How many Charlie Parker Tunes Do You Know?

[mr. beaumont]

I know folks say that, but "Steps" is a pretty simple, catchy melody.

[pkirk]

Sometimes one's ears can be opened by "guided listening". I found this pretty interesting

THE DOZENS: STEVE COLEMAN ON CHARLIE PARKER ? Jazz.com | Jazz Music? Jazz Artists? Jazz News

Steve Coleman is pretty good at articulating the depth of this music.

[fumblefingers]

Obvious, really? Many of us feel that Giant Steps sounds more like an "exercise" than anything Parker ever played....

thought i read somewhere that it was in fact based upon an exercise.

[princeplanet]

I think that the heads are just as valuable as the solos, a lot of it is the same language.

Sure, if you break it down to cells, but I find the longer phrasing in typical Bebop heads too angular and arhythmic (which is the whole point of Bop, really) for my taste. Personally, I get more from seeing how Bird lines flow from chord to chord in his longer unbroken lines. Hard Bop grew out of the same idea, I guess, to straighten out the rhythm and make it less jerky, or quirky.

That's why I listen to more Jackie McClean than Bird these days, but I did enough homework on Bird to know that's where Jackie got his whole bag.... But yeah, you hear elements of Bird in nearly every great player that followed, even Dolphy. That's why you gotta go to the source to understand post war Jazz...

[henryrobinett]

Well, most mathematical formulas look like bullshit to me but I would never call a renowned mathematician full of it.

By your standards, any opinion is sacred? Mmmm ... I completely and utterly disagree.

DB

Any opinion is sacred to THEM. Who in the hell is it sacred to? Not you or me. But NOBODY holds the corner on truth. Not even me. .

[princeplanet]

Any opinion is sacred to THEM. Who in the hell is it sacred to? Not you or me. But NOBODY holds the corner on truth.....

Except Miles, maybe....

[destinytot]

..., soooo, ignoring the side show, what I'd like to know is, do the peeps here get more out of Parker heads, or the solos?. I never understood where people say all the best vocab is in the heads. A lot of my fave Parker vocab is in the solos.

The solos - rhythm and phrasing.

[larry graves]

When in doubt quote... you know.. "Imitate......L..

[destinytot]

Is it time to supplement Parker's works with another player's or composer's when developing one's vocabulary and capability, and if so who? (answer limited to 1-2 artists please)

Fats Navarro's lines and Tadd Dameron's tunes.

[Dutchbopper]

Soapbox alert ...


Finally, this is a public forum, and whether we like it or not there are young people tuning in with no other example than the one we set. As you know, they don't see the whole us, but only what we write. So please give some weight to writing with the voice of a father they would like to know face-to-face, and not with the voice of an ill-tempered man at the other end of the internet. You will capture their attention better, teach them more effectively about Charlie Parker, and teach them about a lot more too.

People here are describing Broyale in terms what he is not. He is not a kid. He is in his mid 30s for crying out loud. I'm not going to father him. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

DB

[destinytot]

When in doubt quote... you know.. "Imitate......L..

Looking past the irony, I find an interesting question.

The Innovation part may be completely beyond my experience, but I can appreciate the value of Imitation in learning to play jazz.

I don't believe that recommending Imitation was ever meant as an endorsement of mimicry as an end in itself - no, that's not it at all.
The advice is intended to make students notice things they might otherwise ignore.

(In this regard, Clark Terry's advice concurs with Oscar Wilde's 'Paradoxically though it may seem, it is none the less true that life imitates art far more than art imitates life.')

Sounds like good advice to me, and Bird's music makes a superlative model.

[mangotango]

thought i read somewhere that it was in fact based upon an exercise.

I was told that it's based on, or at least similar to, the bridge of Have You Met Miss Jones? Open to be corrected on this, before someone on this somewhat feisty thread launches into one.

As for Parker heads as a rite of passage - actually, I agree with that; it was something of which I felt that I needed some understanding of what was going on there musically, before I was ready to give them a proper go. Now I know half-a-dozen or so and I'm starting to pick apart what he played as solos, having got the heads under my fingers.

