• 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?

#102
Don Higdon said:
Correct. What upset the jazz establishment was the amount of chromaticism in Bird's playing. I'm one of those old guys who "was on the scene at the time". So is your apparent nemisis, Paul W. Speaking for myself, it can be very frustrating to have stuff presented to us as fact when we were there and know from experience what was what.
Click to expand...

I can assure you, I meant no frustration. I sure do appreciate the input of experienced players and listeners. The point I was making in regards to the whole 'playing outside' argument, was that he did, not 'out' in terms of harmony, but in terms of what was accepted before bop was a norm. The use of chord extensions must have been quite novel. I'm sure it's only since the heavy use of 7ths in jazz that 7ths have no longer been considered dissonant. This is all in my lack of experience. I am not incredibly up to the play with my theory, but I am an avid listener.
 
#104
Shakin-Slim said:
I'm sure it's only since the heavy use of 7ths in jazz that 7ths have no longer been considered dissonant.
Click to expand...
In that vein, my wife works for what's considered an upscale department store. About half of the music played in the store is jazz from the bop era and forward (at a sensible volume level). I've heard Horace Silver, Freddie Hubbard, Harold Land, etc.
 
#106
slim- Outside is a relative term. Somebody is always gonna move the fence posts. I've been playing bass for over 53 years now, and I see those posts get moved further "out" every year.

Check out a solo book by Clifford Brown. You may have to work to find a concert key version of it (I have it in Bb) but I love his ideas.... Especially "Joy Spring"
 
#107
Don Higdon said:
Sorry, Eric, I can't buy this. In my studies of harmonic theory with composer Ron Nelson we were thoroughly grounded in the Bach theory as a starting point. One of our work books was every chorale he ever wrote. There was nothing like bop anywhere. In addition, I've sung some of his major works with orchestra and chorus. Same deal. His contemporary Antonio Vivaldi was more adventurous harmonically. One of his Glorias has an entire movement based on 7ths with 11ths and flat 9s.
I will say that one of Bach's famous flute pieces has been played over a jazz rhythm section and parts of it are rhythmically very hip. I think the Swingle Singers did a recording of it.
Click to expand...
I agree with Don, there is certainly no relation to Bach in Bird's compositions harmonically and melodically, IMO there is a correlation harmonically to American standards which were the platform for some of his best work. Bach's compositions for organ illustrate a very sophisticated use of diatonic and non diatonic harmony. The same principles of modal interchange and borrowing systems are apparent in the system of analysis and composition of Schillinger, who composers such as Gershwin used as a model. Maybe that's what Eric's teacher is referring to.
 
#108
Paul Warburton said:
Pure BS. (nothing personal).

They, nor any players of the Be Bop era, ever....never, got out of the structure. (unless they got lost). You show me one instance....a clip....whatever.
Misinformation at it's worst.
Click to expand...

A couple of really negative, snarky comments from this poster. What's up with that? You're right but, man, isn't there a nicer way of putting it?

I have been studying and playing jazz in NYC for years and I find that I run into two kinds of jazz musicians: The ones who are kind, humble, patient and willing to help newbies into jazz, which is a complex and difficult language to master. Then there's a second category of people who think that their "superior" knowledge makes them, well...superior. Thus the reputation of the "jazz snob" is perpetuated and grows. When we, as jazz musicians, adopt the latter stance we then forfeit the right to wonder why jazz is a dying art. Why can't we welcome the curious and be a little kinder in educating those who don't understand the the theory?

You may well indeed know the theory better than other posters. However, you might want to work on your phrasing.
 
#111
Paul Warburton said:
shwashwa make the most important point in his post, IMO, to answer the OP's question....it did not happen in a vacuum. I've read chapters in books, one in particular, that literally makes it sound like Bird went into the shed one day....the light came on over his head and he came out in bit loaded up with Be-Bop.....all neatly packaged up for the world to enjoy. This took years of listening and playing with many players that came before him, including the classics.
For instance, Jimmy Dorsey's playing had a huge influence on his playing.
Look, do some simple research.....this ain't brain surgery here fellas. It's nothing but musical evolution......one player influencing another, and straight down the line and timing, in terms, of when it all happen played a part. This is NOT to take anything away from those two heavies that were and are the champs of this great music. I never knew or played with Bird, but I have spent short amounts of time with Dizzy, Red Rodney, Benny Carter and many more who were involved in that scene and I'm sure that they would agree with me that most people now are making a mountain out of a mole hill in difficulty degrees. This music to them, was about as difficult as you and I taking our next breath.....as it should be, IMO.
Click to expand...
This is not snobbery. This is the truth, told by a musician who is setting the record straight. He did say "(nothing personal)" and then "(unless they got lost)" . He also asked the poster to show an example. Yeah somebody's got to set the record straight with regard to jazz history. Non musicians Ken Burns, Bruce Weber and others have given so much misinformation with their documentaries, that young musicians need the facts. "Pure B.S.", PROBABLY IF IT CAME FROM THOSE TYPE SOURCES.
 
