Burn's Jazz documentary... Charlie Parker "revelation" question
OASYSCO
riveting, IMO), Charlie Parker came up as they covered 1940 (though I thought
he came to prominence much later). They introduced Bird as a new force in jazz
music - the one that all musician's went to see whenever they were in KC. They
discussed his influence on jazz as saying that where Dizzy and others had
technique and new chord voicings, Bird brought musch needed phrasing (not to
mention, speed).
They went on further to say that Bird had a revelation on his first trip to New
York that shaped the rest of his career. As such, Bird realized that he could
play "any note in the scale and resolve it to a chord tone". This was touted as
a major break through, not just for Bird, but for all musicians of the time.
Can anybody please elaborate on Bird's revelation so I can understand just what
was behind this play "any note in the scale and resolve it to a chord tone"
thing? It sounds like what folks do anyway. Was this not always true? Was there
more to his revelation than they mentioned? I feel as if their explanation
barely scratched the surface. Please help.
Thanks,
Greg
Thomas Stubbs
9ths, 11ths, etc, and used chromaticism to move in between the chord
tones. Because he didnt stick to just 3 or 4 chord tones, he found
he could use any of the 12 tones to do this.
I don't know why they didn't explain this better on the TV show, but
then again, this is common knowledge here in KC so maybe they didnt
think it was necessary.
OASYSCO
>I think it means that he found ways to use extended chord tones, like
>9ths, 11ths, etc, and used chromaticism to move in between the chord
>tones. Because he didnt stick to just 3 or 4 chord tones, he found
>he could use any of the 12 tones to do this.
And this was a revelation? That he could use tones other than the basic chord
tones? Admittedly, I know little to nothing of jazz history, but all of the
predecessors to Bird seemed to play more than just 3 or 4 note arpeggios,
didn't they?
Was Birds' revelation that he didn't have to be (and I know I'm gettin' this
wrong) "melodic" in the sens that everythng had to resolve as the ear expected?
That by resolving unexpectedly, he achieved this "new" sound?
Greg
Michael Dino
was 'Cherokee' whose chord progression he used for 'Ko Ko', if I remember
correctly.
Thomas F Brown
Greg, there was no revelation. That story is a myth that was fabricated
by a magazine author and then falsely attributed to Bird as a
first person quote. If you look at it, it doesn't even make
sense, as you noted in your query.
OASYSCO
Ah, now that makes sense. Thanks, Tom.
Greg
gerry garavaglia
My impression when I heard that statement was that he realized he could
play anything he wanted as long as he resolved to chord tones. That was
what i thought was meant.
Gerry
Thuss
This discussion makes me recall some comments made by my
guitar teacher back in the early '50's. Essentially, it boiled down
to this: Don't take remarks of critics and other literary types
seriously. And I would add: the same applies to other musicians. My
teacher was critical of Johnny Smith because of the unorthodox tuning
(6th string lowered to D). Yet, he idolized George Van Epps and his
7-string guitar. I thought of mentioning that it seems as if adding
another string might be considered unorthodox, too. But I thought
better of it.
Literary types always like to put a few tomatoes on the
windowsill. And each time I read or hear something about how Charlie
Christian met Benny Goodman, there is always something different-and
sometimes contradictory-about it.
On 25 Jan 2001 13:15:01 GMT, oas...@aol.com (OASYSCO) elucidated with
alacrity
--
thuss-Everything in life comes down to one simple formula: 2+2=4
sasha...@my-deja.com
play "outside." Or at least he was the one that formalized outside
playing.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Tom Lippincott
well, not to rehash old arguments, but...
false quote or not, it's certainly a fairly easily provable fact that a lot of
pre-bebop jazz players based much of their soloing on much simpler harmonic
concepts than Bird and his contemporaries. I think that the use of the upper
extensions of chords is only one of many stylistic aspects that made the music
of Bird, Dizzy, Monk, Powell, and others of the bebop movement have a new and
different sound compared to the swing players of the 30's and 40's, but it IS
one element. Compare solos over a blues progression by Lester Young or Charlie
Christian to those of Bird or Bud Powell, for example. With that said, I agree
that it's a pretty extreme oversimplification to claim that THE thing that
differentiated bop from swing was the inclusion of upper chord extensions in
bop.
