Hal's gonna be here soon.....you want me to say hello? I met him with Phil. That was a great band.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Double Bass What did Charlie Parker do?
- Thread starter monroe55
- Start date
Been going nuts...struggling. Ah, music.
Sure, say hello. I keep in touch with email every once in a while. He had a profound influence on me.
I remember my teacher telling back in Brazil in the early 80's "...when you listen to Charlie Parker, you realize that all twelve notes are good!" 
I think it is best to think of the chord extensions and chromatics separately. On one hand they work together to create what was stylistically bebop but the chromatics are just a way of ornamenting a line. The attached page from Paul Klee's pedogogical sketchbook lays it out better than any jazz book I have ever seen.
The idea to solo on chord extentions is a separate idea that is equally important.
The ear, the mind and the body are all important to music making. The very most passionate example of musical engagement was a lecture/demo I saw Jim Tenney give on John Cage's sonatas and interludes for prepared piano. He was so in love with that music he studied it for decades and found all these interesting things in it.
Discounting the intelect is a huge mistake.
The idea to solo on chord extentions is a separate idea that is equally important.
The ear, the mind and the body are all important to music making. The very most passionate example of musical engagement was a lecture/demo I saw Jim Tenney give on John Cage's sonatas and interludes for prepared piano. He was so in love with that music he studied it for decades and found all these interesting things in it.
Discounting the intelect is a huge mistake.
Attachments
Yeah screw all these verbalizations and analyzations. Just get out your sketch pad and draw. Might as well. Thank you Damon. As usual, you cleared everything up for me. All kidding aside. I remember seeing quite a few charts at C.C.N.Y. in Gil Evans book where he wrote a rhythmic figure and barely notated the line. When asked if it was a mistake he said, "just have them play the shape with that figure, don't worry about the notes" (there was a penciled in "dorian" below it). With that he continued with an explanation about density in sound. I was thoroughly confused but eventually I got it. I know this is OT, so sorry to yall, everybody can get back to the heavy stuff now.
Hey, Man, I am just making the point that like the Dude's car and the Dude's rug, the chromatics and the chord extensions are "separate incidents".
That can make it really confusing at first. you get sort of an "inner line" or the other idea of "target notes" and the chromatics are used to either ornament or move between - further obscuring what is happening.
That is really what leads to the impression something "outside" the harmonic structure is happening where as PW states it is "inside".
BTW, the Klee drawings are just a good metaphor for ornamenting a line, as opposed to any harmonic concepts.
It should also be stated that lines can obviously be ornamented with intervals other than halfsteps - one example could be David Holland's beautiful lines using minor thirds running up and down the neck.
That can make it really confusing at first. you get sort of an "inner line" or the other idea of "target notes" and the chromatics are used to either ornament or move between - further obscuring what is happening.
That is really what leads to the impression something "outside" the harmonic structure is happening where as PW states it is "inside".
BTW, the Klee drawings are just a good metaphor for ornamenting a line, as opposed to any harmonic concepts.
It should also be stated that lines can obviously be ornamented with intervals other than halfsteps - one example could be David Holland's beautiful lines using minor thirds running up and down the neck.
Your preaching to the choir Damon. I'm with you. I just didn't have the balls to go there. Thanks. CC
I have two offers to write a book...(I really do...not about music specifically).
After reading, not this thread specifically; and specifically,not anyone in this thread specifically...I am thinking about writing a book with this title: "How to make something relatively simple really complicated".
Wha'choo guys think?
After reading, not this thread specifically; and specifically,not anyone in this thread specifically...I am thinking about writing a book with this title: "How to make something relatively simple really complicated".
Wha'choo guys think?
Yeah. You could call it "The Warburton Technique". A cure all for all that ails you. When your down and out and everything seems real simple, just get out your computer and try to google everything that ever was, and by golly.....there it is, you've figured out the world and how it works. And now, your totally confused. You could use the "Klee drawings" on the cover.
I've got two musician friends, composers. Both o fhtem are into this "contempo" or "avant gard" or whatever you want to call it. The difference between the two of them is that when I listen to the compositions of the first it sounds... I don't know how to put it... fake or forced. It sounds like he's trying to sound some way. Then I listen to the second, it sounds... well... as "weird" as his compositions may be, it sounds natural, like it's his "mother language".
I only set this example because I keep hearing these players, these "new boppers" trying to sound like this or that. all trying to be Charlie Parker and it all sounds fake. Everytime I listen to them, I listen how they're trying SO HARD to land every note right where Bird would have played it.
