• New!

    Try our new Social Feeds, look out for the navigation icon: . You can now set default social feed view in your account preferences.

Great Players Making sense of Parker and bebop...

In any art form, people have preferences and favourites, as is only to be expected.
bird.webp


But sometimes it happens that a whole genre - or a particular practitioner - doesn't strike a chord, is totally incomprehensible and leaves you cold - and yet others think that it, he or she is marvelous.

Assuming that these others are not merely intellectual snobs or fashionable poseurs, one starts to wonder why. It becomes an "Am I missing something?" moment... and what if that which one is missing is a revelation, leading to a widening of artistic horizons, appreciation and enjoyment? The thought starts to nag...

This happened to me with Bird - Charlie Parker, one of tragic geniuses of jazz... and to many, the daddy of them all...

It happened a long time ago and was spread over a few days, but is a vivid memory, producing a great leap in my ability to listen to and to follow fresh musical ideas... and to enjoy it - furiously and avidly.

If you haven't yet got to grips with Charlie Parker and his music sounds to you like lots of notes pouring out without rhyme or reason - and if you wonder what people see in him or in bebop - reading what happened to me might produce a lightbulb moment for you, too...

It came about like this: over a couple of years in my early teens I had listened to British skiffle and trad jazz, got into blues, New Orleans, Dixieland, and Chicago jazz, through to Basie and Ellington,too, but on the whole favouring small bands rather than big bands and swing.

I soon started learning clarinet and alto. Some more accomplished friends with whom I used to try to jam with were into bebop, which I didn't "get" at all for a while. It was just strings of notes, played fast.... eventually and by luck, one needed somewhere to park some 78s and EPs and LPs - this is ancient history, man... not just vinyl, but shellac as well... if you didn't like a 78 disk - or it got scratched - some boiling water, some nifty pushing and pulling and you had a plant pot.. complete with a drain hole...

I looked through this borrowed hoard and tried listening to Parker's "Merry Go Round" a few times. I couldn't hear melody. It sounded just like fast noodling for the sake of it - showing off. I didn't get it at all. It didn't make sense to me.

I wasn't alone. Some jazz critics - referred to by beboppers as 'moldy figs' - regularly excoriated this new music and those who played it, and even denied that it was music at all, and certainly not jazz... there were still a few of these sounding off in the 60s, and their earlier critiques were still available... masterpieces of prejudice and willful ignorance, the products of closed minds...

I think it was a few days later I tried "Embraceable You". I played it again. And again. Gradually light dawned. After a few more plays I was hooked - I could follow his lines, his voice leading, his musical ideas. I then went back to "Merry Go Round" and - gradually - more light dawned. It was an awful lot faster, but now that I had a clue as to how to listen and what to listen for so I could hear and follow what he was doing. I listened again and again, and each time I heard more. It needed a quick ear - and an alert mind. It was challenging - but incredibly intriguing because of that.

What I realised - now I had learned to listen - was that two things were radically different from the older jazz.

One was that the notes Parker used in his his breaks, his phrases and his melodic lines were more 'adventurous' than in earlier jazz - he was, I learned from my bebop friends, using intervals that earlier improvisers did not, his music was more 'advanced'... but - having learned to listen, having started to attune my ear to this radically different style of music - it was intensely and amazingly musical and melodic, which before I had not been able to hear. My mind had not taken it on board. This was a remarkable realisation.

The second thing was his timing - far, far less predictable than earlier players, much more sophisticated, and yet swinging like mad... much of earlier jazz was to accompany dancing, so a steady beat and a reasonably predictable background was the norm - this new jazz was not for that at all, but for listeners... and listeners with a quick ear, who were wide awake....

Part of what Parker was doing, I realised, was playing the sort of sweeping arpeggios and scalar runs that technically brilliant pianists like Art Tatum, Fats Waller and classical pianists played, but which horn players had not before achieved - certainly not with his sophistication, breathtaking timing and melodic inventiveness.