Tom Lippincott
Guitarist, Composer, Teacher
audio samples, articles, CD's at:
http://www.tomlippincott.com
Tom Lippincott
>play "outside." Or at least he was the one that formalized outside
>playing.
I can't recall ever hearing Bird's playing referred to as "outside." He was
certainly considered "out there" and on the edge by a lot of musicians and
listeners of his day, but I don't think the term "outside" really even came
into use until later on. By today's standards, his playing, while still as
brilliant as ever, is pretty "inside."
sasha...@my-deja.com
inserted little melodies that seemed to stray far away from the key he
was playing in but he did it so fast you would miss it if you blinked
cause he would be back on a chord tone in a flash.
There was a comment in the series that I thought was very good. I
forget who said it, but they said that a solo by Louie or any of the
traditonal players was like poetry. Each note was a like a word and it
was the perfect word. With coltrane and to a lesser degree Parker the
solos weren't poems but novels. There was a lot of notes and the story
in the solo was much longer than in earlier jazz.
You can make a case of this with Hawkin's Body and Soul and I think
certainly with Parker's live material. I say Body and Soul because he
all but scrapped the original melody and just started from scratch
almost, touching the melody when necessary. Parker did this too with
Embraceable You and a handful of other tunes.
Sid Cerease (sp), the comic, back in the fifties made a comment that
the current trend for modern jazz bands was in hiring men to watch
radar screens to warn the band when they were approaching the melody.
Thomas F Brown
>I thought it meant that Parker was one of the first players to
>play "outside." Or at least he was the one that formalized outside
>playing.
Bird is almost always inside the chord. I once heard a live
recording in which he played a side-slip for just a second,
but I've only heard him do that once. The rest is all inside.
Jonathan Byrd
about a pianist (Monk, I think) playing the microtones in between the
notes. How could a pianist possibly accomplish that (without reaching
under the lid and bending the strings)?
--
Jonathan Byrd Computer Software Engineering Technology
j...@isu.edu Idaho State University
(208) 282-4256 Pocatello, Idaho USA
Tom Walls
>
>Cassandra Wilson made a comment that perplexed me: She said something
>about a pianist (Monk, I think) playing the microtones in between the
>notes. How could a pianist possibly accomplish that (without reaching
>under the lid and bending the strings)?
>
>
I've heard people say this before and it turned out that they meant that by
playing odd intervals -- like minor 2nds -- that he was creating overtones
that lent microtonality to the melody. Probably not strictly wrong, but
largely gobbeldy-gook IMHO.
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
____________________________________________________________________
the rmb troll faq is at http://liquid2k.net/rmbtroll. spread the word!
Joey Goldstein
>
> In article <3A71ADDD...@isu.edu>, j...@isu.edu says...
> >
> >Cassandra Wilson made a comment that perplexed me: She said something
> >about a pianist (Monk, I think) playing the microtones in between the
> >notes. How could a pianist possibly accomplish that (without reaching
> >under the lid and bending the strings)?
> >
> >
>
> I've heard people say this before and it turned out that they meant that by
> playing odd intervals -- like minor 2nds -- that he was creating overtones
> that lent microtonality to the melody. Probably not strictly wrong, but
> largely gobbeldy-gook IMHO.
My take on that is like this:
When you hear Monk play those min 2nds or those clusters of min 2nds on
a piano what you perceive is a sound that is an average of the notes
being sounded. That is, you sense a pitch somewhere in between the two.
This may sound weird but consider this:
The 12 tone eqaul temperament scale we use and that piano players and
guitar players are comitted to really contains only approximations of
the pure intervals. In 12 tet the only "perfect" interval is the octave.
"Perfect" 5ths are not perfect in 12 tet, they are slightly out of tune,
on the flat side. In 12 tet perfect 5ths have beats. They are "out of
tune" compared to a real pure overtone 5th.
This tuning scheme was invented so that as many as possible of the other
intervals could more closely _approximate_ the pure intervals as found
in the overtone series. A 12 tet maj 3rd has a considerably more complex
frequency ratio than the maj 3rd found within the overtone series yet
when we hear a 12 tet maj 3rd we hear an _approximation_ of a pure maj
3rd (well most of us do ... just temperament freaks strongly object to
12 tet intervals, especially maj 3rds). It's as if our ears average out
the sound so that we hear it as if it is a much simpler frequency ratio.
