Is it ok to not like Charlie Parker?

[John A.]

I'm not hiding behind anything.

First, I didn't dismiss Parker. And, I even used the word "cheeky" - apparently you glossed over that.

I simply stated I don't get why everyone has to like him. People answered, and I appreciated the responses. I listed to "Bird and Diz"the other day, and enjoyed it. Maybe I had been listening to the wrong albums for my taste.

Aside from the handlful of real pros on this forum, it is a forum for hobbyists. Yes, I am a hobbyist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but so are you—I don't care how "seriously" you take it. Your affinity for your hobby doesn't permit you to get on here and take your frustrations out. Spare me your lectures.

The way you keep coming back to saying that people "have to" like Bird, as though there were some authority dictating who has to like what, strikes me as very strange. You seem to be conflating the reality that an awful lot of people do really like listening to Bird and/or emphasize his importance in the history of jazz with some sort of obligation to like Bird's music, which simply does not exist. Instead of asking other people why you have to like Bird, maybe ask yourself why you're making this fundamental error.

[Jazz4Four]

Indeed. Quite obvious. Simply stated, anyone that doesn’t appreciate Bird will not understand or appreciate jazz. Because also quite obvious that entire edifice of jazz since 1945 that exists to this very day is built on the foundation created by Bird.

The "entire edifice". One guy created all of it? You really are hilarious. The entertainment value of this thread is now exceeding expectations.

[Jazz4Four]

The way you keep coming back to saying that people "have to" like Bird, as though there were some authority dictating who has to like what, strikes me as very strange. You seem to be conflating the reality that an awful lot of people do really like listening to Bird and/or emphasize his importance in the history of jazz with some sort of obligation to like Bird's music, which simply does not exist. Instead of asking other people why you have to like Bird, maybe ask yourself why you're making this fundamental error.

The self-proclaimed "authorities" are all over the responses to my post. Re-read, they're making my point.

[joe2758]

The self-proclaimed "authorities" are all over the responses to my post. Re-read, they're making my point.

I agree with John's statement above, so I went back and read the first 3 pages and only saw 1 post supporting your point. Show me a person who is a "self proclaimed authority." You're building a straw man.

[Jazz4Four]

I agree with John's statement above, so I went back and read the first 3 pages and only saw 1 post supporting your point. Show me a person who is a "self proclaimed authority." You're building a straw man.

I don't have time to rehash it for you. And there was more than one, btw. And anyway, it's not about this post, it's a general attitude that I have observed. I get that Parker is the King of bebop. That's fine, I wouldn't dispute that. I just can't get over how sensitivo some people are on here, as if I insulted a family member. I find that flat out weird.

[John A.]

The self-proclaimed "authorities" are all over the responses to my post. Re-read, they're making my point.

I have read and re-read the thread, and I do not see anyone making your point that you are obliged to like Parker for you. Some are saying that not liking Parker indicates some deficit in understanding jazz, and some are being less than polite about it. But that's not the same as saying you're not allowed to dislike Parker. Nearly everyone has said "no one is making you like anything. Listen to whatever you want to." But if I've missed someone here telling you what to like I'll modify my comment slightly and suggest that you ask yourself why you care about other people trying to impose their tastes on you. It seems to bother you, and I'm only suggesting that introspection is a better path to alleviating that sort of annoyance than provocation (advice I'd do well to follow myself, granted).

[2bornot2bop]

Ah, so now the topic is about social justice? Oh I see. Is this another lecture?

I was being sarcastic. But think of it this way. If you don’t like someone, try doing what they did and practice in a closet for hours on end. Let us know what you’ve learned. Perhaps you’ll come away with a newfound respect for their dedication to their craft.

[jameslovestal]

The way you keep coming back to saying that people "have to" like Bird, as though there were some authority dictating who has to like what, strikes me as very strange. You seem to be conflating the reality that an awful lot of people do really like listening to Bird and/or emphasize his importance in the history of jazz with some sort of obligation to like Bird's music, which simply does not exist. Instead of asking other people why you have to like Bird, maybe ask yourself why you're making this fundamental error.

You hit the nail on the head. This thread is just another strawman type question that only shows how bored we are (which includes me!).

[Jazz4Four]

I have read and re-read the thread, and I do not see anyone making your point that you are obliged to like Parker for you. Some are saying that not liking Parker indicates some deficit in understanding jazz, and some are being less than polite about it. But that's not the same as saying you're not allowed to dislike Parker. Nearly everyone has said "no one is making you like anything. Listen to whatever you want to." But if I've missed someone here telling you what to like I'll modify my comment slightly and suggest that you ask yourself why you care about other people trying to impose their tastes on you. It seems to bother you, and I'm only suggesting that introspection is a better path to alleviating that sort of annoyance than provocation (advice I'd do well to follow myself, granted).

