Love your theory man. Parker was a genius on Mozarts level. Hearing and feeling things he could express through his horn. Its completely credible he was playing those harmonics. For the rest of us understanding the theory and playing it beautifully like Parker are worlds apart. But fun trying.
Judging by the thumbs up and down not many people made it all the way through. But it was a fun trip and glad I made it. I enjoy theory but I'm more of a play by ear guy or maybe ear/muscle memory guy. I'm 71 and have listened to Bird since I was 17. It was the sound that originally attracted me and it still is. The quote about it being music and just hitting the pretty notes says it all from a playing perspective, I think. The fingers play it, the ear hears it, the brain figures it out. Thanks for putting in all the work to create these videos. I subscribed and hope to see more from you.
There's a quote somewhere from Parker when he says he practiced 11 hours a day (or something like that) so he wouldn't have to think about what he was doing when he got on a bandstand. At some point if you want to create something interesting on the fly you have to let the subconcious take over but you have to put in the hard yards to enable that to happen .
Wow! Thanks! I've been trying to understand for many years what Parker meant by his statement. Your analysis is the best I've heard yet. Even if we never truly understand what he meant, we can still enjoy the music!
Went in on part 1 expecting social-historical commentary on Parker and how discovering European music impacted jazz (and there’s such a spectrum between Ellington and the Modern Jazz Quartet). Ended up watching one of the best jazz theory hours of content on UA-cam. Looks like a lot of labor went into assembling the video too. Thanks, it really enriched my appreciation of the music. I wish you’d do something on Debussy or Ravel (“La Valse”). Probably not your bag. Anyway, deeply appreciate this.
Brilliant! I’d add one thing- when you look at the solo in 2 beat sections, Bird never repeats the direction of his lines intervalically-dig where he adds straight arpeggios- amazing!!
at 10:46, this diagram is slightly incorrect. The first three octaves of the harmonic series (up until partil 8) are fine, but after this is goes a bit arye. It should be C D E F# G A Bb B, then C is the 16th harmonic. This makes sense - the amount of partials in an octave doubles within each octave. first its 1 then 2 then 4 then 8. The 16th partil is NOT Db, as suggested in this diagram. I don't know what, if any synthesis software you might have access to but if you have something like Ableton's Operator or FM8 where pitches are expressed as ratios of a fundamental frequency, you can test what I've said quite easily and you'll find it to be true.
Greetings, this is James Fleet, the son of guitarist Biddy Fleet! Great 4 part documentary, but there's a missing ingredient that NO ONE KNOWS, except those in the Fleet Family. If there's a way to contact you directly, we can chat, and then I can tell you 'What Bird Heard' when he was jamming with my Dad.
If you'd be willing to speak with me I'm currently in college working on a thesis about Bird. I feel like what he meant here may be the last piece in putting it all together. I'm genuinely very curious about your insight but of course, respect your privacy. Feel free to contact me
Your theory on outside harmonics as the basis of bebop scales makes sense, but...the function of the bebop scales in jazz is as rhythmic "place holders" so as to place the primary chord tones I 3 5 7 on strong beats strengthening the harmonic thrust of the bebop style. Charlie Parker didn't think in terms of "bebop" scales, they were later developed by David Baker.
I do state in this series that Parker and the Bop players didn't think in terms of bebop scales. I'm just trying to give an explanation for Parker's 1949 statements in relation to his jazz style - and how it has been interpreted into modern thinking ie Bebop Scales. Modern Scholarship does not account for Parker's shifting patterns across bar lines that alter the harmonic context of these added notes. You state that Bebop scales are rhythmic. That is true, but to Parker they also have a harmonic and melodic element. In fact you can hear the melodic element in Bebop scales from Paul McCartney's song Yesterday. In bar 4 the melody rises over a C Chord (I'm transposing for simplicity) in eighth notes C,D,E,F,G,G# - even though that G# is off the beat, taking it out really destroys the melodic line.