That's my take on microtonality on the piano ala Monk. Pure speculation
but interesting stuff to think about. I think Monk may not really have
been thinking so scientifically though. He was always looking for
different ways of doing things .... making the "wrong" notes sound
right. And he was deeply into the blues which evolved with a microtonal
component. How is a piano player supposed to approximate that note
somewhere between Eb and E that blues guitar players and singers always
use? Play them both.
--
Regards:
Joey Goldstein
Guitarist/Jazz Recording Artist/Teacher
Home Page: http://webhome.idirect.com/~joegold
Email: <joegold AT idirect DOT com>
Jerry Freedman Jr
interested in a sound for sound's sake sort of percussionistic approach.
I am not sure that he was aiming for microtones as much as a
startling,rhythmically well placed cluster of notes. He was surely after
that if he was playing with his elbows as I've heard.
J. Freedman,Jr
--
Creation took 6 days because God didn't
have an installed base
Tom Walls
>snip
>
>This may sound weird but consider this:
>
>The 12 tone eqaul temperament scale we use and that piano players and
>guitar players are comitted to really contains only approximations of
>the pure intervals. In 12 tet the only "perfect" interval is the octave.
>"Perfect" 5ths are not perfect in 12 tet, they are slightly out of tune,
>on the flat side. In 12 tet perfect 5ths have beats. They are "out of
>tune" compared to a real pure overtone 5th.
>
>This tuning scheme was invented so that as many as possible of the other
>intervals could more closely _approximate_ the pure intervals as found
>in the overtone series. A 12 tet maj 3rd has a considerably more complex
>frequency ratio than the maj 3rd found within the overtone series yet
>when we hear a 12 tet maj 3rd we hear an _approximation_ of a pure maj
>3rd (well most of us do ... just temperament freaks strongly object to
>12 tet intervals, especially maj 3rds). It's as if our ears average out
>the sound so that we hear it as if it is a much simpler frequency ratio.
>
>That's my take on microtonality on the piano ala Monk.
Hey -- that's what I said! :<)
Karl Wagner
I don't think that 'outside' is the right term to describe what parker has
done. I feel he is realy inside and he is tonal in a certain sense. He can
play in every speed and every tone is quite inside ... in the music.
He is playing outside the normal way we have ordered the music since good
old J.S. Bach. but who cares: scales und harmony thats only theoretical
concepts. Parkers has played music, and every tone makes sense and is
ordered quite logical. And this is what I like and I think this makes
Parker special.
--
Karl Wagner
karl....@web.de
Joey Goldstein
IMO Bird's approach to melody was probably more consciously rooted in
typical classical ornamental devices like cambiatas, appoggiaturas,
escape notes, etc. than his predecessors who were, I feel, approaching
things from a more intuitive perspective. Not that Bird was lacking in
inuitive powers though! Bird's great feat was that he became a virtuoso
at melodic ornamentation. He would have delayed resolutions within
delayed resolutions of a device like an appoggiatura such that the basic
appoggiatura was obscured. Eg. Bar 3 of Donna Lee. That Gb is an
appoggiatira above the F which is in the Bb7 chord. The Ab is an
ornamentaion of the appoggiatura, an auxilliary to be exact. Bird's
solos and heads are all littered with this type of thing. He was an
absolute master at it. Strong notes on weak beats, weak notes on strong
beats and everything in between.
The thing he did that forshadowed what has become known as "outside"
playing IMO is the fact that sometimes his lines were so ornamented that
he seemed to be outlining a chord other than the one that was really
being sounded. For instance if you're playing on a Fmaj7 chord there are
possible approach notes a half step below the 3rd (G# below the A) and
the 5th (B below the C). On a C7 to Fmaj7 progression by outlining the
sequence
C7 |Fmaj7
G# B E D C
3 & 4 & 1
as Bird has done on occasion, the G# can be seen as an appoggiatura that
points to a resolution on A (which is never actually resolved), the B
points to a resolution on C which is delayed with a cambiata (B D C)
whose resolution has been delayed by an escape note (E). But it appears
like he is outlining an E7 chord. I.e. Several approach notes can be
combined into an approach chord like an appoggiatura chord or a passing
chord, etc.
IMO Coltrane was the one who really ran with this idea introducing more
and more novel ways that the approach could be broadened.
Most "outside" stuff that sounds "right" usually has some sort of inner
logic to it based on the ideas of tension resolution.