First time I heard Bird though (and he was one of the first jazzmen that I actually heard), I almost felt like his music was something that as a mere mortal, I'd never be able even to approach, it was that overwhelming. Even 40 years later, I still feel like I'm merely wandering in the foothills of Mt. Parker, looking up......

Maybe not necessarily my favourite saxophonist, but I cannot deny a massive respect for his playing, nor an awareness of his place in the development of this music.

[grahambop]

when I listen to Parker's music, all I hear is notes on notes on notes with nothing for me to latch on to like, for instance, that bitchin' GB solo on Red Clay.

Found that Red Clay solo (I assume it's the live CTI All Stars one) - yes that's a great solo. Reminded me a bit of Pat Martino playing 'Sunny' (the chord progression sounds very similar).

Interesting to note that Benson has stated in interviews that Parker was 'the best jazz musician and one of my biggest inspirations'.

Benson did a great version of the Parker tune Billies Bounce - could be worth checking out:

[destinytot]

I was told that it's based on, or at least similar to, the bridge of Have You Met Miss Jones?

The opening phrase of this Beatles song sounds similar, too.

[grahambop]

I think it is beneficial to learn a few Parker heads if you are learning to play jazz, even if you don't like his music so much, because they encapsulate a lot of his virtues in a few bars, and will teach you some approaches which go against the grain of your normal habits.

For example, say you've reached the point of being able to play a nice melodic solo on a tune like Autumn Leaves, where you can connect up all the chord tones and play long lines of 8th notes. That's great, but it's also a bit of a trap, because now you're going to play like that on all the tunes, and for the average listener it could all get a bit 'samey'.

Now learn some Parker heads, and they will probably force you out of those habitual patterns, because they are full of devices such as:
- unusually placed accents
- unusually placed rests
- triplets
- chromaticism
- delayed phrases/resolutions
- anticipated phrases/resolutions
- asymmetrical note groupings
- tied notes
- across-the-bar phrasing
- interval jumps

The point is, at first it is HARD to play these things, precisely because they are counter-intuitive. I would never have thought of using most of these devices if I hadn't played some Parker stuff. But eventually they will get into your brain and under your fingers. Then when you solo, you can try and apply some of these concepts and it will definitely make your playing more interesting.

[grahambop]

The opening phrase of this Beatles song sounds similar, too.

I think this is still my favourite version of Giant Steps:

[Broyale]

I think it is beneficial to learn a few Parker heads if you are learning to play jazz, even if you don't like his music so much, because they encapsulate a lot of his virtues in a few bars, and will teach you some approaches which go against the grain of your normal habits.

For example, say you've reached the point of being able to play a nice melodic solo on a tune like Autumn Leaves, where you can connect up all the chord tones and play long lines of 8th notes. That's great, but it's also a bit of a trap, because now you're going to play like that on all the tunes, and for the average listener it could all get a bit 'samey'.

Now learn some Parker heads, and they will probably force you out of those habitual patterns, because they are full of devices such as:
- unusually placed accents
- unusually placed rests
- triplets
- chromaticism
- delayed phrases/resolutions
- anticipated phrases/resolutions
- asymmetrical note groupings
- tied notes
- across-the-bar phrasing
- interval jumps

The point is, at first it is HARD to play these things, precisely because they are counter-intuitive. I would never have thought of using most of these devices if I hadn't played some Parker stuff. But eventually they will get into your brain and under your fingers. Then when you solo, you can try and apply some of these concepts and it will definitely make your playing more interesting.

This is why I bought the Omnibook besides having something to practice my reading with. Actually, I ctrl-C'ed that list above to give me some context for my practice, thanks for that.

[fumblefingers]

I was told that it's based on, or at least similar to, the bridge of Have You Met Miss Jones? Open to be corrected on this, before someone on this somewhat feisty thread launches into one.