One older saxophonist commented to Parker: "Kid, that horn ain't meant to sound that fast!"

That raises what was actually a third element at play. Black musicians felt - often with considerable justification - that music which they created was being copied by white musicians who had more and easier channels to commercial success open to them, merely due to not being black. This was America in the 1940s and 1950s, remember. So a new genre of music - often impossibly fast, with difficult rhythmic and harmonic complexity and sophistication - came into being, due to the prevailing political, economic and racial situation...

The next Parker tune I explored, I think, was "Ko Ko"... and so it went on... I could not get enough...

Actually it is a big jump between the "Embraceable You" and "Merry Go Round", if only due to speed of delivery of MGR. The dramatic and magnificent "Parker's Mood", and "Cool Blues", "KC Blues" "A Night in Tunisia" - with the breathtaking.' famous alto break' - would perhaps be better stepping stones to discover Parker.

If you - as I did - find Parker too overpowering, if you can't hear melody and just hear streams of notes, listening to his lyrical ballads and some of the slower blues numbers that I mentioned may give you a 'light bulb moment', too... here they are:

embraceable you

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srMZYVW0T4c

parker's mood

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pVxWdnInWY

cool blues

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ubmw5jvRvZU

kc blues

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2EEUbIroMs

a night in tunisia

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du_N4M7f5KM

merry go round

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okrNwE6GI70

ko ko

Peer preference and peer opinion encouraged me to listen to Parker all those years ago. It took a bit of time and the right tune to make the penny drop. Different things, different experiences trigger different responses and realisations...

If you already appreciate Parker it may be that how you arrived at that might help someone else to make that jump from puzzlement, or even dislike, to the opposite pole of realisation and digging his music like mad... if so, please share...

If your lightbulb moments was about another musician it would be best to start a separate thread... then people can zero in more easily on what they might feel that they are missing out on... a thread on Coltrane would be good...
 
A lot of jazzers at the time and probably still now, thought it was not the thing to do
( record with Strings) CP with Strings. One of my fav rec. I think it would be a great pity if he listened to the purists.
I have listened to several tracks and I am not keen.

The schmaltzy strings keep giving me visual images of male and female leads mopping, mowing and grimacing horribly at each other, supported by the rest of the cast gesturing and overacting outrageously in front of a backdrop which they are all about to turn around and see - with obviously faked surprise.

I can't stand musicals.

Also it sounds as if Parker is in a musical straitjacket.

EDIT: I'll make an exception to my dislike of musicals in the case of three films: The Jungle Book, The Blues Brothers, and Bugsy Malone... and anything by the Muppets....
 
Last edited:
I have listened to several tracks and I am not keen.

The schmaltzy strings keep giving me visual images of male and female leads mopping, mowing and grimacing horribly at each other, supported by the rest of the cast gesturing and overacting outrageously in front of a backdrop which they are all about to turn around and see - with obviously faked surprise.

I can't stand musicals.

Also it sounds as if Parker is in a musical straitjacket.

EDIT: I'll make an exception to my dislike of musicals in the case of three films: The Jungle Book, The Blues Brothers, and Bugsy Malone... and anything by the Muppets....
I'm thankful for musicals. Without them we would not have the great melodies of Jerome Kern ( I was playing ALL THE THINGS YOU ARE today), Rodgers and Hart, Lerner and Lowe, Frank Loesser and so on.

Also, almost all of the jazz greats of the era of CP played with strings: Coleman Hawkins, Clifford Brown, Stan Getz, etc?
 
This is a great thread.
Parker for me was a great player and got me into listening to bebop but at first was quite demanding to listen to but once you get into him you start to appreciate how melodic he actually was.
Strange thing for me was although i am almost exclusively a alto player most of my listening even now is to tenor players.
The closest player to Parker that have found that I've seen live a number of times is Peter King. i have a few of his CD's as well and he is well worth a listen to compare to Parker.
Thank you for posting this thread i have really enjoyed reading the responses.
 