Guys... honestly: Do you think I care what someone else on a forum tells me to listen to? The point of the thread was to offer up a question for discussion, i.e., "why does it seem that everyone is compelled to love Parker?" It does seem that way to me, and I was throwing it out there for discussion. That's all. I did not, and would not, deny the man's greatness or his influence.

And not for nothing, but this is why people poke fun at "jazz nerds.". If I were on a rock forum and said I didn't love Beano-era Clapton, most people wouldn't care one way or the other. I'd suggest doing your own introspection as to why this is.

[2bornot2bop]

Guys... honestly: Do you think I care what someone else on a forum tells me to listen to? The point of the thread was to offer up a question for discussion, i.e., "why does it seem that everyone is compelled to love Parker?" It does seem that way to me, and I was throwing it out there for discussion. That's all. I did not, and would not, deny the man's greatness or his influence.

And not for nothing, but this is why people poke fun at "jazz nerds.". If I were on a rock forum and said I didn't love Beano-era Clapton, most people wouldn't care one way or the other. I'd suggest doing your own introspection as to why this is.

Bad comparison. Rock?
Stop digging.

[Jazz4Four]

Man, this is Jazz music. Listen to who you like, no? What was the point of you asking this question if you were just going to, essentially, disagree anyway with the response? People have given their opinion; you've given yours.

No, I haven't actually given an opinion on his music. I simply said I haven't preferred listening to him as much as it seems that others do. That's all I said.

The point of asking the question was to spur a discussion. Is that not the POINT of an internet forum? What is a forum for if people don't ask questions? That said, I appreciated the thoughtful responses that were posted.

[grahambop]

The point of asking the question was to spur a discussion.

I think you got one.

[joe2758]

"why does it seem that everyone is compelled to love Parker?" It does seem that way to me, and I was throwing it out there for discussion.

By compelled do you mean they feel an external pressure? Maybe the majority just genuinely like his music. What makes you think that many people are just pretending?

This is a totally sincere and non challenging post btw, completely just discussing.

I actually might support your contention to a degree. I like and appreciate Parker's playing, but like at least one other person said, I would probably never listen to more than 1 album in a day. It's a lot because he had a lot to say.

I love bebop lines, but I don't love bebop tempos. When I was working on "vocabulary" phrases CP ones were the best even though I only intended to ever play them at drastically reduced tempos.

He gets compared to Bach. One reason is you can take the fast stuff, cut the tempo in half, and it would still sound good.

[jameslovestal]

By compelled do you mean they feel an external pressure? Maybe the majority just genuinely like his music. What makes you think that many people are just pretending?

This is a totally sincere and non challenging post btw, completely just discussing.

I actually might support your contention to a degree. I like and appreciate Parker's playing, but like at least one other person said, I would probably never listen to more than 1 album in a day. It's a lot because he had a lot to say.

I love bebop lines, but I don't love bebop tempos. When I was working on "vocabulary" phrases CP ones were the best even though I only intended to ever play them at drastically reduced tempos.

He gets compared to Bach. One reason is you can take the fast stuff, cut the tempo in half, and it would still sound good.

I appear to be in the same boat as you with regards to Parker: I enjoy and appreciate Parker's playing but don't listen to him that much (in the last 20 years), since, as I got older I moved from very fast\busy playing, to more melodic\swing moderate tempo music. E.g. back in the day, when I would make my own mixed tapes (and later CDs), if it was NOT burning, I didn't record it!

But I don't think you "support your (his) contention to a degree" since his "contention" was clearly spelled out in the initial post:

"I just can't get into the guy. I don't like his phrasing, and it doesn't sound particularly musical to my ear".

[Stringswinger]

I prefer Cannonball to Bird and I prefer Turrentine to Trane. Others may disagree. Who cares?

The answer to the question put forward by the OP is this; yes, it is OK to not like Bird. Some might disagree. Who cares?

[RLetson]

OK, so I'm a long-time listener who also has an academic background in the history and development of various arts and in semantics and rhetoric (which is to say, the nature of discourse). And what I think the crux of what I'm reading here comes down to the distinction between "liking" and understanding, with a side order of what it means to "have to" share a given taste/preference. Sorry-not-sorry for the rambling post that follows.

Taste is about "liking"--that is, about enjoyment. Understanding may or may not be part of enjoyment. As a literature teacher, I often had to deal with writers I didn't much enjoy but recognized as important in understanding the history of literary taste. (The "canon" is primarily a list that says "we think these works are worth reading--oh, and many of us also enjoy them." Staying in the canon for multiple generations is a collective, historical judgment not about absolute artistic "quality" but about what audiences keep returning to. The western canon begins with Homer and may or may not eventually include J. K. Rowling. Teachers are partly reinforcing canonicity but also trying to make sense of it.)

