Distinguishing characteristics of bebop

[christianm77]

Heya, I thought I'd pop my ideas of what makes bebop bebop. No doubt I've missed out a load of stuff, but this is my general thoughts on how it is different from the early music (AFAIK) being 40s swing. I'll start by quibbling with great David Baker's points. No disrespect intended - I think he has a slightly different perspective historically.

1. Complex harmonic ideas
Maybe - but there is not a huge amount in Bird that can't be found in some earlier players

2. Longer melodic phrases using odd intervals built on the extension of chords (9ths, 11ths, 13ths, etc.).
Not as common as its made out in bop practice, and certainly not unique to bop.

3. Harmony gained equal footing with melody and rhythm (western influence).
Agreed

4. A sound instrumental technique was mandatory.
Agreed. I think Bird was meant to be one of the first players equally comfortable in all keys?

5. A good ear and a quick mind were indispensable.
Well, yeah, but that's just what you need to be a good improvisor in any style. No great player lacks these qualities. I think the idea that this was an innovation of bop players is a bit - dismissive? Perhaps he means in terms of THEORY - in which case .... probably YES.

6. Eighth notes and sixteenth notes became the basic units of time.
Agreed if you mean improv became more running 8th notes - but there were earlier players who were changes runners. Not as common.

7. Horns aimed for clean, piano-like execution.
Again, like 6. this is a manifestation of the more unified style. Everyone wanted to play like Bird.

8. Players followed the trend toward the vibrato-less sound (reducing the latitude and flexibility of sound production is another western concept). As a practical consideration, virtuosity demands an unencumbered sound.
YES. An important precursor here was Lester Young, himself influenced by Frankie Trumbauer.

9. The emphasis was more on content than on sound.
YES. This is a very interesting point. Transcription remains a bedrock of study of jazz language, yet can only teach you 'content' - as Barry Harris points out all the great players had a characteristic sound - be they Prez or Yusef Lateef. This remains as true of contemporary jazz.

10. Complex chords provided soloists with a broader harmonic base; making possible a greater variety of note choices and a higher incidence of chromaticism.
That Bud Powell example on the other thread aside - bop did not use 'complex chords' at least in accompaniment - mostly it used the same chords as swing - shell voicings etc, even simple majors and minors. The harmonic complexity was in the soloing (see point 1.) The accompaniment remained harmonically simpler than the melodic soloing until the later 50s.

11. Chords served as the improvisational referential rather than the melody.
YES. But again, some swing players were more chordal and some more melodic - it was a diverse time. Bop was very much based on what one player did.

12. Hot improvisation (fast, intense, impassioned) was the rule.
Perhaps, esp in the case of Bird.

But small band listening (i.e. non dancing) jazz had been exploring the upper limit of tempos for some time. One thing that makes Bop FEEL faster is the use of 4/4 time as opposed to 2/4. Evan Christopher points out that Louis Armstrong's famous version of Dinah is cut at the same tempo as Coltrane's Giant Steps.

13. Collective improvisation was exclusively between the soloist and the rhythm section.
YES/maybe. Polyphonic horns were still common in 1940s small band music, but the historically confusing thing is the Dixieland revival anti-modern jazz backlash was in full .... er..... swing by the 1940s, before bop came along. (Kenny Clark even plays on some of that stuff lol.)

It was common to hear polyphonic New Orleans style frontlines against swing rhythm sections. OTOH - there's also stuff like the Benny Goodman Sextet and the Lester Young small band recordings, where we don't hear so much of that stuff. The Kansas City Swing thing was really revolutionary in setting up a lot of the concepts - 4/4 time, walking bass and so on - that bop would adopt and develop.

14. Bebop was primarily a small band music, but found some expression in a few select big bands.
I think economics come into play here.... The electric guitar was kind of a big blow to the big band. On one hand you had the new small band jazz, and the other dance bands with electric guitar that could pack out the dance halls with 5 or 6 players. Charlie Christian influenced both!

Bop didn't kill swing - swing just turned into jump/jive music and eventually, R&B and rock and roll....

15. A broadened concept of chord substitution came into being; this helped to provide a broader harmonic base.
Maybe? It's hard for me to comment without comparing say, Tatum and Bird. Which I haven't done. I think chord subs often when analysing and playing swing. There some characteristic ones - Dm6 on G7, for instance. Django used some very fruity subs, for instance.