As for Parker heads as a rite of passage - actually, I agree with that; it was something of which I felt that I needed some understanding of what was going on there musically, before I was ready to give them a proper go. Now I know half-a-dozen or so and I'm starting to pick apart what he played as solos, having got the heads under my fingers.

First time I heard Bird though (and he was one of the first jazzmen that I actually heard), I almost felt like his music was something that as a mere mortal, I'd never be able even to approach, it was that overwhelming. Even 40 years later, I still feel like I'm merely wandering in the foothills of Mt. Parker, looking up......

Maybe not necessarily my favourite saxophonist, but I cannot deny a massive respect for his playing, nor an awareness of his place in the development of this music.

maybe it was the 1235 fragment thing instead of the changes... can't remember

[fumblefingers]

When in doubt quote... you know.. "Imitate......L..

uh-huh. are you advocating the idea that student musicians can be counted on to effectively learn the art of improvisation strictly from learning CST and tapping into their own creative instincts?

[HighSpeedSpoon]

People here are describing Broyale in terms what he is not. He is not a kid. He is in his mid 30s for crying out loud. I'm not going to father him. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

DB

I hear what you are saying DB. At least I think I do. Please see my PM. Thanks.

[destinytot]

First time I heard Bird though (and he was one of the first jazzmen that I actually heard), I almost felt like his music was something that as a mere mortal, I'd never be able even to approach, it was that overwhelming. Even 40 years later, I still feel like I'm merely wandering in the foothills of Mt. Parker, looking up......

+1

I've known (personally) two guitarists who've scaled up that fabled mountain, and it's scared me back to my senses. I take the view that Parker's music is not to be trifled with or trivialised; it's a discipline, not a refuge.

But, ultimately, it's a discipline of Self. (On the question of sanctity of self, I agree with Broyale - and with Henry - that it's wrong to arbitrarily or artificially impose a value system on anyone when opinions differ.)

I'm quite content picking flowers in the foothills - channelling my energies into fashioning something of Beauty, wrought from my own experience.

Maybe not necessarily my favourite saxophonist, but I cannot deny a massive respect for his playing, nor an awareness of his place in the development of this music.

+1 again.

[fep]

Way back in 1977 - 1978 I had an every Saturday hour and a half drive to my guitar instructor. I spent a lot of that time playing Charlie Parker on my car stereo and singing along, I got to really appreciate him that way. I think anyone that put that kind of time in listening to Parker would learn to really appreciate him. Not sure it's possible to not appreciate Confirmation once you really know it. Same can be said for his other tunes.

[destinytot]

The point is, at first it is HARD to play these things, precisely because they are counter-intuitive.

I believe that many of the rhythmic aspects come naturally because they are actually culturally-determined schema stored in long-term memory.

I think 'teaching', counter-intuitively, makes them 'hard' - bad teaching, that is.

[MarkRhodes]

Good questions, FF.

As far as I'm concerned, almost everything about the jazz language, rhythmically and harmonically--or at least the first things any player should be learning, are right there in Parker. And while his stuff is a technical challenge, it's also straightforward enough that even a beginner can see what's going on in a lot of it...so in my opinion, its a perfect learning tool...

I agree. One of the amazing things about Bird's playing---Thomas Owens in his writing on Bird help me to understand this---is that it is very logical. He plays a lot of notes but he's never "noodling". This is why his soloing has been called "formulaic" (--which is not meant as a criticism). He had a lot of stock phrases for the kinds of changes he played over and the wonder lies in how he could vary them and make them sound fresh all the time. (Charlie Christian was like this too, though he did not have Parker's level of technique.)

Herb Ellis suggests that guitar players study Charlie Parker solos to learn how to make the changes. Charlie was brilliant at it. So much of what he did is now part of the common vocabulary of jazz.

That said, it would be daunting to start with Parker's solos. They challenge professionals---they are too much for beginners. But listening to Parker is good, and learning some of the simpler heads is good, then picking out maybe one chorus of a blues, and then, and then....

[destinytot]

I think this is still my favourite version of Giant Steps:

That is truly hilarious.