Travis Harrell
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3A71F8E7...@nowhere.net...
Just commenting on your explanation of Parker's approach. I tend to explain
his lines in English - a lot of altered subs and scales in addition to some
ornamentation. The Donna Lee line in bar 3 looks to me like he's playing a
Cm7b5 F7 for F7. The appogiatura/cambiata/E7 outline/resolution example
above looks like a standard old whole tone over C7 which is what I would
think HE was thinking when he developed the approach, not neccessarily while
he was playing it. Anyway its easier for me to think that way than to
organize my thoughts in Italian : )
Travis
sandford
OASYSCO wrote:
I just watched that episode again and my take on this is that when the speaker
said "in the scale", he meant the chromatic scale. Parker realized that he could
play any note, in or out of the diatonic scale, and as long as he resolved to a
chord tone, and phrased it in a certain way, it sounded "right".
As well, earlier in the episode they mention that his discovery on Cherokee was
that he could solo against the chord changes, and not base his solo on the melody
of his song. This freed him up to imply alternate keys, even though his solos
still revolved around the chord tones. For instance, the E,G,B and D of in Em7
could imply a key of D, or G depending on whether you play a C or C# along with
them.
These are my guesses, but seem logical to me.
Sandy...
Joey Goldstein
That's cool. Whatever works for you works.
> The Donna Lee line in bar 3 looks to me like he's playing a
> Cm7b5 F7 for F7.
Except that bar 3 is a Bb7 chord.
> The appogiatura/cambiata/E7 outline/resolution example
> above looks like a standard old whole tone over C7 which is what I would
> think HE was thinking when he developed the approach, not neccessarily while
> he was playing it.
Except that there is no B in the C whole tone scale if that's the one
you're thinking of. As a matter of fact there is no E7 chord (with a
perfect 5th) within either of the 2 possible whole tone scales. If we
were talking about an E+7 chord outline or a E7b5 chord outline then you
might have a point.
> Anyway its easier for me to think that way than to
> organize my thoughts in Italian : )
Hey at least I said escape notes rather than echappé.
> Travis
Karl Wagner
> I just watched that episode again and my take on this is that when the
> speaker
> said "in the scale", he meant the chromatic scale. Parker realized that
> he could play any note, in or out of the diatonic scale, and as long as he
> resolved to a chord tone, and phrased it in a certain way, it sounded
> "right".
I agree with this. I think this is what Parker said too, but does this
describe correctly what he done? When you organize your harmonic material
in diatonic scales it seems that he was outside whatever you may think of
and he retured then to the "diatonic" notes. But when you hear his music
it's simply music. The 'diatonic' notes and the 'non diatonic notes' belong
to ONE unique well composed musical idea.
I think this is what makes parker special: not only to go outside the
conventional musical concepts but also putting the remaining parts together
in millions of great new muscal ideas.
--
Karl Wagner
karl....@web.de
Travis Harrell
Doh! I didn't say I could count. The Gb in bar 3, where the illusive Bb7
chord is, is to my ears a simple #5 on a 7th chord.
>
> > The appogiatura/cambiata/E7 outline/resolution example
> > above looks like a standard old whole tone over C7 which is what I would
> > think HE was thinking when he developed the approach, not neccessarily
while
> > he was playing it.
>
> Except that there is no B in the C whole tone scale if that's the one
> you're thinking of. As a matter of fact there is no E7 chord (with a
> perfect 5th) within either of the 2 possible whole tone scales. If we
> were talking about an E+7 chord outline or a E7b5 chord outline then you
> might have a point.
>
Now this is getting embarrassing. You're right of course. But taking that
example, and others in his music, couldn't one say he's side slipping? The
G# and B being the 5 and b7 of a C#7. The E and D being 3 and 2 of C7.
The C being 5 of FMaj7.
I guess I'm rebelling at the idea of Italian ornamentation defining Parker's
lines. By the way what's a cambiata? Yesterday I would have said its a
Toyota.
Travis
Joey Goldstein
Right, and #5/b6 is a pretty unusual note on a V7 of V (although it is a
blue note in the key of Ab). He's using it as an appoggiatura above the
regular 5th. If he had just hung on that b6 and not resolved it it would
not sound nearly so strong and would not serve so well to clearly
outline a Bb7 chord. And then this phrase ends in bar 4 with a regular,
vanilla 6th as an appoggiatura above the 5th as well. So he's using b6
and 6 and accenting them both within the same phrase. This works because
he resolves these "weak" notes into the "strong" notes of the actual
chord. The technique he is using with these notes is called
"appoggiatura". In Italian it means "to lean", I've been told.
