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%
-
03-23-2015, 06:31 PM #151destinytot GuestOriginally Posted by Hep To The Jive
-
03-23-2015 06:31 PM
-
@Dortmund, that's hilarious!
-
Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
-
Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
-
Originally Posted by Broyale
the problem for you is, virtuosity alone qualifies as great, irrespective of style, artisanship, or listener preference.
F minus.
-
Originally Posted by Broyale
jazz musicianship: see Charlie Parker (aka "Bird").
-
Originally Posted by Broyale
-
Originally Posted by jzucker
sometimes?
-
Originally Posted by destinytot
obstreperous.
now that, is a ten dollar word. and well applied.
-
Hey fumblefingers, did you just finish correcting a whole lot of homework, by any chance?
-
in the end, Sir Broyale brought this upon himself. Unprovoked, he used the term "vomit", and only slightly provoked used the term "raging boner" when referring to Parker. baaaad style points.
attacks on him? the only ad hominem that i can see came from Jack - but only after the above needless provocations from Broyale.
Robinett? his responses seem to be a rehash of his past conflicts with JZ. remember?
both men are learned college and ex-college instructors in jazz and jazz guitar. both are sensitive apparently, and perhaps appropriately. however, Robinett seems to be angry, at least as of the past few months or so. all potty mouthed and full CAPS etc. who knows why?
in the end Broyale brought 100% of this upon himself.Last edited by fumblefingers; 03-23-2015 at 11:32 PM.
-
-
Originally Posted by princeplanet
-
I used to know this one, but I doubt I could play it now at an instant. Who'd say it's been almost 2 whole years since I made this clip and the last time I played this tune:
So, Billy's Bounce ...
-
or specifically: what are the forerunners of Parker heads? We know about "Donna Lee" and "Indiana"; "Hot House" and "What Is This Thing", and the tunes based on rhythm changes and blues.
But how about "Confirmation"? I can't for the life of me see a precedent.
"Yardbird Suite"? I have a convincing theory. It's based on 2 Gershwin tunes, one for the A sections and one for the bridge, famous in their own right. In fact (I think) they're from the same show. What are they?
This way, you know the Parker heads and the tunes in back of them.Last edited by vootie; 03-24-2015 at 06:50 AM.
-
Originally Posted by vootie
e.g. Charlie parker Omnibook decoded - contrafacts
Yardbird Suite might be based on 'Rosetta'.
-
One way Confirmation can be thought of, is as an 8 bar bebop blues (with heavy use of back cycling)
placed into a 32 measure, AABA song form. The bridge is II V to IV, II V to bVI, and II V bringing it
back for the final A.
-
Dear Broyale,
I have listened to your playing a while ago when you said something uninformed about laminate guitars. And I tried to get where that stament was coming from. So I checked out your clips. You are a beginner at best. That is ok in itself but it also means that your opinions may be more uninformed than subjective. On the internet it seems that all opinions are equal but unfortunately in real life that is not the case. I teach at a university and there's a healthy distance between informed opinions and uninformed ones there. Unlike on the internet.
If you fail to realise the greatness of Charlie Parker, that is NOT subjectivity. It's ignorance. It's like when I start proclaiming that Einstein was not that clever and that his theories are total garbage.
Apparently you need to develop in the field of jazz a lot more. That's ok. Really. But spouting opinions like that Bird's solos are unlistenable vomit is not helping your development much I'm afraid. It only makes you look bad.
DB
Judgement of art probably is the only field where everyone are even - yes, even... and yes every***one. Bird communicated with his music not with highly informed professors or bohemian critics... he was with the angels.. and the angels do not count your credentials
Maybe one day Broyale wakes up hears a Parker's solo and says - Oh man ... here is the Bird and I am up with him...
PS
There is one pro at this forum who however uninformed answer he gets (including myself once) starts the same way every time: ok maybe you are right.. no good or bad... but let us look what we have here... and just shares with his experience... that makes me come back to his posts even when I feel I do not agree with him I learn somethingLast edited by MarkRhodes; 03-24-2015 at 09:21 AM. Reason: Response to justified complaints
-
Originally Posted by Jonah
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."
