Sax on the Web Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Am I the only one who feels this way?

33K views 220 replies 43 participants last post by  hakukani 
#1 ·
I'm not trying to start any fights here, but I've just got to ask if anyone on here agrees or not:

Charlie Parker is overrated.

There, I said it.

Look, I'm not bashing his innovations. As one of the pioneers of bebop, he deserves respect and a place in history. But let's face it: As a player, he gets a lot more credit than he deserves.

Having listened to just about every recording of him many times, I just don't see why everyone seems to think that he's one of the greatest technical saxophone players who ever lived. Sure, he can play many things very fast. But, so can MANY of the players who followed, and even some of his contemporaries. The obvious one being Sonny Stitt (Who could do everything Charlie Parker could do, with a better sound, and he could also do it on tenor), but come on, I shouldn't have to elaborate here. Most of the big modern cats today are miles better technically then Charlie Parker ever was.

Also, I cannot STAND his sound. Having never heard it in person, I can't say that he sounded bad, but of all the players who were recorded back then, his is my least favorite. Except for maybe Parker With Strings, but that would be the ONLY exception.

Again, not trying to start a fight. You're all just as entitled to your opinions as I am to mine.

Craig
 
See less See more
#66 ·
Oh man, you must be joking! Normally I don't go in for comparing great players (Pete Thomas is right), since they each have their own voice. But to say that clip of Earl Bostic even comes close to what Bird could do is absurd. Yeah, great technique and 'special effects' but not in the same league at all. Listen to the Funky Blues clip I posted.....
 
#70 ·
And "YES," about Earl Bostic, Marcel Mule, and Benny Carter! That's essentially what I was trying to get at the whole time. Parker was influential, but I think that people get into the "fanboy" mindset and say that because of how influential he was, he's the best that ever was on the instrument.

Hey, if my unpopular opinions lead me to having a truly original sound and style, that's quite alright with me. :)
 
#76 ·
Parker is not my favorite sax player to listen to, but I would not call him overrated. (I gave him one of the four places on my Mt Rushmore of Jazz, in another thread).

Whenever I try to play his solos from the Omnibook, I find myself thinking "wait .... he made THIS stuff sound so smooth and easy?". I think Parker's articulation during his prime was impeccable - he made those unconventional phrases sound SO easy.

As far as his tone goes, when I listen to his available recordings, two things come to mind:
1. The recording technology of the early 1950s and especially the 1940s was nowhere near as good as those from the later 1950s.
2. I don't think Parker was *trying* to sound pretty - I think he was going for a different sound, and a different style.

An analogy: Did you ever hear a rock-and-roll sax player (or singer) get into a quiet ballad setting? Sometimes those rock-and-roll musicians can blow you away with just how pretty their tone can be, when that becomes their intended purpose. When I listen to some Parker recordings (with their limited fidelity due to their era), I hear someone who had the tone but was not trying to sound pretty - his bebop songs were not typically asking for that.
 
#79 ·
2. I don't think Parker was *trying* to sound pretty - I think he was going for a different sound, and a different style.
From No Bop Roots In Jazz: Parker
by Michael Levin and John S. Wilson - 9/9/1949


Asked to define bop, after several evenings of arguing, Charlie still was not precise in his definition.

"It's just music," he said. "It's trying to play clean and looking for the pretty notes."
 
#90 ·
"...[A]esthetics are dependent on personal sensibility and social environment and only a Sith deals in absolutes. ..."

1. The Sith, known alternatively as Red Sith or Sith Purebloods, were a species of red-skinned Humanoids that originated on the world of Korriban, before eventually resettling on the ice-world of Ziost. Also distinct for their bone spurs, facial tentacles, and genetic predispositions toward both left-handedness and the dark side of the Force, the Sith species coalesced into an empire ruled first by kings and later by Dark Lords.

2. Everyone from Crete lies constantly, and I ought to know, since I am one.

3. Whoa!
 
#92 ·
wiki:

Paul "Hucklebuck" Williams (July 13, 1915 - September 14, 2002)[1] was an American blues and rhythm and blues saxophonist and songwriter. In his Honkers and Shouters, Arnold Shaw credits Williams as one of the first to employ the honking tenor sax solo that became the hallmark of rhythm and blues and rock and roll in the 1950s and early 1960s.