Porgy and Bess, West Side Story.....

I'm thankful for musicals. Without them we would not have the great melodies of Jerome Kern ( I was playing ALL THE THINGS YOU ARE today), Rodgers and Hart, Lerner and Lowe, Frank Loesser and so on.

Also, almost all of the jazz greats of the era of CP played with strings: Coleman Hawkins, Clifford Brown, Stan Getz, etc?

I'm not knocking the melodies and the harmonies. I play a lot of that stuff, too. Where would we be without I got Rhythm? just to mention the most obvious example?

It is the schmaltzy way that they are presented in musicals - and the acting!

I can suspend reality as well as anyone in watching theatre - an essential requirement in the visual arts - but musicals stretch my participation in the illusion too far. The unreality is too unreal...

That statement may sound odd - I love the musical The Jungle Book (animals having conversations?!?) but the convention of anthropomorphism in fiction is a hallowed tradition and - like most people - I instinctively accept that the animals are caricaturing human activities and ways of thinking, which heightens the humour.

The kids' acting as adults in Bugsy Malone is a parallel type of caricature, plus the adaptations (pedal cars, guns firing custard or whatever it was - are very clever ideas, adding another level of suspended belief which the audience readily accepts - plus is makes it very funny. Also the kids' acting is a treat to watch

But adults overacting, with a flimsy and contrived story line which most musicals seem to have, totally fails for me.

I agree, a lot of the music is great. But not when performed by a typical showband playing a corny arrangement with schmaltzy strings (even if it was arranged that way by the composer because "...that is what the market (is assumed to) want..."). String sections - even with American orchestras - fail to swing convincingly. (Also, on a parallel theme, have you ever noticed how American military bands swing in a way British military bands don't? Isn't St Louis Blues the regimental march of the US Marines? - I think it was them I once heard...)

Songs from musicals are often great melodies and have interesting harmonic progressions which, when taken by jazz musicians and used as a vehicle for improvisation, become art music- instead of being performed as mere commercial light music.

Re strings - if you could get enough jazz violinists in one place and at one time to form a string section, and arrangements written by a jazz composer and arranger, and jazz with strings could work. As it is, a fraction of a second here and there and they fail to swing - and it doesn't work.

A handful of jazz greats trying to connect with new audiences by playing with rhythmically challenged string sections doesn't convince me otherwise. Fifty wouldn't.... I'm not a purist - but "...it don't mean a thing..." &c.
 
Last edited:
I still think West Side Story was a great musical, I saw the first London production. Chita Rivera was marvelous, the band swung like the clappers. Hard not to, Phil Seaman was the drummer.
I can understand distaste at Brigadoon and stuff of that ilk but "I cant stand musicals" is a rather sweeping statement bound to attract some opposition. Better to say you cant stand schmaltz.
Charlie Haden managed to recruit a decent string section for his American Dream album in which he was joined by Michael Brecker and Brian Blade.
 
I don't mind opposition. Being challenged and having to question one's ideas is good for the brain cells!

I'll check out West Side Story (which I have never seen, tho' I know Maria) and the American Dream album on youtube and see if they wring any concessions from my predispositions.

Thanks for the ideas!
 
I'm not knocking the melodies and the harmonies. I play a lot of that stuff, too. Where would we be without I got Rhythm? just to mention the most obvious example?

It is the schmaltzy way that they are presented in musicals - and the acting!

I can suspend reality as well as anyone in watching theatre - an essential requirement in the visual arts - but musicals stretch my participation in the illusion too far. The unreality is too unreal...

That statement may sound odd - I love the musical The Jungle Book (animals having conversations?!?) but the convention of anthropomorphism in fiction is a hallowed tradition and - like most people - I instinctively accept that the animals are caricaturing human activities and ways of thinking, which heightens the humour.