> >
> > > The appogiatura/cambiata/E7 outline/resolution example
> > > above looks like a standard old whole tone over C7 which is what I would
> > > think HE was thinking when he developed the approach, not neccessarily
> while
> > > he was playing it.
> >
> > Except that there is no B in the C whole tone scale if that's the one
> > you're thinking of. As a matter of fact there is no E7 chord (with a
> > perfect 5th) within either of the 2 possible whole tone scales. If we
> > were talking about an E+7 chord outline or a E7b5 chord outline then you
> > might have a point.
> >
>
> Now this is getting embarrassing. You're right of course. But taking that
> example, and others in his music, couldn't one say he's side slipping? The
> G# and B being the 5 and b7 of a C#7. The E and D being 3 and 2 of C7.
> The C being 5 of FMaj7.
You look at it that way I suppose but to my ear all those notes point to
a resolution on the F chord and are not really ornamentations of the C7.
I use to think of this a "side slipping" from E to F or as a diminished
approach Idim(maj7) to I (Fdim(maj7) to F) but the these devices can
also be seen as appoggiatura chords or approach chords, i.e. several
approach notes at once. Note: I've seen some folks, Mick Goodrick
actually, speak about Vmaj7#5 being a substitute for V7 and I think he's
dealing with the same sound.
> I guess I'm rebelling at the idea of Italian ornamentation defining Parker's
> lines.
It's not Italian ornamentation. The techniques are several centuries old
and some of them just happen to have Italian names. Some have French
names. Some ahvce English names. Don't get hung up on the names man. If
you want to call appoggiaturas "leaning notes" then go ahead but more
people will understand what you mean if you say appoggiatura.
> By the way what's a cambiata?
A cambiata is created when a weak note, normally resolving by step to a
strong note, has its resolution briefly interupted by leaping a step
past the strong note before resolving in the opposite direction.
Basically you surround the target note with neighbor notes on either side.
Eg.
On Cmaj7 the following lines form cambiatas around the note G:
F# A G
A F# G
F A G
F Ab G
F# Ab G
There's a chapter of my book called Melodic Uses Of The Non Chord Tones.
I outline these techniques there albeit in a somewhat superficial
manner. I think there's even a melodic analysis of Donna Lee in there somewhere.
http://webhome.idirect.com/~joegold/jgm.htm
> Yesterday I would have said its a
> Toyota.
>
> Travis
Joey Goldstein
AND It's also got the feeling of a delayed resolution of the F7 chord,
a type of back cycling. I.e. It seems as if at the beginning of bar 3
the line is still around F7b9(#9) even though the chord has actually
changed to Bb7 already. Like I said, Bird was a virtuoso at these
techniques and would often pile device upon device upon device. Like we
used to say in the '60s, "It's all levels man." <g>
Travis Harrell
The reason I'm pestering Joey is that this is a radically different way of
looking at things for me. I'm self taught and my teacher was adamant that
in general the notes have to line up with a chord scale with emphasis on
chord tones. Hence everything I do is oriented that way. When I go "out"
normally I'm subbing another chord for the current one. I can look at
almost any transcription of Parker and interpret most of it in terms of
chord scales and subs. But Joey, you're suggesting the Parker wasn't
thinking this as much as embellishment around chord tones and chord tones of
subs if that is phrased correctly. Is this sort of in line with the goal
note approach? Straighten me out here.
Travis
Joey Goldstein
No straightening out needed. You've got it. Although I've yet to see the
Goal Note Method book my understanding is that it is dealing with the
same devices that I am talking about. Perhaps the language is somewhat
different though. I got some of this stuff at Berklee when I was first
starting out but I never got into it in much depth, probably because I
dropped out of all my legit harmony courses. At Berklee, in the jazz
harmony course, we dealt with chord-scales which had the components of
chord tones, available tensions and avoid notes. This points to a
relatively free wheeling style of playing within a chord-scale and all
avoid notes are resolved but does not really point the way as to how to
use any chromatic notes from outside the chord-scale.
