-
It was a big moment for me when I realized that what I didn't enjoy about Charlie Parker wasn't the bebop, but the saxophone. I am just not a fan of saxophone playing in any genre except ensemble big-band. Once I started recognizing bebop when other instruments played it, I got it and came to love it. And then listening to Parker I can hear the musical ideas, the lines, and listen past my dislike of saxophone playing in general.
Originally Posted by orri
-
08-04-2025 10:04 AM
-
Maybe the problem is your mind is too far away from your heart. Perhaps pursuing a way to unite the intellect and the affect, possibly via cultivating intuition, is a good path. In another context, John Wesley spoke of uniting "knowledge and vital piety" which I always thought made a nice mission statement for life in general. What I like, I want to understand, and that which I understand, I find I can appreciate and eventually love. Originally Posted by ragman1
-
Oh boy, not that you'd care, but I just can't be friends with people who don't "get" Jackie Maclean Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
, it's bebop and beyond with punk rock attitude, my 2 great loves. Sure, you can say that to an extent about Parker, but I feel like Bird was exaggerating his schtick to purposefully separate himself from his contemporaries, and consequently developed a style that tries very hard to surprise or even shock. It was all very angular and asymmetric and extremely technical and clever. He not only made his point, but influenced all of Jazz that followed, as we all know.
But I like the next wave of Bebop far more, pretty much from the year of Parker's death through to the mid 60's, when the angular eccentricities got straightened out a bit and some of the players got back to some gospel/ blues roots to mix back in there. Hard Bop. Art Blakey, Clifford, Max Roach, Sonny Rollins, Dexter, mid 50's Miles, Cannonball, and of course my all time favourite, Jackie Maclean. By the late 50's he shrugged off the "New Bird" thing (there were 3 or 4 of 'em), and found his own thing, but there can be no denying the Bird influence, particularly in the exuberant bursts he liked to intersperse in his solos. Along with the more appealing tunes and chord progressions, these are the reasons I prefer to listen to Jackie over Parker. As for the intentional sharp tuning and and acerbic, acid dry tone, if you don't get it on your first listen you probably never will (If anyone's curious, start with Jackie's Bag before his classic 60's era).
But there can be no denying Bird was the Godhead, and I do listen to him often enough, and always with awe and reverence. And yeah, "Parker's Mood" is still the high watermark where clever Bop and gut wrenching Blues were magically fused in a way that not even Jackie could ever match (but went close on dozens of occasions, I think).
Bird Lives! (and Jackie's still holding the candle...)
-
"Liking" (or even "getting") a given artist or style or tradition is a matter of individual response--though some people wind up turning that personal taste into a general proposition about quality or importance or value. And that's a pretty naive position to take, since it assumes that there is a universal metric of artistic value (which is not the same as, say, a metric of technical difficulty). There is no metaphysical quality of "greatness," only the measurable, statistical fact that X number of people over Y time have expressed an affinity for Z artist/work/tradition. And those who disagree with that collective agreement are not "wrong," though their opinions might not be well grounded. (I mean, Kinkade sold a metric pantload of pictures and Van Gogh died broke.)
For example: I really like Coltrane with Ellington and Monk but find "A Love Supreme" and other later work pretty much unlistenable, despite the huge number of knowlegeable, sophisticated listeners who feel otherwise. And that, as we say, is just me. My personal happy place, sax-wise, starts with Coleman Hawkins and Ben Webster and Lester Young and runs to Paul Desmond, Zoot Sims, and Scott Hamilton. Though if I have enough years left, I might work my way around to connecting to late Coltrane or Jackie Maclean. (I mean, as much as I love Haydn, I also pretty much "get" Schoenberg and Bartok, so why not.)
BTW, about bop and dance music: Bop not only developed out of the dance tradition, it overlaps it, especially in its early days. Plenty of mid-tempo 1940s bop tunes are perfectly danceable--and plenty of undanceable tunes are that way only thanks to the really fast tempos. In fact, the "Parker's Mood" track posted way upthread is a perfectly danceable mid-tempo piece, as is the famous "All the Things You Are." What connects them to bebop (especially in ATTYA) are the lines spun off from the base melody/changes. (See also Hawkins' famous "Body and Soul.") Listen to the rhythm section. And in any case, I can't imagine staying with music that I don't listen to with my body, and that's the basis of dance.
The adventurous, exploratory side of bop had to do with getting away from the constraints of the dance/vocal environment. Insofar as I've been trained, it has been by players rooted in that deep social-dance tradition--but I also got to spend seven years sitting in with a bunch of guys whose touchstones are in classic bop, so I can see what drew them to the music. (And nevertheless, every once in a while a couple still gets up and dances. Go figure.)
-
STOP listening to the notes. Bebop is entirely a rhythmic thing. Feel the funk of rhythmic accents, and the flow of the line in the pocket, then worry about the notes
-
Just out of curiosity, have you ever gone on youtube and listened to a Parker tune at half speed? I wonder what you would think of that.
-
yea this one sounds pretty cool, kinda noir-ish, i dig this. Originally Posted by wintermoon
But i can still hear in his solo the elements I don't usually like about his playing, harsh tone, almost out of tune sometimes. His solo records I've heard I coudn't listen because of that.
For the reference my fav sax tone is Illinois Jacquet. That's the sound for me!
-
Originally Posted by RyanM
Rhythm is essential to bebop, but so is note syntax.
Last edited by Strat-itis; 08-04-2025 at 05:40 PM.
-
I like this Parker track from 1942 where he plays with a guitarist (Efferge Ware), kind of a swing/bop blend.
