Simply because Monk was at Milts before Parker arrived does not mean he came up with the idea. It was Parkers idea he was the guy who explained the concept to everyone/anyone who would listen. You can also tell clearly by the differences in approach. Parker was first to the approach and as a result he covered himself by placing the non chord tones on the off beats while the chord tones remained on the solid beats he was playing connect the dot with arpeggios. Parker was the diamond in the rough. Monk learned from this and was the brash exponent he wanted thos "sour" notes to stand out loud and clear.

As for Monk's meter it very may well have been his spiked finger approach that caused is use of meter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC68NtEmAcc

He doesn't "curl" his fingers and uses them as mallets which is where his harshnes of attack and lack of legato comes from.

But getting back to Monk. Monk advanced parkers ideas he isn't trying to cover up the twelve tones he's celebrating them. A sign that he was the student of parker who carried the concept to the next level.

Another unique difference, as Parker was the originator he used the popular form to solo over. He didn't change the chord progressions to advance his ideas. Monk used advanced reharmonization and changed the form to accomodate his unique ideas. Miles Davis wanted none of that.

About Miles Davis and Charlie Parker
It was Davis that sought out Parker not the otherway round.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_Davis


From his own words

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Miles_Davis

Davis in his own words said he couldn't play those chords. He never said he couldn't play in time with what others were throwing out. It wasn't about a pianist's meter look no further then his own pianist Bill Evans who has a "tidal" approach to timing/meter as opposed to a straight on the beat or consistent push or pull approaches to timing.

Even Jan has stated that miles wanted to escape the trappings of jazz progressions as they led to drawing out standard phrases. Which is why he didn't use "Popular progression form" when he released Birth of Cool.

Miles was classically trained and studied at Juliard. It was that classical theory that grounded his future ideas moreso then the popular form.

When he recorded Birth of Cool. He didn't come in with transcriptions chord progressions or a full sheet with lines he specifically wanted players to use. He came in with little strips of paper. Where he would jot down notes he wanted others to play. He used classical polyphony rather then homogeny *chord changes" as the form.

Whilst Parker and Monk were evolutionary in jazz with bebop in the early to mid 40' Miles Davis was revolutionary with his compositons that were post bebop and earned the distinction of the style known as "Cool Jazz" which did not emerge till 57'
Miles wanted no part of "The progression" look again back at the quote" He wanted to break the binds he felt were present to focus on the solo above all else not in context of all else as his predecessors did.
Last edited by tapper mike on Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:12 pm; edited 1 time in total

The "I can't handle" phrase - it strikes me that in the idiom of the time for those hip cats that meant something closer to "I can't put up with" or "I can't tolerate". It's more about it not being their thing or their preference than a lack of ability - I don't think he's saying "I can't cut them hella hard changes". Miles had been doing the business on changes since he came to attention with his solo on Now's the Time.

If you read Miles bio there's a lot of stuff about the high-school age Miles hanging at the jazz club in his home city and jamming and playing till his chops gave out - Clark Terry figures in there somewhere IIRC. He had been immersed in Jazz before he got to NYC - it was in NYC that he hooked up with the latest innovations in jazz and he was getting them straight from the horses mouth. He was playing on sessions on trumpet and piano as a 19 year old in that company. His father was a dentist and reasonably prosperous and he went to Julliard as a tentative next step on his path but very quickly found Parker in the clubs and became his roommate and dropped out of Julliard.

As far as the BoTC stuff - wasn't Gil Evans involved also? Gil worked as a copyist and arranger for musicians for years and developed his ideas for instrumentation and chord voicings over a long time. His great work in the late 40s and the 50s with Miles was the culmination of a long development.

Can any of you guys even play Bebop?

Because I can, Bitches.


[/u]

Fair enough, But Birth of Cool didn't come out in the 40's. It came out much much later 1957.