The kids' acting as adults in Bugsy Malone is a parallel type of caricature, plus the adaptations (pedal cars, guns firing custard or whatever it was - are very clever ideas, adding another level of suspended belief which the audience readily accepts - plus is makes it very funny. Also the kids' acting is a treat to watch

But adults overacting, with a flimsy and contrived story line which most musicals seem to have, totally fails for me.

I agree, a lot of the music is great. But not when performed by a typical showband playing a corny arrangement with schmaltzy strings (even if it was arranged that way by the composer because "...that is what the market (is assumed to) want..."). String sections - even with American orchestras - fail to swing convincingly. (Also, on a parallel theme, have you ever noticed how American military bands swing in a way British military bands don't? Isn't St Louis Blues the regimental march of the US Marines? - I think it was them I once heard...)

Songs from musicals are often great melodies and have interesting harmonic progressions which, when taken by jazz musicians and used as a vehicle for improvisation, become art music- instead of being performed as mere commercial light music.

Re strings - if you could get enough jazz violinists in one place and at one time to form a string section, and arrangements written by a jazz composer and arranger, and jazz with strings could work. As it is, a fraction of a second here and there and they fail to swing - and it doesn't work.

A handful of jazz greats trying to connect with new audiences by playing with rhythmically challenged string sections doesn't convince me otherwise. Fifty wouldn't.... I'm not a purist - but "...it don't mean a thing..." &c.

The June issue of JAZZ TIMES features an article entitled "Alto Essentials, The 50 Most Important Alto Saxophone Albums In Jazz History". In compiling the list, the magazine polled over 20 alto players and almost 20 critics. CHARLIE PARKER WITH STRINGS is number three on the list. The following players listed the album in there top five or so: David Sanborn, Phil Woods, Grace Kelly, Kenny Garrett, Steve Wilson.

One doesn't have to like the album or strings in jazz. I am glad there are some fine efforts that include strings, and a list of favorite albums in my collection of over 4000 albums would include the "with strings" ones by Charlie Parker, Sonny Stitt, and Clifford Brown.
 
forget the shmalz - I can only put up with a lot of those old tunes when geniuses like Charlie Parker Miles Davis play them, some of those tunes are only remembered because of the jazz versions.
If you want to hear Parker being brilliant, stick to listening to the original compositions he and his contemporaries wrote.
With Strings and South Of The Border aren't his greatest works and don't live up to Bird's ambitions. Plus the lack of a sympathetic band who can match Bird's genius holds him back on the Strings recordings and he got tired of gigging with the strings because of that.
The best Parker recordings are the live ones -
Rockland Palace - http://youtu.be/fVhjaDmqUsY
Montreal 1953 - http://youtu.be/dj6AZKjAFu8
The Washington Concerts - http://youtu.be/1vy5b2L0HTc
Live At Town Hall with Dizzy- http://youtu.be/n0PwxDtN22Y
Bird In Sweden - http://youtu.be/IGsNO5V3HGw
Live At The Trade Winds Club - http://youtu.be/wkRKQVFNJLk
Storyville - http://youtu.be/hkJ7EKTjQzI
live at the High Hat Boston - http://youtu.be/aVUq4R9WvH0
Bird At St Nicks - http://youtu.be/HmdRCut0X2Q
and the various radio broadcasts on Savoy etc.
Recording quality isn't always brilliant, it was early days in the development of tape recorders and a lot of these are amateur recordings that modern sonic archaelogists have cleaned up as best they can, but through the low fidelity you can hear the sax solos coming through in their natural environment...
ooooohhh.... I've not heard this one before with Lenny Tristano - http://youtu.be/zB7ad5sEp-8

it's easy with the benefit of 70 years of hindsight and the Omnibook and other resources to see a simple method in Bird's playing, it's quite another thing to improvise on that level and as well. Bird was one of the originoators of the methods now being taught in jazz text books and without him much of modern jazz would be quite different....
 
