Bird's Repeated Licks
nea566000-J.SCHOENBLUM(WHD387)W065
I'm finally getting around to sitting down and working
on improvising. I'm starting with "rhythm changes" 1-6-2-5
section and using the Charlie Parker's omni book as a start
for some ideas, since there are a load of songs in that
book based on rhythm changes. I have memorized about 4-6
different patterns, which I can now move between and
hybridize.
What amazes me, is how often Bird repeats his favorite licks.
In about 6 songs, there are some licks that appear in EVERY
song. I even notice a similarity to his favorite licks in
rythm changes and in the blues (e.g. Au Privave has some
similar licks as in, say, Celerity).
It almost seems then, that a limited repertoire (and I'm of course
not suggesting that Charlie Parker's is limited) can really
take you far. Anyone else have any comments on this?
- Joel
Robert Leroy Hughes
: Jazzers:
: - Joel
There is a very well-done dissertation by Thomas Owens on this subject.
He not only includes transcriptions but also catalogues Brid's licks so
that you can easily see which licks go in Bb blues but not F blues, etc.
It is available from UMI Press
Rob Hughes
Mark Eisenman
>In article <31333756...@att.com> "nea566000-J.SCHOENBLUM(WHD387)W065" <joel.w.s...@att.com> writes:
>>
>>What amazes me, is how often Bird repeats his favorite licks.
>>In about 6 songs, there are some licks that appear in EVERY
>>song. I even notice a similarity to his favorite licks in
>>rythm changes and in the blues
Again, language as an analogy helps to understand this. Some ot this "licks" that Bird uses are like the words "is", "the", "and", "=
it". IT would BE very difficult TO write this sentence without THE licks THAT ARE capitalized.
Mark
Thomas F Brown
> There is a very well-done dissertation by Thomas Owens on this subject.
> He not only includes transcriptions but also catalogues Brid's licks so
> that you can easily see which licks go in Bb blues but not F blues, etc.
> It is available from UMI Press
Owens' master's thesis was a similar analysis of the MJQ. The bird stuff
was also published in the journal for jazz scholars, I forget what it's
called, but it's a lot easier to find than a dissertation. Even better,
Owens just published a book that contains most of the bird
analysis and a lot more in a similar vein for all of the major names
in bop through the 40s and 50s. It's quite scholarly, not a quick read
but definitely interesting for musically literate folks who are into bop.
Author: Owens, Thomas, 1938-
Title: Bebop : the music and its players / Thomas Owens. New York :
Oxford University Press, 1995.
Larry Koenigsberg
says...
>
>It almost seems then, that a limited repertoire (and I'm of course
>not suggesting that Charlie Parker's is limited) can really
>take you far. Anyone else have any comments on this?
>
YARDBIRD SUITE (author's name not recollected here), which combines
biography, exhaustive discographical analysis, and musical analysis as
well. Parker used a lot of quotation as well -- one of his favorite
licks is the "Habanera" from the opera CARMEN --
It's hard for me to describe Parker's playing in terms of licks. He
has a really high consistency of great playing, a sound which Dizzy
Gillespie describes as "sanctified -- give him a tambourine and he'd
still sound great" (not an exact quotation). One good way to
understand just how little the licks limit Parker's richness as a
player is to listen to how much weaker they sound in others'
recordings. Just listen to any 50's hard bop recordings of 12-bar
blues and you'll hear Parker's licks inescapably again and again. But
they are not Bird. His relation to the beat is wherever he wants it to
be: ahead of, behind, right on top, and really it's his rhythmic
fluidity, his incredible mastery of polyrhythmic expression, which puts
him just over the top.
I did a radio show on Parker a year ago, on the 40th anniversary of his
death -- the research that I did for that show made it hard for me to
listen to anyone else for almost a month. I never did get tired of
"the licks."
Mark S Fraser
> Jazzers:
>
> I'm finally getting around to sitting down and working
> on improvising. I'm starting with "rhythm changes" 1-6-2-5
> section and using the Charlie Parker's omni book as a start
> for some ideas, since there are a load of songs in that
> book based on rhythm changes. I have memorized about 4-6
> different patterns, which I can now move between and
> hybridize.
>
> In about 6 songs, there are some licks that appear in EVERY
> song. I even notice a similarity to his favorite licks in
> similar licks as in, say, Celerity).
