Bird Up! The Charlie Parker Remix Project

[Chrome]

Catesta: That makes it sound as if your problem is only with how it's all done ... if the Parker remix thing was made of actual musicians playing the Parker stuff on actual instruments, would that somehow make it better for you?

More devil's advocate-y stuff: How about the practice of "quoting" another song in a solo? Isn't the only difference between this and sampling, the fact that in the former, a real person is playing a real instrument, and with the latter, it's a recording of someone doing the same?

[chris]

Did Coltrane's version "disrespect" the original in some way?

Did Coltrane dub himself in?

This stuff may very well be hip, but I don't think it does anything to promote or pay respect to the genius of Parker, and frankly I don't see any creativity in it.

Parker had it right the first time, leave it at that.

I don't think it's that simple. First, the very act of doing a remix or sampling someone's work is a mark of respect from that artist. It is a very direct form of homage. These remixes aren't saying Parker didn't get it right-- they are saying he really got it right. and left a legacy of sound that is valuable. Most remixes are far different from dubbing oneself into the mix, though I also agree that most of them are not my thing.

It would be different (to me) if this were some kind of cover band project that consisted of note-for-note renditions, like all the "tribute" bands floating around. Though even they can be fun if they don't take themselves too seriously...

[Noj]

FWIW I heard the Madlib BN thing and it isn't bad. Still haven't heard the Bird remixes...

...I'd still rather just hear the original songs.

[Rooster_Ties]

Worse than "shit for money".!!!!

This specific project, or the process in general??

[catesta]

But to judge it without hearing it first, is to simply say that a project like this could not possibly produce results of any value. Maybe yes, maybe no.

I did hear it, otherwise I would not have spoke up.

[catesta]

I don't think it's that simple. First, the very act of doing a remix or sampling someone's work is a mark of respect from that artist. It is a very direct form of homage.

You're right it's not that simple, and that is not how I intended it to be.

I'm not slamming dudes that sample and mix.

It may be a mark of respect and may be a direct form of homage is some cases but not all. Have you listened to some of the current shit out there? It seems like more of an easy way out than a show of respect.

I don't think this (Bird Up) is a case of not intending to show respect, I'm just saying that in my opinion the mission was not accomplished.

[catesta]

Catesta: That makes it sound as if your problem is only with how it's all done ... if the Parker remix thing was made of actual musicians playing the Parker stuff on actual instruments, would that somehow make it better for you?

Yes, but would they still call that a remix?

But I don't mean doing it just like Bird did it.

Edited December 4, 2003 by catesta

[ghost of miles]

I heard the version of "Bebop" that's on this disc and liked it. That performance always had a kind of fragmented, neurotic quality to it in the first place. These projects tend to be very hit-or-miss, in my experience, but I'm really open to them...

[Chrome]

I guess my point was just that musicians have been borrowing from other musicians probably from the time Art Blakey's earliest relatives first knocked a stick against a log and liked what they heard.

Whether it's remixing, dubbing, quoting, covering or whatever, the difference -- to me anyway -- is primarily the way these things are physically accomplished.

[catesta]

True.

[Rooster_Ties]

And I think it's the results that matter, more than the process. The process itself isn't inherently evil, even if the results are frequently insubstantial.

[JSngry]

I guess my point was just that musicians have been borrowing from other musicians probably from the time Art Blakey's earliest relatives first knocked a stick against a log and liked what they heard.

Art Blakey killed Bird, did you know that?

[Rooster_Ties]

Art Blakey killed Bird, did you know that?

Well, THAT doesn't do anything to promote or pay respect to the genius of Parker either.

[Chrome]

JSngry: Sure, his "Bermanized" name was Art "of War" Blakey ...

Edited December 4, 2003 by Chrome

[Brad]

I'd have to agree with Rooster on this one. Music is always being reinterpreted, especially in jazz. In this case, we may not care for the results but the idea is an old and established one.

