Confirmation

[Hep To The Jive]

Ok, so I have to admit, I'm not a big fan of Charlie Parker as a composer. Yardbird Suite and Little Suede Shoes aside, I don't particularly find his 'heads' a pleasure to listen to or play. But, of course, as an improviser and inventor of new language, he's a genius, no doubt.

And that's how I approach tunes like Donna Lee and Confirmation- great bebop etudes and source of licks that explain the language of bebop and can be used in solos. Is it sacrilegious? Maybe, but it's how I go about it.

Now, particularly Confirmation (I'm only talking about the head here btw.), I have a few question to hardcore beboppers and Bird fans. I listened to the studio recording, and I have the chart, and I found a few incorrect notes in the chart, so I mostly copying the recording. Did anyone have that experience too?

What I noticed though, some of the phrases in the head sound like they were improvised rather than written down before , like those I'm circled. For example, when he starts the head in the end it starts on section C, and the end of C doesn't sound like what he did in the opening of the tune. Do you catch my drift? I just find plenty inconsistencies in it...


So the main question is, to what extent YOU can change things around in tunes like that? Because I thought it's supposed to be more or less mathematical, otherwise what separates a head from a solo? But I can't help but feel Bird himself wouldn't exactly follow it precise.

Does it make sense? How do you treat those heads?

[rkwestcoast]

I've been working on Yardbird Suite with my singer & the thing we are really struggling with is the feel & rhythm - not in terms of speed so much but trying to nail the song's 'velocity of swing'.

I think this is true of a lot of tunes composed by Bird - the feel / rhythm is absolutely key in terms of getting the tune to work.

Charlie Rouse said much the same about Monk tunes - to play them well you really need to pay attention too Monk's tempo and note placement against the beat.

I have done a bit of work on Confirmation - Bird's head & solo - and am a long way off getting any where near any type of proficiency with either - but would agree different recorded versions (live v studio) & various transcriptions are often at slights odds with each other.

One of the things though that has struck me looking at the tune though (and imagine that this is true of all of his playing) is how strong his phrases (composed & improv) are in terms of resolution - and often how strong the musical statement is with just his starting & ending note for each phrase.............

[Hep To The Jive]

I've been working on Yardbird Suite with my singer & the thing we are really struggling with is the feel & rhythm - not in terms of speed so much but trying to nail the song's 'velocity of swing'.

I think this is true of a lot of tunes composed by Bird - the feel / rhythm is absolutely key in terms of getting the tune to work.

Charlie Rouse said much the same about Monk tunes - to play them well you really need to pay attention too Monk's tempo and note placement against the beat.

I have done a bit of work on Confirmation - Bird's head & solo - and am a long way off getting any where near any type of proficiency with either - but would agree different recorded versions (live v studio) & various transcriptions are often at slights odds with each other.

One of the things though that has struck me looking at the tune though (and imagine that this is true of all of his playing) is how strong his phrases (composed & improv) are in terms of resolution - and often how strong the musical statement is with just his starting & ending note for each phrase.............

A lot of great points here man! I totally agree, his phrases are strong musical statements and perfect in terms of resolution.

My problem with Confirmation is, though, each little phrase is great on its own, but they are stringed together in a way that doesn't make the whole picture very memorable. Maybe there's a lack of repetition that I think is crucial for my ears to get a tune into my head. Or maybe I find them disjointed too much.

I didn't have that problem with Yardbird Suite. It's just a catchy melody with no reservation. And I demand a tune to be catchy to be enjoyable damn it hahaha! So Confirmation is a blurry line between an improvised solo and a composition IMO. I still wanna learn it, just as a challenge, as an exercise.

Thelonius Monk's tunes I never had a problem with and I think he's fantastic composer, far better than Bird IMO. His tunes have an 'avangard' sense of rhythm to it, but are also super melodically catchy, more like blues through the lenses of Picasso.

[rkwestcoast]

"My problem with Confirmation is, though, each little phrase is great on its own, but they are stringed together in a way that doesn't make the whole picture very memorable"

True!!! I have to think about the melody of Confirmation to re-call it - whilst Yardbird Suite comes to mind much easier

[PMB]

Hep, the Omnibook is generally a good source for Parker heads. Strangely enough, the version of "Donna Lee" (ok, probably not by Parker but more likely a Fats Navarro line Miles worked up into a longer composition) that most people play comes from the first '70s illegal real book which is full of little errors. I always go to the recording. Even there, minor discrepancies often exist between what Bird and Dizzy, Miles or Kenny Dorham play on a unison line. Best to listen to the repeats and heads out as well to confirm what the probable 'definitive' version is.