Isn’t, D minor 7 functionally called the super tonic?,,Fmaj7 is the sub dominant.,,i know they are interrelated but if you are working from C as Tonic...?. I just discovered your channel,,thanks for these videos,,, Firstly,,,I wondered if the breakdown of bebop motives you mentioned are in this book ? Thomas Owens. Bebop: The Music and the Players. Or another?..I saw mention of a pdf in the comments?...Many thanks. It seems to mean that considering the triadic harmonics of each note of the triads engenders chromatic mediants and secondary dominant relationships that are used melodically for voice leading into the changes..is that was is happening,,?,,using the upbeats to interpolate the accidental chromatic notes?.they create the bebop scale. ,,,Glad I made that cuppa!,,,,,
Dm7 is a sub dominant function chord but it is built on the super tonic as you said. Chord Function is not dependent on the scale degree of the chord. A chord called G7 on the first bar of a 12 bar blues has tonic function - not dominant. I know it sounds confusing but it all makes sense when you understand Berklee Harmony. The motives I talk about are in Thomas Owens PHD dissertation in two volumes on my facebook page (motives in vol 2). Look at the post and comments from June 19 2017. facebook.com/BebopReview/
Bebop review Hello,and thank you for getting back to me,,,I Don,t know much about Berkeley Harmony (But I think it relates in part to seeing a chord and playing a mode scale that corresponds,,,though I am sure it is surely not as simple and naive as that,,,,so I shall look into it,,I am very intrigued as to this angle on functionality,and I would really like to get it clear in my mind.Looking up Berkeley Harmony would set me straight upon this?,,I think I know what you mean,,,if this supertonic chord has subdominant functionality from the point of view of cadence and progression,,but the immediate question I ask myself is how this choice does not then become arbitrary but maybe it is!,,& therefor even if it is how does one distinguish a tonic 7th from a dominant 7th chord in functionality?.,,is it simply deduced from contextual considerations?. If Berkley Harmony has the answers then I shall look toward that as soon as I can possibly manage it.Are they a set of books that are freely or otherwise available to consult?. I am still revising Schoenberg books!). For the motifs I am not on Facebook ,nor have a phone to sign up,so I shall to pass for the moment unless you have any additional links!..thank you very much,,I shall return to all of this later on when I have my present undertakings more in hand!. Add.!(23h00 !..just thinking what you said,,,because suddenly I thought,,maybe you meant it was dm7 as subdominant and so it was relating back to some form of A chord as tonic,but instead of Dmaj7 it was a brief interchange chord still in scale position 4,,but you confirmed the dm7 as supertonic so it is relating to C as tonic but as a stand for the Fmaj7 as normal sub Dom chord? So is this is like the relative minor to that as if the Fmaj sub Dom is a brief modal interchange to Fmaj as key governing the overall functional structure of the subdominant at that moment in time,,(C chord played would be C7 if substituted at the same point?)Writing that I realise that you could still have the Dm7 to Fmaj7 relationship within C major no need for any interchange,but that Dm7 is naturally a Dorian minor whereas the other from Fmajor is Aeolian with the Bflat..it’s seems like an oscillation or superposition of the two too me,,so I,ll have so look more deeply into this as I am a bit confused,,,actually Schoenberg spoke a bit like too in his structural functions of harmony book and I was a bit lost there too,but maybe it is the same thinking.Soon revising it all (as Schoenberg is a very informative not to mention nice and extremely interesting read!)then I can look deeper at the jazz notion,but I think there is quite some common ground from what I have read so far. It seems to me a bit like Debussy and non functional harmony,in some aspects as far as I can understand,in that a chord might not be logically functional re old common practice but it is used in functional positions and with functional timing,,(ie What you said about G7 in a tonic position,not sure Debussy did exactly that but that’s what I am getting from that influence from Wagner through to Debussy and onwards as discussed by Schoenberg on 7th chord inversions and usages.),,.but I suppose Be Bop has its own thing! Thank you anyway!,I,ll definitely be checking back in here later on. pS.i just found the dissertations on archive .org so thanks also very much for those titles!.One day hopefully the fog will clear!,,
Your videos are excellent in explaining the theory behind Bird's playing but putting into practice is much easier said than done! Remember he did all this on the spur of the moment as he heard it in his head and could translate that to his fingers without breaking a sweat! For a player like me to understand it and put it into practice is worlds apart! Charlie Parker was one of a kind....like Mozart!
