Is this what Charlie Parker ACTUALLY looked like?!?!

[plasticpigeon]

I don't think I was critical or judgemental, I said he was brilliant, industrious and self destructive, and lived a very full life in a short period of time. Surely the content of what I wrote shows my reverence for him. I understand your point but it seems somewhat of a non sequitur following my comment.

He was an addict, and that imparts a toll -- and bad teeth come often in that territory. I'd rather cotton to the goodness he gave us than focus on the superficial flaws his issues gave him, y'know?

I sure hope folks judge me on matters a bit deeper than my own teeth, for fear of being found wanting ... not that I'm in that league, musically, but because there's more important things about me than my teeth.

[rabbit]

These images come from about the middle of the 'golden age' of Black & White film and printing emulsions.
By the current standards of technological change this era lasted FOREVER, about 3 decades.

These " B & W" emulsions are sensitive to the COLOR of light in terms of their response curves, both the source light
and that reflected from the subject.

The original would have been exposed on large-format film (at least 4 X 5, but bigger would be better:
think movie super-stars like Dietrich.) Lighting (continuous tungsten in this case), film and camera filtering
would have been chosen carefully, especially as Afro-American skin tones present special challenges.

That would have been printed (large!) and the print air-brushed to perfection. Final airbrushed print is re-photographed
typically on a special rig and possibly with more specialized filtering with 'hand-outs' printed from the resulting negative(s).

The original, crafted by an expert, was chosen to look as it does so the final product can appear impossibly perfect.

Gawd, I miss film!

[lawson-stone]

i find this thread stoopidly offensive

maligning the gods of jazz with 21st century "looks" blather!!?? before & afters...ugh

who cares what the $^&* he looked like, we should all be 1/10th as great!

bird lives!

cheers

People who love music also love just talking about random subjects related to the music. I see nothing stupid or offensive here. It's just conversation about a tangential topic. What's the harm? And he's not a god, just a man. And the existence of heavily re-touched photos from that era shows they did indeed care about looks!

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't think I was critical or judgemental, I said he was brilliant, industrious and self destructive, and lived a very full life in a short period of time. Surely the content of what I wrote shows my reverence for him. I understand your point but it seems somewhat of a non sequitur following my comment.

It's a discussion, not an argument. I was simply offering my own view, not correcting yours.

[cosmic gumbo]

35 years old.

[Doctor Jeff]

I'm gonna post my favorite picture of Bird, because it shows so much of his character:



Without trying to, I have been listening a lot to Bird the last week or so. There is such wonder in his music. Yes, he was a messy person and died too young. But his life and music were full of such joy, and you can see it in his face.

He lived, ate and breathed jazz. One can hardly imagine him without his saxophone (even if he had to borrow it).

Yes, he burned too brightly. But as Mr. Neil said, It's better to burn out than to fade away. Bird will never fade away as long as real jazz is being played.

[Doctor Jeff]

By the way, that photo above accompanies this article:

Opinion | Charlie Parker and the Meaning of Freedom - The New York Times

This article has the best opening line, a quote from Bird himself:

“They teach you there’s a boundary line to music. But man, there’s no boundary line to art.”