Word!
Bird is the Word!
I don't see any reason or need 60 plus years on, to justify or supply reasons for his status as the greatest and most innovative of saxophonists ever. Why? Because the proof of the pudding is in the eating, which in the case of music--a totally aural art form--means that if a person can't hear it with their own ears, then that means they lack exposure to and experience with music of a high degree of complexity, something which is a pre-requisite to being able to form the neural connections required to process it. In plain language, you learn to appreciate and understand complex musical forms by doing lots of listening of a wide, varied and eclectic nature so your brain can process, respond to and comprehend the sounds coming in your ears.
It's not about liking it, it's about actually hearing what is going on and being able to follow it enough to allow your inner being to absorb it and resonate with it mentally, emotionally, and physically. Liking comes later, and then even if you decide you don't like it, at least you are able to hear what is going on and appreciate the level of complexity and musicianship and have the critical abilities to know whether it is really good or not. Personal taste is not what esthetic value in art is about; a distinction that most people are unable to keep clear in their minds.
Unfortunately, for the average person, with little exposure to anything other than pop varieties of music--which are generally the least complex forms there are--the major criteria is whether they like it or not, and of course that is based on their previous experiences in listening. This is a vicious cycle which makes it very difficult for them to ever expand their musical horizons and tastes. Hence the reason why the average person doesn't like jazz--they can't process it so don't like the experience and therefore shut their ears to it.
To use the food analogy again, imagine a person who has grown up eating a typical diet of hamburgers, hot dogs, spaghetti, pizza, steak, white bread, frozen veggies, pb & j, mac & cheese, Mrs. Paul's Fish Sticks, etc and has little or no exposure to ethnic cuisine of any complexity or refinement. If you take them to an authentic Cambodian restaurant (in San Francisco there is one) and give them one of those equisite dishes with the blend of 10 to 13 different flavors, do you really think they are going to be able to appreciate it let alone distinguish the strains of complexity? Of course not, because in order to do so you have to have developed your taste buds through prior experience to be able to distinguish them. So, most likely they'll say "Yuck! I don't like this, it's too spicy. Can we go to MacDonalds?"
So is Bird an acquired or refined taste? Yes, and no. For someone who has no experience with Bebop as it was originally played by Bird and his co-creators, it could generally be the case, nowadays just as it was back then. After all, those guys were innovators who conciously broke through the conventions in order to forge beyond what had come before, and in so doing were knowingly avant garde and exclusive. Just look at the history of jazz and how Bird was derided and criticised by all the swing musicians and jazz afficionados and so-called critics who were stuck in their "liking" mind and so couldn't open their ears to what he was playing. For people these days who have only listened to current jazz, especially that of a less complex variety, Bird and Bebop is probably still in some way avant garde if they haven't listened widely enough to what it gave birth to in the way of hardbop and beyond. To give an example of what I mean, the late Dick Katz, jazz pianist and co-founder of Milestone records, wrote the following opening to his section of the liner notes for the 2003 CD reissue of Monk's album
Criss-Cross.
Thelonious Monk is certainly a musical icon, but even in 2003, his music seems difficult or strange to many who consider themselves hard-core jazz aficionados. Sometimes they only give lip service to his genius bedause, like any profound music, it requires listeners to give something of themselves to get the rewards. And in Monk's case, they are many.
Jazz, too, has its conventions and there are some today who still think jazz is only about "excitement" and high energy -- like those supersonic, high speed car commericial. How often have you heard a beautiful, quiet solo that goes unapplauded, yet a flashy drum solo brings down the house.
Monk's music is not easy, but it is not really all that inaccessible.
When I first read these words back a few years ago I was flabbergasted. It was beyond me how anyone could, some 40 years since Monk first played and recorded this music, still find it "difficult", "strange" or "inaccesible". Even back then when it was all totally new we all thought it was brilliant, captivating, humorous, thought-provoking, funny, rhythmically engaging music that was simply a gas to listen to. How could a mixture of the blues, stride piano, bebop and ironic, idiosyncratic harmonies be anything other than genial? But of course I was viewing it from my POV, forgetting that just because a musical piece has been around a long time doesn't mean it loses any of it's complexity for someone who might not have the listening experience to be able to get into it. And that remains true no matter how many decades have passed since it was created. If it were otherwise they'd be playing Stravinsky, Bartok, Cecil Taylor or Trane on the radio all the time, and they just ain't even getting close.
So re-reading Dick Katz's words now, in the light of this thread, I can see the truth of that, given that he was a guy who played piano with Miles, Sonny, Konitz and a raft of others and was far more in tune with the way the public reacted to jazz than a mere already-baptised devotee like me would be. None the less, I still don't think that people, least of all saxophonists, who have listened to and dug what has come since then in jazz, even if they hadn't heard Bird first, would ever think that he was "old-fashioned", "out-of-date", "passee", "overshadowed" or anything less than incredible, either chopwise or as a composer and improviser. Even if they prefer listening to other players, even if there are other players who have gone in directions that Bird never got to go, anyone with ears to hear is going to know that Bird was and still is at the pinnacle of jazz. He had it all, melodically, harmonically, rhythmically and technically and that is just a fact. He was a genius, and if the OP can't hear the truth of that yet, IMHO he needs to open his ears and start listening a whole lot so he one day can.
Peace and Jazz
opcorn:
