View Poll Results: How many Charlie Parker tunes do you know?
- Voters
- 75. You may not vote on this poll
-
I don't know any
16 21.33% -
A couple
32 42.67% -
A half dozen or so
17 22.67% -
At least a dozen, probably a few more
6 8.00% -
Twenty, easy, probably more
4 5.33%
-
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."
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)))
-
03-24-2015 11:06 AM
-
Originally Posted by Jonah
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"...
-
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.
-
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
And of course, Charlie Christian and Django...without them, we'd all still be sitting in the back playing banjos.
-
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
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".
-
Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
-
Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
Sorry, I'm straying from Parker again. back to Anthropology, got a few minutes of lunch left...
-
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.
-
Originally Posted by princeplanet
this scene
-
03-24-2015, 01:33 PM #187destinytot GuestIf anyone can think of a guitarist who has changed jazz for ALL the other instrumentalists I'd love to be enlightened.
-
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!!!!
-
Originally Posted by eddy b.
-
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"?
-
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.
-
03-24-2015, 02:22 PM #192destinytot Guestwhich pianist has copied his voicings
-
Maybe we should all stop ! trying to be Horn players !! just a thought
-
Originally Posted by grahambop
-
Originally Posted by Pocket Player
-
Originally Posted by eddy b.
Not sure this is entirely a good thing though!
-
03-24-2015, 05:00 PM #197destinytot GuestOriginally Posted by Stevebol
Last edited by destinytot; 03-24-2015 at 05:07 PM.
-
Originally Posted by GuyBoden
-
"Bloomdido" is one of my favorite Charlie Parker blues heads.
-
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.
Autumn Leaves (Fingerstyle Chord Melody)
Yesterday, 11:56 PM in Improvisation