Coltrane or Parker: Which one is deader?

[Anonymous]

Loved Parker---hated Coltrane!

Regardless, both are equally dead in my humble opinion!

[saxophone_volume1]

Bird Lives!!!!!! :)

[paulwl]

I would say Bird is deader, because his style is older, and everybody knows the older jazz is, the more musically stagnant and socially useless it is.

Put another way: Say both Bird and Trane were deathly ill awaiting liver transplants. You are the doctor. You have one liver. Your mission: to make sure that liver gets used for the greatest benefit to music history. (A cause that has claimed many a liver over the years.)

What do you do? What doooooo you do?

:wink:

[Roger Aldridge]

I never do well with comparison questions. I mean, who am I to judge the likes of Parker and Coltrane? Never the less, in terms of personal preference I tend to listen more to Coltrane than Parker. This is NOT to cast any stones at Bird. Rather, there are qualities in Coltrane's playing, musical conceptions, and tenor sound (man, that SOUND!) that speak to me at deeper levels. One of the interesting things about this is that for years I focused on alto and don't play tenor.

[PB]

WHAT KIND OF DISCUSSION IS THIS ?????????????

[Ivy]

Roger, interesting that you play alto but love Trane's sound. Have you found a setup that comes close to it? There are a few known alto players with Trane's sound conception. I have no idea how they do it. The closest one to my ears is Gary Bartz- what a gorgeous sound he has. He uses a metal mp but don't know the make.

As for the main question- both are alive and well!! Bird lives and so does Trane!

[Roger Aldridge]

Sometimes my brain does wierd things in reading written words. When I first saw the topic I thought that it said "deadlier" not "deader"....and I took it to mean a Bird versus Coltrane comparison. "Deader" takes on another meaning and it's one that I don't appreciate. BOTH Charlie Parker and John Coltrane were MASTERS of music. It's natural to have personal peferences. Never the less, when musicians reach this level of mastery they deserve respect regardless of whether their style speaks to us or not.

[Anonymous]

Parker was the master! Coltrane, was the recipient of more good luck than Andrew Lloyd Weber!

Parker expanded the musical horizon. Coltrane bluffed his way into the hearts and minds of musicians who were not gifted enough to follow in Bird's footsteps.

Before you flip out, I'm yankin' your chain! :D

I personally detest Coltrane and all he stands for, but I accept the fact that I am in the minority, and I freely admit that he must have been very talented at SOMETHING, just not 'music' as I understand it! :roll:

[Joseph Boucher]

Well, Parker did have a movie made about his life. I believe it was called 'Bird'. I guess hollywood thought the he was worth remembering. Maybe someday they may make one about Coltrane. They better hurry though, because he getting 'more deader' all the time. Joe.

[paulwl]

Another saintly role for Denzel Washington, no doubt...

[paulwl]

Another saintly role for Denzel Washington, no doubt...

[JL]

The question is kinda bizarre. If you're talking about the individual person, dead is dead, in my book. But the music lives on. And I think the music of both these great innovators will live far beyond the lifetimes of anyone alive today. Tastes in music, and in everything else, differ. Speaking for myself, I find Bird's music astounding.....he was clearly a true genius. Too bad most of the recordings of Bird are not higher quality.

Coltrane had a SOUND that totally knocks me out. And by sound I don't just mean tone; It's the totality of what he played, harmonically, rythmically, and in conjuction with the other musicians he played with. Who can explain it? If you don't hear it, that's fine. If you do hear it, then you've tapped into the music of the universe, and you'll know it.

Who was better? That's like asking if a fine Cognac is better than grilled lobster.....not very poetic, sorry. But such comparisons don't mean much. You could compare their music in terms of chord progressions and logical structure, etc. and probably Bird would win out there. But in terms of sound, a comparison is meaningless. I've been lucky enough to hear many great jazz muscians in live performance (some day I'll make a list--a lot of them are dead now), but I never got to see either Bird or Coltrane, since they died shortly before I was old enough to see 'em.....I'd give anything to go back in time and catch a live performance by either one.

[Jon B. Bop]

Parkers been dead for about 50 years.

Coltranes been dead for more than 30 years.

We're still talking about them, learning from them, listening to them.