Thanks for the videos, sir, hats off. But as long as you haven't recorded two solos of your own, the first with the traditional thinking and then the second one with this controversial to compare what sounds more like Bird, I'm not convinced. However it makes sense.
'In 1949, Michael Levin and John S. Wilson conducted an extensive interview with Charlie Parker for Downbeat that summed up his life and his career up to that point along with his musical hopes for the future. The interview, which contains some of the innovative jazz artist’s most famous quotes, was also a bit controversial because he said that bebop had little connection with jazz, and he criticized Dizzy Gillespie’s commercial tendencies.' The above quote was made by Scott Yanow of 'Down Beat' and 'Jazz on the tube' and comes from his review of this video series. However, my meaning is the one that has been discussed in academic circles for years. The Controversy is what did Parker actually mean by his break-through statement ' I could hear it but I couldn't play it'. This series goes into that statement in depth and list the many misquotes and problems associated with trying to understand Parker's meaning. After stating these problems, I then offer my own theory on what Parker meant and so resolving the 'controversy' in my own mind at least.🎷
@@bebopreview3187 Andy, i didnt see it..thank you..i found the owen dissertation ii as pdf..its a bit confusing for me..over wich chord they played..some over gm7/c7, some over major..but anyway..thank you
I would have love to see Parker be responsible enough and organize a Big band like dizzy Gillespie did, or organize rehearsals of his own Quintet like Miles . Parker is copyable 🎷. Dizzy is unique. I am just disappointed by is the Parker Interviews. Parker is greedy and egoistic. A testimony by Miles.he plays like that.
Love your theory man. Parker was a genius on Mozarts level. Hearing and feeling things he could express through his horn. Its completely credible he was playing those harmonics. For the rest of us understanding the theory and playing it beautifully like Parker are worlds apart. But fun trying.
Judging by the thumbs up and down not many people made it all the way through. But it was a fun trip and glad I made it. I enjoy theory but I'm more of a play by ear guy or maybe ear/muscle memory guy. I'm 71 and have listened to Bird since I was 17. It was the sound that originally attracted me and it still is. The quote about it being music and just hitting the pretty notes says it all from a playing perspective, I think. The fingers play it, the ear hears it, the brain figures it out. Thanks for putting in all the work to create these videos. I subscribed and hope to see more from you.
There's a quote somewhere from Parker when he says he practiced 11 hours a day (or something like that) so he wouldn't have to think about what he was doing when he got on a bandstand. At some point if you want to create something interesting on the fly you have to let the subconcious take over but you have to put in the hard yards to enable that to happen .
Wow! Thanks! I've been trying to understand for many years what Parker meant by his statement. Your analysis is the best I've heard yet. Even if we never truly understand what he meant, we can still enjoy the music!
Went in on part 1 expecting social-historical commentary on Parker and how discovering European music impacted jazz (and there’s such a spectrum between Ellington and the Modern Jazz Quartet). Ended up watching one of the best jazz theory hours of content on UA-cam.
Looks like a lot of labor went into assembling the video too. Thanks, it really enriched my appreciation of the music. I wish you’d do something on Debussy or Ravel (“La Valse”). Probably not your bag.
Anyway, deeply appreciate this.
La Valse is truly crazy stuff.
Brilliant! I’d add one thing- when you look at the solo in 2 beat sections, Bird never repeats the direction of his lines intervalically-dig where he adds straight arpeggios- amazing!!
at 10:46, this diagram is slightly incorrect. The first three octaves of the harmonic series (up until partil 8) are fine, but after this is goes a bit arye. It should be C D E F# G A Bb B, then C is the 16th harmonic. This makes sense - the amount of partials in an octave doubles within each octave. first its 1 then 2 then 4 then 8. The 16th partil is NOT Db, as suggested in this diagram. I don't know what, if any synthesis software you might have access to but if you have something like Ableton's Operator or FM8 where pitches are expressed as ratios of a fundamental frequency, you can test what I've said quite easily and you'll find it to be true.
Greetings, this is James Fleet, the son of guitarist Biddy Fleet! Great 4 part documentary, but there's a missing ingredient that NO ONE KNOWS, except those in the Fleet Family. If there's a way to contact you directly, we can chat, and then I can tell you 'What Bird Heard' when he was jamming with my Dad.