After performing with Clarence Dorsey and King Porter he formed his own band in 1947. He was best known for his 1949 hit, "The Hucklebuck", a twelve-bar blues that also spawned a dance craze. The single went to number one on the U.S. Billboard R&B chart.[2] He used the billing of Paul Williams and his Hucklebuckers thereafter.

Williams' recording was covered by Tommy Dorsey and Frank Sinatra, as well as by R&B artists Roy Milton and Lionel Hampton, but Williams' Savoy recording was still the best-selling rhythm and blues song of the year. Shaw points out that "The Hucklebuck" was an early example of crossover from R&B to mainstream popular music. The Williams version sold half a million copies by some estimates.[3] The melody of the song was based on Charlie Parker's "Now's the Time".

 
#93 ·
I'm not so sure citing Funky Blues as an example of Parker's greatness is such a great idea. All three altoists are so fantastic. Parker's and Benny Carter's solos are just about my favourite solos by each man. The trouble is Ben Webster shows up at the end with one of his very greatest, most beautiful, tenderest, kindliest, wildly passionate masterpieces that I know of. If the definition of art is communicatable passion, then Ben's solo, at least to me, is at such a high level of high art, that it shows the altos to be, by comparison, scarcely relevant or significant.
 
#94 ·
Sorry, but what does that have to do with whether or not Bird is overrated?

@click - thanks. I wonder if that last sentence is also quoting original sources or just a conclusion on the part of the writer of that Wiki article.
 
#99 ·
I listen to Bird all the time because I can never get enough of his playing. I consider him in a class by himself, and frankly how anyone could consider that funky effects laden number by Earl Bostic to be even close to the Brilliance of the music Bird created is beyond me. Nice, but!! Not only no cigar, no cigar butt either. He was unique, period and didn't need efffects because his lines and tone were enough by themselves and totally pure. IMO of course, but that opinion is formed from having actively listened to all sorts of jazz and other genres of music for 57 years. That doesn't make me an expert of course, but I think my earchops know what is truly great and what is merely very good.

However, that said, my favorite alto player has always been Jackie, who as everyone knows was an acolyte of Bird's until he found his own sound and language with which he took Bird's innovations into Harbop and Freebop. That still hasn't kept me from listening to Bird as the touchstone for all modern jazz, just as listening to Lester is for loving all the truly great tenor players who came after him. I can listen to Sonny, Trane, Booker Ervin, George Adams, Archie Shepp, David Murray and still know that what Lester Young did was unique. This is no different than my opinion that Freddie Hubbard, Lee Morgan and Woody Shaw were the greatest modern trumpet players doesn't detract, negate or contradict the truth that Dizzy was one of the baddest cats that ever blew that horn or that Clifford Brown was a Giant who would have stood at the summit.

The whole argument is without basis in the reality that music is a living form that flows thought the minds and souls humans and like any living form it grows, changes and is transformed by successive generations without its previous incarnations being lessened or negated. Bird was Bird just like a giant Sequoia is a giant Sequoia. Does a glorious Beech tree or a glowing red Japanese Maple make the Sequoia any less than it is?

Just open your ears and listen to the music...it is its own reason for being. Comparing it is a useless undertaking in the long run because you can appreciate it all if it is really and truly good.
 
#100 ·
you can appreciate it all if it is really and truly good.
We can also appreciate music that other people think is bad, ie music doesn't have to be deemed to be "good" by some academic body or elite audience. We can choose for ourselves so "good" is purely the music we happen like. Nobody has the authority to say Bird is better than Earl Bostic or Louis Jordan.
 
#101 ·
Pete, I didn't say I didn't appreciate or enjoy the Bostic cut, just that I don't feel that it showed what the OP intended it to show i.e., that Earl was more innovative or a better player than Bird. Earl Bostic didn't help create Bebop and whatever else he was capable of, which I don't dispute as good or even great, was not that nor on the same level in the history of Jazz.
 
#103 ·
I just pulled out my recordings of Bird playing the Cole Porter songbook and listened to it in its entirety in my cabin on the ship yesterday.

Masterful. Sublime. When I listen to Bird, there isn't a note out of place; nothing is lacking, nothing is superfluous. It's just magnificent music.