I think they're both pretty much alive...

[Grumps]

There's much of Coltrane's music I can't listen to.... but then there is some that reaches the inner longing in us all where dreams are both born and retired. His solo in Miles Davis' Blue in Green, I feel, is a beautifully underplayed expression; and probably one of his shortest solos ever. I think Miles got the best out of him.

[Anonymous]

I agree that Coltrane was a very good player indeed, until he started believing his own hype, then he simply got lost in his own toxic waste! What happened to his music is the same thing that caused us to pass laws about marrying our first cousins!

It's a shame that Cannonball couldn't assert more influence on him!

[Mike Ruhl]

Cannonball lives!!!!!!

[Roger Aldridge]

This poll inspired me to dust off a Coltrane recording I haven't listened to for a number of months -- Sellar Regions. If I remember correctly, it was recorded only 5 months before Coltrane died.

The recording reminded me of just how melodic a player Coltrane was and the depth of beauty in his music. This statement might result in some folks rolling their eyes. After all, when we think of "melodic" players we naturally think of Paul Desmond, Stan Getz, Prez, Al Cohn, Lee Konitz, etc. I find that to better appreciate Coltrane I have to shift my concepts of melody and sound more into the realm of 20th Century composition. If I listen to Coltrane with the same kind of ears as I listen to, say, a Bartok string quartet (such as No. 4 or 5) then various things that he's doing with melodic development come to light. It's then possible to listen to Coltrane in a whole new way. This is not melody as Getz would play it. Never the less, it's music of a very high order.

Charlie Parker was also a very melodic player. Again, not in the same way as Paul Desmond. I've heard that Lee Konitz would spend time listening to Bird's solos on a tape recorder at half-speed.

[JS]

Actually, Roger, Lee Konitz spent years studying the music of Charlie Parker - when he was studying with Lennie Tristano, Tristano would have his students transcribe the music of jazz greats (like Bird and Lester Young) - but, thy had to be abole to sing the solos at a VERY slow tempo BEFORE he would even let them play the solo on their instruments!

Coltrane was as melodic of a player as anyone else - like you said, if you listen closely to the thematic/motivic development, it's astounding!

[Rev. D]

Anyone who wants to something more compelling than these guys did and has what it takes should just go ahead. Presumably that would be its own reward, and would speak for itself. Dumping on either of them is just a backhanded form of hero-worship, and isn't any more helpful is getting the music beyond where it is now. And yeah, I'd thank my lucky stars to still be around on the day when someone can make me forget Coltrane.

[Chris]

Coltrane lives forever.

Nobody will reach him!

[kevvieg]

I think the topic was a gag that was taken too seriously. I think Kenny G is deader than either Trane or Bird cuz nobody will be studying or playing his music IN his lifetime, let alone after he's gone to a new place

[soreliprick]

Let's all pony up a get him cab fare outta town. Oh, no, is that a backhanded complement and do i really admire the G-man?! And now I've given him a pet name.......i'm hoping this will be the end of a totally enjoyable thread, and the end of an idiotic forum.

[paulwl]

I'm still waiting for an answer to my liver question...

[Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2003 2:02 pm]
Say both Bird and Trane were deathly ill awaiting liver transplants. You are the doctor. You have one liver. Your mission: to make sure that liver gets used for the greatest benefit to music history. (A cause that has claimed many a liver over the years.)

What do you do? What doooooo you do?

[Jazzophone]

that is probably one of the most difficult questions one could ask a saxophonist and/or jazz lover. no?

[m3pilot]

Can't livers be successfully divided and shared among multiple donees? It's it's a tissue match for both I say go for it.

Now where's my hacksaw???

[Subtone Sam]

selmerfudd,you´re talking lots of BS about Coltrane,take some time to LISTEN to his music;thats all it takes,time.






paulwl.,liver can be delicious if you add some salt and pepper... :Shocked:

[Anonymous]

The man does not appeal to me. I find his tone to be unlistenable and his solos to be pointless groping. Many people feel otherwise and that is jazz's great loss!

But, time? Indeed!

