[simon196]

Before I get flamed, does anyone not like Charlie Parker that much? I don't dislike him, I just find him a little bland.

 

[sonnymobleytrane]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_18jgv3DTXM&feature=related

 

[Bubba06]

There was a thread about this like a month ago. Some people chimed in that they weren't really into him, but most seem to respect his ability, and INNOVATION.

I suggested listening to the other plays directly before him. I tend to appreciate him more in context.

-Bubba-

 

[daigle65]

There was a thread about this like a month ago. ....

http://forum.saxontheweb.net/showthread.php?171734-Charlie-Parker

 

[Rondalo]

I wasn't all that interested in Charlie Parker for years until I bought the Omnibook a few months ago. I sat down with the book and listened to the corresponding recordings. Then I started really appreciating his music, mainly because I was making a serous effort to listen to it.

 

[Pete Thomas]

Then I started really appreciating his music, mainly because I was making a serous effort to listen to it.

This can apply to very many genres of music.

 

[dexdex]

Many recordings don't do him justice due to poor recording conditions, limited recording time (78t) and sometimes sidemen. Even his own state wasn't always top (famous Californian sessions also mentioned in Eastwood's movie).
But his contribution to music in general is huge.

 

[click]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=WXBahgMt5P0

 

[RootyTootoot]

Before I get flamed, does anyone not like Charlie Parker that much? I don't dislike him, I just find him a little bland.

It's interesting that this topic comes up so regularly here. I guess it's because Bird (and Coltrane, similar threads about him from time to time) are such iconic figures and their music is complex.

There are actually loads of people who share your view, even among saxophonists, you have plenty of company. Among the general population the proportion would be much higher. Your feelings about Parker's music would be the rule rather than the exception. Most people would enjoy Take That more than Beethoven. And that's fine.

 

[click]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wxW8Xcp0r6s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=e3c8JykiA4Q

 

[ismail]

Before I get flamed, does anyone not like Charlie Parker that much? I don't dislike him, I just find him a little bland.

I didn't really enjoy him the first time I heard him, either. But although you are entitled to your opinion, "bland" is not really an attribute I would pull out when talking about Bird, his music was just too rich, complex, innovative, crazy and influential to really call it bland. You can say it leaves you cold, though, but as others have said: it might take some time and listening and - voilà - you see a whole new universe in Bird's music.

 

[Vader]

It took me years to really get into some players. The reason for that, was (as someone said before) because the recordings sounded old to me, and as a kid, I didn't really have the patience or perspective to be interested. I think it's normal for people to not be immediately receptive to older (or complex for that matter) players. We all have different interests, tastes, and we all look for different things in our music. As a kid growing up around jazz, I knew Charlie was important/heavy, but I wasn't really interested. I wasn't even really interested when my teacher had me start using the omnibook in lessons. I didn't really start appreciating him until college.

 

[simon196]

I have listened to Bird quite a bit. Yeah, maybe bland wasn't the best way to describe his playing but it doesn't move me in the slightest. I enjoy tenor players and modern alto players like Alex Han, Randall Clark and Bruce Williams along with Cannonball and Johnny Hodges.

 

[Bubba06]

The one thing that really caught me about bird was when during a clinic, someone mentioned, "Well, I know sometimes it's really hard listening to the older cats when the recording sounds like this. But really, listen to this. They had a great group, but that bass sounds like a rubber band and the drums sound like tin cans. BUT LISTEN TO BIRD!"

Interesting...
-Bubba-

 

[marton]

With Parker, I've found you have to listen pretty closely, or to put it another way - you have to listen actively. There are gems in his playing that are easy to miss if you just sort of listen passively.

 

[Bubble Girl PhD]

Before I get flamed, does anyone not like Charlie Parker that much? I don't dislike him, I just find him a little bland.

Absent the historical nature of the recordings, I don't think many would care to listen to Parker. He is an iconic figure in the jazz world, which is great. But the recordings are generally poor in sound quality, and the man's playing does not leave a lot to enjoy if you're not serious about jazz.

 

[davetjazz]

Fine and Dandy

Another Fine and Dandy

 

[saxpiece]

This is pretty good sound quality

 

[Bubble Girl PhD]

This is pretty good sound quality

I enjoyed listening to that. Thank you. I love most all Cannonball, btw, b/c his personality often screams through the recordings. For some reason, however, it seems as though Bird was in a chemically altered state for much of his playing.

 

[dubrosa22]

I wasn't all that interested in Charlie Parker for years until I bought the Omnibook a few months ago. I sat down with the book and listened to the corresponding recordings. Then I started really appreciating his music, mainly because I was making a serous effort to listen to it.

Ditto.
Once I saw what he was doing I could hear it too. Strange that.