And HOW long have I been listening to jazz?

[JSngry]

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.

You know, I understand all that, and I'm ok with all that. The only thing that bugs me is when somebody gives off the vibe that they're not missing anything by having limited areas of interest and/or wide areas of disinterest. I mean, I've got plenty of holes in my knowledge of jazz, and even bigger ones about muisc in general. But I try to get at least a taste of everything to make sure that I'm not missing something that would turn out to be really important to me. When I decide that something can be let go of, it's not a casual decision, and I certainly don't classify such music as "unimportant" in general. It's just something that I myself have decided is not going to offer me what I need at this point in time. And I make that decision fully aware that I might be wrong.

So when I hear people who consider themselves "serious" music fans casually dismissing any music that is by general informed consensus "important" or even "great", that bugs me. I can't respect that, not at all. Call yourself what you are - a fan of certain, limited areas of music, and let it go at that. That's not something to be ashamed of, but it's nothing to be chest-thumpingly proud about either.

Be honest with and about yourself. I can respect the hell out of that.

[John L]

Understood.

[DukeCity]

The discussion in this thread has reminded me of a talk that I heard Kenny Werner give several years ago. He was talking about how lots of jazz musicians can build up anxiety from the need to "get their shit together".

Man, I gotta work on those Bill Evans chord substitutions, and I gotta get those Bud Powell lines together, and I gotta get that stride thing happening, 'cause hey, if you can't play some authentic stride..., and I gotta get my Herbie shit together, etc. etc.

Obviously, checking out the guys who have come before, and working on that stuff as a foundation for your playing is vital to becoming and informed player. But to do that work under a veil of guilt or anxiety seems to violate the spirit of the thing. Ideally, it would be done out of a sense of curiosity and exploration, and maybe a sense of one who simply wants to be thorough.

I think the same (or similar) thing applies to listening to the music. There are times when I feel like I "should" be checking out things. But if I approach it with an "Eat your vegetables! They're good for you!" kind of attitude, it gets harder to make a connection to the music. Instead, I just try to keep my mind and ears open, and try to balance listening to the stuff I know/like with finding new/other things to check out.

[clifford_thornton]

Understood.

Ditto.

[clifford_thornton]

I should do some more thinking.

I know what Jim's getting at, but I feel like I know what I'm getting at, too.

Apologies for the dismissal - it was not intended as such, though reading back over my post, it does sound that way.

[clifford_thornton]

From an interview I did a long time ago (in CT years) with Peter Brotzmann. It bolsters Jim's point, not my own, and I should've revisited it before posting.

AAJ: Do you consider yourself a jazz musician or not?

PB: That's a good question, and of course one that's not easy to answer. This came up before, I remember it very well. I was sitting with Cecil [Taylor] in one of those Berlin nights very long and we discussed [it] and he explained to me why he hates to be called a "jazz" musician. And of course, there's no definition actually. So if you're using this music in selling sausages or selling beer, or in German-TV crime series, or some kind of pseudo-jazz based music, then don't call me a jazz musician. But if jazz means [being] dedicated to the instruments, to your comrades you're working with, to the people who invented this kind of music, to the history, or just to a man like Coleman Hawkins who played so great on this horn, then I would be proud to be called a jazz musician. But, if it has to do with Lincoln Center and this [Ken] Burns guy, and Michael Dorff and all that crap, I don't want to have to do something with that. But, if it comes out of the tradition or the real meaning of the music, if somebody would call me a jazz musician, that would make me a little proud.

[JSngry]

Apologies for the dismissal - it was not intended as such, though reading back over my post, it does sound that way.

Hey, I figured as much. We're cool.

Edited November 22, 2006 by JSngry

[.:.impossible]

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

not to mention the drumming.

[JSngry]

The discussion in this thread has reminded me of a talk that I heard Kenny Werner give several years ago. He was talking about how lots of jazz musicians can build up anxiety from the need to "get their shit together".

Man, I gotta work on those Bill Evans chord substitutions, and I gotta get those Bud Powell lines together, and I gotta get that stride thing happening, 'cause hey, if you can't play some authentic stride..., and I gotta get my Herbie shit together, etc. etc.

Obviously, checking out the guys who have come before, and working on that stuff as a foundation for your playing is vital to becoming and informed player. But to do that work under a veil of guilt or anxiety seems to violate the spirit of the thing. Ideally, it would be done out of a sense of curiosity and exploration, and maybe a sense of one who simply wants to be thorough.

I think the same (or similar) thing applies to listening to the music. There are times when I feel like I "should" be checking out things. But if I approach it with an "Eat your vegetables! They're good for you!" kind of attitude, it gets harder to make a connection to the music. Instead, I just try to keep my mind and ears open, and try to balance listening to the stuff I know/like with finding new/other things to check out.

That kinda reminds me of something I heard David Baker say once. He was telling how he used to preach to all his students that they had to master playing changes before they started playing free because you can't move on to the new before you fully understand the old. Well, one day he had a student who challenged him on that by asking him if he had mastered Kid Ory & Jack Teagarden before he got into JJ. Well, of course he hadn't. So Baker said that that was when he changed his stance to one of preaching that you merely should be respectably familiar with the past before going about the task of trying to invent the future.

That's good advice for a player, no doubt. I mean, hey - if you spend all your time getting the old shit together, you'll never get into your own world, if only because the past consists of so many full and complete lives that trying to fit them all into one -yours - is neither cost/time efficient nor (meta)physically possible - it's like trying to put the Empire State Building into a Ziploc. Even with one of those bigass gallon ones, there's not enough room to put it all in...

For people who don't play, it's probably not nearly as essential a dictum, In fact, I know it's not. But if we can all agree that curiosity can be fun, and that expansion of knowledge (like eating your vegetables ) won't kill you and might even lead to discovering a treat or two you'd not have discovered otherwise, then there's some validity to it. That's then more about a general mindset & life philosophy than it is any rigid musical dogma, and I think we'd all agree that having fun with an open mind is a helluva lot more preferable than "doing the right thing" out of a sense of guilt and/or fear.

[Big Al]

I think the same (or similar) thing applies to listening to the music. There are times when I feel like I "should" be checking out things. But if I approach it with an "Eat your vegetables! They're good for you!" kind of attitude, it gets harder to make a connection to the music. Instead, I just try to keep my mind and ears open, and try to balance listening to the stuff I know/like with finding new/other things to check out.

It certainly does in my case. Over the last few days, I've been willing myself to listen to some Parker, and as a result, I'm just not feelin' it. I tell ya, I've been waiting a LOOOOOOONG time to finally feel Parker's music, willing myself ain't doing the trick, and yet I still haven't ever BEEN in the mood for Parker. Now how sad is THAT?

[Harold_Z]

I've been waiting a LOOOOOOONG time to finally feel Parker's music, willing myself ain't doing the trick, and yet I still haven't ever BEEN in the mood for Parker. Now how sad is THAT?

Is there any Bebop you dig? Dizzy, Moody, Fats Navarro? Maybe you don't dig bebop in general.

I remember reading a story about Doc Severinsen. He didn't get Louis Armstrong. Couldn't see what the fuss was about. A friend of his locked him in a room and played Pop's shit for a couple of hours. He got the message.

Maybe you need immersion in BIRD SHIT !

Please don't be offended Big Al...sometimes when the line hits me I can't help myself.

Edited November 22, 2006 by Harold_Z

[Big Al]

Maybe you need immersion in BIRD SHIT !

Maybe you're on to something: never been that big a fan of bebop in general, now that you mention it. No Dizzy in my collection, f'rinstance.

Believe me, I "get" why folks dig Parker and completely understand what the fuss is about. Maybe I should lock myself in a room with some Bird!

[Harold_Z]

All kiddin' aside...

Pardon me if I state the obvious.......there was Johnny Hodges, Jimmy Dorsey, Benny Carter, Pete Brown........ all came before Bird. The players that came after Bird all came from Bird. He changed music.

The thing is - I first heard Bird (RCA Encyclopedia) maybe in '56 or '57. He was already gone and I was maybe 10 or 11 years old but heavily into music......BUT most of my exposure was to the earlier guys. So to me, while I loved the earlier guys, Bird was obviouly KILLER.

Now in retrospect, when there are so many subsequent great players many of whom are heavily influenced by Bird, to someone coming along a little later, it is hard for that person to get the same feeling of innovation from Bird because he has already heard Bird's innovations as part of someone else's oeuvre.

Same with Diz, Clifford Brown, etc.

Maybe even at this stage of the game - same for Cannonball.

