Why is this bebop?

[christianm77]

So a question for a bit of crowd sourced analysis - what makes this familiar phrase distinctively bebop?

Note: 'it must be bebop because Charlie Parker wrote it' doesn't count :-)

Notice the sparing use of chromatics in the line, the use of clear chord outlining via triads, use of enclosures, and the very sparing but all the more effective use of an altered extension.



Notice Barry Harris style I've just written Cm7 F7 as F7 - it makes the use of chord tones a little clearer. My changes here reflect my idea of what harmony is being outlined here - you may want to ignore them... I have also put it in a key signature to underline how diatonic it is...

I have my theory - but I'd like to get a few ideas going before I comment...

(The music is the first A section of Anthropology.)

[mr. beaumont]

I'm getting invalid attachment.

[christianm77]

How about now?

[mr. beaumont]

I see it...

I'd like to play through it when I get a chance, but one thing I can see right away is the syncopation...

[christianm77]

I see it...

I'd like to play through it when I get a chance, but one thing I can see right away is the syncopation...

What specifically do you notice about the use of syncopation? (it's just the first A section of Anthropology BTW)

[Hep To The Jive]

Ha, surprisingly for myself I could sight read it without instrument, just singing in my head and figure out what tune it is before i red the rest of the post! Yay, it may be no big deal, but for me it is!

to answer your question its def. syncopated phrasing, the sign of early bebop, deconstruction of swing. To me, the deliberate complexity of the syncopation is what makes it bebop.

[dasein]

get a classical musician to sight-read this, and... well, the pitches will probably be right, anyways.

get a jazz musician to sight-read this (assuming they don't recognize the tune) and it might not sound like Bird, but it'll be a whole lot closer

[christianm77]

Here is a rhythmic analysis of the phrase. This is my idea of where the accents are in the phrase - if anyone disagrees, please let me know.

What really stands out for me is the variety of the rhythms - and in particular the way it moves between being on the beat and then on a whole set of off beats (students of Mike Longo might be familiar with this rhythm from Exercise #1, albeit starting on beat 4)



I don't think you'd find this in swing music.

[GuitarGerry]

I don't think you'd find this in swing music.

I could have posted umpteen songs by Andy Kirk, arranged by Mary Lou Williams, but this will do. Just listen to the syncopation. In the arrangement (stabs in particular), plus solos.

Bird was born out of Kansas Swing (so were the above outfit)...not so cut and dry.

[christianm77]

I could have posted umpteen songs by Andy Kirk, arranged by Mary Lou Williams, but this will do. Just listen to the syncopation. In the arrangement (stabs in particular), plus solos.

Bird was born out of Kansas Swing (so were the above outfit)...not so cut and dry.

Very hip.

I don't mean that the rhythmic language of Bird was particularly unprecedented or outre (everything he played works with a New Orleans march beat) but the way he puts it together is very different. The structures in the Mary Lou arrangement are easier to follow at first listen, I think, a fair amount of repetition - the stab patterns are generally played twice. The sheer irregular complexity of Parker's stream of rhythm is really quite different to my ears - it's like there's no pattern to it. Anthropology is an AABA form of course - but there's no obvious internal balance or symmetry to the 8 bar phrases in the way we see in Mozart - or Mary Lou....

In this case the contrast between Parker and the Kansas city guys he learned from is stark. You don't get this constant jarring shifting between on the beat/off beat quarter notes, that you see/hear in his music, for example, wierd phrase lengths that break up the regularity of the form. It's hard to pin that down exactly without transcribing it... The tenor comes closest though, he has some interesting stuff going on rhythmically... But then Lester Young, for another example, is non stop rhythmic magic without his phrasing being very much like the mature Bird.