Do you think another 60 years might change my mind? I''ve heard his first recordings and, with some glee, his last! I was assaulted with all his truely mind-numbing wheezing, hooting and bleating for the years in between. Now, thanks to an indifferent and uninformed jazz audience, the general public has been led to believe that this is jazz! No, it's not! And by some definitions it barely qualifies as music!

Listen? I've heard enough!

Surely you know that this is MY opinion and that this, in no way, invalidates your own irrational belief system. You do not have to agree with me and I, in return, am not obligated to endorse your views!

There has to be a balance of opinion or we become musical terrorists, bombing the World Trade Center of open expression with hi-jacked slogans and quasi-religious zeal!

[Troy]

So, I'm going to really expose my jazz ignorance (as if I haven't already). If these guys solos have to be slowed done THAT much to be really understood, why play them so fast?

I mean, it's impressive the first couple of times but after that, where's the music? Maybe this is why jazz has not been as popular as many would like it to be.

For me, any kind of music -- played just to show off some technique -- becomes just showing off. Maybe I am slow, but the stuff has to come across in a way that I can follow it...and therefore understand and enjoy it.

[m3pilot]

I'm coming to the conclusion that it's not about playing to suit the audience. It's about playing what you want . . . what you think. Otherwise you are just pandering to the listener. Trying to get them to like you. Bending to their artistic sensibilities. Like Kenny G. circular breathing while he trills for five minutes.

Jazz is unpopular with the masses because it is so individualistic. How many of us here would like it if an audience member came up to us at a gig and suggested that we NEED to shape our solos differently, play less diatonically and use fewer notes? If you don't like or understand it, don't listen. There may or may not be others out there who do like it and do "understand" it.

While I don't TRY to emulate any particular player I will say my personal influences are more aligned with Dexter Gordon, Gene Ammons, Sonny Stitt, etc. as opposed to Coltrane, Ornette etc. It's just what resonates with me personally. I love listening to a great deal of what Coltrane recorded. Do I like it all? No way. I don't like everything Dexter Gordon recorded either but if I had to pick a favorite player . . .

And Selmer Fudd, I think it's pretty disingenuous to say on one hand, that everyone is entitled to their opinion and then on the other imply that anyone who thinks that Coltrane's playing is either jazz or music doesn't know the definition of jazz or music. That's just intellectual bullying. Perhaps if you are going to make such bold statements, you should define jazz for us. That way we can form reasoned arguements and present examples that might contradict your assertions.

[Stacey]

I remember when I was about 15 and first heard Trane. I had read something about him, and thought "Well, if he's so good, I'll just have to buy this 2-LP set." So I did. The first time I listened, I thought, "What is this NOISE?" After a few more listenings, I thought "This guy is doing a lot of stuff". Finally, I realized "This guy is doing that stuff ON PURPOSE - how does he accomplish that?" I've never been deeply into jazz theory, but when music puts you somewhere between uncomfortable and elated, with a little of both at the same time, then that musician has really done something.

I've never listened as much to Bird. However, I remember when I first heard him (again, around age 15). I was blown away hearing how the melodies just seemed to EXPLODE out of his horn. The obviously incredible talent and the ridiculous hours of work behind his sound - it's tough to deny the genius of that.

It's also easy to see why neither of these guys died as billionaires. When you practice 15 hours a day, you develop quite a craft, but you don't make a lot of money. Being black men working in the 40s, 50s, and 60s didn't exactly do good things for their paychecks, either.

Alive or dead, how many of US will be talked about in mass media 40 or 50 years from now?

Recently I listened to some beautiful Coltrane ballad. I don't remember what it was. What I do remember was that unlike all of the other tracks on this Trane CD, the song sounded as if Trane were just about to let out a horrible squeak - the squeak that tells me my reed is too dry. For a full five minutes Trane sounded this way, while playing a beautiful, slow melody and never squeaking. To a sax player, it was like hearing nails on a chalkboard while listening to a ballad. And I'm sure it was intentional.

Rev D., I'm with you - I can't wait until someone comes along to make me forget Coltrane! I just don't see it happening any time soon. :wink:

[CashSax]

These guys are both probably selling more records than ever.. and like them musically or not, they are both without a doubt benchmark players of the highest order..dead?? hardly.

[Klaunstance]

I don't think one can be better than the other, they were different people and each was doing his own thing. It's also impossible to say becuase Trane built on Bird's new ground.