So maybe actually it takes an immersion into what preceded Bird to really get Bird.

And isn't that what some of us are doing when we delve into the farthest reaches of early jazz. Trying to understand how we got from there to here and in the process finding and enjoying some great music.

[Big Al]

All kiddin' aside...

Pardon me if I state the obvious.......there was Johnny Hodges, Jimmy Dorsey, Benny Carter, Pete Brown........ all came before Bird. The players that came after Bird all came from Bird. He changed music.

The thing is - I first heard Bird (RCA Encyclopedia) maybe in '56 or '57. He was already gone and I was maybe 10 or 11 years old but heavily into music......BUT most of my exposure was to the earlier guys. So to me, while I loved the earlier guys, Bird was obviouly KILLER.

Now in retrospect, when there are so many subsequent great players many of whom are heavily influenced by Bird, to someone coming along a little later, it is hard for that person to get the same feeling of innovation from Bird because he has already heard Bird's innovations as part of someone else's oeuvre.

Same with Diz, Clifford Brown, etc.

Maybe even at this stage of the game - same for Cannonball.

So maybe actually it takes an immersion into what preceded Bird to really get Bird.

And isn't that what some of us are doing when we delve into the farthest reaches of early jazz. Trying to understand how we got from there to here and in the process finding and enjoying some great music.

Funny you mention Cannonball, because he was one of the first artists I got into when I first started listening to jazz. I think you made an excellent point about the subsequent players; as I've been listening to Bird lately, that is precisely the feeling I've been encountering: how do I get excited about this when I've heard others do it, not as well, but close?

Besides, it doesn't help that I'm not that big a fan of the alto sax to begin with (McLean notwithstanding!).

[Dan Gould]

All kiddin' aside...

Pardon me if I state the obvious.......there was Johnny Hodges, Jimmy Dorsey, Benny Carter, Pete Brown........ all came before Bird. The players that came after Bird all came from Bird. He changed music.

The thing is - I first heard Bird (RCA Encyclopedia) maybe in '56 or '57. He was already gone and I was maybe 10 or 11 years old but heavily into music......BUT most of my exposure was to the earlier guys. So to me, while I loved the earlier guys, Bird was obviouly KILLER.

Now in retrospect, when there are so many subsequent great players many of whom are heavily influenced by Bird, to someone coming along a little later, it is hard for that person to get the same feeling of innovation from Bird because he has already heard Bird's innovations as part of someone else's oeuvre.

Same with Diz, Clifford Brown, etc.

Maybe even at this stage of the game - same for Cannonball.

So maybe actually it takes an immersion into what preceded Bird to really get Bird.

And isn't that what some of us are doing when we delve into the farthest reaches of early jazz. Trying to understand how we got from there to here and in the process finding and enjoying some great music.

I've heard this suggested before, and I have to say that it never applied to me. I had certainly heard Bird's disciples, including those once removed, but when I first heard Bird himself, I immediately understood why all of those liner notes referred to him as the fountainhead, and I especially heard and appreciated what Jim S. has been saying, even as a non-musician. The personality, the power in his playing is so overwhelming, I couldn't help but recognize his significance, even without the musical training to appreciate it on an even deeper level.

[JSngry]

Over the years, I've come across more than a few devotees of Hard Bop (players & fans alike) who've said that the first+ genertion of bebop sounds "nervous", "jerky" or other such things. While I can certainly relate tht to some of the music, I myself think that with the exception of early/mid-50s Sonny Rollins and some Mobley from the same time, nobody had such a refined & loose grasp of internal rhythm as did Bird, Diz, & Bud, that everybody else had to "simplify" the music in order to make it a viable community expression. That's not a value judgement or anything, just an observation.

Interestingly enough, I've also gotten the same "nervous", etc. reaction to dance music styles like Drum 'N Bass & Broken Beat. Myself, I love that type of spreading the beat's legs apart and working it until all concerned are drained, sticky, and satisfied in both this type dance music & bebop. But it doesn't seem to have "mass appeal". Again, not a value judgement.

I think that it's possible that for people who are more "wired" towards hearing/fealing a "beat" that, no matter how hard it swings, retains as its essence a forward-moving steadiness (as opposed to a forward moving breaking apart/coming back together) might not feel (literally) bebop to the extent they do Hard Bop, "greasy" Soul Jazz, etc. Yet again, not a value judgement.