It's perhaps silly to try and pin down an exact musicological distinction between swing and bop, but that for me is one of the big ones. Look at the rhythm above and see how little repetition there is, for example. All the soloists on the track make good use of repeated riff like ideas even if they happen to be overlapping a different meter on the 4/4 pulse. With Bird there's nothing so obvious to latch on to. The dotted 1/4 figure in the analysis is not expressed using a three note repeated pattern the way a swing soloist might do it - it just emerges from the accents of a line with absolutely no repetition.

[fumblefingers]

get a classical musician to sight-read this, and... well, the pitches will probably be right, anyways.

get a jazz musician to sight-read this (assuming they don't recognize the tune) and it might not sound like Bird, but it'll be a whole lot closer

It depends on the classical musician. On guitar alone we can give the example of Brouwer. Can you sight read his stuff?

[Hep To The Jive]

Very hip.

I don't mean that the rhythmic language of Bird was particularly unprecedented or outre (everything he played works with a New Orleans march beat) but the way he puts it together is very different. The structures in the Mary Lou arrangement are easier to follow at first listen, I think, a fair amount of repetition - the stab patterns are generally played twice. The sheer irregular complexity of Parker's stream of rhythm is really quite different to my ears - it's like there's no pattern to it. Anthropology is an AABA form of course - but there's no obvious internal balance or symmetry to the 8 bar phrases in the way we see in Mozart - or Mary Lou....

In this case the contrast between Parker and the Kansas city guys he learned from is stark. You don't get this constant jarring shifting between on the beat/off beat quarter notes, that you see/hear in his music, for example, wierd phrase lengths that break up the regularity of the form. It's hard to pin that down exactly without transcribing it... The tenor comes closest though, he has some interesting stuff going on rhythmically... But then Lester Young, for another example, is non stop rhythmic magic without his phrasing being very much like the mature Bird.

It's perhaps silly to try and pin down an exact musicological distinction between swing and bop, but that for me is one of the big ones. Look at the rhythm above and see how little repetition there is, for example. All the soloists on the track make good use of repeated riff like ideas even if they happen to be overlapping a different meter on the 4/4 pulse. With Bird there's nothing so obvious to latch on to. The dotted 1/4 figure in the analysis is not expressed using a three note repeated pattern the way a swing soloist might do it - it just emerges from the accents of a line with absolutely no repetition.

i think you nailed it! The lack of repetition is what separates a bebop head from trad swing. But you know what, human ear loves repetition! I always said that Bird's heads sound more like solos than actual themes. I know a lot of musicians love it, but i never really did for that exact reason. Of course, Yardbird Suit, for example, would be a rare exception, I love that tune! And maybe its not quintesential Parker, I prefer that still! Its got the hook! Anthropolgy, or Confirmation, or Donna Lee- randomness! And I cant blame bebop as a genre, because look, if Thelonius is bebop, I think every tune he wrote is absolute undeniable beauty! He had plenty of syncopation in his tunes, chromaticisms, plenty of everything! And yet, what a genius composer! I understand if we talk bebop, Im supposed to love CP, but I dont really! His improvisation skills were off the hook, but his tunes in general.... Sorry!

I had a loooong night of gigging, booze is always involved, I appologize for my rant

[GuitarGerry]

Yeah, Kansas Swing was very riff based, which does make it listener friendly. +1 re Monk.

[christianm77]

i think you nailed it! The lack of repetition is what separates a bebop head from trad swing. But you know what, human ear loves repetition! I always said that Bird's heads sound more like solos than actual themes. I know a lot of musicians love it, but i never really did for that exact reason. Of course, Yardbird Suit, for example, would be a rare exception, I love that tune! And maybe its not quintesential Parker, I prefer that still! Its got the hook! Anthropolgy, or Confirmation, or Donna Lee- randomness! And I cant blame bebop as a genre, because look, if Thelonius is bebop, I think every tune he wrote is absolute undeniable beauty! He had plenty of syncopation in his tunes, chromaticisms, plenty of everything! And yet, what a genius composer! I understand if we talk bebop, Im supposed to love CP, but I dont really! His improvisation skills were off the hook, but his tunes in general.... Sorry!