In the case of "Confirmation", I'd go through the same process. Listen to the live versions at St. Nicks etc. for an indication as to what Bird considered negotiable. As far as I know, there aren't surviving manuscripts for Parker tunes and many were conceived on the way to the studio so may have been head arrangements that were open to transformation from take to take.

[christianm77]

Ok, so I have to admit, I'm not a big fan of Charlie Parker as a composer. Yardbird Suite and Little Suede Shoes aside, I don't particularly find his 'heads' a pleasure to listen to or play. But, of course, as an improviser and inventor of new language, he's a genius, no doubt.

And that's how I approach tunes like Donna Lee and Confirmation- great bebop etudes and source of licks that explain the language of bebop and can be used in solos. Is it sacrilegious? Maybe, but it's how I go about it.

Now, particularly Confirmation (I'm only talking about the head here btw.), I have a few question to hardcore beboppers and Bird fans. I listened to the studio recording, and I have the chart, and I found a few incorrect notes in the chart, so I mostly copying the recording. Did anyone have that experience too?

What I noticed though, some of the phrases in the head sound like they were improvised rather than written down before , like those I'm circled. For example, when he starts the head in the end it starts on section C, and the end of C doesn't sound like what he did in the opening of the tune. Do you catch my drift? I just find plenty inconsistencies in it...


So the main question is, to what extent YOU can change things around in tunes like that? Because I thought it's supposed to be more or less mathematical, otherwise what separates a head from a solo? But I can't help but feel Bird himself wouldn't exactly follow it precise.

Does it make sense? How do you treat those heads?

Interesting post. I think playing around with a head with ad libbing and stuff would be an excellent way to hone ones improvisation skills in the idiom just like any other type of melodic variation.

I have learned as much bop language from heads as from solos. It's worth studying them closely, I think...

In general I learn this stuff by ear because I find it easier and I also internalise the material a bit better.... It's a good idea to try playing these things in different keys, positions and octaves, too. Preferably by ear...

That said, bop heads are often played in unison which would limit the ability to do this. Often B sections are solo, which implies improvisation. But this is common practice for swing too...

Finally - and this is a subtle thing, I think - bop heads reference not only the changes but often the melodic motives from the original song. Now, Confirmation isn't obviously based on a pre-existing song (I don't think) but I find this a lot in Parker's music. I don't believe that he was improvising on the changes alone.

[Hep To The Jive]

That said, bop heads are often played in unison which would limit the ability to do this.

That! That's whats bothering me. Like, let say, I often play Billie Bounce, very popular Birds blues head, and almost always bass and horns, or other guitar player would join me in unison, and we know exactly how it goes, and there's no room for variation. Every syncopated phrase, every note, comes exactly where expected.

How do you do that with Confirmation? I just don't see a written in stone version that everyone would agree on. Do I have a point, or do I miss something?

[pubylakeg]

There's definitely a lot of variation in different interpretations of this tune. In fact, I consider the 1946 recording under Dizzy's leadership, with Lucky Thompson on tenor to be the definitive version. If anyone could smooth that line out, and make it swing, it would be Dizzy.

And, there's different ways to play Billie's bounce too....specifically the counter line in the move to the IV chord in bar 5, but that's another story.

[PMB]

There's definitely a lot of variation in different interpretations of this tune. In fact, I consider the 1946 recording under Dizzy's leadership, with Lucky Thompson on tenor to be the definitive version. If anyone could smooth that line out, and make it swing, it would be Dizzy.

Good point. Parker was meant to be on that recording but didn't make the session. "Confirmation" was an early compositional effort but Bird never got to record it for himself until the end of his career.

[PMB]

Finally - and this is a subtle thing, I think - bop heads reference not only the changes but often the melodic motives from the original song. Now, Confirmation isn't obviously based on a pre-existing song (I don't think) but I find this a lot in Parker's music. I don't believe that he was improvising on the changes alone.

That would be interesting to check out further, Christian. Thomas Owens dissertation on Bird suggests that the improvised phrases in the choruses aren't even particularly reliant on their attached heads let alone the melody of the originals. I haven't read it but Henry Martin's book "Charlie Parker and Thematic Improvisation" argues otherwise.