Make no mistake, Bebop as played by its originators is not a simple/predictable music. It's actually some of the most complex music of the 20th century (the rhythmic aspect in actuality, the harmonic aspect by implication). But only a handful of people had the capacities to play it that way, so it almost had to get "smoothed out" sooner than later. And if the music was that hard for the players, imagine how much harder it must be for the "general listener". In either Bird or, say, Sonny Stitt, you get the same basic vocabulary, but with Bird that vocabulary's going to be spoken in a significantly more variated (that's a Don Pullen word, btw) manner. So I can see how Stitt (or any number of other players) might be a more "comfortable" listen than Bird for many people.

Again, and in conclusion, not a value judgement. But not an excuse either.

Edited November 24, 2006 by JSngry

[Jim R]

Now in retrospect, when there are so many subsequent great players many of whom are heavily influenced by Bird, to someone coming along a little later, it is hard for that person to get the same feeling of innovation from Bird because he has already heard Bird's innovations as part of someone else's oeuvre.

This is very similar to how I've always felt about Charlie Christian. I say "similar" because in Bird's case, nobody ever "surpassed" him (not possible). With Christian, I think he was more of a musical architect, as opposed to Bird, who was the architect, environmental impact inspector, buyer, buyer's agent, seller's agent, lender, 2nd mortgage holder, title company, escrow officer, accountant, lawyer, contractor, termite inspector, plumber, electrician, drywall guy...

[Big Al]

This is very similar to how I've always felt about Charlie Christian. I say "similar" because in Bird's case, nobody ever "surpassed" him (not possible). With Christian, I think he was more of a musical architect, as opposed to Bird, who was the architect, environmental impact inspector, buyer, buyer's agent, seller's agent, lender, 2nd mortgage holder, title company, escrow officer, accountant, lawyer, contractor, termite inspector, plumber, electrician, drywall guy...

Attic inspector.....

(One of many MANY inside jokes between me & Jim)

Edited November 24, 2006 by Big Al

[Jim R]

This is very similar to how I've always felt about Charlie Christian. I say "similar" because in Bird's case, nobody ever "surpassed" him (not possible). With Christian, I think he was more of a musical architect, as opposed to Bird, who was the architect, environmental impact inspector, buyer, buyer's agent, seller's agent, lender, 2nd mortgage holder, title company, escrow officer, accountant, lawyer, contractor, termite inspector, plumber, electrician, drywall guy...

Attic inspector.....

(One of many MANY inside jokes between me & Jim)

Golf instructor, pest control man, sandwich maker, (comedy) writer...

[Big Al]

This is very similar to how I've always felt about Charlie Christian. I say "similar" because in Bird's case, nobody ever "surpassed" him (not possible). With Christian, I think he was more of a musical architect, as opposed to Bird, who was the architect, environmental impact inspector, buyer, buyer's agent, seller's agent, lender, 2nd mortgage holder, title company, escrow officer, accountant, lawyer, contractor, termite inspector, plumber, electrician, drywall guy...

Attic inspector.....

(One of many MANY inside jokes between me & Jim)

Golf instructor, pest control man, sandwich maker, (comedy) writer...

At least he's not a bastbird!

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Over the years, I've come across more than a few devotees of Hard Bop (players & fans alike) who've said that the first+ genertion of bebop sounds "nervous", "jerky" or other such things. While I can certainly relate tht to some of the music, I myself think that with the exception of early/mid-50s Sonny Rollins and some Mobley from the same time, nobody had such a refined & loose grasp of internal rhythm as did Bird, Diz, & Bud, that everybody else had to "simplify" the music in order to make it a viable community expression. That's not a value judgement or anything, just an observation.

Interestingly enough, I've also gotten the same "nervous", etc. reaction to dance music styles like Drum 'N Bass & Broken Beat. Myself, I love that type of spreading the beat's legs apart and working it until all concerned are drained, sticky, and satisfied in both this type dance music & bebop. But it doesn't seem to have "mass appeal". Again, not a value judgement.

I think that it's possible that for people who are more "wired" towards hearing/fealing a "beat" that, no matter how hard it swings, retains as its essence a forward-moving steadiness (as opposed to a forward moving breaking apart/coming back together) might not feel (literally) bebop to the extent they do Hard Bop, "greasy" Soul Jazz, etc. Yet again, not a value judgement.