Now, about jazz. We can hear actual recorded exemplars from around 1920 onward, and 105 years' worth of performances have produced a handful of practitioners that most listeners return to (we like them) and who are seen as somehow defining or driving the tradition. In the pre-1950 period, that would include Armstrong, Ellington, Django, Coleman Hawkins, Parker, and Charlie Christian. Among others, depending on how granular one wants to make the innovation/defining-work analysis. (I'd put Gillespie right next to Parker, and add Ella Fitzgerald, along with Bing Crosby, if we acknowledge how jazz became intertwined with swing, dance, and popular music in general. But then, I'm more than a little academic. And I really like Ella and Bing.)

Do we all have to "like" all these artists? Of course not. But is it useful to understand their place in the development of jazz and American secular music in general? Yup. So is understanding more important than liking? Nope. It's like observing marriages--I get it why some work, even though I can't imagine marrying that way myself. (Lucky me--got it right the first time.)

FWIW, George Bernard Shaw didn't much like Shakespeare--he preferred Ibsen. My own self, I love both Shaw and Shakespeare and sit through Ibsen productions only because it's rude to get up and leave in mid-performance. But I do understand why Shaw (and others) find Ibsen a crucial playwright.

[John A.]

Guys... honestly: Do you think I care what someone else on a forum tells me to listen to? The point of the thread was to offer up a question for discussion, i.e., "why does it seem that everyone is compelled to love Parker?" It does seem that way to me, and I was throwing it out there for discussion. That's all. I did not, and would not, deny the man's greatness or his influence.

And not for nothing, but this is why people poke fun at "jazz nerds.". If I were on a rock forum and said I didn't love Beano-era Clapton, most people wouldn't care one way or the other. I'd suggest doing your own introspection as to why this is.

It seems to you that people are forced or obliged (the meaning of the word “compel”) to like Bird, but it does not seem that way to anyone else. So once again, I doubt the answer to why you perceive this is going to come from outside your head.

[wintermoon]

Feels like this thread ran its course.
A long time ago....

[djg]

No, I haven't actually given an opinion on his music.

"it doesn't sound particularly musical to my ear." (OP)

[sully75]

I have a hard time with CP. I don't really like to talk about it but I don't take great pleasure in it. Like other things that I'm not super into (Mozart/Beethoven) I think it's as much me as them but it's not going to be the first thing I put on. I'm not going to say in any way his skill and talent weren't in the top .05%, I just don't particularly love it.

I do like Koko a lot. That recording is nuts.

I'm also just not a huge alto fan generally.

I have listened to more music than 98% of humans and I like a lot of it. I don't feel obligated to like everything even though I can appreciate the greatness in it.

Listening to Koko now, it's still pretty amazing.

[2bornot2bop]

I prefer Cannonball to Bird and I prefer Turrentine to Trane. Others may disagree. Who cares?

The answer to the question put forward by the OP is this; yes, it is OK to not like Bird. Some might disagree. Who cares?

Another Turrentine fan?! I’d have never guessed it.

[AllanAllen]

Guys... honestly: Do you think I care what someone else on a forum tells me to listen to? The point of the thread was to offer up a question for discussion, i.e., "why does it seem that everyone is compelled to love Parker?" It does seem that way to me, and I was throwing it out there for discussion. That's all. I did not, and would not, deny the man's greatness or his influence.

And not for nothing, but this is why people poke fun at "jazz nerds.". If I were on a rock forum and said I didn't love Beano-era Clapton, most people wouldn't care one way or the other. I'd suggest doing your own introspection as to why this is.

1. But you do care, deeply. I can tell because you started the thread and are still arguing your strawman point 5 pages later.

2. Tell anyone on TDPRI or TGP that Clapton is overrated and they’ll flame you. Been there done that, Clapton was only compelling on Five Live Yardbirds. I also enjoyed the documentary Life In 12 Bars.

[Stringswinger]

1. But you do care, deeply. I can tell because you started the thread and are still arguing your strawman point 5 pages later.

2. Tell anyone on TDPRI or TGP that Clapton is overrated and they’ll flame you. Been there done that, Clapton was only compelling on Five Live Yardbirds. I also enjoyed the documentary Life In 12 Bars.

Say what? Clapton's work with Cream was epic.

What's next? Someone posting that Wes is overrated? Opinions are like.....you know.

[sully75]

I feel a little foolish not loving listening to Parker but Cream sounds like total shit to me.

Blind Faith is a great album.

[Mick-7]

How can you not like Clapton's wah-wah playing on this? (and any song based on Greek mythology is o.k. by me).