When I listen to Charlie Parker I can feel him. The guy was blowing his f... lungs out everytime he played. He wasn't trying to sound like anyone else, he wasn't thinking about b9, b13 or anything, he was just telling you how he was feeling. He wasn't worried about creating a new way of playing "jazz", he was playing "jazz" the only way he knew/could.
I don't see that much of a difference between bebop and previous "jazz" it's just the vehicle of expression. some people feel differently than others, hence, they play different kinds of music.
I only set this example because I keep hearing these players, these "new boppers" trying to sound like this or that. all trying to be Charlie Parker and it all sounds fake. Everytime I listen to them, I listen how they're trying SO HARD to land every note right where Bird would have played it.
When I listen to Charlie Parker I can feel him. The guy was blowing his f... lungs out everytime he played. He wasn't trying to sound like anyone else, he wasn't thinking about b9, b13 or anything, he was just telling you how he was feeling. He wasn't worried about creating a new way of playing "jazz", he was playing "jazz" the only way he knew/could.
I don't see that much of a difference between bebop and previous "jazz" it's just the vehicle of expression. some people feel differently than others, hence, they play different kinds of music.
I get your point, BUT: Parker was a serious and curious musician. He figured out some important ideas that does most of us well to understand.
I agree that playing like him is a deadend, but the Bebop musicians were serous thinkers understood music at a very deep level.
I agree that playing like him is a deadend, but the Bebop musicians were serous thinkers understood music at a very deep level.
Bird, was what I like to call a Flow-er. The music just seemd to flow out of him according to the stories I've heard about him over the years. I think Diz was the one who did the most "thinking' in terms of trying to spread the word of this music to the masses AND the musicians.
Yeah, but he did seek out Varese and Stravinsky. My point is just that he did have an interesting in the intellectual side of muisc.
Point well taken, Damon.
My point....he did not transcribe those works.
Listening and showing interest in, as opposed to heavy analysis are separate issues, IMO.
My point....he did not transcribe those works.
Listening and showing interest in, as opposed to heavy analysis are separate issues, IMO.
IMHO, don't start with BeBop. There's a lot of noise and unless you're well acquainted with the ideas it's hard to make anything of it (just like this thread).
My advice is to go and listen to Kind of Blue, Blue Trane, and Somethin' Else. If you get that, great; it's a perfect place to start. If not, maybe jazz isn't for you. I'd look into a teacher as well.
My advice is to go and listen to Kind of Blue, Blue Trane, and Somethin' Else. If you get that, great; it's a perfect place to start. If not, maybe jazz isn't for you. I'd look into a teacher as well.
I agree with you, Damon. But it doesn't sound to me like they were thinking while they were playing. I asume they got home, listened to some music, made some (a lot of) thinking, figured out what they liked, UNDERSTOOD it, took it to the shed, and then, after really KNOWING it, went out and played it. It came as easy to them as saying "be-bop".
BTW
I liked the drawings, very meaningful. A teacher of mine once told us a story...
He once wrote an arrangement and had the sax play this really loooong glissando downwards but it didn't sound like he had pictured in his head, it was a little bit too "clear". So he went to the sax player and told him to forget the chart and the notes and just play "BIIIRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRIA". Next time, the glissando was just perfect.
BTW
I liked the drawings, very meaningful. A teacher of mine once told us a story...
He once wrote an arrangement and had the sax play this really loooong glissando downwards but it didn't sound like he had pictured in his head, it was a little bit too "clear". So he went to the sax player and told him to forget the chart and the notes and just play "BIIIRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRIA". Next time, the glissando was just perfect.
Ya know, am I having de ja vue? Dint I already say this same kinda thing or was I just wasting my time?
EDIT: It would be very cool if you're involved in a conversation on an Internet forum like this is, to go back and check what others have said before you make a post. No? Nothing personal and all that crap, but this is essentially like starting over again.
It's like... cosmic, man! We're like totally in tune with each other, right? . . .
Ha!
Sorry Paulie, I'll be careful with my reading next/some time.
Ha!
Sorry Paulie, I'll be careful with my reading next/some time.
No biggie at all, man. Just that when you're in a conversation in real life with somebody, you tend to feed off of one another and then to focus on what the person before you said so that you might add something new to the exchange. That way, IMO, the flow keeps moving on to new ideas that may be valuable to the next person who has something to say.
Kind of like Jazz in a nut shell..
Kind of like Jazz in a nut shell..