16. The music moved ever closer to western european music because of its emphasis on harmony and instrumental facility and its increasing use of other western musical devices.
I have also heard the argument that Bop was much more African, because of the rhythmic complexity.

17. The entire language of jazz was questioned, subtracted from, added to, purged, and reaffirmed.
Purged is a good word. Again, unity of style based on one man's playing.

18. Poly-rhythm became an important factor again.
Tell Billie that.

The rhythm section became MUCH more polyrhythmic. The soloists? Well there was a rhythmic development certainly, but polyrhythm is one of the things that makes jazz sound like jazz, so it seems silly to argue that polyrhythm wasn't important to earlier jazz, like swing. Just think of Ellington and his 'doo wa doo wa doo wa.'

19. Bebop tended to codify all that had gone before; it is considered the common practice period in jazz.
Maybe less so as that generation passes. I think boppers now have quite an antiquarian outlook. And modern players don't always seem to do the bop thing - that said I think the good ones generally do, and jazz education somewhat enshrines bop and 'bop language' etc.

20. Unison melody statements were the rule of thumb because the increasing harmonic complexities made counterpoint and secondary lines less feasible.
Uh? Some truth to it maybe - but I don't quite buy this narrative. Again bebop isn't necessarily more 'harmonically complex' than swing. I mean some tunes are heavily based on triads - for instance Anthropology. The sheer number of notes and the non repetitious nature of the compositions would make it harder to think of a harmony in thirds.

I also hear the unison line thing as an evolution of the way shout choruses, riffs and so on were used in swing bands. Basically the problem is you have two horns and you can't do harmony. Four Brothers is a great example of a bop line harmonised in old school four way close. OTOH, swing small bands used unison lines.

21. The break as a structural device regained popularity.
If you say so. Can't say I've noticed this.

22. Bebop players made liberal use of “quotes” or interpolations from other tunes.
This is not a bop innovation. However the extent to which Parker's music is an organic patchwork of quoted material is easy to forget when we focus on the harmony.

23. Bebop reduced melody to its essentials. there were few backgrounds, some brief introductions and endings, and some unison interludes.
Not sure if I understand this. But the lack of melodies may have been affected by copyright law.

24. Melodic lines were scalar rather than chordal.
Barry would agree I think. I'd just add that it wasn't like swing players didn't use scales. I mean, scales have been around for thousands of years.

25. More sophisticated scales were introduced into the language; one example is the diminished scale (1 b2 b3 3 #4 5 6 b7 8)
Haven't seen much of this one in the wild from the stuff I've checked out. Quite possibly. Would be in the realm of 'exotica' - but this scale was known since the 19th century at least. Whole Tone scale YES - but WT also shows up in 1920s music.

26. There was more effort to make the solo lines cohesive by linking them together with turn-backs, cycles, and other musical adhesive devices.
YES, I think this is something I have observed. Again, there are important precursors in swing.

27. Piano became the center of the new expression.
Was it ever not? Maybe I missed something - Jelly Roll, Ellington, Count Basie? Also there were some horn players in both music, you may have noticed?

28. Asymmetrical solo construction became a fact.
YES.

Wow that was exhausting.

I don't have energy right now to add all the points I feel he missed out, including what are for me the most important defining features.

Most of them have to do with rhythm, phrasing and the rhythm section. Later.

[Drumbler]

You forget...

"You can't dance to it."

[christianm77]

You forget...

"You can't dance to it."

I got into trouble with Barry Harris via David Friedman on Facebook a few years back for saying bebop wasn't dance music. It's complicated. More later :-)

[christianm77]

From the other forum

When you listen in retrospect (retroaud?), sure, the recordings we have are not bebop recordings. But the beboppers themselves saw Charlie Christian as a break from the past and as one of the seeds of what they were doing. Bebop was born in after-hours jams in Harlem populated by guys in big bands. Christian was one of those guys and is part of their transition from swing to bop. The sense of him as a proto-bopper comes from that, and something in the music that's more inchoate than some list of bop attributes. I don't really get why people argue about this.

