-
I was looking to purchase the Charlie Parker Omnibook.
A lot of musicians work out of it and i wanted to get something that deals with Charlie Parker's solos.
I noticed there are different versions and i'm kind of new to reading so i don't know which one to get.
The one for C instruments has everything in the key of C but it doesn't match up with the recordings.
I would appreciate the help thank you
-
12-17-2014 03:08 PM
-
This comes up from time to time. If you play guitar, you want the edition for "C" instruments. That "C" does not refer to what key the tunes are in! Flute is a "C" instrument. I think violin is too. Some horns are "Bb" instruments while others are "Eb" ones.
Originally Posted by Jazzdvd
If you've ever looked at a Jamey Aebersold play-along book, you will notice that the heads are divided into sections, with treble coming first. That's us, the "C" players Then you'll see the same heads written for Bb instruments, then for Eb instruments. And also bass clef.
So again, you want the Omnibook for "C" instruments.
-
Thank you for the reply i appreciate it...but on some of the tunes i notice that there is no key signature how do i know what key it's in?
-
all the accidentals are written in. Originally Posted by Jazzdvd
-
Yeah i was thinking that but lets say like a tune like confirmation...in the omnibook the confirmation tune has no key signature but in the real book the key signature is F i beleive.... but yet the omnibook has it written the same way as the real book so i'm guessing like what pkirk said that all the accidentals are written in but its in the key of F? Originally Posted by docbop
-
You'll find it done both ways. Sometime they will put all the accidentals so you don't have to remember to add the key signature. Some people like it that way and wish all music was done that way. I like having the key signature because then if you see and accidental you know something was modified. Originally Posted by Jazzdvd
-
I used to also use the Eb version, from what I remember it was a nicer register for sight reading.... Obviously you would need concert version too
-
That's one of the problems with the Omnibook. The key signatures are not written in. For some it may read easier than others, mainly for analysis purposes, so you don't have to go back and remember what notes are sharp and flat. Advanced readers get really annoyed at this, though.
The easiest way to tell what key the tune is, is by checking what the last few chords are. 90% of the time, the last major chord will be your key. Exceptions include blues and tunes in minor keys, but if you play through the changes once, you'll probably be able to hear the key, then you'll get good at visually identifying it.
-
When playing from this book do you have to raise it up an octave? I also bought the Miles Davies omnibook.
-
It's more guitar friendly if you buy the Eb version
Register wise
-
Yes, because guitar music is written an octave higher than concert pitch. The C Omnibook is in concert pitch, it isn't written specifically for guitar. Originally Posted by Bronx
However if you raise it, some of the notes can be awkwardly high (consider how high Bird's alto sax went!). So some people use the Eb edition (which happens to be the alto sax version) because the transposition just happens to place it right in the middle of the guitar range. But then the tunes are no longer in the original keys. It's a tricky one.
Some people (myself included) get both versions, then you can pick and choose between them.
Not sure about the Miles book - is that in Bb (for trumpet)? If so you'll have to adjust accordingly, i.e. the music might be written one whole tone higher than it sounds.
-
Hhmmm. I never would have thought of that. Originally Posted by 55bar
-
@55bar(or anyone else), how is it more guitar friendly?
-
It's in a better register, more of the notes within the stave, depends what you want it for I used to use it for sight reading so Eb omnibook was a great start for guitar for me.
-
I try both ways - I basically use this book for reading practice, although the lack of key sigs makes it of limited use... Originally Posted by Bronx
Other than that, I wouldn't recommend it. Do your own transcriptions, I would say, start simple, maybe a few simple heads, a bit of Lester or Jim Hall, a lick here and there, and build up your knowledge on a firm basis.
Think how much Aebersold must have learned writing the thing....
No shortcuts, ultimately. Wish I had known that 10 years ago... (I wouldn't have listened :-))
-
I am always amazed at the worship accorded to Charlie Parker and John Coltrane, as if their playing was 'otherworldly' or something. The only thing you need to transcribe Charlie Parker, apart from an understanding of standard notation, is Transcribe or some other device to slow down the fast tempo. Amazingly, even Parker had only twelve tones in the scale. Slow down these guys by 20 to 30% and their solos are your oyster, assuming you can read music.
I looked carefully at those omnibooks. I detest reading notation without a key signature. Just my personal opinion, but I don't care which "god" we are talking about. They all have feet of clay. Just harder to read without a signature.
But then again, I don't have 'horn envy'...
-
Really? It's one thing to admit that you may not like parker but it's pretty simple to see the fluency and virtuosity in their improvisations. These guys were monster improvisers and that is the most important thing to me. Do you not think of them as great improvisers? Originally Posted by targuit
I am always amazed at the worship accorded to Charlie Parker and John Coltrane, as if their playing was 'otherworldly' or something. The only thing you need to transcribe Charlie Parker, apart from an understanding of standard notation, is Transcribe or some other device to slow down the fast tempo. Amazingly, even Parker had only twelve tones in the scale. Slow down these guys by 20 to 30% and their solos are your oyster, assuming you can read music.
I looked carefully at those omnibooks. I detest reading notation without a key signature. Just my personal opinion, but I don't care which "god" we are talking about. They all have feet of clay. Just harder to read without a signature.
But then again, I don't have 'horn envy'...
-
Christian,I try both ways - I basically use this book for reading practice, although the lack of key sigs makes it of limited use...
Other than that, I wouldn't recommend it. Do your own transcriptions, I would say, start simple, maybe a few simple heads, a bit of Lester or Jim Hall, a lick here and there, and build up your knowledge on a firm basis.
Think how much Aebersold must have learned writing the thing....
