Bird Lives!

[Joseph K]

Charlie Parker would have been 100 on saturday. What are your favourite Charlie Parker recordings? How did you discover Bird?

I remember it being quite a thing when Bird clicked with me, around the time I graduated in 2010 and most of what I'd been listening to was fusion or jazz based on one or two chord vamps (not exclusively though). Around the time I bought the 'Boss Bird' boxed set and listened to the second CD mostly, I have fond memories of smoking outside in the garden at night and the music being something of a revelation to me. The second CD starts off with 'Donna Lee' and this was the period a few months after which he'd left Camarillo State Hospital and Miles Davis had joined his band - Bud Powell is also present on the first four tunes of this CD (Donna Lee, Chasin the Bird, Cheryl and Buzzy) and while it's a shame he's not on more, the tunes that follow feature such surpassingly exquisite playing from Bird and Miles and catchily-composed heads, that one can forgive Duke Jordan that he's not Bud.
So, I loved the sweet tone, which always manages to be sweet whether it's the bitter-sweet of Dewey Square (which again, is sublime) or the outright ebullient sweetness of Dexterity. Also the sense of swing, and Bird always swings powerfully and there is limitless joy communicated in the lyricism of his playing. If this all sounds too heavy, well it's a fault of my communication, because this music isn't heavy, it's quite quirky and often humorous with each recorded tune lasting roughly three minutes... Nevertheless on ballads like Bird of Paradise and Embraceable You things arguably reach an acme of profundity and inspiration, and I say this as someone who generally prefers the more up tempo numbers...

Anyway, I could carry on, but dinner is currently imminent, suffice to say I recommend that collection, I intend to listen to it all and more over the next few days. What I will say is that on one or two live recordings Bird solos for longer which is good because it satisfies that need to hear an inspired solo for longer than you get on those studio recordings. This for example is very inspired: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu14kEuqGJc

[Serial_Apologist]

Aged 15, and a fairly typical Trad adherent of the time, my best friend at school tried to warn me off "modern jazz", disparaging it in blanket fashion as over-intellectualised and lacking humour. An older cousin, of exemplary taste in clothes, had turned me onto Dizzy Gillespie via the "Electrifying Evening with..." album discussed on here not long ago, while at the same time urging me "But you should hear Charlie Parker"! The occasion came courtesy the school's "jazz club", which met every week on a Sunday afternoon in one of the master's studies, all rigged up with the latest in hi-fi sophistication. We would be invited to take any records we had, so up I turned with my two EPs - Chris Barber and Louis Armstrong respectively - and one LP, "The Greatest of Kenny Ball" or some such title. The traddies among us were given free rein for the first few selections, then one boy, who to me had always seemed the epitome of cool, challenging school sartorial rules with his college cut hairstyle, black-framed specs, slim jim ties, chisel-toe Chelsea boots and thigh-length car coat, while we still had gaberdine macs, cut through all possible further debate by insisting that now was the time [sic] to hear something "contemporary". And he put on just one track from a Charlie Parker album, titled "Kim"; and it was musically my launch moment, the next step in sophistication beyond the Benny Goodman trio and quartet, a crossing of the Rubicon into an altogether higher order of musical experience - one which, like losing ones virginity, one never forgets and is ever thankful for, and I still treasure the memory. Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-nVTvIfuPo

[Joseph K]

Thanks for the anecdote - sometimes I forget that this music was for some folks at one time contemporary! Here's another favourite tune/performance of mine based on the changes of Embraceable You, it features a similarly wistful expressiveness:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SurEVf5Rf2w

(Incidentally, another reason to recommend the 'Boss Bird' boxed set is the excellent liner notes, though the set doesn't feature any of Bird's recorded output after 1951).

[muzzer]

It was when I was learning the sax. My teacher pulled out the omnibook and reeled off one of the solos right in front of me. And then I got it. Until then I’d been deterred by the scratchiness of the recordings I’d heard and that I couldn’t hear the melodies in bop (oh the heresy). And you can of course slow down the solos and stay in pitch, I’ve forgotten what the software is called, as you try to play along. Because they’re such brilliant exercises at 20% speed or whatever. Even then you can’t bottle the lightning of course. I went back to the records a bit better informed and much humbler ;) Thanks so much for the reminder of his centenary.

[Padraig]

Thanks so much for the reminder of his centenary.

