True, study can't hurt, but most of the low lying fruit can just be gotten with some thoughtful listening, IMHO.

And of course, drummers need to feel rhythm on a whole other level and manifest it in all four separately moving limbs - amazing.

Peace,
Kevin

[jbraun002]

It's already been mentioned a couple times, but it bears over-repeating: think chords, not scales. When I briefly studied music way back in college numerous instructors told me this again and again and I didn't get it. I thought, "Sure, chords - so I play the Dorian scale over the ii-m7, right?" Uff da!

When I finally heard Evans explain that what they were doing on Kind of Blue was revolutionary because they were playing modally and using scales, then I started to get it and appreciate the difference between post-bop and bop music.

Finally, when I started to play over progressions by ornamenting arpeggios instead of thinking in terms of scales, my lines started to sound more genre appropriate. Funny how the same notes can suddenly sound so different just by changing one's conceptual approach to playing!

Anyhow, I'm no expert, and the more extensive points were already made. But if you have problems thinking in terms of chords rather than scales (like I did) you might try playing over progressions merely using arpeggios. Then, once that's cake, ornament and chromaticize them. Then extend, etc. That helped me start to "see" the lines differently and simplify some of the idioms.

Peace.

[Dad3353]

...If you listen to a recording, you can duplicate the rhythm pretty easily, but the melody and the harmony would take a lot more work to figure out

Good evening, Kevin...
(No, no, I'm not picking a fight... ). I think this would be true of those learning by ear (rhythmically, melodically, harmonically...), but for reading (implied, perhaps, by 'analysing' etc...) I would suggest that the comprehension of the rhythm from a stave is rather more difficult to 'duplicate' than simply having heard the piece (assuming that one has, indeed, heard it...). The work (Ok, not that big a deal either...) involved in getting to be able to 'hear' or 'feel' the rhythm when reading (for any instrument...) has, imo, huge dividends when one wishes to create one's own syncopations and interpretations, in a similar way that reading melody and chords increase the knowledge behind the harmonies. I won't know, but I imagine that the Masters of bop could write out a drum score just as easily as their own instrument, and studied syncopation a bit more than simply by absorbing the beat going down (I may be wrong...).

...And of course, drummers need to feel rhythm on a whole other level and manifest it in all four separately moving limbs...

Damn! So that's where I've being going wrong all these years..! Thanks, Kevin; I'll work on that... (runs down the slope screaming 'Why, oh why didn't I start doing that right from the start..! Damned fool! Imbecile that I am...)

[Reg]

When you play a chromatic note or what ever pitch from outside the implied harmonic area, your implying a new harmonic area, even if for just a split second. It's not just a passing, approach or chromatic note... I've tried to explain before there is a difference, that note has implications even if you don't know them or do and don't want to imply them. Bop does not only emanate from or is an emancipation of melodic use... that's only half the picture those line are created by pulling from different harmonic areas... I have to split for gig, but I'll try and elaborate more later ... remember jazz does not analyze well when though of as simply traditional voice leading tendencies...Best Reg

[ksjazzguitar]

... think chords, not scales. When I briefly studied music way back in college numerous instructors told me this again and again and I didn't get it. I thought, "Sure, chords - so I play the Dorian scale over the ii-m7, right?" Uff da!

Yeah, as I've been over before many times, it drives me crazy the number of people who think they are playing "chord changes" but are really playing "scale changes." Your comment on the distinction with the modal jazz approach is spot on too - a distinction that is lost on a lot of players nowadays.

...I would suggest that the comprehension of the rhythm from a stave is rather more difficult to 'duplicate' than simply having heard the piece (assuming that one has, indeed, heard it...). ...

I would agree that there are subtleties of rhythm that defy simple notation. Harmony can be exactly notated. As long as you're not doing anything microtonal, melody can be accurately notated. But the subtleties of rhythm evade simple notation. I remember reading an article in a drum magazine that temporally mapped the swing patterns of different jazz drummers, mapping out to the millisecond when they hit the high hat, the snare, etc. They found that certain beats tended to be a little late, some right on. It was pretty consistent from drummer to drummer, with some slight variations. The point is the swing rhythmic feel is much more complicated than we often kid ourselves.

I remember another looking at the 8th note ratios of of jazz musicians. We're often told that swing is a 2:1 ratio on the 8th notes, but they found that that was only true around a tempo of 120. Faster than that, it evened out, almost approaching 1:1 at burning speeds - and below that, approached 3:1 at slow speeds. But it was slightly different for every player. And it would change depending if it was a syncopation or if it was accented. How do you note that in a transcription? Or rhythmic notation system isn't built for that. Plus, with swing there are certain other phrasing considerations, playing behind the beat, in addition to the syncopations.