>
> not suggesting that Charlie Parker's is limited) can really
> take you far. Anyone else have any comments on this?
>
I've been surprised how common some of bird's licks are as well. This
thread got me started thinking about lick as a tool in playing bop. When I
studied jazz at school we were taught that a good vocabulary of licks may
not increase your overall musicality but it certainly can help you in a
pinch; i.e. you've just started a bop solo and no creative ideas are
coming to you. A few licks will atleast get you started. We were also told
to practice every lick in all twelve keys. BUT has anyone else noticed how
some licks just don't seem to fit certain keys. I have a favorite Oscar
Pettiford lick I use over a ii/V in Gb but it just doesn't sound right in
any other key. Comments?
Peace,
mark
--
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man"
Jebediah Springfield
Mark S Fraser
> On 28 Feb 1996 17:47:46 GMT, rlhu...@artsci.wustl.edu (Robert Leroy
> Hughes) wrote:
>
>>nea566000-J.SCHOENBLUM(WHD387)W065 (joel.w.s...@att.com) wrote:
>>: What amazes me, is how often Bird repeats his favorite licks.
>>: In about 6 songs, there are some licks that appear in EVERY
>>: song. I even notice a similarity to his favorite licks in
>>: rythm changes and in the blues (e.g. Au Privave has some
>>: similar licks as in, say, Celerity).
>
>
No actually its not. Its Celerity and it means rapid motion.
Guattery Stephen
> In addition to Thomas Owen's studies mentioned elsewhere, check out
> YARDBIRD SUITE (author's name not recollected here), which combines
> biography, exhaustive discographical analysis, and musical analysis as
The author is Lawrence O. Koch; the publisher is The Popular Press. I agree
that this is a useful and informative book; I only wish it had an index. How
widely available is it? The only copy I've seen is the one I bought at The
Tattered Cover, a huge bookstore in Denver. Haven't seen it elsewhere, not
even at the chain superstores.
Steve Guattery
s...@icase.edu
Rena Styar
: David Baker's "How To Play Bebop", which certainly takes its cues from Bird,
: but really teaches you how to copy Bird's style by following a set of
: heuristics rather than particular licks (although he certainly goes into some
: specific licks as well).
: --
: Marc Sabatella
: --
Would you happen to know if there are any books that help players adlib
more like Getz or Zoots rather than Bird? I'm not too fond of Be-Bop.
Debby
a019...@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
Bruce Yettra
>I've been surprised how common some of bird's licks are as well. This
>thread got me started thinking about lick as a tool in playing bop. When I
>studied jazz at school we were taught that a good vocabulary of licks may
>not increase your overall musicality but it certainly can help you in a
>pinch; i.e. you've just started a bop solo and no creative ideas are
>coming to you. A few licks will atleast get you started. We were also told
>to practice every lick in all twelve keys. BUT has anyone else noticed how
>some licks just don't seem to fit certain keys. I have a favorite Oscar
>Pettiford lick I use over a ii/V in Gb but it just doesn't sound right in
>any other key. Comments?
I think the reason licks sound better in some keys, is because they're
easier to play in certain keys, especially on the sax. With say a guitar,
the fingering remains esentially the same, for the same lick, but changes
radically for the sax. Any trumpet players like to comment on the ease of
playing in one key versus another?
BTW my favorite blues lick is Bird's triplet Bb E, Eb
--
yet...@loop.com (Bruce Yettra)
Joel Schoenblum
As a trumpeter, I gotta say that if you find some keys more difficult
on saxaphone, I can guarantee that some keys are _way_ more difficult
on trumpet. It's a fact of life as a brass player that range and
movement into the lower/upper registers is more difficult and
tiring than on the sax. Also, I gotta believe that the reason
there are zillions of jazz tunes in concert F and concert B-flat
is for us horn players. They're simply the best keys, period.
This stuff about "don't forget to memorize in all 12 keys" is nice
for people who have time, but for me it's nonsense. If I can
get some material down in 4 keys (say F,B-flat,E-flat,C) then I
figure I'm doing okay.
Your point about certain licks not transposing well to other keys
is definately on the mark. Someone else posted in saying that he didn't
notice Bird repeat licks from one key to another. This must be part
of the reason.