Of course I remain basically a New Orleans man. But I was for years a JRR listener and I got to hear a lot of later jazz. Some musicians loved to insert a reference to the clarinet solo part from High Society into much more modern pieces - a nod to their ancestors - and that was how I got to recognise Charlie Parker. I have recorded off the radio since the early 70s quite a lot of 'modern' stuff, and much of that is of Parker with different bands. Here he is with Dizzy Gillespie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-U9XsYqRwY

[Joseph K]

Thanks for the replies.

Muzzer - youtube enables you to slow down but stay in pitch - very useful!

[Quarky]

Uncle Jim got me into Jazz, and I guess I was around 17 when I bought the Savoy Recordings, a mutli-LP set. I played them all through, I was following all the complexities and flurries of notes, but there was an element of doubt there. I mentioned to Jim I'm not sure I understand Bird, but he replied "Sure you do - you do!" Well I continued with my working appreciation of Bird.

Revisiting Bird many years later, it was brought to my attention (probably one of Alyn's programmes) that he started life in Jay McShann's band as a Blues honker. YES, it clicked - that was all I needed to know - Bird plays the Blues!:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuVWNv2kEkE

[Ian Thumwood]

Although I grew up listening to jazz through my Dad's record collection, Parker was not part of it and he was never a fan. I therefore had to discover Parker for myself. Given his significance, I think that Charlie Parker gets relatively little airplay. He is almost starting to seem overlooked these days as an influence.

Picking up on Muzzer's post, I wanted to learn to play jazz piano when I was about 16 and it was hearing "Ornithology" from a live broadcast which switched me on to his playing. My tastes prior to that had been very much in favour of progressive Swing musicians like Coleman Hawkins and the development of Be-bop always struck me as extremely natural. I love those recordings where Parker is performing in a swing context and you can then suss out just how radical his playing is. The stuff with Jay McShann's
orchestra is like Jazz nirvana and the track "The Jumpin' Blues" is amongst the most exciting pieces of jazz I am aware of.

I think the problem with Parker's recordings is actually the lack of variety. The head-solo- head unison format and the extensive use of contra-facts does seem dated and a little jaded by today's standards. For a period of time, you can appreciate how relevant this way and why this approach was necessary. As soon as people started to employ Parker's ideas in writing, the potential for the music really opened up. The ad - hoc nature of many of his sessions does result in a sameness and you can appreciate why something different like the music with strings is so appealing.

The other point i want to make is that of you want to understand something about Parker's sense of swing and syncopation, the Bird plays Latin set on the old Abersold play-along makes you realize what a technical achievement this was. Parker's playing was at an extremely high level of proficiency.

[Ein Heldenleben]

So many favourites -
My Old Flame - I love to play the Dodo Marmarosa piano intro to this . Worked the solo out once but it's not the same on the piano . What a solo.
Night In Tunisia . I remember a friend of mine who went on to have a big career as a rock musician gasping and shaking his head in disbelief at the famous sax break the first time he heard it.
The whole Massey Hall album - how can you do that with a plastic saxophone?

In my very humble opinion the greatest sax player ever, the greatest jazz musician* , and really the Beethoven of jazz - the true classical music of the US - who , even now, has not received the recognition due to him.
*apologies to Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington - can we have three Beethovens?

[Joseph K]

The head-solo- head unison format and the extensive use of contra-facts does seem dated and a little jaded by today's standards. For a period of time, you can appreciate how relevant this way and why this approach was necessary. As soon as people started to employ Parker's ideas in writing, the potential for the music really opened up. The ad - hoc nature of many of his sessions does result in a sameness and you can appreciate why something different like the music with strings is so appealing.

Yes - I admit that, owing to Bird's health problems, he never really got into composition in the way someone like Wayne Shorter has done - I mean, I am not aware of any compositions that are not contrafacts... Nevertheless, I do not consider him 'dated' - his music remains the basis of how many jazz musicians round the world approach the music. Even if it's not bebop, perhaps, take the fusion tune 'Chromazone' by Mike Stern - many of its compositional techniques are based on the use of chromaticism that you find in bebop. Charlie Parker set the precedent for everyone to follow. And much of his music still sounds very fresh

I just discovered that my favourite book on Parker has been revised and updated -

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Charlie-Parker-Music-Michigan-American-ebook/dp/B08CZZQFWS/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=charlie+parker+woideck&qid=1598558780&s=books&sr=1-1

... I recommend it, not least for its scholarly approach and pointing out the techniques in Parker's playing that hint at what direction he might have taken - some of which were taken up by John Coltrane inter alia...

