Jazz for aficionados

010

I'm not saying they wanted to sound like Bird identically. Thats why I said "almost" to a T. 

After Charlie Parker became "godlike" in the eyes of hundreds of up and coming sax players, they could not help but sound like him as they were using his waxed recordings for practice. Why even Sonny Rollins went through a "Bird Stage" early in his career. I am merely stating that many of the upper echelon sax players of that time and even today could blow off some bebop jams that sound somewhat identical in terms of chord progressions and tone ect.

In his book, Art Pepper stated Bird was a notch above everyone including himself so your right when you stated he would not have said that. Pepper was always modest, to a fault, but he had held a grudge against many black jazz musicians during his early years through to his long incarceration at San Quentin. The cause was all the rumors and backstage whisperings he always heard about " that white boy who tries to sound black on tenor". Yes black racism if you will. Its all in his book. When he was released from prison, and subsequently rehab, meeting his soon to be wife Laurie ( who I have exchanged emails), his career resurged and he played many gigs and also recorded with many great jazz artists regardless of their race. Elvin Jones plays the skins on every recording night at the "Complete Village Vanguard" sessions. and George Cables became his favorite piano player and trusted friend. He states in the book that all was forgiven, and his early distaste of black artists was unjust and bought about by his own insecurities and faults which was the root cause of his addiction.

One of the most interesting stories in all of jazz lore and one which goes to the topic of the evolution of jazz styles has to do with Sonny Stitt. This verified story, however, flies in the face of some of what has been discussed here so far.

The issue of players’ influence on each other’s styles is well established. As pjw suggests there is a big difference between copying an influential player’s style “to a T” and using some of that influential player’s conceptual ideas to inform one’s own playing. The former type of player seldom becomes a major player. The latter type, players like Art Pepper, Phil Woods and Jackie McLean, took some of Bird’s conceptual ideas and added them to their own to create a Bird-influenced, but still personal sound. Bird himself was a big fan of and was very influenced by Jimmy Dorsey (!) and Lester Young. However, there is another force that comes into play in all this that is very interesting, imo.

Some here have at times asked the question “why does jazz have to evolve?” as a argument against the validity of contemporary players’ styles and “new jazz” in general. The answer is simply that it evolves because it has to. It is the nature of the beast. It has evolved from day one and will continue to do so. There is a certain logical inevitability to the evolution of jazz styles. Sonny Stitt is a perfect example:

The story as told by players who were there, players like Kenny Clark and Stitt himself, is that Bird and Stitt lived in different cities and had never had any contact. In fact, because Bird was still new on the scene, Stitt had not even heard recordings by Bird. Yet, when they first met they found that their respective styles were remarkably similar. This is all well documented for anyone who wants to read about it. Stitt had heard other influential players like Hawkins and these influences along with his own voice led him to a similar place as Bird. This is the reason why it is generally and inaccurately believed that Stitt emulated Bird.

Frogman, I consider your thesis quite accurate and valid.

In regard to the evolution of jazz, it also has to sound good. When I ask for opinions on new jazz, I don't get any feedback, that in itself is an answer.

Since it is you in particular who is always pushing "new jazz", why don't you shoot your best shot and give us a sample of what you call "The new evolution" of jazz and we can decide.

O-10, I’m glad that you thought is was valid. But, I’m at a bit of a loss as to how to respond to your post. Most importantly, the issue of evolution is not about “new jazz”, it’s a general idea that applies to any time period in the music and I really would prefer to not get into another debate about the merits of old vs new. I also don’t understand the “since it is you who is always pushing new jazz” comment. That’s not an accurate characterization at all. Some posters here have posted far more new jazz than I have. Moreover, as with my last “survey” 😉, I would say it’s new jazz maybe a quarter of the time for my posted clips. What I do advocate for, although I wouldn’t characterize it as “pushing”, is trying to be more genre-neutral. For me, new jazz does not have to be approached automatically with skepticism about its validity. Lastly, with respect, if after 5 years of this thread with its many posted clips of good “new jazz”, it has to be given a “best shot” once again so others can “decide” then it’s pretty clear to me that the exercise will be pointless.

Now, re the lack of responses to your “new jazz” posts. First, I think it’s an exaggeration to say that no one ever responds. But, speaking only for myself, I simply don’t like most of what you post as “new jazz”. I don’t feel that it is representative of the better, never mind best new jazz out there. I have posted a bit of what consider good “new jazz”; perhaps you didn’t like it. Again, even very recently some here posted very good examples. I will offer some thoughts on your last “new jazz” clip next time around, Regards.

Besides, pryso’s “challenge” has to get first dibs 😊

frogman & orpheus10
Thanks for the cuts and explanation on Sonny Stitt. I have many Stitt recordings and never felt he was a clone of Bird . I had read some things to that effect but always felt it was a bad rap on his musicianship.BTW the cut of "Laura" by Stitt was beautiful , one I was not familiar with.

As to the question of the 1st bebop recording , it seems orpheus10 has changed the question to "who best represents the new  bebop style that came out of that period of time" and as such has nominated Charlie Parker as the one who had the greatest influence and represented this new style of music in his playing . It would be hard to argue with his being chosen as many sources, including many musicians, point to him as being there at the beginning.  So is Parker the best AND the first? I don't know.

 I have found a  Parker interview with Paul Desmond, I believe,
where he is questioned concerning his musicianship. Parker clearly states , as FACT, that he did a lot of study, sometimes 11-14 hours a day.He also says he studied with books and indicates this was a very important part of his development. So it is clear from this statement by Parker that  jazz music can be intellectualized , comprehended and studied . And that WAS  a key factor in his development as a musician.  Jazz music IS evolutionary. Using Parker again as an example  I quote Mark Gridley's "Jazz Styles History and Analysis"2nd addition. He writes "Charlie Parker wrote the song "Ko-Ko" atop the chord changes of "Cherokee" a previously written song and his improvisations were new melodies with "Cherokees" accompaniment. He also wrote that  Parker. as well as other jazz musicians ,wrote new songs using pop tunes standard progressions of the day. So there you have it.
In the interview Parker talks about records he cut in 1942 with Dizzy Gillespie and one of those tunes being "Groovin High". So are their records prior to the 1944 tune cited by pjw that were before the musician union strike which represent bebop?
This was the first time I heard Charlie Parker interviewed. I was taken by how articulate and intelligent he was . And how humble he was concerning his talent , a rare and admirable quality I respect in any artist .

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T3W8Ff_4oFg

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=prbqc3C6968 

BTW orpheus10 I enjoyed the cut by Oran Etkin you posted. I will look for some more of his music.