I had a loooong night of gigging, booze is always involved, I appologize for my rant

There is a deep structure motivically to Donna Lee - I kind of hear it as a development of the Honeysuckle Rose motif that was such a big part of Bird's playing... But this logic is hidden pretty deep. As for the other two tunes - never been able to find much structure to them, other than the fact that the second A section of Confirmation is a variation of the first (obvious!)

I kind of conclude that how bebop heads work is as a melodic expression of an interesting rhythm phrase.

Monk is an interesting one too. I love Monk's tunes, great composer. I think Monk works in a totally different way to most of Parker's tunes (with the exception of Now's the Time, say) is that many of them are based on varied or subverted riffs. Other tunes like Round Midnight have a very tight structure to the melody - again based on varied repetition. We lump Bird and Monk together under bebop - but really Monk's modus was totally different to Bird's.

Take the example of Blue Monk:

and how it is a subverted riff tune essentially.

[christianm77]

It depends on the classical musician. On guitar alone we can give the example of Brouwer. Can you sight read his stuff?

I think daesin is talking about getting the rhythmic stresses right. Being able to sight read Brouwer is not the same skill set as being able to interpret jazz phrasing from written music.

[GuitarGerry]

What I love about that Monk clip is the body movement of the other musicians. They're practically dancing while playing. That pop song was wrong, it's not all about that bass...it's the rhythm (though not sure what part of the anatomy that equates to...I need to lie down again).

[bako]

2 papers relevant to the topic

http://emp.byui.edu/WatkinsM/applied...Vocabulary.pdf

Just scanned through it. Not sure if I agree with the premise or conclusions but provides some interesting snapshots.
Documenting phrasing, slurs, accents, tonguing reveals another layer of understanding lacking in unmarked notation.

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

Steve Coleman analysis from his very personal viewpoint.

[destinytot]

I think daesin is talking about getting the rhythmic stresses right. Being able to sight read Brouwer is not the same skill set as being able to interpret jazz phrasing from written music.

Excellent point.

Being able to read and write music matter to me, but I think there's also a point beyond which reading actually becomes the opposite of helpful. (Perhaps reading becomes a refuge at that point.)

I'm working on my reading in order to free myself from the 'tyranny of the written page', and to widen the bubble of my attention. ('Chunking' rules.)

A question about notated Parker heads & solos: would people recommend working from a published version, or transcribing your own? I have an Omnibook gathering dust somewhere, but I also have pencils and manuscript paper - plus Sibelius on my PC . (No prizes for guessing which one I use.)

Great thread. Informative and inspiring. Thank you!

[christianm77]

2 papers relevant to the topic

http://emp.byui.edu/WatkinsM/applied...Vocabulary.pdf

Just scanned through it. Not sure if I agree with the premise or conclusions but provides some interesting snapshots.
Documenting phrasing, slurs, accents, tonguing reveals another layer of understanding lacking in unmarked notation.

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

Steve Coleman analysis from his very personal viewpoint.

I am a huge huge fan of this Steve Coleman article. Everyone should read it.

[goldenwave77]

I recently went to a concert at the New York Classical Guitar Society with a pretty well-respected performer. He played a Brouwer piece along with Bach's Chaconne, and some pieces by the Paraguayan guy who Segovia disliked so much.

Afterwards I went up to the performer, told him I really liked his playing, but that I wasn't a hard core classical guitar aficionado, and that I liked the piece from the Paraguyan guy, and in fact, it almost reminded me of "classical bebop". I got a blank look in response, and I then said, "well it's got a lot of rhythmic thrust like bebop", and then he understood.

FWIW, the Brouwer stuff I heard is nowhere near bebop like...I sincerely doubt any classical player who had never heard bebop (if we can imagine this), could pick up the Omnibook and play anything in it convincingly. This might be an interesting experiment, though.