John

Yeah, it's not very neat. You can draw up a list of important precursors to bop - influnces that are really key to the new music, probs:

- Lester Young
- Charlie Christian
- Art Tatum
- Don Byas
- Coleman Hawkins

And at the same time, none of them are bop players per se. For instance on the forum, Jonathon Stout plays masterfully in the style of Christian, and not a note of bop. Also explores a lot of that transitional music - Coleman Hawkins in the 40s etc. (I might be wrong but I get the impression he doesn't actually like bop that much?)

Historically Charlie's in the picture for sure and would have made contributions to the new music had he lived, but in practice bop became so much around one player - Bird - even to the expense of Diz, say, let alone Monk who is in the movement historically but kind of a different thing....

Also the musicians who stuck around - they got involved with bop, some of them, like Hawkins. I really love the mid to late 40s - fascinating time in the music.

[John A.]

From the other forum



Yeah, it's not very neat. You can draw up a list of important precursors to bop - influnces that are really key to the new music, probs:

- Lester Young
- Charlie Christian
- Art Tatum
- Don Byas
- Coleman Hawkins

And at the same time, none of them are bop players per se. For instance on the forum, Jonathon Stout plays masterfully in the style of Christian, and not a note of bop. Also explores a lot of that transitional music - Coleman Hawkins in the 40s etc. (I might be wrong but I get the impression he doesn't actually like bop that much?)

Historically Charlie's in the picture for sure and would have made contributions to the new music had he lived, but in practice bop became so much around one player - Bird - even to the expense of Diz, say, let alone Monk who is in the movement historically but kind of a different thing....

Also the musicians who stuck around - they got involved with bop, some of them, like Hawkins. I really love the mid to late 40s - fascinating time in the music.

+ Bud Powell and Kenny Clark. A lot of people say the dividing line between swing and bop is Klook's ride cymbal. [Caveat: I just parrot other people's views and have no real thoughts or study of my own on this subject]. But, yes, hugely interesting period, along with the correspondences between bop, the beat literary scene.

John

[pauln]

9. The emphasis was more on content than on sound.
YES. This is a very interesting point. Transcription remains a bedrock of study of jazz language, yet can only teach you 'content' - as Barry Harris points out all the great players had a characteristic sound - be they Prez or Yusef Lateef. This remains as true of contemporary jazz.

I don't know much about jazz, but this is the only answer that struck me as curious. I wonder if you got this backwards and meant to say "yes" to: "The emphasis was more on sound than on content."

By content, is it meant the raw schematic series and rhythm of pitches (the abstraction as captured on sheet music via composition or transcription), and by sound, is it meant the actual tone, articulation, phrasing, and other distinct qualities expressed by the individual musician?

If so, I'm not seeing why you say "yes"; if the emphasis was more on content, why listen to musicians you prefer over those more rudimentary that just "phone it in" sufficient to express content?

Is the category of "the great players" distinguished by their general relaying of content, or the special delivery through their individual sound?

[ragman1]

It's those two little notes at the end - be-bop!

[Stevebol]

Too fast for me.

[Drumbler]

Not to send this thread off on a tangent but my own preference is hard bop.

That is my favorite jazz sub-genre which is not to say I do not also enjoy other jazz styles.

I really like hard bop.

[Drumbler]

I got into trouble with Barry Harris via David Friedman on Facebook a few years back for saying bebop wasn't dance music. It's complicated. More later :-)

I'd really like to know more when you get around to it.

Thanks.

[christianm77]

I don't know much about jazz, but this is the only answer that struck me as curious. I wonder if you got this backwards and meant to say "yes" to: "The emphasis was more on sound than on content."

By content, is it meant the raw schematic series and rhythm of pitches (the abstraction as captured on sheet music via composition or transcription), and by sound, is it meant the actual tone, articulation, phrasing, and other distinct qualities expressed by the individual musician?

If so, I'm not seeing why you say "yes"; if the emphasis was more on content, why listen to musicians you prefer over those more rudimentary that just "phone it in" sufficient to express content?

Is the category of "the great players" distinguished by their general relaying of content, or the special delivery through their individual sound?

No I didn't get mixed up but perhaps was unclear.

I suspect maybe you are unfamiliar with pre war jazz? You'd understand the distinction Baker is making right away - swing era players were a lot more given to using vibrato, growls through the instrument, pitch bends and so on. Even the more linear players like Lester, had a bit more of a husky and bluesy sound.