Hi James, what did Bird hear?
If you'd be willing to speak with me I'm currently in college working on a thesis about Bird. I feel like what he meant here may be the last piece in putting it all together. I'm genuinely very curious about your insight but of course, respect your privacy. Feel free to contact me
Your theory on outside harmonics as the basis of bebop scales makes sense, but...the function of the bebop scales in jazz is as rhythmic "place holders" so as to place the primary chord tones I 3 5 7 on strong beats strengthening the harmonic thrust of the bebop style. Charlie Parker didn't think in terms of "bebop" scales, they were later developed by David Baker.
I do state in this series that Parker and the Bop players didn't think in terms of bebop scales.
I'm just trying to give an explanation for Parker's 1949 statements in relation to his jazz style - and how it has been interpreted into modern thinking ie Bebop Scales.
Modern Scholarship does not account for Parker's shifting patterns across bar lines that alter the harmonic context of these added notes. You state that Bebop scales are rhythmic. That is true, but to Parker they also have a harmonic and melodic element. In fact you can hear the melodic element in Bebop scales from Paul McCartney's song Yesterday. In bar 4 the melody rises over a C Chord (I'm transposing for simplicity) in eighth notes C,D,E,F,G,G# - even though that G# is off the beat, taking it out really destroys the melodic line.
Great video series. Congrats!!
Isn’t, D minor 7 functionally called the super tonic?,,Fmaj7 is the sub dominant.,,i know they are interrelated but if you are working from C as Tonic...?.
I just discovered your channel,,thanks for these videos,,,
Firstly,,,I wondered if the breakdown of bebop motives you mentioned are in this book ? Thomas Owens. Bebop: The Music and the Players.
Or another?..I saw mention of a pdf in the comments?...Many thanks.
It seems to mean that considering the triadic harmonics of each note of the triads engenders chromatic mediants and secondary dominant relationships that are used melodically for voice leading into the changes..is that was is happening,,?,,using the upbeats to interpolate the accidental chromatic notes?.they create the bebop scale.
,,,Glad I made that cuppa!,,,,,
Dm7 is a sub dominant function chord but it is built on the super tonic as you said. Chord Function is not dependent on the scale degree of the chord. A chord called G7 on the first bar of a 12 bar blues has tonic function - not dominant. I know it sounds confusing but it all makes sense when you understand Berklee Harmony. The motives I talk about are in Thomas Owens PHD dissertation in two volumes on my facebook page (motives in vol 2). Look at the post and comments from June 19 2017.
facebook.com/BebopReview/
Bebop review Hello,and thank you for getting back to me,,,I Don,t know much about Berkeley Harmony (But I think it relates in part to seeing a chord and playing a mode scale that corresponds,,,though I am sure it is surely not as simple and naive as that,,,,so I shall look into it,,I am very intrigued as to this angle on functionality,and I would really like to get it clear in my mind.Looking up Berkeley Harmony would set me straight upon this?,,I think I know what you mean,,,if this supertonic chord has subdominant functionality from the point of view of cadence and progression,,but the immediate question I ask myself is how this choice does not then become arbitrary but maybe it is!,,& therefor even if it is how does one distinguish a tonic 7th from a dominant 7th chord in functionality?.,,is it simply deduced from contextual considerations?. If Berkley Harmony has the answers then I shall look toward that as soon as I can possibly manage it.Are they a set of books that are freely or otherwise available to consult?.
I am still revising Schoenberg books!). For the motifs I am not on Facebook ,nor have a phone to sign up,so I shall to pass for the moment unless you have any additional links!..thank you very much,,I shall return to all of this later on when I have my present undertakings more in hand!.