Music predates notation...always has....and hopefully, always will....I think to play bebop convincingly, you have to do it "old school"----hear it, and then try to play it...that's how jazz, a folk art, developed. Apart from this, notation is just inherently limited in what it can accomplish.

[christianm77]

Excellent point.

Being able to read and write music matter to me, but I think there's also a point beyond which reading actually becomes the opposite of helpful. (Perhaps reading becomes a refuge at that point.)

I'm working on my reading in order to free myself from the 'tyranny of the written page', and to widen the bubble of my attention. ('Chunking' rules.)

A question about notated Parker heads & solos: would people recommend working from a published version, or transcribing your own? I have an Omnibook gathering dust somewhere, but I also have pencils and manuscript paper - plus Sibelius on my PC . (No prizes for guessing which one I use.)

Great thread. Informative and inspiring. Thank you!

I always transcribe. I find it much easier to play them if I know what they sound like (I experiment with different fingerings etc) - whereas if I read them I tend to get into position playing too much. That's probably a reflection on my limited reading, though. That said, I still think being able to sing the things through is a really good thing.

I often find myself questioning the published sources. Take the B natural in the first bar of Anthropology - it's really hard to hear as the horns play a massive clanger on that note in the original recording. The tune is fast enough that you don't care, but if you were to just learn from the real book you would think that B natural was set in stone. In fact, others play a Bb here.

It's a good thing to practice - playing bop heads in position - but in practice it's not the best way to execute them IMO. You need to do play them guitaristically.

Because I'm working on relative pitch through moveable do solfege, I like to write them down straight to manuscript. Written music was originally designed with moveable do solfege in mind as it was invented by the same bloke, so it's a perfect way of practicing. A lot of the time I do pitches and rhythms separately as I find I can get bogged down if I try to do both together. More advanced transcribers I'm sure would be OK with this.

If you are keen to focus more on the instrument and playing, another way is to visualise how you will play the phrase away from the instrument, and once you are sure, play it.

[dasein]

It depends on the classical musician. On guitar alone we can give the example of Brouwer. Can you sight read his stuff?

not sure what you're getting at, unless you're saying that Leo could play bebop -- i'd genuinely love to hear that.

if the argument is that i couldn't play Brouwer as well as a professional classical guitarist, i wouldn't even begin to suggest otherwise, sight-reading or not.

i also wouldn't have nearly as good a rhythmic feel as salsa, Indian classical, or Bulgarian musicians in their respective idioms.

[destinytot]

I always transcribe. I find it much easier to play them if I know what they sound like (I experiment with different fingerings etc) - whereas if I read them I tend to get into position playing too much. That's probably a reflection on my limited reading, though. That said, I still think being able to sing the things through is a really good thing.

I often find myself questioning the published sources. Take the B natural in the first bar of Anthropology - it's really hard to hear as the horns play a massive clanger on that note in the original recording. The tune is fast enough that you don't care, but if you were to just learn from the real book you would think that B natural was set in stone. In fact, others play a Bb here.

It's a good thing to practice - playing bop heads in position - but in practice it's not the best way to execute them IMO. You need to do play them guitaristically.

Because I'm working on relative pitch through moveable do solfege, I like to write them down straight to manuscript. Written music was originally designed with moveable do solfege in mind as it was invented by the same bloke, so it's a perfect way of practicing. A lot of the time I do pitches and rhythms separately as I find I can get bogged down if I try to do both together. More advanced transcribers I'm sure would be OK with this.

If you are keen to focus more on the instrument and playing, another way is to visualise how you will play the phrase away from the instrument, and once you are sure, play it.

I was thinking along similar lines, but it's great to have it confirmed by others' insight and experience. Thanks again, Christian.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Take the example of Blue Monk:

Okay, I'll never be as cool as Monk wearing shades in a dark studio. Loved it!

[TH]

I'm getting invalid attachment.

That's what she said.