Parker's sound is very focussed with vibrato only on the trailing ends of notes if at all. This became the absolute template for every sax player after. Why does Django play with a big vibrato and modern jazz guitarists use subtle if any finger vibrato? There's your reason. (Charlie Christian was ahead of the curve on this.)

In the case of some players these effects could be quite extreme - there was a bit of a vogue for slap tonguing on sax and other vaudeville effects in the 20s for instance.

Anyway I was thinking of Cootie William's solo on Airmail Special - classic pre-war trumpet stylings with cup mute. Note wise there's basically no point in analysing this solo lines on the A section because they are SO simple note choice wise, and the B section just makes use of a simple passing tone motif on the dim chords (nice though) - more of the solo's quality is in rhythm and the timbre than the note choice.

It's great, I love it (Cootie at 1:40):

However, I also think it's a mistake to think sound stopped being important after the bop era. I think it's a hugely important and overlooked part of a players identity, and one which no amount of analysis and transcription will give you. And it's someone any listener, trained musician or not will pick up on.

The guy I can think of right away is Kurt Rosenwinkel - no-one else sounds like him. People have transcribed him to death of course, stolen his ideas and concept the 'content', but they can't get his SOUND - or perhaps never tried beyond getting a delay pedal. And I'd know him ANYWHERE, just like Bird or Cootie (or Sco, or Metheny, or Frisell for that matter.)

[christianm77]

BTW it's interesting how this 'modernist aesthetic' also extends to contemporary classical music, but also - very interestingly - baroque music performance. Little vibrato or portamento. Even true of mainstream classical performance.

Listen to early 20th century classical performances to get a shock!

[pauln]

Thanks christianm77, that makes sense.

[Hep To The Jive]

The main characteristic, for me, is how the rhythm section started to play in bebop. In general the feel of rhythm became looser. The rhythm was implied by all, and not define by anyone. In swing era or before jazz sounded tighter, which was limiting for soloists, but suited listeners and dancers just fine.

Im not saying bebopers couldnt groove, but listening to some live recordings it does sound hit and miss sometimes. When you try to stretch time so much... For me hard bop fixed it, kinda...

But if you start you jazz trip with bebop, it obviously hard to play earlier styles, if all you did played with bebop rhythm section- you had to develop a looser feel. Playing swing guitar is opposite of that.

Anything else, like harmony, sound, are secondary in this distinction. Losing a vibrato wasnt a good change though, for my taste. I take Art Pepper, as an exception, sound over Bird any day.

[lawson-stone]

So what is asymmetrical solo construction?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[joe2758]

yeah and barets

[ragman1]

I don't know whether this only applies to bop music but what I envy is some players' ability to start and stop, seemingly at random, in the middle of bars or thereabouts, cross bar lines, and stop and start again somewhere. It's very effective. I tried it once and it's difficult!

I saw a perfect example the other week and I can't find it now.

[Jonah]

Bop was an attempt to charm to cast a spell on time and harmony... jazz music was on the edge of falling apart... it was caught in trap with limited closed pop forms opposed to creative moving musicians and improvizers.

Musically they felt something was going on with time and harmony and music and that was the thing that swing players did not care much of becasue they were inside of it...

In my opinion bop was the only movement in jazz that was very independent and at the same time very authentic and natural.
I tink bop was sort of up-to-date secualr spirituel music... ulike soul it did not borrowed technique from spirituels but in the contrary it expressed its spirit...
Bop is very true to life, no tricks.

Bop has two faces: Bird and Dizzy... all the others are great two but they fit on of these faces.

Bird said something about attempt of going outside in his solos about the edge... some think it is metaphorical.. I am sure that there is not metaphor or philosophy for musican without musical path... I am sure he meant certain moments where aug4th falls in specific context where he felt like is loosing the key and meter but at teh same time the structure was still there...

I do not like bop... looked like If I wanted to play bop I would play it very very slowly... this would make sense.
Bop is so fast that I think is very very slow actually...

[Hep To The Jive]

I don't know whether this only applies to bop music but what I envy is some players' ability to start and stop, seemingly at random, in the middle of bars or thereabouts, cross bar lines, and stop and start again somewhere. It's very effective. I tried it once and it's difficult!