That's kinda what I mean about listening. It's just something that I think needs to be absorbed through listening and playing with great players.

I had a friend that told a story of another friend. The friend was a percussionist and was offered the chance to sit in each night with a Latin band. They said, "Here, play the claves." So he sat there each night, clicking his claves together but it never felt quite right. He was playing his part perfectly, but it just wasn't locked into the groove. Then one night, he suddenly locked in, and simultaneously, everyone in the band turned, smiled, and said, "Yeah man, that's it!" There was some subtlety of rhythm that couldn't be written on paper, that he just needed to feel.

I do agree that learning to read and dictate rhythms is very useful, but it is separate from learning to groove. It can help - it teaches a certain rhythmic exactness - a common mistake of beginners is to be too loose in their time, trying to create a "floating" feeling but just end up creating rhythmic mush, IMHO. And of course reading rhythms is an important part of learning to read in general, which I always advise.

Peace,
Kevin

[Reg]

Very cool post... the groove... yea, when your not locked in, sometimes it's as though your playing a different tune with a different band... but on the same stage.
If anyone whats info what it means to use a modal jazz approach, please let me know, I've explained before and don't want to bore.
Scales, arpeggios etc... there all types of pitch collections right... so what are we trying to do with those pitch collection?, (I know I'm getting off topic as to bebop explained, sorry), are you trying to develop from existing melody, eventually get to a new melody you create that relates to existing melody... I could go on for ever but I'm talking in general melodic or linear methodologies or concepts of improvisation. When you go through this process are you making reference to something... the existing melody?... when the existing melody is lost and your creating your own melodies... what now?, when your playing arpeggios and scales(using rhythm accents to imply arpeggios with those scales), what are you trying to imply? When you add approach, passing or chromatic notes to your arpeggios or scales, what are you thrying to imply?
My point is very simple... what makes jazz sound like jazz. One can take a simple melody and arrange to sound almost in any style by simple changing the the background... I'm stretching this way too long... Horizontal and vertical concepts work, act and sound together ... one implies the other... Rhythm is obviously a very important aspect of what something implies. What do we mean when we say Harmonic Rhythm? ( I've covered this in other posts).
Best Reg

[gguge]

20 pages, that a pretty big nut shell!. Get the David Baker 3 pt Bebop series of books, although that's more than 20 pages.....

I'm picking up the How to Play Bebop - Volume 1 by David Baker tonight. Looking forward to cracking the nut.

Thanks for the tip,

gg

[Reg]

Bebop is the period of jazz that developed as reaction to swing by young jazz musicians bored with playing swing. Bop or rebop soon to be bebop was born in Harlem at a night club called Minton's Playhouse. A small group of "average" musicians played with RE-HARMONIZATIONS and RHYTHMIC VARIATIONS on standard swing tunes with the blues. This group of musicians, Monk, Dizzy, Kenny Clarke,(drums), Joe Guy, Mary Lou Williams, Earl Hines, Charlie Carpender,( Earl Hines Manager), Roy Eldridge, Idrees Sulliman and of course Lester Young, all contributed to the development of Bop. That was the same year the musicians union ordered all it's members to quit recording records on july 30, 1942... for 16 months no new recordings were made so the development of Bop has no recorded history from Mintons... Gillespie's new soloing style was understood by few and called Chinese Music by many. A big influence on the development of this style was the advanced (for the time) playing of Charlie Christian, right before he died of tuberculosis in March of 42.
So this new style of old swing standards and blues blended together with new re-harmonizations of the simple swing tunes with newly-devised rhythmic accent patterns and played at very up tempos came to be called rebop and later as Dizzy sang occasional vocal breaks, became Bebop.
What other detail would be helpful... Best Reg

[Reg]

I just read Wikipedia... that's close... does miss quite a few details, like why, and details of how, but like M-ster said ... it will do. If you haven't read at least eight or nine bio's of the great Jazz players and at least a few jazz histories... your way behind. That's part of being a Jazz player, how can you possibly understand and play something if you don't know the history of what your trying to say???

[Tom Karol]

I'm not sure how to describe it - that's been done pretty well so far anyway - but to me, this is what it sounds like:

[markf]

some of you are kind of missing something here.

bop, and any kind of music, is a lot more than a mathematical formula.

those people invented it. all of their experiences were a part of the music they made.

being in Kansas city, hearing those players, being a black guy, New York, all of it, went into it.