[mrcee]

Isn't Chasin' The Trane based on the changes to Confirmation?
It seems to vary from chart to chart but I saw one once that was the same.

One critic called this date a 'horrifying demonstration". I don't agree.

[Sam Sherry]

My problem with Confirmation is, though, each little phrase is great on its own, but they are stringed together in a way that doesn't make the whole picture very memorable. Maybe there's a lack of repetition that I think is crucial for my ears to get a tune into my head. Or maybe I find them disjointed too much.

Anton, as with friends I just accept the tunes as they are. The beauty of playing other peoples' music is that they go to places I wouldn't, and for Bird you can multiply that by a hundred!

Once somebody asked the jazz composer Steve Grover about details of one of his pieces. He replied, filled with Groverian sarcasm, "Play what the the composer intended." His intent was, 'Don't worry about me. Just make it your own.'

As fans of Larry Goldings know, it's very dangerous to try to 'improve' bebop tunes:

[Hep To The Jive]

Anton, as with friends I just accept the tunes as they are. The beauty of playing other peoples' music is that they go to places I wouldn't, and for Bird you can multiply that by a hundred!

Once somebody asked the jazz composer Steve Grover about details of one of his pieces. He replied, filled with Groverian sarcasm, "Play what the the composer intended." His intent was, 'Don't worry about me. Just make it your own.'

As fans of Larry Goldings know, it's very dangerous to try to 'improve' bebop tunes:

hahaha, yea good!

Funny as it is, you can twist and turn Monk's compositions, but they would still be unmistakably recognizable, and, at least in my case, enjoyable in any shape or form. That's because they are catchy melodies at the core, have the hooks, no matter how rhythmically advanced(awkward for some people maybe? def. not for me!) they could be. Well You Needn't, Round Bout Midnight, In Walked Bud, - brilliant music!

'Confirmation' - great collection of bebop licks, a lesson in resolutions, chop builder, that's about all good I can say about it.

[grahambop]

Dexter Gordon:

[grahambop]

Sonny Stitt. Takes a few liberties from the bridge onwards:

[christianm77]

I think there should be a thread called Dexter Gordon. And then every reply to the thread would just be 'Dexter Gordon' with a link to some Dexter Gordon.

And then we could get rid of all the other threads.

[Hep To The Jive]

Sonny Stitt. Takes a few liberties from the bridge onwards:

I like it, I think he improved a few phrases, the ones in B section (if we go with AABA form), made it more listenable.

[pubylakeg]

Agree, the Dizzy's version seems to be the smoothest, most coherent. I like Art's one as well, but in some spots it sounds a bit messy. Actually, exactly the spots that I found messy too! Particularly mm.9-10

I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head. A single instrument taking the head of Confirmation is a different prospect to several instruments playing the line in unison. In the latter instance, there would definitely need to be an element of pre-arrangement and rehearsal involved. And I think the Blakey version might exemplify a lack of this, either that, or in the heat of the gig, the tempo pushed beyond the norm.

My comment on Billie's Bounce also related to some of the mordents used, in that you'll hear these included or omitted in a variety of places throughout the line, depending on who's playing it. Again, some kind of consensus among the players would have to be reached prior to the performance. Another good example of this is the famous film clip of Bird and Diz playing "Hot House" where you can hear they used different mordents to the way the line was played on the studio take, (although I do realise it's a Tadd Dameron line).

I've often felt in listening to Bird and Diz specifically, that there were variations on these lines, probably to keep things fresh. Sometimes it can be quite surprising just how fluid a composers concept of a tune can actually be.

PS. (joke time),
Q. What's a definition of a minor ninth ?.

A. Two soprano saxophones playing in unison.

[grahambop]

I think there should be a thread called Dexter Gordon. And then every reply to the thread would just be 'Dexter Gordon' with a link to some Dexter Gordon.

And then we could get rid of all the other threads.

Yeah, I basically learned to play jazz by listening to Dexter, more than anybody.

[PMB]

'Confirmation' - great collection of bebop licks, a lesson in resolutions, chop builder, that's about all good I can say about it.

Putting the notes to one side, what about the rhythm of Parker's heads? That's where a lot of the gold can be found for me. Sing the rhythms alone and they come across like the coolest drum breaks. On that topic, there's a great story in Woideck's book on Parker where Max Roach turned up late to a rehearsal to find Bird at the drums playing an amazing, polyrhythmic groove that Max himself couldn't replicate.