Add.!(23h00 !..just thinking what you said,,,because suddenly I thought,,maybe you meant it was dm7 as subdominant and so it was relating back to some form of A chord as tonic,but instead of Dmaj7 it was a brief interchange chord still in scale position 4,,but you confirmed the dm7 as supertonic so it is relating to C as tonic but as a stand for the Fmaj7 as normal sub Dom chord? So is this is like the relative minor to that as if the Fmaj sub Dom is a brief modal interchange to Fmaj as key governing the overall functional structure of the subdominant at that moment in time,,(C chord played would be C7 if substituted at the same point?)Writing that I realise that you could still have the Dm7 to Fmaj7 relationship within C major no need for any interchange,but that Dm7 is naturally a Dorian minor whereas the other from Fmajor is Aeolian with the Bflat..it’s seems like an oscillation or superposition of the two too me,,so I,ll have so look more deeply into this as I am a bit confused,,,actually Schoenberg spoke a bit like too in his structural functions of harmony book and I was a bit lost there too,but maybe it is the same thinking.Soon revising it all (as Schoenberg is a very informative not to mention nice and extremely interesting read!)then I can look deeper at the jazz notion,but I think there is quite some common ground from what I have read so far. It seems to me a bit like Debussy and non functional harmony,in some aspects as far as I can understand,in that a chord might not be logically functional re old common practice but it is used in functional positions and with functional timing,,(ie What you said about G7 in a tonic position,not sure Debussy did exactly that but that’s what I am getting from that influence from Wagner through to Debussy and onwards as discussed by Schoenberg on 7th chord inversions and usages.),,.but I suppose Be Bop has its own thing!
Thank you anyway!,I,ll definitely be checking back in here later on. pS.i just found the dissertations on archive .org so thanks also very much for those titles!.One day hopefully the fog will clear!,,
Your videos are excellent in explaining the theory behind Bird's playing but putting into practice is much easier said than done! Remember he did all this on the spur of the moment as he heard it in his head and could translate that to his fingers without breaking a sweat! For a player like me to understand it and put it into practice is worlds apart! Charlie Parker was one of a kind....like Mozart!
Thanks for the videos, sir, hats off. But as long as you haven't recorded two solos of your own, the first with the traditional thinking and then the second one with this controversial to compare what sounds more like Bird, I'm not convinced. However it makes sense.
Very useful analysis.
first time I have understood BBscales logic thanks a lot
Great insight!
Why is this series called the levin wilson controversy
'In 1949, Michael Levin and John S. Wilson conducted an extensive interview with Charlie Parker for Downbeat that summed up his life and his career up to that point along with his musical hopes for the future.
The interview, which contains some of the innovative jazz artist’s most famous quotes, was also a bit controversial because he said that bebop had little connection with jazz, and he criticized Dizzy Gillespie’s commercial tendencies.'
The above quote was made by Scott Yanow of 'Down Beat' and 'Jazz on the tube' and comes from his review of this video series. However, my meaning is the one that has been discussed in academic circles for years. The Controversy is what did Parker actually mean by his break-through statement ' I could hear it but I couldn't play it'. This series goes into that statement in depth and list the many misquotes and problems associated with trying to understand Parker's meaning. After stating these problems, I then offer my own theory on what Parker meant and so resolving the 'controversy' in my own mind at least.🎷
I enjoyed this video. However, I think the Barry Harris method is simpler and explains this better.
440Hz is A
Charlie Christian Charlie Parker Bird Lives
Hi Andy
The only way i can reach you.
Did you have a list with all the Motives from Th Owens Book as pdf? Thank you
I've already answered this on your comment on HTPB 5 the motive list is at the beginning of volume 2
@@bebopreview3187 Andy, i didnt see it..thank you..i found the owen dissertation ii as pdf..its a bit confusing for me..over wich chord they played..some over gm7/c7, some over major..but anyway..thank you
Check out Barry Harris metodth. Then you understand what Charlie is playing.
No you won't
????! Yes you will! Barry Harris has spent his life on it. His contribution helps to understand why music not just bebop works the way he explains it.
I would have love to see Parker be responsible enough and organize a Big band like dizzy Gillespie did, or organize rehearsals of his own Quintet like Miles .
Parker is copyable 🎷. Dizzy is unique. I am just disappointed by is the Parker Interviews. Parker is greedy and egoistic. A testimony by Miles.he plays like that.
How is he greedy and egotistical?
@@tonythecreator Bird is Great Musician. He was.
Check his tenor solo with Miles on Little Willy Leaps in.👍🏽👋👋👋