forget the shmalz - I can only put up with a lot of those old tunes when geniuses like Charlie Parker Miles Davis play them, some of those tunes are only remembered because of the jazz versions.
If you want to hear Parker being brilliant, stick to listening to the original compositions he and his contemporaries wrote.
With Strings and South Of The Border aren't his greatest works and don't live up to Bird's ambitions. Plus the lack of a sympathetic band who can match Bird's genius holds him back on the Strings recordings and he got tired of gigging with the strings because of that.
The best Parker recordings are the live ones -
Rockland Palace - http://youtu.be/fVhjaDmqUsY
Montreal 1953 - http://youtu.be/dj6AZKjAFu8
The Washington Concerts - http://youtu.be/1vy5b2L0HTc
Live At Town Hall with Dizzy- http://youtu.be/n0PwxDtN22Y
Bird In Sweden - http://youtu.be/IGsNO5V3HGw
Live At The Trade Winds Club - http://youtu.be/wkRKQVFNJLk
Storyville - http://youtu.be/hkJ7EKTjQzI
live at the High Hat Boston - http://youtu.be/aVUq4R9WvH0
Bird At St Nicks - http://youtu.be/HmdRCut0X2Q
and the various radio broadcasts on Savoy etc.
Recording quality isn't always brilliant, it was early days in the development of tape recorders and a lot of these are amateur recordings that modern sonic archaelogists have cleaned up as best they can, but through the low fidelity you can hear the sax solos coming through in their natural environment...
ooooohhh.... I've not heard this one before with Lenny Tristano - http://youtu.be/zB7ad5sEp-8

it's easy with the benefit of 70 years of hindsight and the Omnibook and other resources to see a simple method in Bird's playing, it's quite another thing to improvise on that level and as well. Bird was one of the originoators of the methods now being taught in jazz text books and without him much of modern jazz would be quite different....
I quite agree with you. My point is that his "system" isn't magical or mysterious, but he got there first and is a true original. I love his playing, love the live recordings, and never tire of him. I don't think he sounds like he is playing in a harness. His strings album does shoe what can be done with pop tunes like "just Friends, and shouldn't be just dismissed.
 
the "system" may not be magical, but the way Parker uses it certainly is.. 🙂

jazz musicians of that era played popular tunes of the day and as a result those tunes have been kept alive longer than may have been natural - who'd care about 'Surrey With The Fringe On Top' if Miles Davis hadn't done a version (it's been suggested that Miles' choice of tunes was influenced by Ahmad Jamal's recordings of them, he was a big fan of Jamal's work) 'Begin The Beguine' may have been forgotten if it hadn't been for Artie Shaw.
I can never understand why the 'great american song book' doesn't include the works of Goffin and King, Paul Simon, Bob Dylan, Robert Johnson, Holland-Dozier-Holland, Norman Whitfield etc etc and seems to glorify a lot of old show tunes from the first half of the 19th century and ignore the many great works from the latter half. Why on earth is 'My Funny Valentine' included,but 'Papa's Got A Brand New Bag' excluded?
I'd much rather listen to modern jazz bands play versions of popular tunes of our era than keep churning over the past, but there are few examples of anyone keeping up to date - The Bad Plus are the only outfit I can think of that regularly include modern popular songs in their repotoire.
I've wandered off at a tangent, but I think that if Bird had lived longer he'd not have just continued playing 'standards' and would have done different and interesting things, there are indications that he'd done all he could with the 32 bar format and was looking for a new direction
 