I can copy what they did, transcribe, get a book, and probably sound similar, but I think that you had to live through those times, and be there to be able to play that music.

There will never be another Bleeker and Mcdougall, Greenwich village of the early sixties, and likely no more Bob Dylans.

and, no more Charlie Parkers, or Dizzie Gillespies. Dizzie packed a gun with him, according to his autobiography; cause he was black, and was beaten up by racists.

tell me that isn't coming out in the music somehow or other.

So, try to emulate them, but you will always be missing the heart of it.

at least that's what I think.

doesn't mean don't have fun trying.

[markf]

Dizzie's autobiography, "to be or not to bop" is a really entertaining book. great story, very well written, very funny, and sad, for instance on him and Charlie Parker, and Charlie's last days.

If you can find it, get it.

[jbraun002]

some of you are kind of missing something here.

bop, and any kind of music, is a lot more than a mathematical formula.

those people invented it. all of their experiences were a part of the music they made.

being in Kansas city, hearing those players, being a black guy, New York, all of it, went into it.


I can copy what they did, transcribe, get a book, and probably sound similar, but I think that you had to live through those times, and be there to be able to play that music.

There will never be another Bleeker and Mcdougall, Greenwich village of the early sixties, and likely no more Bob Dylans.

and, no more Charlie Parkers, or Dizzie Gillespies. Dizzie packed a gun with him, according to his autobiography; cause he was black, and was beaten up by racists.

tell me that isn't coming out in the music somehow or other.

So, try to emulate them, but you will always be missing the heart of it.

at least that's what I think.

doesn't mean don't have fun trying.

Well, to respectfully disagree then and provide another perspective... that isn't coming out in the music.

Certainly the conditions of the production of any kind of music are relevant to its appreciation, but they, as far as I can tell, are not _necessary_ conditions for the production of _that_ music.

Further, I happen to think music isn't noetic. As such, it doesn't testify to its conditions of production. Sometimes appreciating the history surrounding a genre or sub-genre can help us understand the music (e.g., Bach in relation to the Renaissance and Palestrina, etc), but a given piece of music itself _normally_ isn't going to require such knowledge for its per se appreciation. Insofar as a genre or piece of music reacts against a tradition or fits within it it will be impossible to fully appreciate some of the music's intentionality, but once the intentionality is appreciated there's always so much more.

That being said, I hope most of us study the history of jazz and appreciate the marginalization of people of color and work for social justice. But just like there are perfectly wonderful examples of trad jazz (Dixieland) being played today (though by fewer and fewer cats), and just as most if not all the folks playing trad jazz grew up in very different social contexts than that which inspired Dixieland, so too I believe folks can recreate bop music without having any existential angst about its "authenticity."

Of course, I'm sure plenty disagree with this, and that's the fun of forums!

Peace.

[orasnon]

Interesting discussion, and I appreciate everyone's knowledge on this topic. I was wondering what people thought of this: John McLaughlin's version of Cherokee, which is a standard tune with a lot of beboppers. It just so happens I was debating what "kind" of jazz this version was with a friend -- bebop? fusion? modern jazz backed by a big band? Is this bebop?

[jbraun002]

Cool clip!

I'd just call it straight-ahead jazz or post-bop (only for lack of better terms). Yeah, it's the famous Parker tune (so boppish), but it's spruced up big band style, and it's clearly mostly just a vehicle for McLaughlin's skill (in this setting - to promote his tour ostensibly).

His lines don't scream bop to me, but maybe I don't listen to bop enough anymore. It's clearly the McLaughlin style, which doesn't help I know, but I wouldn't call it fusion either.

[Jazzaluk]

I agree with jbraun002 ... I really didn't hear any bebop phrasing, mostly just McLaughlin doing his thing. Impressive pyro-technics, but not very musical to my ears. Probably just needs a few more notes.

[ksjazzguitar]

I don't know, while I certainly wouldn't call it bop, there where a few phrases in there where it sounded like he was playing the chord changes and a few where he was running scales and playing licks.

I've heard McLaughlin play were he was playing completely inside the changes, so I know that he knows how. And I think he was trying to play very straight-ahead - this isn't McLaughlin at his most McLaughliny. He touched in enough with the harmony that it never sounded like he was just running scales to me.

But I think that it's about as "boppy" as he can hope to get at that tempo. At that tempo I think you have to fall back a little more on scales and licks a little more. At that speed it's just fight or flight.

Peace,
Kevin