- Joel
Thomas F Brown
>
>Your point about certain licks not transposing well to other keys
>is definately on the mark. Someone else posted in saying that he didn't
>notice Bird repeat licks from one key to another. This must be part
>of the reason.
Bird did repeat most of his signature licks fluently in all keys,
but he does have some licks that he only uses in certain tunes:
mainly Cherokee, F blues, Bb blues, and rhythm changes.
Marc Sabatella
> Would you happen to know if there are any books that help players adlib
> more like Getz or Zoots rather than Bird? I'm not too fond of Be-Bop.
Interesting question. No, I am not aware of any such books. My somewhat
sarcastic answer is to first learn bebop, then figure how how to do it with
fewer notes, and then you have what you want. Seriously, the harmonic language
*is* pretty much the same. Don't use a study of Bird's licks, but instead, any
generic scale/chord based approach (there's a million of them out there) and
figure out how to be melodic within that system.
--
Marc Sabatella
--
ma...@fc.hp.com
http://www.fortnet.org/~marc/
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.
Darius G. Brotman
> What amazes me, is how often Bird repeats his favorite licks...
> It almost seems then, that a limited repertoire (and I'm of course
> not suggesting that Charlie Parker's is limited) can really
> take you far. Anyone else have any comments on this?
Mark Fraser:
>I've been surprised how common some of bird's licks are as well....
>We were also told >to practice every lick in all twelve keys. BUT
>has anyone else noticed how
>some licks just don't seem to fit certain keys. I have a favorite Oscar
>Pettiford lick I use over a ii/V in Gb but it just doesn't sound right in
>any other key. Comments?
My comment:
After teaching jazz (piano) for years I'd say that nobody, but nobody, really
learns any one thing in all 12 keys. The idea that you "must" do this is a
polite fiction. Of course you learn certain things in a group of related
keys;
for instance I use some blues licks identically in G, C, F, Bb and Eb. But
generally, what happens is kind of the opposite; you learn characteristic
things for each key, that make that individual key sound different from all
others. It seems only natural that these differences arise from the purely
physical character of the patterns of the notes on your instrument.
I once took a lesson from Hal Galper (Phil Woods' longtime pianist) who told
me, somewhat to my surprise, that his fundamental approach was to learn
just a handful of licks (he said 6, but I doubt he meant that literally) - or
better, musical ideas or motifs - and then master them inside out, backwards,
torn apart and reassembled, and every which way. He said this approach
would give each player his own unique sound. [I didn't ask him about
different
keys.] I didn't take his advice; my aim ideally is to play with ever
increasing
freedom and let the sound of the governing "chord/scale" guide an instinctive
flow of melody. Relying on licks does not favor development in this
direction.
-Darius Brotman ( ja...@htan.org )
*****************************
Larry Koenigsberg
>
>Rena Styar wrote:
>
>> Would you happen to know if there are any books that help players
adlib
>> more like Getz or Zoots rather than Bird? I'm not too fond of
Be-Bop.
>
>Interesting question. No, I am not aware of any such books. My
somewhat
>sarcastic answer is to first learn bebop, then figure how how to do it
with
>fewer notes
Lewis Porter's rather analytic book on Lester Young might work.
Incidentally, Young is quoted therein as looking disapprovingly on a
younger player who was playing his (Young's) licks -- something to the
effect they should create their own licks so they had their own sound
rather than borrowing someone else's -- I don't recall the details.
,charlie_robinson
>
> *****************************
>
>
If you view the the scale which relates to the chord as a lick
itself then you are doing the same thing as Galper although you
may be playing more than 6 permutations. Charlie Robinson
LOPESTER
archtop, or classical, It's tuned and or resonates better in certain
keys.(A,E,Cetc..) Also if your playing classical there will be some open
string vibration that rings with the other notes if you are in A or E
etc.. , it's interesting stuff.
Mark
Thomas F Brown
You seem to be confusing tonal quality with intonation. High-quality
handmade acoustic instruments are built to resonate best at a specific
pitch, and that affects tone quality in the various keys. However,
when the strings are properly tuned, every note should sound according
to equal temperament.
Paul A. Deck
>You seem to be confusing tonal quality with intonation. High-quality
>handmade acoustic instruments are built to resonate best at a specific
>pitch, and that affects tone quality in the various keys. However,
>when the strings are properly tuned, every note should sound according
>to equal temperament.
