......or he could of not been thinking that at all..........I think it's a really interesting analysis. It shows that the improvisor need not necessarily follow the lead sheet precisely as far as chord symbols go -- for instance Eb to Eb- rather than C- to F7, thinking relative minors and all -- and implies flexibility required to go with what the rhythm section plays, and vice versa. Improvising is 'thinking on your feet'. This illustrates what Bird *may* have been thinking, it's good.
This is probably the right answer. To me, analyzing a solo is not about what the artist was thinking while playing the solo, but rather what he was thinking while practicing. Then I can practice the same stuff and hope to hear something of what I was practicing while taking a solo.......or he could of not been thinking that at all..........
Or else gain an insight into the logic of the analyser. (analyst?)It's anyone's guess what Bird was thinking. That's exactly why analysis has it's place,... to hopefully gain a little insight on the logic of his lines.
I absolutely agree, no argument there - I do it all the time.True. But I think it can also be eye opening to try just playing lines off the V on ii V chunks. Trying to change run every single chord can come out quite mechanical and I think to play around with some over-arching ideas can create some great results. It can free you up to experiment and be more creative I think.
I am not putting down analysis, if you read what I posted all I was doing was questioning the assertion that the analyst knew what Bird was thinking. How could he have known that Bird was ignoring the Fm7? It's absolutely fine to look at things in different ways as long as it is clear that is the way the analyst is thinking (or anybody might want to think) as opposed to stating for a fact what the artist was thinking.At any rate, I can't imagine why anyone would put down some analysis. I think the more ways you can look at something the better.