Is it ok to not like Charlie Parker?

[pamosmusic]

Clapton - it’s that the bloke who sounded almost exactly like Freddie King? Love some Freddie.

That was it … when I started listening to Freddie King.

Oh! I’m Tore Down
Oh! Key to the Highway
Oh! Have You Ever Loved a Woman.
Oh! Etc

[grahambop]

If we’re straying into blues and rock’n’roll territory, I can’t resist posting this photo I took of Muddy and Chuck at a festival in 1981. I was lucky to grab my camera just at the right moment, they were only standing together for a few seconds.

[Stringswinger]

My journey with the guitar started by hearing John Lennon and the Beatles circa 1964, By 67, I had heard Clapton (with Cream) and Hendrix. By 72 I had heard Jimmy Page with LZ and I had discovered Chuck Berry, Johnny Winter, BB King and Albert King. In 73, I heard Wes and everything changed. But I still dig all those other cats that were part of my Journey.

Things took another turn for me a little over 20 years ago when I heard Bireli. What a long, strange trip it has been, and hopefully will continue to be.

[charlieparker]

Cheeky title but a serious question. I just can't get into the guy. I don't like his phrasing, and it doesn't sound particularly musical to my ear. I get that part of the idea behind Bebop was to have a different kind of melody—more complex and not as singable. But I don't see that as "better." Donna Lee is based on "Back Home In Indiana Again"; I would rather listen to someone play that than Donna Lee. I have no desire to learn how to play like that either (not that there is any danger of that). Heresy, I know.

More in general: My guess is that Bebop was chosen as the center of jazz education for music schools because it is hard to play. And resultantly, Bebop is heralded as the "best" form of jazz. Furthermore, is there even a clear definition of what Bebop is? Joe Pass played Bebop and I love Joe Pass.

Everyone has different sensibilities and things that titillate them when listening to music.

For my money, Bird's playing is some of the most rhthymically and melodically inventive and musical of anyone even to this day. I liken him to the Bach of Jazz music.

That said there are a lot of obstacles to enjoying his music. Sound quality is often poor. The music, like some Bach, is not really singable and complex or even that danceable. Some of his bandmates hadn't caught up with the new style. I once had a friend who thought Kenny G was a better saxophonist than Parker.

Joe Pass' music is heavily derived from Parker's, but the sound quality on his recordings is way better. It's on guitar, too, which may appeal to you. Some of the sharper edges of bebop are smoothed out a bit as happened as the music transitioned from bebop.

Nothing wrong with not liking Parker that much, but I still think it is worth transcribing some of his lines to get some of the language if someone like Pass interests you.

[jazzereh]

Wasn't going to jump in but then, why not?

First of all I come to Bird as a sax player. Really did not like him in my early years and only some of his stuff even today. I understand bebop lines and construction and can appreciate his status in the music. I've gigged many of his tunes. What I don't understand is what I see as an almost religious following within the jazz community. If you don't like Bird you must be stupid! Transcribe Bird or you'll never be any good... whatever. I've had the unfortunate experience of being taught by some of those.

For context, I like lyrical lines. 'Some' bebop just sounds like folks showing off their chops. I came to jazz though musicians like Johnny Hodges and Gerry Mulligan. My scope has widened significantly over the years but I still mostly enjoy lyrical players and much of bebop is not to my ears.

Music is music and people can enjoy whoever they like at the moment. I don't have any issue with folks who refer to Bird in reverential whispers. But if you can't get into his playing that's ok with me.

[Hep To The Jive]

Everyone has different sensibilities and things that titillate them when listening to music.

For my money, Bird's playing is some of the most rhthymically and melodically inventive and musical of anyone even to this day. I liken him to the Bach of Jazz music.

That said there are a lot of obstacles to enjoying his music. Sound quality is often poor. The music, like some Bach, is not really singable and complex or even that danceable. Some of his bandmates hadn't caught up with the new style. I once had a friend who thought Kenny G was a better saxophonist than Parker.

Joe Pass' music is heavily derived from Parker's, but the sound quality on his recordings is way better. It's on guitar, too, which may appeal to you. Some of the sharper edges of bebop are smoothed out a bit as happened as the music transitioned from bebop.

Nothing wrong with not liking Parker that much, but I still think it is worth transcribing some of his lines to get some of the language if someone like Pass interests you.