One of my favorite Bird tunes is 'Warming Up a Riff'. (Same chords - Cherokee - but slower and less forced than Koko.) I am always amazed at how the lines just pour out as if his imagination is overflowing with them. Every phrase knocks me out, and especially the four in the first half of the last bridge, which work like a four-line poem. I think (many will disagree) that Bird was the most lyrical player of them all.

With Trane I don't get the same sense of flow and poetry. It's there, and he's one of the best at it (e.g. 'Crescent'), but he doesn't reach Bird's summit. But I get more of something else, which is a kind of seeking, like he is trying to express something that the rest of us haven't even experienced yet, until we hear him. It's like he's bringing news from a far-off place that I can't get to on my own. No one can touch him at this.

So it depends on what you are looking for. If I had to pick one over the other, it would depend on my mood - I'd say Bird today, Trane tomorrow. That's how I know that they are so great, because each speaks his own language and nothing substitutes for it.

[Subtone Sam]

Selmerfudd,its your opinion and its definitely OK with me,no problem.But the thing is that music like Coltrane´s is not exactly easy-listening backround music (enough of that already!).Personally,I didn´t like Coltrane when I first heard it some 20 years ago.I thought his music was disturbing and his sound on tenor and soprano was harsh and unpleasant.At that time I listened to people like Getz and Rollins etc. (which I still do,both are true masters of saxophone).But there was still something that faschinated me about Coltrane´s music so I kept on listening.And I began to like it more and more,he really expanded my musical views;his music was deeper than what I was used to.My point here is that we are talking about an ART form here,thats what jazz is at its best,just like great classical composers.And art is something you have to learn to like in many cases,its not easy-listening stuff.Not too many people like Picasso´s later paintings when they see them for the first time but again LEARNING is the keyword here,just like you learn to play.I have to add that this kind of "player vs. player;which one you like?" is stupid thing,since when it comes to masters who have reached certain level,people like Coltrane,Parker,Getz,Lester Young,Ellington,Mozart,Stevie Wonder etc. the list goes on; there is no "best" but they are only different from each other,none of them is better that other,just DIFFERENT.

[Jazzophone]

Well said, Sam ... and you're right, there isn't going to be a single person here who has exactly the same tastes in jazz music as the next BECAUSE jazz is such an individualistic, specialised form of art. Art itself is basically interpretation ... so who's to say which form of interpretation is correct?

[DirkW]

Bird gave new life to the concept of melody.
Coltrane murdered the concept of melody.

Bird stretched and reformed the melody into exciting patterns.
Coltrane folded, spindled, and mutilated the melody, then stomped it on the floor with malice.

Coltrane was extremely talented, and posessed technical abilities far beyond most professional musicians. With work, I've been able to get some idea what he was doing in Giant Steps. That understanding does not translate into enjoyment of music without a decent melody.

I get more satisfaction from listening to the bland, half-alive melodies of KennyG than from the technically brilliant Coltrane. KennyG at least sounds like he enjoys life, in a simple-minded way.

paulwl, anyone who abuses their liver like these guys did doesn't deserve the chance to destroy a second one.

[CashSax]

They enjoyed they're lives too..they were saxophone players.

[Randall]

Dirk beat me to the punch on the liver question....!
However, if it were possible, I would really rather hear Bird's latest release than Coltrane's.
8)

[paulwl]

paulwl, anyone who abuses their liver like these guys did doesn't deserve the chance to destroy a second one.
Hmmm. From a medical POV, and given the crying need for livers, yes; from a philosophical POV...as I said, hmmm.


I've never been deeply into jazz theory, but when music puts you somewhere between uncomfortable and elated, with a little of both at the same time, then that musician has really done something.
You're onto something there, Stacey. In fact, you could say that not just about music, but about art, film, writing, dance...In fact...maybe it's that capability of feeling 2 conflicting emotions at the same time that separates the philistine from the discerning.

[DirkW]

Hmmm. From a medical POV, and given the crying need for livers, yes; from a philosophical POV...as I said, hmmm.

OK, from a philosophical point of view: I would give it to Coltrane on the condition he, like Herbie Hancock, changes musical direction.