I saw a perfect example the other week and I can't find it now.

Never played a horn instrument? You run out of breath you will stop whenever, so you learn to phrase eventually that syncs with breathing, it's a necessity, not a trick. Of course on guitar it could be!

[Jonah]

Never played a horn instrument? You run out of breath you will stop whenever, so you learn to phrase eventually that syncs with breathing, it's a necessity, not a trick. Of course on guitar it could be!

I think good horn players do not run out of breath to the point that they have to stop suddenly (or seem suddenly).. iI mean they can catch the breath quite quickly an dusually know where and how to do it.

But on the other hand I agree with you: decent horn playing or vocal training really helps to improve phrasing and control over the tone (especialy its beginnign and end which is always a problem for guitarist and pianists).

I once saw a flute player who showed how he practiced circular breathing (non-stop breath) and the teacher said: come one... why do you need it? Most of the music is breath, use it!

[Jonah]

I don't know whether this only applies to bop music but what I envy is some players' ability to start and stop, seemingly at random, in the middle of bars or thereabouts, cross bar lines, and stop and start again somewhere. It's very effective. I tried it once and it's difficult!

I saw a perfect example the other week and I can't find it now.

It is very interesting... and I partly agree with Hep - it is breath, but not only physical.. it is breath as a feel of time...

In bop there are like a few different harmonic rythms going on simultaneously (and also pure drum rythm too taht can be on its own pattern)... and this sundden effect may come form teh point that as listner you might follow one harmonic rythm and the soloist follows his own...

I would say these are usually different breaths that overlap. But they come together at some pointsOften
one is sparse another is dense
One is regular, another is irregualar
Etc.

It could be one of the reason why bop is fast being actually extremly slow...

[christianm77]

The main characteristic, for me, is how the rhythm section started to play in bebop. In general the feel of rhythm became looser. The rhythm was implied by all, and not define by anyone. In swing era or before jazz sounded tighter, which was limiting for soloists, but suited listeners and dancers just fine.

Im not saying bebopers couldnt groove, but listening to some live recordings it does sound hit and miss sometimes. When you try to stretch time so much... For me hard bop fixed it, kinda...

But if you start you jazz trip with bebop, it obviously hard to play earlier styles, if all you did played with bebop rhythm section- you had to develop a looser feel. Playing swing guitar is opposite of that.

Anything else, like harmony, sound, are secondary in this distinction. Losing a vibrato wasnt a good change though, for my taste. I take Art Pepper, as an exception, sound over Bird any day.

I think that's it. It's a very subjective thing, but the main thing that changes for me between playing a swing and modern gig is the feeling of the time. There's a nerdy scientific aspect to this, but that's basically it. Phrasing, swing, that type of thing.

It's very hard for me to play boppy with a swing rhythm section and swing style with a bop section. Even when I'm taking a solo with a trio in a swing setting, my phrasing and rhythmic feel will be different - and in a swing setting I'll be trying to imply that rhythm guitar even when it's not there (quite a challenge on up tunes lol.)

It's also quite funny the extent to which some musicians DO NOT GET IT. I think they perhaps haven't listened at all to the earlier music.... And the difference between the way Rhythm sections played in 1941 compared to 1950.... Well... Even on the Minton's tapes, it's a world of difference. So the rhythm section thing is absolutely key.

Anyway here's a old blog that lays it out pretty clear, including the distinctions between pre war styles and post war revivals of the same thing:
My Jazz Can Beat Up Your Jazz: What's the Difference Between Hot Jazz, Trad jazz, New Orleans Jazz, and 1920's Jazz?

(BTW Barry Harris would strongly object to the comments on Bop and dance... I'll just note that there's a bit more to real jazz history than the Ken Burns narrative, and move on.)

Thing is this guy (like Jonathan) goes into WAY more detail than most people playing 'swing' music that I know (and bear in mind a played in a touring swing dance band for about 5 years that toured most of the major European Lindy festivals) most of whom play generically, and inaccurately from an historical point of view. These guys are true devotees.