We still love you Charlie!

[Jazz4Four]

What I don't understand is what I see as an almost religious following within the jazz community. If you don't like Bird you must be stupid! Transcribe Bird or you'll never be any good... whatever.

That's what I was getting at. Not surprisingly, one post credited him for the entire development of bebop. As great as he was, he seems to have been elevated to a singular status.

[Jazz4Four]

Joe Pass' music is heavily derived from Parker's, but the sound quality on his recordings is way better. It's on guitar, too, which may appeal to you. Some of the sharper edges of bebop are smoothed out a bit as happened as the music transitioned from bebop

Great point—the instrument used can have an affect on how we perceive the music. Jazz flute "should" sound good but I never seem to like it.

[pamosmusic]

That's what I was getting at. Not surprisingly, one post credited him for the entire development of bebop. As great as he was, he seems to have been elevated to a singular status.

Who gives a shit if people on the internet worship Charlie Parker to a degree that you find silly.

What’s more important to the thing people here have been trying to get you understand is the degree to which Dexter Gordon, Bud Powell, Hank Mobley, Jim Hall, Sonny Stitt and countless other musicians worshipped Bird. He’s haunting you, my dude. Or at least he is if you’re a musician trying to play or listen to jazz.

Once again, you can like what you like, and that’s totally fine. But if you want to be dismissive of the man’s impact on the music, I would suggest you start with Ethan Iversons collection of interviews for Birds hundredth:

Charles McPherson and Steve Coleman on Charlie Parker | DO THE M@TH

[TF]

I don't normally sit around and listen to Charlie Parker for fun. If I want to enjoy a jazz saxophone recording, I prefer Sonny Rollins.

BUT: when I learned and memorized the heads to "Donna Lee", "Moose the Mooche", and "Scrapple From The Apple", my solos instantly started sounding a lot more like jazz.

Just don't worry about it.

[Christian Miller]

I must say I tend to study Bird more than listen to him for pleasure. I think a lot of this may be down to the recording quality.

[RLetson]

I got through about ten minutes of the Legends video, and that part sounded to me like (quite polished) blues-based rock with a sprinkling of jazz-like moves. Nothing wrong with that, but Clapton's first solo did not strike me as jazzy.

I'm a few years older than Stringswinger, but my trajectory through non-folk guitar listening is a lot like Marc's--though for me the earliest milestones were Link Wray, the Ventures (and other California surf bands), and Duane Eddy, along with country session guys like Grady Martin--and of course Carl Perkins' rockabilly pipelines right into George Harrison. That's a lot of genre/style territory before I got around to sure-enough jazz (which came mostly via pianists and big bands) and jazz guitar.

So if Clapton tours with a jazz sax player, is he "really" playing jazz? Depends on the repertory, I'd say, and the bit I listened to sounds like it was adjusted to accommodate one of the big-draw participants. Maybe it got jazzier after the first ten minutes. But with any player, I'm listening to what they play, whatever that turns out to be. Same with Bird. Or Monk, or Mose Allison or Django. All of them are bigger than whatever boxes we try to fit them into.

[pamosmusic]

I must say I tend to study Bird more than listen to him for pleasure. I think a lot of this may be down to the recording quality.

I really don’t mind the recording quality. Some of the live stuff is a little rough though.

I think I find myself not listening to Bird for months on end and then once I do, it’s all I listen to for a week.

[kris]

I must say I tend to study Bird more than listen to him for pleasure. I think a lot of this may be down to the recording quality.

No exaggeration.... You can also find recordings of quite good quality.
I know this because I had such a period when I listened a lot and analyzed Parker's solos.
Best
Kris

[Christian Miller]

Maybe not then idk


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grahambop]

That's what I was getting at. Not surprisingly, one post credited him for the entire development of bebop. As great as he was, he seems to have been elevated to a singular status.

Actually no-one said that. They said post-1945 jazz was built on the foundation created by Parker. Not the same thing.

Arguably Dizzy Gillespie also helped build that foundation. But I don’t think he has been quite as influential playing-wise as Parker. At least I don’t get the impression many people transcribed his solos compared to Parker’s (possibly because his complex high-pitched trumpet stuff is less transferable to other instruments?).

He was influential in popularising the cuban/latin element in jazz though (e.g. Manteca etc.).