I was re-exposed to this stuff through Gordon Delamont's great books
Modern Harmonic Technique which is really a legit harmony book for
jazzers. All this stuff is in Vol 2 of MHT.
Travis Harrell
This is a major rethink for me but I'll put some time into it. In
retrospect it makes more sense for the players of that era to think that way
as it would naturally evolve out of playing over the melody.
Travis
Joey Goldstein
Exactly. These are melodic ornamentation techniques. It is implied that
there is strong simple melody underlying all the decoration. This is the
purpose of guide tone lines.
Tom Lippincott
>> chord is, is to my ears a simple #5 on a 7th chord.
>
>Right, and #5/b6 is a pretty unusual note on a V7 of V (although it is a
>blue note in the key of Ab). He's using it as an appoggiatura above the
>regular 5th. If he had just hung on that b6 and not resolved it it would
>not sound nearly so strong and would not serve so well to clearly
>outline a Bb7 chord. And then this phrase ends in bar 4 with a regular,
>vanilla 6th as an appoggiatura above the 5th as well. So he's using b6
>and 6 and accenting them both within the same phrase. This works because
>he resolves these "weak" notes into the "strong" notes of the actual
>chord. The technique he is using with these notes is called
>"appoggiatura". In Italian it means "to lean", I've been told.
>
If I understand the phrase you're talking about (the end of bar 3 where the
notes are Gb, Ab, Gb, F, Eb, resolving to D on beat 3), I always just assumed
that was a delayed resolution of the F7 chord from bar 2; the first two beats
of bar 3 are still F7 (b9, #9, b9, R, b7) and then it finally resolves to the
3rd of the Bb7 chord on beat 3. It's a pretty typical bebop type lick that
would be used over an F7 resolving to some sort of Bb major chord, and I've
always thought that one of the stylistic devices of bebop was delayed or early
resolutions.
Joey Goldstein
Yes I mentioned that too elsewhere in this thread. It works on several levels.
Guitarboy1733324
describe correctly what he done? When you organize your harmonic material
in diatonic scales it seems that he was outside whatever you may think of
and he retured then to the "diatonic" notes. But when you hear his music
it's simply music. The 'diatonic' notes and the 'non diatonic notes' belong
to ONE unique well composed musical idea.
I think this is what makes parker special: not only to go outside the
conventional musical concepts but also putting the remaining parts together
in millions of great new muscal ideas.
--
Karl Wagner
karl....@web.de >>
If you look at what Parker did it just seems to me basically that he was the
first to use chord scales as opposed to basing a solo primarily on the melody
or the chords of the song. He really wasn't a chromatic player (in the sense of
a modern chromatic player like let's say Dave Leibman). His chromaticism came
from blue notes and approach notes. Also he was the first to explore the upper
tones of the chords as they are spelled out by the scales (i.e. in the key of
fmin on the Bb7 he used the flat ninth the aug 5th the flat 13th but also
added blue notes (the flat 3rd and aug 4th) and what david baker called the 7th
scale which added the maj 7th to a run from the flat 7 th to the root of the 5
chord or the 1 chord. A lot of these were devices derived from Bach era music
(just check the inventions) and I'd have a hunch that that's where he figured
it out. (of course his harmony is far advanced from bach but you can see the
similar scale and chord running techniques). But, Bird was definitely an inside
player.
Joe Moore
Jonathan Byrd <j...@isu.edu> wrote in message
news:3A71ADDD...@isu.edu...
Joe Moore
said you are never more than a half step away from
the "correct note". In European Classical, you just don't hit "any" note,
and resolve. Before Parker, they improvised on the melody, chord tones, etc.
Parker sidestepped etc. ("a new sound")
Thus the music became more, and more "dissonant" sounding.
That's what I think she meant.He took more liberties.
OASYSCO <oas...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010124160236...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> Last night in the 7th part of the Burn's documentary on jazz (which is
> riveting, IMO), Charlie Parker came up as they covered 1940 (though I
thought
> he came to prominence much later). They introduced Bird as a new force in
jazz
> music - the one that all musician's went to see whenever they were in KC.
They
> discussed his influence on jazz as saying that where Dizzy and others had
> technique and new chord voicings, Bird brought musch needed phrasing (not
to
> mention, speed).
>
> They went on further to say that Bird had a revelation on his first trip
to New
> York that shaped the rest of his career. As such, Bird realized that he
could