[Hep To The Jive]

Putting the notes to one side, what about the rhythm of Parker's heads? That's where a lot of the gold can be found for me. Sing the rhythms alone and they come across like the coolest drum breaks. On that topic, there's a great story in Woideck's book on Parker where Max Roach turned up late to a rehearsal to find Bird at the drums playing an amazing, polyrhythmic groove that Max himself couldn't replicate.

That's for sure! In his improvisations too. A lot of rhythmic innovations.

My ear loves hooky melodic riffs, though. I entered jazz with my Eastern European background, and we put melody first, always. Maybe that's why I have a bit of hard time appreciating Parker's tunes. On the other hand, so many jazz greats before, during, and after his time I can embrace with no reservations, I'm thinking maybe it's just a matter of taste.

I remember a conversation with one really good sax player years ago, when I was in college. He said I don't understand what you guys find in Jimi Hendrix that's so exited, it's really nothing special. I said the same about Charlie Parker, and we kind of understand each other- you don't have to pretend to love something just because everybody else says so.

On a positive note, I'm making a progress with Confirmation, it's beginning to open up for me. I will keep on diggin in.

[voxss]

highly recommend soloing over Dextors solos.....just feels right

[Dutchbopper]

Ok, so I have to admit, I'm not a big fan of Charlie Parker as a composer. Yardbird Suite and Little Suede Shoes aside, I don't particularly find his 'heads' a pleasure to listen to or play.

The beboppers were not interested in creating music that was easily digestible or even pleasureable. Their music was a reaction to the swing music of the fourties that they were kind of tired of. They invented a new music that you could not dance to and was not "easy" listening. So many of the bebop heads sound intricate, nervous and erratic. They were more about excitement and musical virtuosity than about pleasing audiences.

So stating that Parker's bop compositions are not pleasurable or memorable is like kicking in an open door. They were not meant to be.

From Wiki:

Bebop differed drastically from the straightforward compositions of the swing era and was instead characterized by fast tempos, asymmetrical phrasing, intricate melodies, and rhythm sections that expanded on their role as tempo-keepers. The music itself seemed jarringly different to the ears of the public, who were used to the bouncy, organized, danceable tunes of Benny Goodman and Glenn Miller during the swing era. Instead, bebop appeared to sound racing, nervous, erratic and often fragmented. But to jazz musicians and jazz music lovers, bebop was an exciting and beautiful revolution in the art of jazz.

DB

[goldenwave77]

[QUOTE=rkwestcoast;603216]I've been working on Yardbird Suite with my singer & the thing we are really struggling with is the feel & rhythm - not in terms of speed so much but trying to nail the song's 'velocity of swing'.

QUOTE]

Eddie Jefferson did a lot of vocalese versions of Bird tunes, and I think he did them pretty well...close but not slavish with a good sense behind the lyrics he supplied. There are a mess of them on YouTube.

Interestingly, on Confirmation he almost punts on singing it....pretty much one verse with the rest just scatted and the lyrics he chose mention the trickiness of the tune. (If you search for Eddie Jefferson and Confirmation you'll find it...its off the album where he's smoking a cigar on the cover.)

(So if your singer is getting tripped up, she's not alone....Eddie J. who I think is a wonderful phrase-maker of vocalese had his troubles as well.)

[Hep To The Jive]

The beboppers were not interested in creating music that was easily digestible or even pleasureable. Their music was a reaction to the swing music of the fourties that they were kind of tired of. They invented a new music that you could not dance to and was not "easy" listening. So many of the bebop heads sound intricate, nervous and erratic. They were more about excitement and musical virtuosity than about pleasing audiences.

So stating that Parker's bop compositions are not pleasurable or memorable is like kicking in an open door. They were not meant to be.

From Wiki:



DB

However, like I mentioned, I have no such problem digesting other bebop composers, like Monk, and even Gillespie for that matter! In fact, overall I prefer Dizzy over Bird!

Yeah maybe musicians were exited in the beginning, but I think its fair to say most got tired of the concept rather soon. Wasnt hard bop or cool jazz was reaction against erratic bebop? Of course bebop is the root of modern jazz, but i think the idea to create music with the purpose to annoy or alienate people dont live long. Or does it?