[hershel]

it is appropriate to consider the following statement of james baldwin's to put bird and trane's addictions in perspective, "to be black in america is to live in a constant state of rage."
drugs and alcohol were surely ways to escape the "rage".

as to the original question, i can't tell who's deader, though i'd say the attempts to clone them both have run wildly amok. who among us is in no part bird or trane?

[Stacey]

Paul wl,

Since I bought a copy of your book, which you were nice enough to autograph for me, I can only hope you were calling me "discerning", rather than "philistine".. :wink:

As a man of impeccable taste and refinement, I can only say that I'd be extremely pleased to sound like either of those cats did!

[gary]

Well, when I read the topic, I just had to laugh; it's pretty humorous the way it's worded. And Selmer Fudd's opening statement was pretty funny.

I would say "Bird". Not because I prefer him over 'Trane or don't think 'Trane hasn't been an enourmous enfluence, but rather that practically all players today owe much, if not most, their ideas to Bird and not all do to Trane.

Furthermore, considering the large number of post-Winton players who are retro in their playing, Bird is the predominant enfluence. I would go on record as saying "pity". I find the Wintonesque philosophy of retro-jazz rather, well...Poe-esque.

This thread has expanded somewhat into who you like more and I sympathize somewhat with Fudd in that there are Coltrane recordings that do not move me and, frankly, to me don't even swing (in the broad definition). Some of it is more like listening in on a guy in the next practice room working through ideas and expanding his awesome technique. Problem is, I paid for a performance that I hoped would move me musically.

Having said that, I absolutely love most of Coltrane's recorded work, right up to the end and "free jazz". For me, it absolutely honest, very deep and spiritual music and I think the musical world is enriched because of him.

Think I might add, though, that discussions like this are more fruitful when everyone feels free to participate without having their opinions dissed, without qualification, as a sign of, for example, an "irrational belief system". This kind of dogmatic statement just doesn't serve any purpose.

[Jon B. Bop]

Dirkw wrote;

Coltrane murdered the concept of melody.

Coltrane didn't murder the melody, as much as approach it from a different point of view.
I'm not a huge Coltrane fan, as I prefer the beautiful melodic players too, but one of my favorite albums of all time is "Johnny Hartman with John Coltrane"
Coltranes off-kilter improvisations juxtaposed with Hartman's perfectly smooth melodic ballads is truly high-art.

In order for art to remain alive, someone has to test the boundries.

[Grumps]

Was the song 'Giant Steps' Coltrane's answer to both his critics and to Parker?

[Jazzophone]

In order for art to remain alive, someone has to test the boundries.

And who better to test it than Coltrane? Trane and Bird were both among the greatest musical innovators of all time - I think most of us are in agreement about that, at least - but innovators in their own separate ways. Bird was lyrical and had the melody going, and he had the kind of music a lot of non-jazz-enthusiasts would probably have an easier time understanding. Coltrane, however, had music that could be described as a lot more tumultous and perhaps disturbing in some cases (if simply the style!) - but it had intense depth and takes a lot of concentration to get to the bottom of. Some like it that way. Some don't.


maybe it's that capability of feeling 2 conflicting emotions at the same time that separates the philistine from the discerning.

Personally, I found that feeling of 'conflicting emotions' WAY more with the music of Coltrane than that of Bird, perhaps because Trane's style is naturally complicated and less lyrical. I know a lot of people whose hell would be to be left in a locked room with a Coltrane album playing, but I find it often refreshing to be exposed to ideas like his, as off-the-wall as they may be.

Just my two cents.

[gary]

Ya know, that raises an interesting point. My first reaction would be to agree that Coltrane's music was, in comparison, more disturbing than Bird's but after thinking about it, I wonder if some of that is just not because we can easier put Coltrane into a musical context than Bird. He, and the music that preceeded him are more recent for us than Bird.

I was probably about 11 when I started listening to Bebop. That was in 1955 and I remember how disturbing and foreign that sounded to my parents and, generally, just about everyone else I knew. In the context of the times it was pretty radical and unsettling. Even some great swing musicians, at least in the beginnings, were calling it all kinds of names.