Miles did lead on many of Parkers sessions but it was Parkers compositions not Miles and it also was the long standing tradition since Satch that Trumpet players always get the first solo.

By the 50's bebop matured. Everyone took from Parkers original comcepts and expanded it in many directions. Including and especially Bill Evans. Evans had developed his own sense of reharmonization. Which is not to use the apparant chord structure but to build chord structure from the melody as there was no harmonic overlay structure to begin with.

If you start with melody alone without a progression, you have the melody you may have a reference to key within that melody. You don't have to structure your chords in a progression to form the progression nor does simply slapping a ii-V-1 garauntee instant results especially if the melody wasn't created from a base progression.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-CI9FABTw4

Notice Hyman harmonizes the C major scale but doesn't always use the C major scale for his harmonizations.

Notice he's creating the chords to support the melody not the otherway around.
The same way Bill Evans did with many a cover and part of his evolution of jazz introduced concepts not prevalent before him in jazz such as quartal harmony. Tritone Subsitutions and more. None of these expanive ideas along with tweleve tone are prevalent before parker and he was not responsible for reharmonization or tritone subsitution.

I'll say it again. Parker was evolution of jazz Davis was revolution against jazz. Parker worked with standard chord progressions and played them changes with the added benefit of his twelve tone idea as connective tissue between chord tones derived from the standard chord progressions that had preceeded him. He didn't write/play against monk style harmonies. AND he'd often choose to tuck those non-chord tones on the off beat rather then on the beat. IT'S WRITTEN IN ALL OF HIS MUSIC AND SHOWS IN ALL HIS COMPOSITIONS. Monk elaborated on Parkers ideals choosing to bring a more lyrical melodic approach to solo's rather then simply playing arps with passing tones.

Davis had no interest in writing to a chord progression. His ideas which came to frutition almost ten years after milts playhouse were concerned with solo melodic ideas not supported by standard jazz progressions. He did not score out a chord progression for Evans to lay down. Instead he presented little scraps of paper to all his musicians for them to solo using. Evans Already known for his reharmonization built chords to support the melody. He didn't slap a ii-V-1 over it and call it a day. At that time in 1957 Parker was already dead. Parker introduced his ideas on bop back in 1942 15 years before Birth of Cool.

Parker started the evolution of Bop but he wasn't it's only advocate nor did all the ideas on reharmonization and subsitution emerge from him.

Niether Microsoft nor Apple are responsible for the advent of the personal computer. The both borrowed and enhanced upon software and hardware from companies that went before them. Parker did not invent all the approaches that are now part of the lexicon that is post swing jazz. However his vision was the first in the turning point that allowed newer devices in the jazz medium which served as a catalyst for many of them thereafter.

http://www.allmusic.com/album/birth-of-the-cool-r104727

The sessions were in 1949 and 1950.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_of_the_Cool
Birth of the Cool is a compilation album by American jazz musician Miles Davis, released in 1957

It was recorded in 49 but not released until 57
Birth of Cool is not bebop. It is Cool Jazz, a style unique to itself which was a revolution from the progression form that surrounded popular music thru the entire jazz age including bebop. Bebop still used progressions as it's base from which melodies and solo's were derived.

Still even if it was recorded in 49 that still puts it 7-8 years after Parker started spouting his ideas known as bebop

[quote]Featuring unusual instrumentation and several notable musicians, the music consisted of innovative arrangements influenced by classical music techniques such as polyphony, and marked a major development in post-bebop jazz.
[quote]

Notice the reference that was indeed "post bebop"
Miles music was not like Parkers in many many ways. Miles music is referred to as "Cool Jazz" or "Post Bop" While Miles did play with Parker he didn't write any songs in the bebop mainstream. He didn't use 2-5-1's He didn't draw his line from chord progressions.

http://www.jazzinamerica.org/LessonPlan/8/6/210



Does no one listen with thier ears anymore or do you all wander around ears closed and eyes shut and minds closed because you think you know everything?