-
Bebop peaked a long time ago, more than seventy years. Since then, a lot of jazz has been made, with and without reference to bebop. Jazz guitarists tend to be more conservative than other instrumentalists but still, music can be made without clinging to the past, and without commitment to a particular approach. Originally Posted by lawson-stone
-
The Coltrane effect. He’s blowing so sharp on Afro-Blue, I can’t believe people can listen to it. Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
-
So, not loving Charlie Parker equates to "skipping over bop?". You're making my point here. Originally Posted by lawson-stone
That said, this thread motivated me to listen to more Bird, so perhaps I'll finally "get it"!
-
It does, though. That’s not really an aesthetic judgement. Originally Posted by Jazz4Four
Thats like objecting to someone saying that skipping Bach equates to skipping over baroque music.
Or skipping over Shakespeare equates to skipping over English Renaissance literature.
Neither is technically true, but some artistic movements are driven or exemplified so significantly by the contribution of a single artist that the artist can’t really be skipped over without missing the movement too. You don’t have to enjoy either one to appreciate their impact (though I’d point you to the Cello Suites, the Auden Lectures and Ian MacKellen and Judi Dench in Macbeth*, and The Quintet at Massey Hall, but I digress).
Charlie Parker’s language is the language of bebop, pretty much full stop. And bebop is the common practice language of jazz. Bach’s a decent comparison because a lot of tools we think of as being standard fare stuff didn’t exist until people started analyzing Bach and had to invent whole systems to describe what he was doing.
Charlie Parker is kind of like that. Even folks we don’t think of as being big beboppers had to contend with Bird. If I recall correctly Jim Hall said Bird was one of the only people he transcribed. His language is incredibly idiosyncratic but he plays Birds bridge from Scrapple note for note at tempo on his Live! recording.
* it’s creepy af
-
This Big Band recording is a must listen for Charlie Parker fans:
Charlie Parker With Quartet and Orchestra - Washington Concerts - FULL ALBUM - YouTube
Apparently, Charlie Parker would just turn up (mostly late), without any rehearsals, to these Big Band gigs in the 1950's, he had the talent to play most things by ear. Obviously, he needed the money too and didn't want to waste anytime rehearsing.
-
I think I’d substitute Corelli for Bach. Bach is kind of his own thing, atypical for his era but his influence sort of skipped a generation or more. Plus I think it should be an Italian. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
In fact if you get into baroque improv they kind of tell you to give Bach a bit of a wide berth at least at first because his music is much more complex than most of the era. The style of time was already drifting towards cleaner and simpler and less obviously learned.
But of course can’t overlook him because he is such a central figure for the Romantics and everyone after.
Whereas no one can quibble that Bird created a highly influential style in his own lifetime. To the point where we can define bop practice as was Charlie Parker did to a large extent.
A better comparison might be Beethoven?
Otoh the complexity of Bird compared to his contemporaries reminds me of Bach. And Shakespeare for that matter.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkLast edited by Christian Miller; 08-05-2025 at 08:18 AM.
-
Silly me, as a jazz fan I thought I might listen to musicians I like. Now I know just to listen to Parker. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
You guys take this waaaaay too seriously for me. This is a hobby, not my religion.Last edited by Jazz4Four; 08-05-2025 at 08:00 AM.
-
I think Birds language might be easier to digest from those who assimilated it after him but in someways played simpler, which is more or less everyone after about 1950.
Sometimes it takes a while to get into an artist. There are routes into it.
I started with Dexter Gordon.
-
I love Bird. I have to say that, in my history as a jazz listener, it was only after getting into his music (specifically via the boxed set Boss Bird) that I felt I understood some of the later music such as the first great quintet of Miles Davis. Because I came across records such as Workin' and Milestones before anything by Charlie Parker and as lovely as those records were and are, I just appreciated them much more after hearing where they came from. That, and Parker's music is just intrinsically amazing in and of itself.
-
Too fast for me.
-
Now you're getting it. Originally Posted by Jazz4Four
Personally, I don't do players, I do tunes and after that particular versions of them. To say 'I like Charlie Parker' doesn't mean anything to me. I quite like some of his stuff, selectively. Same with other well known players. Some players turn up more than others but that's down to my own preference, not because they're famous.
-
On top of all this, Parker was a Genius... Originally Posted by ragman1
I love his music.
-
-
That album was cool, but the best part was the interview at the end, Red Rodney on Charlie Parker. Originally Posted by GuyBoden
-
Yes, the interview gives a little insight into Charlie Parker as a person. Originally Posted by AllanAllen
Here:
-
It isn't about "clinging to the past." It's about an embrace of the whole development of the music. Some of the most innovative musicians of our time learned their craft on bebop. It's still good music. Even jazz that does not appropriate bebop still owes its presence, its place in the world of music, to bebop to a certain degree. Originally Posted by Litterick
-
I would just remind you that it was you who started this discussion. Your dismissal of Charlie Parker and bebop sounded at least, to me, like more that just the amateurish hip-shot quip of a hobbiest. It sounded quite serious. So you can't be surprised that you got a strong reaction from players who take the history of the music seriously, who have found Bird a revolutionary figure and been inspired by him, as have a vast range of other jazz players. Then for you to say "Hey I'm just a hobby player" is kind of like someone who says "You guys have no sense of humor" after you started an argument. Originally Posted by Jazz4Four
Take responsibility for your opinions. Defend them or acknowledge you need to rethink. No shame in either. But don't hide behind "It's just a hobby."
Also: it can be less than a religion and still be more than a (mere) hobby. For some, it's the most serious avocation in their life other than their family, their faith, and their profession. Again, get serious and show some nuance.
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos