How many Charlie Parker Tunes Do You Know?

**Jonah** · 03-24-2015, 11:06 AM

I think there's a misunderstanding in this statement that's led to a lot of folks talking past each other in this thread.

Whether or not you like a piece of art (be it music, visual, whatever)--whether or not you connect with it on an emotional level quickly, if you enjoy it--yes, that's subjective. And yes, everyone is entitled to like and dislike what they like and dislike. Bear in mind, sometimes knowing a bit more about something can make you appreciate it, if not flat out like it...I have art students who now, in March, understand why people like Jackson Pollock's stuff (after hating it in September)...it doesn't mean they did a complete 180 and now he's their favorite painter.

But when it comes to judging--evaluating--that needs to come from an informed place. In visual art, we use a four step process. First, we describe the artwork in literal terms--what do we have here? Then, we look at the elements of color, line, shape, texture, we look at how they are used--we analyze the technical aspects of the piece. After that, we look at the emotional connection we feel...does the artist seem to be making some kind of statement? Does the work affect you in a particular way?

Only after these steps can you complete the fourth, truly judging it's merit. And yes, it still comes with a level of subjectivity--this isn't a word problem in an algebra course--but the subjectivity of (i like this, I do not like this) is balanced with informed opinions based on study.

Or as I say to my students: "Tell me WHY it's crap. And cite your evidence, please."

Mr. Beaumont,

thank you for this post. I personally share most of what you said... but

i believe that even well-informed judgement is still sybjective... frankly speaking I do not like thinking in these cathegories subjective/objective at all...

there is just some relevant conventional cultural enviroment - it is not truth, it is just like language, concept, agreement... so if in communication I try to be ubderstood and to understand there's chance that some communication channel will be estableshed... a contact... but it does not make my judgements subjective or objective...

it is important to study ...
but actually you never know what exactly you should know to understand arts... you just love it and that's why you learn more about it...

I witnessed so many cases when absolutely ignorant uneducated persons uderstood a piece of art directly... in the army I met a guy who grew up in a small farm, he could hardly read even... but when he heard Mozart he was shocked, and he explained it to me in his language with some images etc. but I could see in it that he gets the music, the form, the dramatic development and not formally - he gets it as real drama, he communicated with Mozart without my or any other assistance

I do not say that we should not study something... actually it would be really stupid... on the contrary whenever one's got the feel he need some knowledge he should not hesitate in getting it... but if he is ok without it no problem...

You just never know ... you may study for years something and then there's some farmer's son comes out and he gets that message from Bach, Bird of Pollack directly and right now...

What's great about art (great art) is that it is probably the only non-conventional way of direct communication (maybe the only other way is love).... it is real contact... I think in religion they call it- miracle

And when it comes to judgement - it is only judgement))) i
I just think ignorance and competence both should not pretend to be the absolute truth for everybody.
Just judgement - not sentence)))

**princeplanet** · 03-24-2015, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by Jonah

..... What's great about art (great art)....

Here we go again... make up your mind, can we be objective about what makes great art, or not? If the appreciation of all art is subjective, then how did "great art" get to be become great art?

Are Bird and Trane "great"? Or were they just accidentally deified by "a la mode" media forces and/or public hysteria in much the same way that fashion pushes "artists" like Kanye West and Jayzee up the charts?

That's right, there's no answer, so stop trying to have it both ways. You can't say that no art is greater than any other, and then decide that there is "great" art, which implies that some art must be less than great! LOL!

And yes Mark, let's get back to what your thread asks. It's a great topic. I often wonder how far into Parker us guitarists should really go, by pondering- "How far into Wes should sax players really go"...

**mr. beaumont** · 03-24-2015, 12:02 PM

Y'know, PP, I'll get the mess beat out of me for saying it on a guitar forum, but as influential as Wes was to guitar players, he really didn't innovate anything musically. He was just the best damn hard bop playin' guitarist ever (IMHO)

And that's fine!

Parker, with a few others, changed jazz--the whole course of the music-- forever.

So back to Parker...I'm learning Anthropology as a result of this thread. It's kicking my ass.

**Hep To The Jive** · 03-24-2015, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

as influential as Wes was to guitar players, he really didn't innovate anything musically.

Did any guitar player innovate anything musically? In jazz? I know Jimi did big time, but it's not exactly jazz.

**mr. beaumont** · 03-24-2015, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive

Did any guitar player innovate anything musically? In jazz? I know Jimi did big time, but it's not exactly jazz.

I think compositionally, Metheny might be the single biggest influence on all of jazz in the last 35 years or so.

And of course, Charlie Christian and Django...without them, we'd all still be sitting in the back playing banjos.

**Hep To The Jive** · 03-24-2015, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

I think compositionally, Metheny might be the single biggest influence on all of jazz in the last 35 years or so.

And of course, Charlie Christian and Django...without them, we'd all still be sitting in the back playing banjos.

I can see Metheny did. Good point! With Charlie and Django, they innovated the guitar playing, pushed the boundaries for us guitarists, but I meant more like innovate music itself, for any instrumentalists...

**smokinguit** · 03-24-2015, 01:03 PM

I believe calling Bird's music "vomit" is a bit much. If a person is calling that shit vomit why do you listen to jazz. Believe me all the musicians that you listen to learn a lot of cool ideas from that "vomit".

**grahambop** · 03-24-2015, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive

I can see Metheny did. Good point! With Charlie and Django, they innovated the guitar playing, pushed the boundaries for us guitarists, but I meant more like innovate music itself, for any instrumentalists...

Miles Davis said that he thought Charlie Christian was quite influential in the development of bebop.

**mr. beaumont** · 03-24-2015, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive

I can see Metheny did. Good point! With Charlie and Django, they innovated the guitar playing, pushed the boundaries for us guitarists, but I meant more like innovate music itself, for any instrumentalists...

Yeah, less so of a fingerprint on the music immediately, more in the long run...made it possible for a guitar player to be a leader...it's a stretch but no Charlie, no Jim Hall, no Jim Hall, no Pat Metheny? Maybe...

Sorry, I'm straying from Parker again. back to Anthropology, got a few minutes of lunch left...

**eddy b.** · 03-24-2015, 01:14 PM

Hep to the Jive... I don't think any jazz guitar player has been considered an "innovator" for all of jazz....yet. Obviously there are innovative guitarists but I can't name one that pianists, trumpets, saxophonists, drummers etc. flock to to learn their lines/voicings/rhythms etc. It's ironic to me that given the guitar's popularity in so many genre's of music it is still considered low brow and treated like the proverbial red headed step child. If anyone can think of a guitarist who has changed jazz for ALL the other instrumentalists I'd love to be enlightened.

**Vladan** · 03-24-2015, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by princeplanet

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

Whenever I hear Giant steps, I think of music they played to aliens in Close Encounters ...

this scene

destinytot · 03-24-2015, 01:33 PM

If anyone can think of a guitarist who has changed jazz for ALL the other instrumentalists I'd love to be enlightened.

Perhaps Brock Mumford? The "perplexing" and "puzzling" Buddy Bolden photograph - Jerry Jazz Musician

**eddy b.** · 03-24-2015, 01:54 PM

With respect I don't believe Mr. Mumford fits the criteria for "innovator". Which horn player has copied his lines, which pianist has copied his voicings. I am not sure one can be considered an innovator with the majority in a given field being ignorant of their existence. Innovators achieve wide spread acclaim/notoriety. I do appreciate the information as to the men photographed with Buddy Bolden. A man who many say is at the very beginning of this beloved "jazz". Thanks for the food for thought!!!!

**Hep To The Jive** · 03-24-2015, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by eddy b.

Hep to the Jive... I don't think any jazz guitar player has been considered an "innovator" for all of jazz....yet. Obviously there are innovative guitarists but I can't name one that pianists, trumpets, saxophonists, drummers etc. flock to to learn their lines/voicings/rhythms etc. It's ironic to me that given the guitar's popularity in so many genre's of music it is still considered low brow and treated like the proverbial red headed step child. If anyone can think of a guitarist who has changed jazz for ALL the other instrumentalists I'd love to be enlightened.