Beboppers were jammers. In order to jam you need to work out an agreed chord progression. Cool jazz/post bop were not jammers they work thru the arrangment focusing on thier pre defined parts (as classical musicians are)
Beboppers were chord concious and created lines based on the chord progression Not so much for the cool/post bop era where it was about classical polyphony and motific development which gave post bop it's "sophisticated sound" There were plenty of "modern jazz/bebop" guitarists such as joe pass, kenny burrell, herb ellis and many many more as they could chord comp to the progression and create lines, jam, solo over the changes. There were few if no "Cool/post bop" guitarists and those that were essentially sat on there hands until the moment they performed the pre arranged line for them. Simply because if harmonies where introduced they were done via classical polyphany with other instruments or block chord reharmonizations of the melody by the pianist.

wasnt the original question about blues or somesuch???

You expect a thread to stay on topic in the kvr theory forum?

Like Jan says "We Know Drama"

in any case tapper mike has me reaching across the web to do more research.

complicating any sort of archeology is the musician's strike right as a lot of this was coming together. recordings atarted back up in '45.

and I had forgotten that Gillespie and Parker were together pre-Minton's in Earl Hines band aka 'the incubator of bop' . This is an unpardonable sin to forget for someone who grew up around Pittsburgh and wants to see that Pittsburgh musicians get their due -- even if they all come into their own after they leave the city.
again there aren't recordings of that band during that period, but accounts indicate a lot of flatted fifths were in play.

my sense is that swing was going to evolve into somnething and that sonmething was bebop and there was bound to be a reaction against bebop hence the birth of the modal cool. It all looks inevitable looking back.

Thanks for bringing up Dizzy. Each artist brought a little of themselves to the whole bebop movement. I love Diz, Parker was content to race around arpeggios, Not Diz nor Monk. Dizzy brought better arrangements and smarter lines all while putting on a big smile and saying - Gotcha

Anyway. Ten years later,,, Dizzy and Bird playing hot house. The pianist Dick Hyman the same guy I link to with the video who has a large assortment of in instructional videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clp9AeBdgL0

First, it's driving me a bit mad that you keep calling it Milt's, it's Minton's. Okay, that's a minor quibble, but I had to get that out of the way.

Second, everything I've ever read about Monk from those who heard his earlier work suggest that his development was largely complete by the time he hit New York's club scene before he ever met Charlie Parker, and that much of his unique approach was based on ideas he heard in Art Tatum's playing (citation: Robin D.G. Kelley Thelonious Monk: The Life and Times of American Original). Monk and Bird did play together occasionally, but not often and it seems from every piece of jazz scholarship that I've read (including interviews with those who knew both Bird and Monk) that the two performers didn't have much impact on one another and Monk did directly teach and influence Bud Powell and Miles Davis (and later John Coltrane).

The intervallic displacement approach Monk used in his writing has nothing in common with Charlie Parker's approach that emphasized arpeggios more. If you could show me any transcription of a Monk piece where he used Bird's approach to improvisation or melodic construction I'd certainly be more convinced, but my studies of Monk's transcriptions almost never turn up anything Birdlike at all. It's mostly a combination of blues and stride filtered through Monk's unique use of space and whole tone scales, again which are totally different from Bird's approach (I never see whole tone scales in Bird's playing).

Also, as you know, when Monk improvised over a tune he'd always keep very close to the original theme of the piece and develop his ideas from the original melody, whereas Bird would completely abandon the original melody and just use the harmonic shell of the tune.

In sum, I can neither hear nor identify any sources that suggest that Monk was a "student" of Charlie Parker's approach.