the "system" may not be magical, but the way Parker uses it certainly is.. 🙂

jazz musicians of that era played popular tunes of the day and as a result those tunes have been kept alive longer than may have been natural - who'd care about 'Surrey With The Fringe On Top' if Miles Davis hadn't done a version (it's been suggested that Miles' choice of tunes was influenced by Ahmad Jamal's recordings of them, he was a big fan of Jamal's work) 'Begin The Beguine' may have been forgotten if it hadn't been for Artie Shaw.
I can never understand why the 'great american song book' doesn't include the works of Goffin and King, Paul Simon, Bob Dylan, Robert Johnson, Holland-Dozier-Holland, Norman Whitfield etc etc and seems to glorify a lot of old show tunes from the first half of the 19th century and ignore the many great works from the latter half. Why on earth is 'My Funny Valentine' included,but 'Papa's Got A Brand New Bag' excluded?
I'd much rather listen to modern jazz bands play versions of popular tunes of our era than keep churning over the past, but there are few examples of anyone keeping up to date - The Bad Plus are the only outfit I can think of that regularly include modern popular songs in their repotoire.
I've wandered off at a tangent, but I think that if Bird had lived longer he'd not have just continued playing 'standards' and would have done different and interesting things, there are indications that he'd done all he could with the 32 bar format and was looking for a new direction
Excellent points. I confess that I am not very knowledgeable about the pop charts currently. What I hear seems lightweight in terms of harmonic interest. Sometimes tunes show up on jazz albums that I like. Two ballads to that point are "one Day I'll Fly Away", recorded by Ernie Watts, and a Michael Jackson song, "She's Out Of My Life" recorded by Eric Alexander.

I don't know if there really is a "Great American Songbook" that defines "great". Perhaps we each have an idea of what is a great song. I would include "Along Came Betty" , "Stablemates", "Whisper Not", "With You It Was So Beautiful", "Nuages", "Dolphin Dance", "Soul Eyes", etc. Most wouldn't qualify as popular songs. "Park Avenue Petite" isn't known to most jazz musicians, but I have played often, and it always elicits surprise that such a lovely AABA song exists and is obscure. I think there are many such songs.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts about repertoire. I find the subject fascinating. Currently, I'm trying to find a lead sheet for "My Girl Is Just Enough Woman For Me" from a show called "Redhead", recorded by Stanley Turrentine. Really nice blowing tune.
 
Excellent points. I confess that I am not very knowledgeable about the pop charts currently. What I hear seems lightweight in terms of harmonic interest. Sometimes tunes show up on jazz albums that I like. Two ballads to that point are "one Day I'll Fly Away", recorded by Ernie Watts, and a Michael Jackson song, "She's Out Of My Life" recorded by Eric Alexander..
that's the kind of thing I mean... Given that a lot of paying jazz gigs are wine bar and wedding gigs, it'd make more sense to play some modern ballads and tunes people will recognise than stuff written back when their grandparents got married. I wouldn't want 'Love For Sale' played at my wedding... I've just read the lyrics, it really is about prostitution... sounds nice when Miles plays it, but not really me...
 
Please note everyone: using the new forum articles feature I have converted this thread to an article.

This means the first post appears in the article list on the home page, this thread is then linked off of that.

You can add reviews to the article.
 
A Question for the more learned Parker afficianados - I seem to remember reading somewhere that Charlie never used Altissimo, question mark. Would be interesting to know if this is so. gruss - spike
 
A Question for the more learned Parker afficianados - I seem to remember reading somewhere that Charlie never used Altissimo, question mark. Would be interesting to know if this is so. gruss - spike
I know of only one instance, it is an A. I can't remember which tune though.
 
Thanks Pete - I presume you mean Concert A - aka F# on Alto which would mean he played the majority of his solos within a maximum two and a half octave range - I just did a "quick blick" through the CP Omnibook but couldn't find any dots above Concert G# - aka F on Alto (upper octave). Whereby he rarely went as low as Concert Eb - aka C on Alto (lower octave). When I think about it it's quite amazing that in the majority of his solos he played within a range of two octaves - at the very most. Amy Zing to say the least. gruss - spike
 
Taming The Saxophone

Our other wonderful saxophone site where you can find loads of information about saxophones, saxophone playing (and players), accessories, mouthpieces, tone exercises, fingering exercises, jazz, rock & blues improvisation and lots more.

NB: CafeSaxophone articles are here


Trending

Latest Song of the Month

Forum statistics

Topics
32,240
Messages
575,244
Members
8,070
Latest member
Soybean
Back
Top Bottom