That is confirmation to my thoughts

**vootie** · 03-24-2015, 02:09 PM

I see what you're saying.

Then what tune is it based on, if any? Didn't "Ray's Idea" come later? and of course later still, "Bluesette."

And provenance aside, these latter are AAB blues form, whose changes are fit into 8 instead of 12 bars in "Confirmation"?

**vootie** · 03-24-2015, 02:14 PM

I've followed horn players more than guitarists because their ideas were striking. Maybe more vocal. Miles, Charlie Parker, Lester Young, Wayne Shorter. And Monk for a view from . . . far away.

Naturally you'll find guitaristic stuff as well, that they wouldn't think of.

destinytot · 03-24-2015, 02:22 PM

which pianist has copied his voicings

Perhaps João Gilberto?

**Pocket Player** · 03-24-2015, 03:51 PM

Maybe we should all stop ! trying to be Horn players !! just a thought

**PMB** · 03-24-2015, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by grahambop

Back to Parker: I sometimes wonder if one of the ideas behind his compositions was to integrate drum rhythms into the melody in a way that had not been explored that much before.

For example, if you imagine the notes of Au Privave being played as a snare drum pattern, the rhythm sounds a lot to me like what Max Roach would play on the snare (while he played the 4-4 swing pattern on the ride cymbal).

Just a thought, but it might explain why Bird's tunes are so angular and full of displaced rhythms and accents.

Interesting observation, Graham. There a cool story in Woideck's book where Max Roach turned up at the Onyx Club to find Parker seated at the kit. Bird was playing a polyrhythmic pattern (straight 4s on the kick, a shuffle on the snare, a swing pattern - 'ching chick-a ching...' on the ride and a Charleston on the hi-hat) that Roach couldn't replicate.

**Stevebol** · 03-24-2015, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by Pocket Player

Maybe we should all stop ! trying to be Horn players !! just a thought

Or just play a horn..

**grahambop** · 03-24-2015, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by eddy b.

Hep to the Jive... I don't think any jazz guitar player has been considered an "innovator" for all of jazz....yet. Obviously there are innovative guitarists but I can't name one that pianists, trumpets, saxophonists, drummers etc. flock to to learn their lines/voicings/rhythms etc. It's ironic to me that given the guitar's popularity in so many genre's of music it is still considered low brow and treated like the proverbial red headed step child. If anyone can think of a guitarist who has changed jazz for ALL the other instrumentalists I'd love to be enlightened.

Herbie Hancock has been known to strap on a weird keyboard that lets him play it a bit like a guitar, complete with pitch bend control so he can imitate bending the strings on a guitar.

Not sure this is entirely a good thing though!

destinytot · 03-24-2015, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Stevebol

Or just play a horn..

I've tried doing just that, and can tootle a few lines on trumpet. Wind/brass players are at an advantage in single-note lines. But the guitar needn't compete.

**MarkRhodes** · 03-24-2015, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by GuyBoden

Back to the great music, to my ears this is superb:

I love that too. One of my favorite Charlie Parker tunes / performances.

**MarkRhodes** · 03-24-2015, 06:31 PM

"Bloomdido" is one of my favorite Charlie Parker blues heads.

**grahambop** · 03-24-2015, 07:22 PM

The ones I can play are:

Anthropology
Au Privave
Billies Bounce
Donna Lee
Now's the Time
Scrapple from the Apple
Confirmation (but never first time! always needs a couple of 'dry runs')
Yardbird Suite - a bit rusty - I need to re-learn it.

Non-Parker tunes:

Hot House (Tadd Dameron)
Sippin at Bells (Miles Davis)
Conception (George Shearing but as re-worked by Miles Davis).
Fried Bananas (Dexter Gordon) - also rusty and needs re-learning.

I find I need to keep playing these tunes regularly, or they start to slip from memory, due to the complexity.