One more thing, on Parker's influence, from Miles Davis's autobiography (p. 69):



A little more about Monk (p. 80-81):



Regarding Dizzy Gillespie's stronger influence on other musicians (p. 64):

The OP asked after sticking the 'lower case' chords in with "the blues scale". Jopy cited things which did that which are another level, of 'blues'.

the background of my life was a lot of these records my father had. what wasn't central was this 1940's early bop, nor Charlie Parker, but hard bop and composed things which seized on the language of, but was not about applying tricks to smarten up Tin Pan Alley tunes, but another level. I didn't get too deep into his record collection until I was 12 or 13 and by then I was into hard blues, looking back through Hendrix, which was my greatest motivation to get deep into music really. I would see 'Blues' in the titles of tunes and go, 'cool' but I wasn't finding what I thought of as blues. But structurally they were an abstraction of blues, you go to IV, back to I, turnaround on V or a variant of... but they applied the lessons of bop, ii-V-I and cute substitutions to make it more directional, and more busy.

that's the tense marriage structurally in jazz, blues as a structure and Tin Pan Alley tunes as a structure.

There were records in my father's collection where Miles was playing with Parker. It is really quite a different Miles than the mature Miles. During my little bit of research trying to verify some of Mike's assertions, I saw people saying Miles couldn't keep up with this and that so he went in another direction. That isn't what I found even as a kid, Miles was playing fast and pretty much stylistically in the same game as everybody else. I do think competing with John Birks Gillespie in an athletic kind of display wasn't his idea of what to do so he got more into his own thinking. They are very different players, true. Miles didn't do, couldn't do, whatever, that high tessitura. Note that my father would have loved me to follow Maynard Ferguson and leased me a trumpet at ten years of age. But the record I gravitated to was Birth of the Cool, which was orchestrated, and 'Inside Sauter-Finegan' which was an arranger's group with avant-garde tendencies applied to popular melody, they actually made a living being weird on purpose.

At a point this is going to be research into people's writing vs other research into people's writings. I don't really trust journalism so much anyway. I can do this too: Following Birth of the Cool, Miles Davis did not return to cool jazz, instead going to play hard bop, and eventually spearheading modal jazz.[57] ^ Kernfeld, Barry. "Miles Davis." Grove Music Online. Web. 24 Apr. 2012.

I don't hear Monk as following Parker really. I don't think there's a lot of evidence of it in the music and I'm seeing journalism that does anything but get rid of that for me.

My understanding of BotC is, it was Gil Evans' project through a lot of development over a couple years and MIles ended up fronting it. Rather than Bird.
'Cool' had a lot to do with Gerry Mulligan and Milt Jackson, for instance.

So why is Jopy so obsessed with documenting the lack of influence from Bird to Monk? It's in part because of the following (from Thelonious Monk, Life and Times of an American Original, p. 105):



Or perhaps Mary Lou Williams said it best (exerpted from The Thelonious Monk reader):



Monk in his teens would have been in the early 1930's.

What did Dizzy Gillespie say (from To Be or Not to Bop)?



Regarding Dizzy's interpretation of Charlie Parker's contribution:


Which is of course, an enormous contribution, but Diz is somewhat modestly (more modestly than Monk, at least!) acknowledging (and he goes into greater lengths regarding this in his memoirs) that he taught Charlie Parker a lot of theory, harmony, and structure and not the other way around.

One more quote, from Lionel Hampton regarding Dizzy Gillespie (regarding a recording date in September 1939, years before Diz met Bird):


Last edited by jopy on Mon Apr 30, 2012 5:25 am; edited 1 time in total

again I come to agree with jopy, esp regards the difference in Monk style with intervals and space vs Parker's runs wity upper structures

One direct way to research this is to listen to what each did with standards. How Monk played with standards is wholly different from what Parker did with standards. I can listen to Monk playing standards all day -- there's seems to be no end to ideas and throwing in the old stride now and again to touch base with history/influences. I know it may be personal taste, but what Parker does with standards gets old for me sooner. It's a lot of notes and not much space. Playimg live I alwsya find it ironic when the audience applauds when the original melody is re-0established. Are they applauding how far out the musician went and still came back or the fact that they managed to remember what song they were playing?