Come to thiink of it, when I play Bird today, it just gets to be too much for some of my neighbors and friends. They just can't take it because to them it is too tense. To me there's a big difference in Bird's concert at Massey Hall and Coltrane's Olatunji concerts. But I'm wondering if it makes much of a difference to the general public.

[retread]

gary, when I fell in love with bop in the mid 50s, my father, who had been a musician through college, said "I heard a lot of that music in China after the war."

[gary]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Fun Bun]

Bird. That's you all need 8)

[Jon B. Bop]

One reason I think our ears(at least mine)relate more easily to Bird is because he never strays too far from his blues roots. You can always hear a lot of blues type phrasing in his playing. Coltrane strayed farther into other forms, creating his own along the way. IMHO.

[Jazzophone]

good point - and I guess people (well the general public anyway, excluding us jazz cats 8)) are more comfortable with the style they know - hence Bird's bluesy feel as opposed to Trane's "musical gropings in the dark" as I read it once in a CD jacket somewhere.

[retread]

Coltrane's later playing reminds me of Mark Twain's comment about Wagner. "They tell me his music is much better than it sounds."

[Anonymous]

That ain't the way I heerded it, Johnny!

The way I heerded it---

George Bernard Shaw sez "Wagner's music's not as good as it sounds!"

(Sound of crickets as Daffy slinks off the stage!)

[retread]

Shaw 'nuff? The Twain version is my story, and I'm sticking with it.

[hershel]

could be shaw and twain both said it.

i say trane's music up to and around giant steps sounds like a logical extension of bop. some of the music around the time of a love supreme sounds like sermons of a gospel preacher. the later music sounds like old testament fire and thunder.

[RS]

Amen.

[Grumps]

This has been an intriguing topic for discussion over the last couple of months. The vast majority of posts are well thought expressions; the interaction of which work to nurture our forum, our community. Unfortunately, although some responses are close, the correct answer to the initial question eludes us.

"Coltrane or Parker: Which one is deader?"

Parker died first and has been dead longer than Coltrane; henceforth, he is deader.

[jazzbluescat]

I'm with Roger A. on this. I have too much respect for these guys and their music to make light of their demise; albeit I understand the jest.

Personally I liked Trane's music more that Bird's, not taking anything from Bird. I had the pleasure and honor of hearing Trane live three or four times.

However, to lighten things up a bit with some "serious" levity: let's tar and feather Selmer Fudd and an' ride him out on a rail. :lol:

[Morry]

Grumps, I disagree. Once the body reaches room temperature, I would consider them equally dead.

[DirkW]

I'm with Roger A. on this. I have too much respect for these guys and their music to make light of their demise; albeit I understand the jest.
I have great respect for their musical abilities but no respect for their substance abuse. It's hard for me to revere those lacking personal character. It's much like putting Alan Iverson or Mike Tyson on a pedestal.

So -- Stan Getz or Mike Tyson: which career is deader?

[RS]

Disqualify everyone who ever had a jones and who's left? Lawrence Welk?

[RS]

"You say you haf a monkey on your back? Dot's okay. Ve like animals."

[brickboo]

Selmer,

I just have to hear what anyone plays who thinks Coltrane sucks. Do you have a place I can listen to you on the web or a CD tape or whatever. Anxious to hear from you.
My email is (Brickboo2@yahoo.com)
Thanks in advance,
Anthony Hargis (Boo)

[jazzbluescat]

[quote=jazzredcat]I'm with Roger A. on this. I have.....

I have great respect for their musical abilities but no respect for their substance abuse. It's hard for me to revere those lacking personal character. It's much like putting Alan Iverson or Mike Tyson on a pedestal.

So -- Stan Getz or Mike Tyson: which career is deader?

There's something about Trane that might change your perspective: he was clean several years before his demise; and, judging by his musical output, experienced a totally spiritual awakening/turnaround.
Personally, it is easy for me to differentiate the music from the man/tortured artist. I love Trane's music and have tremendous respect for him as a man, for turning himself around. I'm not a kid and therefore don't let my judgment become clouded and "follow" the wrong aspects of a man.
It's a shame though, his earlier abuse finally caught up with him.

[Vortex]

Which one's "deader"?