I don't look to Bird for tone, but the musicality and energy is always there.
 
#106 ·
Merlin, very well said and I think that the OP has to reconcile himself to the fact that many like yourself feel and have an informed intelligence that gets Parker's genius, regardless of his inability to get it. His own professed ignorance of Parker's pronounced influence on Cannonball Adderly, intentional or not (I'll be sporting and give him the benefit of the doubt), highlights just that.
 
#107 ·
Merlin, very well said and I think that the OP has to reconcile himself that many like yourself feel and have an informed intelligence that gets Parker's genius, regardless of his inability to get it. His own professed ignorance of Parker's pronounced influence on Cannonball Adderly, intentional or not (I'll be sporting and give him the benefit of the doubt), highlights just that.
The OP doesn't Cannonball either??

I live for Bird, Hodges, Benny Carter, Cannonball and Phil.
 
#112 ·
This summer I found a brand new 3-CD set of The Best Of Charlie Parker, a Dutch pressing I think, in a non-jazz store's sale bin for $2.99!!!! I snapped it up and man oh man was it the deal of the century. Over 50 of the best of Birds playing with all sorts of great musicians. I keep it in the car and play it endlessly because I can never get enough of the magic and having this in my head helps my own playing through absorption because you cannot play music in a vacuum. You have to listen to know what it is if you want to play it.

Check this song out, IMO one of the greatest pieces of arranging and playing you'll ever hear, and clearly not anything very many groups are playing today or even capable of playing it to this level of brilliance.

 
#113 ·
At issue isn't so much about a player being "overrated." It's about when folks lionize a musician in such certain terms that it becomes sacrilege to be less that smitten with that person's music.

Take John Coltrane, for instance. He is one of the greats. I love his ballad playing. His record with Johnny Hartmann is one of my faves. I love then propulsion of his McCoy-Garrison-Elvin rhythm section on the Impressions album. But, for reasons I cannot explain, many of his recordings don't speak to me in the same way that recordings by others do.

Does this take away from Coltrane's beauty and depth as an artist just because he's not on the top 5 list of some sax player born after Trane died? I should hope not.
Does this diminish my respect for him and his accomplishments. Not at all.

I think the take-home here is to each his/her own. It's great to have strong admiration and love for the music of any given musician, but be careful about imposing that on others, because it is fair to assume that they might have their own faves. And it's this difference between all of us that makes the hang interesting and great.

Rick

p.s.For the record, I still marvel at Bird's playing, especially on his ballad and slow blues recordings. The recordings with Machito slay me, too.
 
#128 ·
I have a question Craig.

How many Parker Solos have you transcribed? How many of his double time runs have you slowed down and analyzed to see what's theoretically going on? Reading out of the Omni-Book or analyzing there doesn't count....it's a different thing entirely to Transcribe from the source and analyze as you go. How many of these lick's that you've transcribed and analyzed can you play along with Parker on the recording? Can you imitate his inflection and articulation style?

If the answer to these questions is no, then you shouldn't state your opinion until you have done this.

What you're saying is a bit like, "I don't like Sushi", but all you've eaten is a California roll.

I'm not trying to be derogatory towards you or chastise you, but it seems to me that you've formed this opinion based on a few recordings you've heard and the dislike of everyone around you at school loving Parker.
 
#130 ·
I have a question Craig.

How many Parker Solos have you transcribed? How many of his double time runs have you slowed down and analyzed to see what's theoretically going on? Reading out of the Omni-Book or analyzing there doesn't count....it's a different thing entirely to Transcribe from the source and analyze as you go. How many of these lick's that you've transcribed and analyzed can you play along with Parker on the recording? Can you imitate his inflection and articulation style?

If the answer to these questions is no, then you shouldn't state your opinion until you have done this.

What you're saying is a bit like, "I don't like Sushi", but all you've eaten is a California roll.

I'm not trying to be derogatory towards you or chastise you, but it seems to me that you've formed this opinion based on a few recordings you've heard and the dislike of everyone around you at school loving Parker.
I see what you're trying to say.. I've only transcribed a couple of Parker solos. However, I am a professional transcriber. I've done hundreds of them, all to impeccable standards. My catch is, I only do recordings that I enjoy hearing. Sorry, but I can't say that for most of Parker's.