Make no mistake, Bebop as played by its originators is not a simple/predictable music. It's actually some of the most complex music of the 20th century (the rhythmic aspect in actuality, the harmonic aspect by implication). But only a handful of people had the capacities to play it that way, so it almost had to get "smoothed out" sooner than later. And if the music was that hard for the players, imagine how much harder it must be for the "general listener". In either Bird or, say, Sonny Stitt, you get the same basic vocabulary, but with Bird that vocabulary's going to be spoken in a significantly more variated (that's a Don Pullen word, btw) manner. So I can see how Stitt (or any number of other players) might be a more "comfortable" listen than Bird for many people.

Again, and in conclusion, not a value judgement. But not an excuse either.

Nice analysis thanks Jim.

I read in Ira Gitler's book "Swing to Bebop" that it was Diz and Klook who developed Bebop rhythm, while they were working together in Lucky Millinder's band. This must have been a bit before Bird emerged.

Diz also reported somewhere (can't remember where, might have been ths same book) a conversation he had with Monk in which they were reminiscing about the old days and who taught them this or that. "And what did you learn from me?" Diz asked. Monk replied, "nothin'".

Your post made me think about Mbalax, the popular music of the Wolofs (and Serer) in Senegal. Traditional Mbalax, which became very popular again in the late '90s, as politics shifted towards religion, is rhythmically a good deal more straightfroward than modern Mbalax, because it was based around street parades, often with a religious purpose. But, as the Senegalese music scene shifted in the late '70s from the Jazz and Latin styles of Dexter Johnson's Star Band, Star Band No 1 and Orchestre Baobab to using more indigenous music, particularly with the breakaway from those bands to the formation of new bands like Etoile de Dakar and Youssou N'dour's Super Etoile de Dakar, the music took traditional Mbalax and kind of infiltrated some of those other rhythms into it, producing something that, by the late '80s, Youssou N'dour said "white people can't dance to". No more true than Amiri Baraka saying of Bebop "YOU can't dance to it". But no less true, either.

Even Bird and Diz are rhythmically straightforward compared to early '80s Mbalax.

MG

[JSngry]

I read in Ira Gitler's book "Swing to Bebop" that it was Diz and Klook who developed Bebop rhythm, while they were working together in Lucky Millinder's band. This must have been a bit before Bird emerged.

I'll believe that they invented it for themselves, but as far as I can tell, Bird's rhythm was his own, and more or less intuitive to him, roots in Lester Young aside. You can hear the difference in Diz' phrasing pre- & post- Bird, and the difference is significant. In fact, Diz has said more than once that he brought the harmony & Bird broght the phrasing. No doubt that's a bit of an over simplification, but it's true enough.

Bird was truly one of the freest players ever. The closer you listen to his internal rhythm (where the phrases begin & end, and how the accents bob & weave within each phrase), the more mind-boggling it gets, especially on the live stuff. And you don't have to be a musician to hear it. Not at all. You just have to have a good feel for rhythm, and you just have to be conscious of it, that's all.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Bird was truly one of the freest players ever. The closer you listen to his internal rhythm (where the phrases begin & end, and how the accents bob & weave within each phrase), the more mind-boggling it gets, especially on the live stuff. And you don't have to be a musician to hear it. Not at all. You just have to have a good feel for rhythm, and you just have to be conscious of it, that's all.

Oh I agree. I think it's his rhythm that makes his playing so funky. (And yes, I know it's more than funky, but it IS blindingly funky.)

MG

[JSngry]

Indeed it is!

[AllenLowe]

we do need to avoid certain oversimplifcations, especially per- Jazz Masters of the 1940s - the truth was that things were changing in the early 1940s rhythmically - Charlie Christian was working toward this, Lester Young was a major influences - Rudy Williams (alto, the Savoy Sultans) recorded something in 1942 which is very boppish - Bud Powell's earliest work with Cooties Williams shows that he had some of the same ideas - Nat COle was a MAJOR transitional figure between swing and bop piano, and there were others - but Bird was really the first to put it all together, to take all the new elements - eight-note/triplet rhythms, chromatics, chromatic harmony, more distanct chord subs, etc etc - and put them together into a single brilliant and cohesive/coherent style.

Edited November 25, 2006 by AllenLowe