[Christian Miller]

This is very much how musicians talked/talk about Bird

I think you have to give Kenny Clarke some credit on the drumming side. The revolution in the rhythm section was huge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jazz4Four]

Actually no-one said that. They said post-1945 jazz was built on the foundation created by Parker. Not the same thing.

Agreed, not the same thing, but I stand by my point. Foundation for all post-1945 jazz created by one guy? That's like saying the foundation for all post-1967 rock music was created by Jimi Hendrix. In both cases we see a similar god-cult from fans, which devalues the creativity and influence of others. Not looking to argue it, but that's my perspective.

[Jazz4Four]

This is very much how musicians talked/talk about Bird

I think you have to give Kenny Clarke some credit on the drumming side. The revolution in the rhythm section was huge.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm curious, what was the big change in the rhythm? Was it tempo primarily?

[grahambop]

Agreed, not the same thing, but I stand by my point. Foundation for all post-1945 jazz created by one guy? That's like saying the foundation for all post-1967 rock music was created by Jimi Hendrix. In both cases we see a similar god-cult from fans, which devalues the creativity and influence of others. Not looking to argue it, but that's my perspective.

Yes, and that’s not what I said either, if you read my post properly.

[pamosmusic]

Agreed, not the same thing, but I stand by my point. Foundation for all post-1945 jazz created by one guy? That's like saying the foundation for all post-1967 rock music was created by Jimi Hendrix. In both cases we see a similar god-cult from fans, which devalues the creativity and influence of others. Not looking to argue it, but that's my perspective.

Again … we’re talking about the man’s influence on the music, so your perspective isn’t super relevant here. Unless your name is Barry Harris or Joe Henderson or Wynton Kelly or something like that.

And on the points above, I tend to think we overweight genius by an enormous factor. But if you can miss the arc of artistic history and stuff by looking for Great Men in every major development, you can also occasionally miss huge shifts by assuming singular figures are *never* as important as people say they are.

There are very very few figures like that but Charlie Parker is probably one of them. No, that doesn’t mean he came up in a vacuum and that he didn’t pull from what came before him, but it does mean that pretty much everything after him had to go through his catalog. Not everyone sounds like him, but for decades after, pretty much every jazz musician put on wax had to decide either to build on what he did or to reject it.

And on the Jimi Hendrix analogy. To say that all post-1967 rock music was created by Jimi Hendrix would indeed be stupid. But to say that Jimi didn’t fundamentally and profoundly change the way people approach the electric guitar would be just as stupid.

[grahambop]

I'm curious, what was the big change in the rhythm? Was it tempo primarily?

It might help your case if you knew more about the subject before telling us we’re wrong about Parker?

[pamosmusic]

It might help your case if you knew more about the subject before telling us we’re wrong about Parker?

Or if he knew more about Parker before telling us we’re wrong about Parker, he wouldn’t be making that case in the first place.

[pamosmusic]

This is very much how musicians talked/talk about Bird

I think you have to give Kenny Clarke some credit on the drumming side. The revolution in the rhythm section was huge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure and maybe Bud Powell. With some of these guys—probably Dizzy too—it would be hard to separate the extent to which Charlie Parker was influencing them from the extent to which they were influencing him. But those guys do tend to have less (still a good bit, but definitely less) cross-instrument influence than Bird. And Powell was a little later on the scene to boot.

If we’re looking for someone who influenced jazz as much as Bird did, I think you’d have less luck looking for someone who was a bebopper because you won’t find one. Or for someone who came later (like Trane) because they were wrestling with Bird and almost across the board would’ve considered him their major influence as young musicians.

Maybe Monk is the one. Super profound and inescapable influence on the way jazzers approach harmony and composition and in a way kind of parallel to and a little separate from Birds? Don’t know but he seems like the best case.

[Jazz4Four]

Again … we’re talking about the man’s influence on the music, so your perspective isn’t super relevant here. Unless your name is Barry Harris or Joe Henderson or Wynton Kelly or something like that.

Got it, thanks. And I'm sure we're about one post away from you reminding us that Barry Harris invented jazz too. Because he said he did. That's whole other cult.

I was never trolling on this thread, but I have to say, I find it amusing how bent out of shape you guys get by my "ignorance". I have recognized Parker's greatness multiple times in this thread, but nope, not good enough for the cult members. I asked a simple question to about the rhythm development, and it's lecture time again. I'll be blocking you, bye.