[.:.impossible]

I am a fan of turntablism, whether its textural, whether its a scratch contest, or its someone like Kid Koala stringing together a trumpet solo, or an entire bassline, out of a crate. Hear "Drunk Trumpet" if you are curious. Click here. Go to Drunk Trumpet.

I would think most turntablists would have more respect than this. Some things are sacred. Some things should not be manipulated. Charlie Parker recordings are on that list for me. Same goes for Monk.

What are they trying to present here?

[Leeway]

I heard the version of "Bebop" that's on this disc and liked it. That performance always had a kind of fragmented, neurotic quality to it in the first place. These projects tend to be very hit-or-miss, in my experience, but I'm really open to them...

I like "Bebop" too, although the "silk brassiere" line kind of threw me But it had a very cool arrangement. Some of the other clips were pretty interesting too, although it's hard to make a judgement on a 20 second snippet. You can't dismiss this kind of album out of hand; there are interesting musical ideas here.

I don't see any disrepect to Parker here. I think it's neat that CP is still generating interest and a contemporary sense of challenging the boundaries. I'd like to think he would understand what these hip-hop artists are trying to do. And I do think that this will pull in some younger fans to jazz.

[Jazzmoose]

When dealing with this issue, please keep in mind that my "old fart" tendencies are bound to kick in, guys...there's not much I can do about that. I try to keep an open mind about things, but hell: there's a reason we all sit around talking about Miles and not Teo, you know?

[.:.impossible]

You can't dismiss this kind of album out of hand; there are interesting musical ideas here.

I don't see any disrepect to Parker here. I think it's neat that CP is still generating interest and a contemporary sense of challenging the boundaries. I'd like to think he would understand what these hip-hop artists are trying to do. And I do think that this will pull in some younger fans to jazz.

Whose musical ideas are we talking about here? What are they trying to present?

I guess I was just against this before it even happened. I have decided that I won't support it, based on the very premise it was made on. Charlie Parker is one of the great innovators of the 20th Century, no the entire f'ing history of music. Of course it makes sense to manipulate his recordings. Sure, he'd love it. I'm sure Mingus would love it too. If Bird was a gunslinger...

ROOSTER asks:

If Greg Osby handed over the multi-track source tapes of a new recording of his own making, and had these remixologists do their thing, some of the results might be pretty interesting (and some would be crap).

What's so intrinsically wrong with going back to earlier source material?? Or are we engaging in 'idolatry' over these Charlie Parker sides??

.:.

The main difference I see in this scenario is that Greg Osby handed over the tapes. This I have no problem with. In this scenario, it is an artistic decision that Greg Osby made. I would be into that. I'm sure the results might be pretty interesting if I took a Kenny G recording and cut it up too. That is the beauty of turntablism. You can take the mundane and make it something exceptional by breathing a real, electric energy into it. Of course, I can't think of anyone who would make a Kenny G remix album. That might be too much respect.

I've never heard anyone take the exceptional and make it better. I personally don't think it can be done. There is nothing better than a Charlie Parker lick IN CONTEXT.

Hey, I might like some of it if I heard it, but I'm not even curious. Now, if someone were to throw some Bird into a live performance, that is a different story.

On a side note, I think hip hop needs more live instrumentation. More interaction between musician and MC. DJs have advanced beyond belief, yet MCs are still laying into straight up samples and popular song remixes.

I know there were have been some valiant efforts at this, but I haven't heard anything in a while. You want to bring jazz into the lives of our pop culture? A Charlie Parker remix project probably isn't even on the radar. Employ real, live musicians who are out there cutting their teeth every night. Bring the music back. Whatever happened to live interaction? [/ramble]

[John L]

I haven't heard this one, but my son played me the Madlib Blue Note disk not long ago. I was quite surprised. It was not at all what I expected. The disk is pure DJ Hip Hop with little to no fusion with jazz or (ironically) the Blue Note sound. He just used some Blue Note tapes for sound patches here and there. The grooves are really all his.

In sum, this certainly didn't strike me as any sort of rip-off of Blue Note at all. It is often even hard to recognize where the samples come from. There is no "jazz" involved. Madlib is doing his thing, not a Blue Note thing. If I couldn't really get with the music, it had to do with my own personal difficulty in enjoying much of this sort of hypnotic laid back DJ Hip Hop groove music, not with any sort of musical piracy.

I bring that up because this Bird thing might be similar. Don't jump to conclusions on the degree to which these professional Hip Hop DJs need to fall back on the structures behind the various pieces that they throw on their canvases.

[Leeway]

Whose musical ideas are we talking about here? What are they trying to present?

Just like Bird tried to reinvent the jazz idiom, to move from swing to BeBop, these artists (yes, most of them are, in their own way and time) are trying to use bebop to create a new type of music, a melding of hip hop and jazz. I think that's admirable, because it promotes the vitality of each genre in the process of creating something new.

I guess I was just against this before it even happened.

Well, hard to argue with that, but it would be better, wouldn't it, to give the music a fair chance?

Hey, I might like some of it if I heard it, but I'm not even curious.

Again, hard to argue with that, but, c'mon, give it a fair listen.

Some things are sacred. Some things should not be manipulated.

Once something gets tagged "sacred," it usually means it's dead. I hope that's not what jazz is all about. I think jazz has always been about change, growth, free expression, experimentation (unless you're name is Wynton Marsalis ). Parker freaked out the "mouldy figs," now here we are using Parker to put down a new generation. A new group of mouldy figs. In the end, though, the musicians will lead the way.

[chris]

I don't think this (Bird Up) is a case of not intending to show respect, I'm just saying that in my opinion the mission was not accomplished.

My perspective is that the mission of showing respect is accomplished if they were serious in their intent. Whether they produced something good or not is a whole different and not necessarily related question.

I'd like to think that my guitar noodling with some Bird melodies is showing respect as well, but I don't think I will be taking home and Grammy's soon

Edited December 6, 2003 by chris

[chris]

Some things are sacred. Some things should not be manipulated. Charlie Parker recordings are on that list for me. Same goes for Monk.

Bah humbug. Idol worship serves no one. If you see the Buddha on the road kill him. etc etc.

[.:.impossible]

Once something gets tagged "sacred," it usually means it's dead. I hope that's not what jazz is all about. I think jazz has always been about change, growth, free expression, experimentation (unless you're name is Wynton Marsalis ). Parker freaked out the "mouldy figs," now here we are using Parker to put down a new generation. A new group of mouldy figs. In the end, though, the musicians will lead the way.

Its not dead, but it IS permanent. No flick of the wrist is going to change what Charlie Parker did, nor is it going to improve upon it. Charlie Parker was working outside of the restrictions of HIS time.

When I say sacred, I mean please don't fuck with it. Now why are you going to go and fuck with Charlie Parker? It wasn't good enough for you? You are lessening the music this person made by assuming that it isn't enough IN ITS OWN STATE for your generation.

I understand that turntablism is ALL ABOUT breaking rules, and I say GO BREAK THE RULES. I still don't see any reason to go to Charlie Parker to break the rules. Isn't that too obvious? Let's sample the Velvet Underground, or Pet Sounds. That'll get some press.

I say COLLABORATE. Make music with others! That includes alto saxophonists. And alto saxophonists that emulate Charlie Parker even!

I'm no moldy fig, I'm saying BE MORE CREATIVE.

[paul secor]

I'll add my opinion - and that's all it is - an opinion.

For me, samplers, turntable artists, remixers, etc. are people who, for the most part, can't sing, play an instrument, or write a song or even a riff. What are future generations going to do, sample samples? Remix remixes? Write, sing, or play your own damn song. Stop stealing from other people.

I did listen to a little of the Bird Remix CD, and it didn't do anything for me. But I'm an old fart, so what do I know?