#113
I'm a little too lazy to find and show the quoted text, but I'd like to respond to the comments about how Parker was notable for emphasizing 7ths, 9ths, and 11ths. I don't know who started this "theory", but it gets repeated a lot, and I find it not to be true. Take the melody to any 10 standards, and you'll see that 7ths, 9ths, and 11ths are emphasized quite often. Aurally, it's less noticeable because most standards contain a diatonic melody over modulating chords, but still, an F# over C7 is still a #11, even if you ease into it (re: East of the Sun). Second, while Parker would arpeggiate up to the 11th in a single run, a lot of his melodic constructions emphasized the root, 3rd, 5th, and 7th. In fact, I was way more surprised to find the older Duke Ellington recordings using 9ths, b9ths, 11ths, etc.
I guess my point is that while it's easy to repeat information, a huge percentage of our questions can be answered by simply learning the songs. As in, learn the melody, learn the chord changes, and think about how they relate to each other. The same goes for actually learning to play Parker solos. While I don't think I've ever gotten any of them up to speed, after learning four or five, I started to get the picture.
 
#114
#116
I guess my point is that while it's easy to repeat information, a huge percentage of our questions can be answered by simply learning the songs.
Click to expand...

Are you actually suggesting, on an internet forum, that folks should acquaint themselves with the source material? You mean, like, in the REAL world? Heresy!:)

The same goes for actually learning to play Parker solos. While I don't think I've ever gotten any of them up to speed
Click to expand...

I can barely play the heads at half speed! Oh well, time to tear myself away from the keyboard and take another stab at "Confirmation"- what a great tune!

Oh yeah- I just remembered another cool thing about Parker's playing- some of his solos (including the one on the tune I just mentioned) have a very "cut and paste" (wrong words, I know) quality to them; that is, he'll drop in a one bar phrase that a million other players would use at the end of a solo for a resolution- at the beginning! Nobody played "over the lines" like he did. He obviously had a very playful side and really likes to keep the listener guessing (and the imitators/students practicing!)
 
#118
The reason it's difficult to ask a question like "What did Charlie Parker do?" and get a great answer is because the idea of these historical individuals as islands of genius makes for great storytelling and iconography, but the truth requires so much more devotion and research to uncover. Here's a few more ideas to begin:

1) Barry Harris grew up with Charlie Parker all of those guys, and he's still alive and still teaching a very specific language. He's an incredible cultural resource to have. Find his YouTube videos or anything else you can get to learn more about that generation's contribution to our sense of rhythm and harmony.

2) Ethan Iverson (of Bad Plus fame) has a wonderful blog that includes beautiful interviews and great articles. In particular, he had a Lester Young listening party with Lee Konitz in which Lee sings along with all of these pre-1941 Lester solos. Ethan transcribed the solos and included the sheet music (for the readers among us) and the recordings.

link: Invalid Link Removed

Lester was a huge influence on Bird and many other saxophone players. Lee even mentions a Bird solo on tenor when he directly quotes Lester's solo on the same song. If you listened to all Lester Young for a week and then at the end of the week put on some Charlie Parker, I think the influence and development would be very clear to your ears.

3) the music of Bird's peers. I have had the privilege of studying and playing music with Billy Hart, who always says "Dizzy and Monk were the architects, they wrote the language. Charlie Parker provided the phrasing." The tunes of Dizzy and Monk literally spell out the art of bebop in their chords and melodies. This music is sophisticated and joyful and funny and brilliant. Listen to it! Explore it!

Also, let's not forget to mention Oscar Pettiford and Percy Heath and Charles Mingus and so many other great bassists who contributed in their playing and their writing and ideas.

Enjoy!
 
#119
shwashwa said:
more chromatics, more upper extensions on the chords in the solo line (among other things that people will point out im sure) substitue cords on chords (tritone substitution was popular at this time although was used previously too). previously they kept mostly to the lower parts of the harmony. at this time jazz went from being a "dance" (big bands) music to more of a "listening" music. you might make an arguement for more complex rhythmic ideas in the bebop solos too, but this didnt happen in a vaccuume. parker didnt just change things overnight by himself. guys were leading up to this. check out coleman hawkins and lester young. you can hear the beginnings of some of these ideas in their playing. dizzy supposedly arrived at many of the same conclusions before he met parker. also get a copy of the charlie parker omnibook. you'll see what im saying.
Click to expand...

^This.

Put simply, the earlier guys were more blues based whereas Bird played more chromaticism and added ninths and flat 5ths, played a broader register, and yes, faster. And less vibrato. And the rhythms were looser. Start with that.


And yes, the movie BIRD, sucked. Slow, boring and I think they forgot to turn the lights on in most of the scenes.

And yeah,
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back