One of the frustrating things and why I have moved on from this is JUST for instance finding drummers who are willing to play in historical style is all but impossible (but when it happens, it's amazing the extent to which the band suddenly works perfectly well balance wise with acoustic archtop rhythm guitar.... anyway another thread in there.)

My band the Hot Club of Jupiter, as the name suggests, is very much a postmodern take, and I'm comfortable with that, even prefer it these days. We even play dance gigs from time to time....

[ragman1]

Never played a horn instrument?

I started on trumpet but I suspect most of the tunes were neatly arranged :-)

You run out of breath you will stop whenever

Whenever? Even if you do run out of breath (bad breathing organisation) it's still a feat to know exactly where you after you've breathed in again.

In any case, a lot of the phrases are far too short for the player to run out of breath. It's deliberate syncopated phrasing.

(I'm not talking learners, I'm talking well-known jazz players at reasonable tempos who know exactly what they're doing!)

[Hep To The Jive]

I think that's it. It's a very subjective thing, but the main thing that changes for me between playing a swing and modern gig is the feeling of the time. There's a nerdy scientific aspect to this, but that's basically it. Phrasing, swing, that type of thing.

It's very hard for me to play boppy with a swing rhythm section and swing style with a bop section. Even when I'm taking a solo with a trio in a swing setting, my phrasing and rhythmic feel will be different - and in a swing setting I'll be trying to imply that rhythm guitar even when it's not there (quite a challenge on up tunes lol.)

It's also quite funny the extent to which some musicians DO NOT GET IT. I think they perhaps haven't listened at all to the earlier music.... And the difference between the way Rhythm sections played in 1941 compared to 1950.... Well... Even on the Minton's tapes, it's a world of difference. So the rhythm section thing is absolutely key.

Anyway here's a old blog that lays it out pretty clear, including the distinctions between pre war styles and post war revivals of the same thing:
My Jazz Can Beat Up Your Jazz: What's the Difference Between Hot Jazz, Trad jazz, New Orleans Jazz, and 1920's Jazz?

(BTW Barry Harris would strongly object to the comments on Bop and dance... I'll just note that there's a bit more to real jazz history than the Ken Burns narrative, and move on.)

Thing is this guy (like Jonathan) goes into WAY more detail than most people playing 'swing' music that I know (and bear in mind a played in a touring swing dance band for about 5 years that toured most of the major European Lindy festivals) most of whom play generically, and inaccurately from an historical point of view. These guys are true devotees.

One of the frustrating things and why I have moved on from this is JUST for instance finding drummers who are willing to play in historical style is all but impossible (but when it happens, it's amazing the extent to which the band suddenly works perfectly well balance wise with acoustic archtop rhythm guitar.... anyway another thread in there.)

My band the Hot Club of Jupiter, as the name suggests, is very much a postmodern take, and I'm comfortable with that, even prefer it these days. We even play dance gigs from time to time....

The bebop way and approach is what held me back from playing jazz for years.

When I was in college, there were all those young and super talented players (very successful now in Russia, and some beyond), I quickly discovered I don't have much talent for keeping up with this liquid feel rhythm sections that always tried to take it to the next level of chaos (or so it seemed). Bird was a god, indisputable, some loved fusion, some straight ahead, and Louis Armstrong was something people mentioned only briefly in passing, no one seriously wanted to play or teach that stuff neither.

Fast-forward many years ahead, I've been in NY for a while, played in all those rock funk reggae punk whatever bands, until a day friend of mine told me there is Gypsy jazz jam session somewhere in Brooklyn, all acoustic, I got curious. So I went, and from there I figured, wait a sec, they all play that nice steady fat meat & potatoes rhythm you can tap or dance too... This is FUN, and this is jazz, I can relate to it! All other early jazz music was even more fun, swing, NOLA as I discover...

I'm actually not afraid of bebop and modern jazz anymore, I can hang- after all early beboppers were ex swing players, it's a great foundation. But it's not exactly my bag, and I'm cool with that.

That GC guy, nice blog, but I have to say if there is a perfect example of museum jazz, that would be it. I see him as a good scholar. Myself, I like music to be alive and fresh somehow, even if you do retro, but whatever, it is what it is. From what I know, the guy doesn't leave the house to go buy groceries without dressed up like it's 1935. Dedication!

[Toddep]

“The disgusting characteristics of bebop” ????