No shortcuts, ultimately. Wish I had known that 10 years ago... (I wouldn't have listened :-))
I agree but actually with kind of mature thoughtful approach it is quite possible to use ready transcritpion for the same purposes...
I remember how I liked the solo of Parler over Just Friends - I easily found ready transcriprion... I never learned it.. but the same evening I got about 5-6 phrases, licks or motives out of that could have been easily incorporated into playing...
Even first four bars can show how he uses chromatics, his tipical appogiaturas etc... all the bop staff is there already
Of course I chekcked it with th recording
If I tried to transcribe by ear these phrases played at such speed I would have spent a week over it
The sheets for me are to look through take the best you can and throw it away...
-
Sorry, totally disagree. Charlie Parker played games with time that are impossible to notate. He stretched phrases elastically then brought them back in - virtually impossible sometimes to notate exactly where those notes really lie. Western notation does not really work 100% correctly with those things. Originally Posted by targuit
I am always amazed at the worship accorded to Charlie Parker and John Coltrane, as if their playing was 'otherworldly' or something. The only thing you need to transcribe Charlie Parker, apart from an understanding of standard notation, is Transcribe or some other device to slow down the fast tempo. Amazingly, even Parker had only twelve tones in the scale. Slow down these guys by 20 to 30% and their solos are your oyster, assuming you can read music.
I looked carefully at those omnibooks. I detest reading notation without a key signature. Just my personal opinion, but I don't care which "god" we are talking about. They all have feet of clay. Just harder to read without a signature.
But then again, I don't have 'horn envy'...
Also if you think this music is easy, I challenge you to transcribe the opening unison statements on Parker's 'Koko' by trumpet and sax. Even the Omnibook can't get that bit right. I tried to correct my version and I still haven't figured it out exactly. It's not so much the notes, it's the rhythmic values that are hard to place:
Also try transcribing some of Coltrane's high-speed playing on A Love Supreme. What subdivision of time is that for goodness sake?
OK, now transcribe just a few bars of Sonny Stitt's 'Topsy' (a great solo) starting at 1 minute 40 seconds here:
Even if you slow this down (which I have) it's very hard to figure out.Last edited by grahambop; 05-16-2015 at 07:28 AM.
-
I've had 'horn envy' ever since I heard Dexter Gordon. I think it has greatly improved my jazz guitar playing. Originally Posted by targuit
But then again, I don't have 'horn envy'...
Learning only from jazz guitarists is not a good way of improving.
-
"Sorry, totally disagree. Charlie Parker played games with time that are impossible to notate. He stretched phrases elastically then brought them back in - virtually impossible sometimes to notate exactly where those notes really lie. Western notation does not really work 100% correctly with those things.
Also if you think this music is easy, I challenge you to transcribe the opening unison statements on Parker's 'Koko' by trumpet and sax. Even the Omnibook can't get that bit right. I tried to correct my version and I still haven't figured it out exactly. It's not so much the notes, it's the rhythmic values that are hard to place...." - Grahambop
I totally agree with you, Graham, that the melodies of Parker and Coltrane at allegro tempos are very hard to transcribe. But slowing it down 20-30% brings it into the realm of the possible. In addition, one must take into consideration that the articulation of notes with a wind instrument is much more fluid and elastic by its nature. Nonetheless, even without a slow downer software I hear the melodies. Just that they go by too fast to transcribe them without slowing them down unless one has endless amounts of time, patience, and a masochistic streak to boot. And while music notation cannot capture all the nuances of an improvised performance, one can certainly get the gist of it. After all, they are still playing notes in the Western scale, however much it is Easternized by tonguing their instruments. In any case, it is a bit late in the game for me to pine after sounding like Coltrane and my preference in listening to him is his ballad playing anyway by far. I also feel that these guys painted jazz into a corner in my humble opinion. RIP.
When I joke about "horn envy", that does not imply I do not recognize the skill of the musicians. But I also realize that a guitar is not a horn nor a piano for that manner. At least with a guitar one can be polyphonic, and there is a whole lot less drool and saliva. Frankly, I listen more to pianists like Bill Evans and McCoy Tyner for inspiration than sax players.
-
Well I read your 'oyster' statement as meaning it was relatively easy to do.
In fact I don't find the Omnibook much help by itself. There is so much in Bird's playing which is not captured in notation. Knowing which notes he played is only a small part of what you need to learn.
I still think horn players tend to play better jazz than guitarists, that's why I keep on learning from them.
As for that Sonny Stitt clip, try slowing it down and see what happens - the notes just seem to blur and become indecipherable at that point!
I don't agree these guys painted jazz into a corner. I doubt I would be interested in playing it without their musical advances. Jazz may not be popular but that's a different question.
Not trying to start an argument, you know I'm not into that! But these guys are my heroes. To say they don't deserve the worship they get, well I gotta say something in their defence!
-
Graham - I do know, and I appreciate and respect your opinion. And I don't denigrate Parker and Coltrane, but while I appreciate their skill on their instruments, I would much prefer to listen to a well executed bossa nova than A Love Supreme. Or Charlie Parker dazzling the crowds. Surely more a matter of preference than some absolute criteria of beauty, but I am a sensualist by nature, not coldly cerebral.
I don't think of jazz as a contest or an Olympic event.
-
On most days I would prefer a bossa nova to Love Supreme! It's not something I want to hear every day.
Anyway it's not the speed of Bird/Trane's playing that gets me, it's something else more intangible, a spirit or feeling. I agree with you music is not a sporting contest.
-
Bird flies ... its beyond anything .. first time I heard him I lost my breath
And Trane he is so serious ever, like elder brother who says: I just know my way...
They saw something beyond...
Reply With Quote
How is the Steve Howe 175?
Today, 05:54 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos