And HOW long have I been listening to jazz?

[AllenLowe]

wait - are you sure it wasn't Groovin' by the Young Rascals?

[sal]

BMG has the 3-disc sets "The Complete Verve Master Takes" and "The Complete Savoy/Dial Masters." Any thoughts on those?

Get them both. As soon as possible.

[Brad]

For all the listening we do, it's just inevitable we draw a blank. I do it all the time. Embarassing maybe or just old age possibly?

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Interesting. Let's go a bit wider.

There's a little intro bit on the Lonnie Smith/Crash album "The Doctor is in" in which Lonnie says something to the effect that you make a record and leave the studio and the producer names the new tunes afterwards. So when someonehas a request at a gig, you don't know what they're askking for.

Tommy McCook also had something to say, approximately the same, that whe producers of the Skatalites singles used to pick provocative titles, like "Christine Keeler" (a prossie who caused the resignation of a UK Cabinet Minister) or "Lee Harvey Oswald" because the records used to sell on the titles.

There seems to be a long tradition of producers naming jazz tunes. What I think this might mean is that the title is divorced from the meaning of the music as the composer saw it. Personally, I suspect this has a lot to do with being unable to recognise (in the sense of attach a title to) tunes with which we're very familiar. There are all sorts of odd things on the Internet; does anyone know of a site in which the responsibility for titling jazz tunes is discussed and in which the "titlers" are identified?

MG

[Big Al]

For all the listening we do, it's just inevitable we draw a blank. I do it all the time. Embarassing maybe or just old age possibly?

That's partly true, in my case. I've actually owned/listened to a couple of Parker discs, but they just never really rubbed off on me. Time will tell, though; I can't imagine going my entire life without eventually digging Charlie Parker on a personal level.

[sal]

[

[Uncle Skid]

Al, I have the "Bird's Best Bop on Verve" CD, and I don't need it anymore, as I recently purchased the Complete Master Takes Set.

It's yours if you want it....

Sure, thanks! PM me if you need me to re-send my address to you.

It's on its way, bro... enjoy!

[Ken Dryden]

I have a fair quantity of Charlie Parker, including all of the Verve, Savoy, Dial things plus the airchecks issued by Columbia and some of the ones issued on various other labels. I'll admit that I go blank as to the name of a tune I should recognize from time to time, too.

Then again, I've heard musicians who can't remember what tunes they've played by the end of a set and seen more than a few record labels and writers who can't identify songs correctly. We all are less than perfect on occasion.

Edited November 19, 2006 by Ken Dryden

[Guy Berger]

i only have 2 or 3 parker cds myself, but pick up this one

Not sure if I would recommend this one as a starter -- it's pretty short and only manages to reach LP lengthy through the inclusion of incomplete takes.

Guy

[Guy Berger]

BMG has the 3-disc sets "The Complete Verve Master Takes" and "The Complete Savoy/Dial Masters." Any thoughts on those?

You might want to check out the JSP Bird box instead of the Savoy/Dial -- it's super-cheap, maybe cheaper than BMG, and includes a lot more material (some of which is absolutely essential).

Guy

[ghost of miles]

Big Al, I'd definitely go for those Verve and Dial/Savoy Master sets through BMG (maybe tonight, while the 60% off and free shipping offer's still good). Especially that Dial/Savoy set. And hey, you'll love it all the more for not having heard it before--I remember back in 1998 when the Miles 1965-68 set came out, and I told a trumpeter friend that I was picking it up. I commented that I hadn't really heard much from that period of Miles yet (I'd been holding off on buying ESP & other titles from that era because I knew the box was going to come out); he looked at me with an envious smile and said, "Man, I wish I was hearing all of that music for the first time."

[BruceH]

I can NEVER remember the name of a tune!! (Well, almost never.) I'm just bad with names. The fact that you can recognize that it's a Bird tune, or a Monk or Ellington or whatever, is pretty good in itself.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I can NEVER remember the name of a tune!! (Well, almost never.) I'm just bad with names. The fact that you can recognize that it's a Bird tune, or a Monk or Ellington or whatever, is pretty good in itself.

It's because of the disconnect between title and song. You need a mnemonic. I can only remember the title of ornithology because

I wanna take a ride in a taxi

I wanna go downtown and pick up a Bird

MG

[John L]

While a number of people are recommending the Savoy and Dial master takes, and with good reason, you might want to consider the complete sets with the alternates

1) Alternate takes of Bird are every bit as essential as the masters. The solos are always quite different, and some of the best ones are on alternates. Hearing Bird take completely different approaches to solos on successive takes of the same number is astonishing. As often as not, the master is arguably not the best take. They were often all so good that masters could almost be chosen at random. In fact, some alternatives were released on 78s as separate tracks with different names, and for good reason.

2) There exist complete Savoy and Dial collections at bargain prices.

3) You will probably eventually want it all anyway.

[Big Al]

3) You will probably eventually want it all anyway.

Eventually!

[Harold_Z]

3) You will probably eventually want it all anyway.

As just one example of why this is true - just listen to the "a" and "B" takes of "Embraceable You" on the Savoy/Dial set.

Edited November 21, 2006 by Harold_Z

[clifford_thornton]

These things happen to me all the time. I'm especially bugged by trying to remember "quotes" in people's solos...

I don't think it's essential for anyone to own a solid collection of Bird, Duke or Louis and still be a jazz fan. I own only a few Bird records, one Duke and no Louis, and as the latter (especially) is not a regular point of reference for my own thinking, I don't feel the loss. Call me hubristic.

[JSngry]

Ok, you're hubristic.

Look - if you take this music seriously (not "seriously" as in as a hobby, or as an "area of serious interest", or as anything like that, but seriously as in as serious as your life - now there's a hip catch phrase to drop to impress people...) then there are certain foundations around which you simply do not - can not - dance around. You can dance around everything around those foundations to one degree or another, but not them themselves (and those foundations don't stop at Louis, Duke, & Bird. Not by a long shot). Fact of life.

If you - or anybody - thinks that you can, then you're full of shit. And I say that out of love, because I love y'all too much to tell you a lie.

Now, if you - or anybody else - doesn't want to go there for whatever reason, hey, fine. It's not a law that you have to, your life can still be blessed w/o doing it. We can certainly still be friends, and I'll still feel the love, because I know that the level of seriousness that I'm talking about is very much a "specialized" thing. It's not a "fan" thing, not even slightly (and being a "fan" is a beautiful thing, don't get me wrong). But specialized or not, it's real, hell, it's necessary, and all the wishing and hubristicism in the world won't make it not so.

Just don't insult anybody, especially yourself, by thinking otherwise.

[JSngry]

And it's not about how many Bird, Duke, Louis, etc. records you have or don't have in your collection. That is so not the point. It's about knowing the spirit of these men, for their spirit is the spirit of the music, even now. If you only have one 78, that's enough - if you feel it. Because this music isn't about "records", it's about spirit. Hell, it is spirit. And for these men's spirit's to not be "a regular point of reference" for your - or anybody's - thinking is damn near impossible unless your spirit is not that of the music.

Now, whether you choose to realize that or not is your call. But choosing not to see something doen't make it not there.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

And it's not about how many Bird, Duke, Louis, etc. records you have or don't have in your collection. That is so not the point. It's about knowing the spirit of these men, for their spirit is the spirit of the music, even now. If you only have one 78, that's enough - if you feel it. Because this music isn't about "records", it's about spirit. Hell, it is spirit. And for these men's spirit's to not be "a regular point of reference" for your - or anybody's - thinking is damn near impossible unless your spirit is not that of the music.

Now, whether you choose to realize that or not is your call. But choosing not to see something doen't make it not there.

Now THAT'S right.

I wasn't too happy with what you were saying earlier Jim, about what Parker actually DID when he played. I'm sure as a musician that's important to you, but to me it was a means to an end.

What you've just said now, is the end.

Thanks.

MG

[JSngry]

Well, sometimes it takes me a while to get to the point...

[clifford_thornton]

And it's not about how many Bird, Duke, Louis, etc. records you have or don't have in your collection. That is so not the point. It's about knowing the spirit of these men, for their spirit is the spirit of the music, even now. If you only have one 78, that's enough - if you feel it. Because this music isn't about "records", it's about spirit. Hell, it is spirit. And for these men's spirit's to not be "a regular point of reference" for your - or anybody's - thinking is damn near impossible unless your spirit is not that of the music.

Now, whether you choose to realize that or not is your call. But choosing not to see something doen't make it not there.

I NEVER said that I didn't agree with THAT sentiment. I was just pointing out that one doesn't "have" to own a ton of such architects of the music to "get" the basis and move from there. Hell, I LOVE Monk but find myself listening to far more Lacy. That's not to say I don't grasp the inherent Monkiness in his work and the importance of what Monk's music offered to musicians from all walks of the jazz planet.

[JSngry]

It wasn't the "ownership" thing that bugged me. It was the "not a regular point of reference for my own thinking, I don't feel the loss." thing. That just seemed....wrong, both in reality and in spirit.

Look, I'm at a "turning point" in my own musical evolution. Right now, "jazz" is rapidly fading as something I want to spend the rest of my life involved in, at least in the sense of continuing to look backwards in hopes of finding what lies ahead. I'm getting greater stimulation these days from things that have little if anything to do with "jazz" as a codified style (and that includes the "avant-garde", which has in its own ways become largely a codified set of gestures & techniques).

But that's "jazz" as a style/genre, and there's so much more to music than that. There's the matter of spirit, of life. There are certain figures from the realm of "jazz" who for me will always embody the spirit of what I want my life to be about, and Bird, Duke, & Louis are certainly among them. I can't imagine living a life, not just a musical life, but a life in general, not deeply informed by the spirit of these men. No matter where I end up going & end up doing, I'm taking these guys with me. I couldn't lose them if I tried.

Now, I wouldn't necessarily "feel the loss" if I had never felt it in the first place. But I have, and I suspect you have too. It just seems wrong to me to attempt to downplay it or attempt to minimalize it. I know that when you trumpet the Great Men Iconologyline that you run the risk of stepping over into Wyntonland, and that's the last thing I want to do or encourage. But the secret of success for all great deceptions is to be rooted in the truth and then to twist the interpretation of that truth, and the secret of defeating that deception is to reclaim the truth from those who have stolen it.

Life is for building, and you gotta build from a foundation. A foundation built on, say, Lacy, will be strong, because Lacy was strong. A foundation build on Lacy built on Monk will be even stronger, and a foundation built on Lacy built on Monk built on Ellington will be stronger still, etcetcetc. And I do believe that the stronger the foundation, the farther out you can branch (and that you should branch, as far, or farther, than you think possible), and that in doing so, you very much have your foundations as a a regular point of reference for your own thinking, if only through subliminal/musical genetic memory.

I also think that certain forces in life are so inevitable that if you're on a certain path you're going to meet them at some point, whether you're looking for them or not, and that once met, they must be confronted and dealt with, if only in the sense of understanding them in order to avoid being imprisoned by them. Might as well be ready.

[John L]

Interesting thoughts, Jim.

I have long been obsessive about trying to absorb all that I can about jazz, its roots, its development, etc. But I have considered myself to be abnormal in that respect. I have come to realize that a lot of people who enjoy jazz quite a bit just don't care all that much about coming to grips with the entire music and its history. These people don't necessarily listen to jazz only as light entertainment either. They might feel a deep personal connection with Miles or Coltrane, for example, but not really care about their links to Bird.

I am not sure if that is necessarily "wrong." We all have limited time to absorb information, and there is a lot of revelant information outside of jazz. These people may have a limited understanding of jazz, but still enjoy it quite a bit.

Despite my efforts to understand jazz, my understanding of much of it will never be as deep as yours. I don't play jazz. I will never attempt to transcribe and analyze Bird solos the way that you have done. Yet I still get tremendous pleasure and satisfaction from the music. So go figure.

[chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez]

when youre chasin the dragon as hard as u are then sometimes all the heads just blend together. who cares about the head anyway, its all about birds solo