....I don't know, but they both seem like they've been in graves for quite a long time :roll:

[LBAjazz]

I agree with Brickboo.

[CashSax]

Neither..dead is dead..both were among the most vibrant Saxophonists this planet ever produced.. their sounds will live forever in this world..if you don't know this fact..then you're probably ready for the TROMBONE forum.

[werkinsnake]

How bout
Parker- technique
Desmond- tone (someone had to mention Paul)
Coltrane- ideas for endless improv

There you have it. The best of everything.

[Minatar12]

My personal favorite is Trane by far, but I really don't see the point in saying "who's better, who's deader," and all that. They both did incredible things in music, both expanded and progressed and developed. Like someone said, I like Trane's playing better and I have more respect for him as a person, but Bird was the one who first really broke free from big band and syncopated swing and made jazz into an individualistic musician and listeners only music.

When Bird was playing, 'trad jazz, or dixieland made a comeback, and everyone felt to choose sides. Bird stayed above it all though, and had only praise for dixieland artists. If you really respect Bird, then you should remember him for that, and not diss on other artists like 'Trane. I'm sure if Bird had been alive during Trane's time, they would have played together and Bird would have had nothing but good to say about 'Trane.

[wersax]

Bird and Trane lived in very different times. The whole free jazz thing Coltrane gravitated towards was a reflection of extremely difficult and chaotic times. Coltrane could be considered front runner in the jazz's race towards dissonance ("Ascension" comes to mind), but he certainly wasn't alone. Don't get me wrong, this doesn't mean you gotta, or should, like this music; there's certainly a lot of it that I can do without. But I do believe, that in order to understand Bird's and Coltrane's art, you have to examine their lives, and that, to some extent, means examining the times they lived in. This is true with both Bird's and Trane's lives......by the way, I had the pleasure of sharing a bottle of sherry a few times with Sonny Stitt, the great beebop alto and tenor player, nearly 30 years ago; my sax teacher knew him from the old days, so we all hung out at a small club gig of his. I mentioned Coltrane to Stitt (I was a big Trane fan then) and Sonny went ballistic; he wouldn't talk to me for the longest time! He hated Coltrane!

[wiju]

Put another way: Say both Bird and Trane were deathly ill awaiting liver transplants. You are the doctor. You have one liver. Your mission: to make sure that liver gets used for the greatest benefit to music history. (A cause that has claimed many a liver over the years.)

What do you do? What doooooo you do?

:wink:

i give it to a homeless and preffer both dead :)

getting serious it´s a pretty hard question
parker or trane? trane or parker?
as i killed both, i preffer both cause i love both.

hugs

[Sigmund451]

I think this string is deader.

[jazzbluescat]

I wish Saxpics would delete this thread. It's disrepectful and creepy IMHO.

[Sigmund451]

Yup.

[spiderjames]

I've always been more into Bird than Coltrane. although I like both, Parkers lyrical style appeals to me more. I do, however, think his melodies sound much prettier when they are not played 90 mph. Bird seemed to have reached something within himself that Coltrane never seemed to reach. When I hear bird I feel like I am hearing exactly what he heard in his head like he had reached his sound, his message. Coltrane seems like he was still pushing the envelope trying to find something he never quite could reach.like he never quite got his ultimate musical idea across. In the process of looking for it he did expanded the scope of the saxophone enormously. I certainly connot touch either one.

[Sigmund451]

Darn it I thought this thread died.

[spiderjames]

Sorry, I was a late arrival.

[SuperDave]

So Spider who gets the liver..?

[clem]

Don't know about the liver, but the Bird gets the worm. Good insight spiderjames.

[Minatar12]

although I like both, Parkers lyrical style appeals to me more.

I've never thought of Parker's improv style as "lyrical." Many things, but lyrical is not one of them. When I think of lyrical soloists, I think of Wayne Shorter, or Sonny Rollins, but not Parker.

[michaelbaird]

It just depends on who I'm listening to. I listen to Coltrane more than Parker but I respect him as well. Any Dexter Gordon fans out there? I love his ballad CD...all his tear jerkers! He can color notes like no one else. He can make more music with just 5 notes than I can with 30.

[Vader]

I'm not even touching this ...........
This thread is so messed up it clouded my Jedi vision.