-
Someone may wish to start a thread on their like (or dislike) of Charlie Parker's playing. This is not that thread.
There was a thread a few years back called (IIRC), "Was Miles Davis Overrated?" That caused a stir but it was understood going in that the subject at hand was how one rated Miles (-as a trumpet player). Disagreement was expected. It got personal at times but everyone knew it was likely to. (The same thing happens in "Is jazz dead?" or "why is jazz dead?" threads. Not to mention a certain 'backing tracks for live gigs' thread.)
But this isn't a thread about whether Charlie Parker could play.
It's a thread (-a poll, with the invitation to talk about one's answer) about playing Parker tunes.
It's possible for someone to say "I learned some Parker tunes but I really don't care for them. Just not my thing." That would be no big deal. (I remember a few years ago I said I didn't care much for the sound of Pat Martino's playing--the tone seemed dark and stiff to me. Some marveled that I felt this way but no one thought I was saying Pat couldn't play or that his music was bad but just that I found the tone off-putting. For the record, my appreciation of Pat's tone has increased since then...)
Lots of people here don't care for bebop, period. They like swing, Dixieland, or Gypsy jazz and think of bebop as "where it all went tragically wrong." No one gets bent out of shape over that. But just as if someone went on a thread about playing Django tunes and said his music was, um, worthless it would upset people who couldn't care less what you think about Django but marvel that you came to a Django thread to call his music useless (or note-vomit). It's tacky, at best.
Still, this thread is about playing Parker tunes.
Anyone who wishes to start a thread about aesthetics in general (or some specific aesthetic theory) is welcome to.
One may start an "Is Charlie Parker Overrated?" thread, for that matter.
One may also start a thread arguing that everyone's views are equally right, wrong, or neither right nor wrong.
But this is a thread about playing Parker tunes---on guitar, no less!---and much remains to be said about that.
So please let's all get back to it.Last edited by MarkRhodes; 03-24-2015 at 10:06 AM.
-
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.
-
Originally Posted by grahambop
-
03-24-2015, 10:17 AM #173destinytot GuestPathetic and snobbish... what a disgusting way - this intelligent humiliation... forget your credentials...
Subjectivy... ignorance...
Judgement of art probably is the only field where everone are even - yes, even... and yes every***one. Bird communicated with his music not with highly informed professors or bohemian critics... he was with the angels.. and the angels do not count your credentials
I'm reminded of Hugues Panassié's "When he developed what he called 'Bop', he ceased to be a real jazz musician." I don't doubt Monsieur Panassié's sincerity for an instant, which is why I find his statement so saddening. Bird's lyrical playing on standards shows how prettily he could play, though it seems lost on many - and yet his innovative translation and synthesis of his musical heritage makes him traditional, even bourgeois.
Plus ça change... Two further quotes that come to mind are "Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds" (Shakespeare), and "(Yet) each man kills he thing he loves" (Wilde) - and I fear that guitarists are perhaps the worst culprits, being too quick to avail themselves of Bird's blues vernacular sans his phrasing.
Fortunately (for me), naïvety and ignorance can be remedied - pleasantly and politely.
What really saddens me is the thought of what guitarists to whom I look up (cough Benson cough) will do for money. It brings to mind a sinister practice decried by Lester Young, who reportedly called Norman Granz's 'Jazz at the Philharmonic' a "flying plantation".
But when I hear Parker tunes played without the diligent care and respect which I believe is due, I consider it a far greater affront to the dignity of his memory than any vulgarity or arrogance - my own included - on this thread (although perhaps it was actually a heady mix of all three, and not the narcotics alone, that eventually killed him).Last edited by destinytot; 03-24-2015 at 10:51 AM.
-
Back to the great music, to my ears this is superb:
-
03-24-2015, 10:47 AM #175destinytot Guest
The composition below represents what I've learned from studying the music of Charlie Parker:
1946 Gibson ES-150
Today, 04:20 AM in For Sale