This is an interesting thread. Sorry if I'm a little late. I'm sure
the frets can be set to give equal temperament for an individual
string, but then don't you have to tune the strings against each other
in some special way? Or will the use of "harmonics" to tune the
strings together work?
While we're on the subject, I've often wondered if the violin is tuned
with "silent" fifths or "beating" fifths like a piano.
Paul
Tom Waters
it, you can hear the simple, ultra-consonant intervals of just
intonation. Also, on Lamonte Young's album, Just Stompin', you can hear
Jon Catler and Brad Catler play electric guitars and basses that have
been built to allow playing in just intonation. They have a lot of extra
frets, to allow playing in perfect consonance over different chords. But
the record, a single two-hour performance excerpt, occupies a very
restricted harmonic territory, a stretched out, meditative blues.
Young is a composer who has been exploring consonance for many years,
drawing on jazz, classical music of Europe and India, and probably other
sources as well. This record applies his ideas to bar-band blues as the
title implies, but with a very controlled raga-like feel. Young dressed
like a biker for the occasion (a concert at the Kitchen in New York), but
I think he looks kind of like a smurf. Very interesting music. I think
I'll go listen to it now, in fact.
Tom
Thomas F Brown
>
>This is an interesting thread. Sorry if I'm a little late. I'm sure
>the frets can be set to give equal temperament for an individual
>string, but then don't you have to tune the strings against each other
>in some special way?
Each string has to be tuned to its equal-tempered cognate in order
for the instrument to be properly in tune. There are a variety of
ways to accomplish this. I use an electronic tuner.
Or will the use of "harmonics" to tune the
>strings together work?
The common practice of matching the fifth fret harmonic on one string
with the fourth fret harmonic on the adjacent string will not get your
guitar in tune very well, because the harmonics conform to the
overtone series and not equal temperament.
Thomas F Brown
>If you tune your guitar using harmonics and then play some harmonics on
>it, you can hear the simple, ultra-consonant intervals of just
>intonation. Also, on Lamonte Young's album, Just Stompin', you can hear
>Jon Catler and Brad Catler play electric guitars and basses that have
>been built to allow playing in just intonation. They have a lot of extra
>frets, to allow playing in perfect consonance over different chords. But
>the record, a single two-hour performance excerpt, occupies a very
>restricted harmonic territory, a stretched out, meditative blues.
I have seen a just-intonated guitar, and the frets are in different
places on each string. Must be a bitch to play.
I have built my own, much simpler version of just guitar. I took an
old cheapo classical, ripped out the frets and filled in the slots
with plastic wood sanded smooth. Then I used old nylon strings tied
around the neck to make moveable frets. I tuned all of the open strings
to either C or G, then adjusted the frets until every note was in tune.
It sounded pretty cool, although it has limited modulating potential
and does tend to bring out meditative, repetitive grooves such as
you describe.
Gary Persons
for the instrument to be properly in tune. There are a variety of
ways to accomplish this. I use an electronic tuner. <<
I too use a tuner, but after years of playing, I finally found a quick
way of tuning that always works the first time.
Tune the 5th string to A
Tune the 6th string to match it (5th fret)
Tune the 4th string an octave higher (7th fret)
etc. on the higher strings. Find an A and tune it to the open A string.
It keeps you referencing that one pitch, and therefore the tuning is
much more accurate.
Pretty simple and pretty amazing!
Thomas F Brown
>
>I too use a tuner, but after years of playing, I finally found a quick
>way of tuning that always works the first time.
>
>Tune the 5th string to A
>Tune the 6th string to match it (5th fret)
>Tune the 4th string an octave higher (7th fret)
>etc. on the higher strings. Find an A and tune it to the open A string.
>
>It keeps you referencing that one pitch, and therefore the tuning is
>much more accurate.
I don't agree. I find that it's pretty much impossible
for every note on my guitar to be perfectly in tune. So I use the electric
tuner to get the notes somewhere in the middle of the neck in tune, from
the 5th fret up to the 12th fret, because that's where I play the most notes.
If I tune to open strings, then the lower positions are in tune, but
it gets worse as you go up the neck. If we use your method, then each
string is going to be most in tune at a different place on the neck.