[muzzer]

Thanks for the replies.

Muzzer - youtube enables you to slow down but stay in pitch - very useful!

Transcribe is the name of the software. V useful.

[Joseph K]

Pasquale Grasso has just released 'Solo Bird' -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFHkZgKOH60

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLgfCx08ySA

[Jazzrook]

Richard Williams' excellent article 'The essence of Bird':

https://thebluemoment.com/2013/05/08/the-essence-of-bird/

JR

[Joseph K]

Richard Williams' excellent article 'The essence of Bird':

https://thebluemoment.com/2013/05/08/the-essence-of-bird/

JR

Thanks for this JR. Only one sentence in and I already agree with him.

[Ian Thumwood]

If there is "one " essence of Charlie Parker, I think that it was the almost puritanical conviction in the primacy of the soloist. I have never bought the idea that Be-bop transformed jazz overnight and stripped it of the trappings that had previously compromised the music as the innovations of the likes of Parker had antecedents as far back as the early 1930s. It was almost inevitable that the music would develop melodically, rhythmically and harmonically as it did.

However, I feel that for a period in the late 1940's and early fifties jazz reached a level of intensity and a degree of stridency that was unparalleled until the Free jazz of the late 60's. There is something magical about be-bop with Parker's solos having an almost vocal quality about them (I find a lot of his work extremely lyrical) whereas the format within which his work was framed was actually quite narrow. Most of his recordings are made with the same kind of 3-6 piece line up and the accompanying soloists rarely seem to match him. I would not go as far as saying that Parker's skill as a composer were narrow but they were 100% derived from the process of improvisation. Some of the likes sound of their time yet there are others such as "Segment" which still strikes me as particularly edgy.

Other than those incredible early records with Gillespie, it has always struck me that his bands were never truly great in the same way that you can say about those of Miles, Ellington, Basie, Blakey, etc. He is nearly always the best thing about his own records. Even when they include other celebrated soloists, more often than not they capture his sidemen very early in their careers. Luckily there are the recordings with strings and various outings with numerous big bands throughout his career which add variety to the discography. Some of the most interesting recordings I feel are made with more "incongruous" musicians whether it is Slim Gaillard, Tiny Grimes or Buddy Rich on the quintet sides with Thelonious Monk. I like these, as with the McShann tracks, because they are a barometer as to how much of a genius Parker was. You can "measure" him against everyone else. A particular favourite of mine is the Metronome Allstars session which produced "Victory Ball" and Overtime."

It intrigues me why Parker's star seems to have diminished amongst younger musicians and fans. When you hear the "big names" of modern jazz rattled off these days on numerous articles online, Parker seems to have gone to the back of the queue before the likes of Miles, Coltrane, Ornette and Rollins. There are few truly seminal 33rpm albums under his name other than the record with strings or the concert with Dizzy in Canada and his reputation largely rests on performances originally only intended for release on 78 rpm and with obscure, young record labels. Even the more outside players of the 60s had labels like Impulse and ESP to promote their oeuvre. By contrast, you always sense that Parker never managed to escape the underground feel in his recorded output. The best material was recorded for Savoy and Dial whereas it was not until he encountered Norman Granz that Parker had outside input in directing the kind of records he released. Prior to that, I feel that Parker was expecting the audience to come to his music and had not made any concessions to compromise in any respect. He was waiting for the public to catch up with him. All this only serves to make Parker more of an outsider and non-conformist. You can appreciate why other musicians lionized him. He was producing pure music rather like some of Bach's work.

The thing that no one really talks about is how young Parker was when he died. I believe he was 35 which, in today's terms, would put him very much at the point of establishing a career. His best work could have been ahead of him. You wonder what he could have achieved and whether he would have evolved as a musician. Because his music is so identified with a particular era, this has always struck me as a difficult thing to imagine. I believe he wanted his music to be understood and craved broader acceptance. If he had strong management behind him I feel someone like Granz could have helped his achieve broader recognition and maybe brought him into part of the JATP package. You could almost imagine him producing albums where he interpreted the Broadway songbook like Ella or maybe in smaller group settings with the likes of Oscar Peterson. It would have been fascinating to hear how he adapted to the emergence of Coltrane and whether this would have had the liberating effect that it had on Art Pepper. The fact that we never got to hear Charlie Parker as a more mature recording artist remains one of the biggest tragedies in jazz.