Your analagy doesn't add up. Not liking sushi is about the sense of taste. If all you've had is California rolls, that just means that you're saying you don't like sushi without ever tasting it. Music is different. It, first of all, should almost NEVER need to be analyzed to be enjoyed, and is purely an aural aesthetic. I've heard recordings of Parker, and I don't like most. That's it.
 
#133 ·
I've never been a huge Charlie Parker fan. But I don't think he's over rated.

There's three times as many people on the planet now and only a handful that can play like him. And I don't mean play his music. To play like someone else is not the same as transcribing. I often find transcribing counter intuitive to learning how to play like someone. You've got to find what YOU enjoy and don't care what anyone else thinks. At the same time I wouldn't go out of my way to mention how little I enjoy someone's music unless they personally asked me.
 
#145 ·
For me I can appreciate people that originated a type of music or style of playing, but the artists I like to listen to may be ones further down the line. For instance, Stan Getz is said not to be a great like Parker because he didn't originate a school of playing like Parker did. He was part of the Lester Young influenced players. I like Pres but would prefer to listen to Getz. Similarly I don't listen to Parker so much but like a lot of the players he influenced like Sonny Red, Sonny Criss or Sonny Stitt. Parker is considered the great as he did it all first. We remember the pioneers. Every British school boy should know Roger Bannister broke the four minute mile. People ran faster and arguably have done a better job of it than Bannister, but he remains the icon that achieved something. It might be that todays batch of athletes are "better" but they can't do what he did.
 
#147 ·
Stan Getz is said not to be a great like Parker...
This is where I start to get concerned, actually. Stan Getz had vastly underrated technique, in my opinion. I think he, if given the chance he could hold his own against Parker that way. My first recording of Getz was the Complete Savoy Recordings. I transcribed every solo on that record. Some of the most intense BEBOP I've heard. Listen to "Running Water," if you can find it. The complication of the head alone of that tune puts any of Parker's compositions to shame... Getz also played masterfully in a handful of different styles, almost single-handedly invented the Bossa Nova, which became a class of West-Coast jazz by itself.
 
#153 ·
I'm not trying to say you have to dedicate your life to Parker, or stop what you are doing right now and study Parker for 6 months. I'm not trolling, I'm not trying to degrade you or ridicule or school you. All I'm trying to do is help out. You will hear this stuff again from other's especially if you take lessons from great jazz players.

I wish you the best of luck on your journey and you really should listen to that clip I posted:)
 
#158 ·
One of the more ridiculous threads in recent months. Whether anyone likes or dislikes a musician's work is irrelevant to the importance of that work. Parker's playing, like it or not, was historically and aesthetically important to the development of jazz. That is "good reason" enough for an aspiring jazz musician to be interested in Parker, but it is unlikely that someone with a visceral aversion to a certain musician's work will ever be persuaded to like it. Someone who dislikes Parker will find himself in the minority among jazz musicians, but to react to the anxiety of one's minority status by claiming that Parker's work is "overrated" just invites accusations of being uninformed. Of course, simply posting "I don't like listening to Charlie Parker recordings" would not be appetizing thread bait, because the response would likely be little more than, "Who cares?"

And accusations of being uninformed -- or even trolling -- are only bolstered when you write that one of Stan Getz's Parker-imitation improvisations "puts any of Parker's compositions [sic] to shame," without recognizing it as the act of almost pure mimicry that it is. (Or why Tryp is laughing.) You don't like listening to Charlie Parker play in his own original style and claim that he is "overrated," yet you like listening to Stan Getz attempting to parrot Parker's style and claim that he is "underrated." Liking Getz trying to play Parker but not liking Parker playing Parker is your taste, however bizarre or contradictory it may seem to the majority of jazz musicians. But holding a minority opinion like that doesn't entitle you to further claim that what you like is "underrated" and what you don't like is "overrated." Individual taste, uninformed or not, is not the measure of value of an artist's work.
 
#159 ·
Whether anyone likes or dislikes a musician's work is irrelevant to the importance of that work. Parker's playing, like it or not, was historically and aesthetically important to the development of jazz. ....

Individual taste ... is not the measure of value of an artist's work.
Point, set, match.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top