I am quibbling over mere cents worth of difference here, and
your guitar may tune more accurately than mine. But it's still
a problem that I find worth addressing.
Gary Persons
for every note on my guitar to be perfectly in tune.<<
Absolutely correct. It is mathematically impossible for a guitar to
always be in tune - one of Segovia's big frustrations (maybe that's why
so many of his recordings are out of tune <G>)
>> So I use the electric tuner...<<
So do I every chance I get. My technique is for those quick times on
the job when a tuner is not available. It works better than harmonics
or doing the fifth fret thing.
!^NavFont02F019A000DRGJHHXRHZHH9B5451
Fathom
(Thomas F Brown) wrote:
> If I tune to open strings, then the lower positions are in tune, but
> it gets worse as you go up the neck. If we use your method, then each
> string is going to be most in tune at a different place on the neck.
>
Forgive a non-guitarist (but shrewd theoretician) jumping in, and adding
(standard IMHO disclaimer)...
It shouldn't get worse as you go up the neck, if your *neck* is in tune,
i.e. frets properly placed. The easy test for this is play the octave
harmonic and compare it to the fretted octave on each string. They should
be indistinguishable (as to frquency, not timbre of course).
Some guitars have tunable bridges at the foot of each string to compensate
for the kind of error you are describing.
--
Fathom >8-)>
** Custom-designed reality is a labor-intensive product **
Jon Marvin Stokes
stOKes
William Barkin
> I don't agree. I find that it's pretty much impossible
> for every note on my guitar to be perfectly in tune.
Absolutely, Mr. Brown...
If I may add my humble 2 cents to this thread...
I have found over the years that tuning to a specific chord
and then checking the tuning to a different inversion of that
chord helps to round out the inconsistencies due to the inherent
problem guitar necks abound in. Tune to a D9 chord; check and
tweak it by playing it in as many positions as possible; then check
the tuning by playing Bb13 in 3 or 4 positions up and down the neck.
Many of my students find this helps when trying out a strange guitar.
Happy Trails,
Bill
Thomas F Brown
>>
>It shouldn't get worse as you go up the neck, if your *neck* is in tune,
>i.e. frets properly placed. The easy test for this is play the octave
>harmonic and compare it to the fretted octave on each string. They should
>be indistinguishable (as to frquency, not timbre of course).
>Some guitars have tunable bridges at the foot of each string to compensate
>for the kind of error you are describing.
There are two main reasons why the tuning changes as you move along the neck.
First, as you suggest, the bridge may be misadjusted. Since I use a
carved wooden bridge because I prefer its tone over metal adjustable
bridges, I live with this error.
Second, a great deal of tuning variation
happens in the act of pressing the strings down onto the frets. This is
controllable to some extent through playing technique. However, I still
have an "average" finger pressure that interacts variably up and down
the neck as the distance between string and neck changes. Hence tuning
variation.
Obviously fret height is a major factor in this problem, and it is
virtually impossible to get each fret to exactly the proper
height to achieve consistent intonation.
So it really is impossible for a guitar to be perfectly in tune on every
note, although some instruments are more accurate than others. Modern
solid-body instruments tend to be more accurate than the older hollow
instruments used in jazz.
Thomas F Brown
>I have found over the years that tuning to a specific chord
>and then checking the tuning to a different inversion of that
>chord helps to round out the inconsistencies due to the inherent
>problem guitar necks abound in. Tune to a D9 chord; check and
>tweak it by playing it in as many positions as possible; then check
>the tuning by playing Bb13 in 3 or 4 positions up and down the neck.
>Many of my students find this helps when trying out a strange guitar.
I'm not sure I understand the point of this exercise. It certainly
won't get your guitar in ET. Tuning to a chord is about the worst
thing you can do if you want ET.
OTOH, if your goal is to check out tuning consistency up and down
the neck, then I agree that a perfectly in tune chord would make
it easier to check out by ear.
JFinn26231
string diameter. The bow factor of the neck is also a
consideration. Older guitars have great appeal in today's market but
it is tough to beat a brand new one with fresh strings for
intonation. And even this only approaches the intonation we have
become accustomed to in the digital age. As for me , I agree with
Tom Brown; the guitar I play most frequently has an ebony bridge
[non tune-o-matic] for the sake of the tone color I am looking for.
I live with certain ambiguities of tonality as a result
................joe