Lance, I'd say everything you wrote about Parker is dead on (I'd
better--I'm from KC where we just dedicated a huge Easter Island looking
bust of the Bird), but only IF we limit the discussion to jazz. If we look
to the whole of 20th century pop, however, which is what I was doing, then
Armstrong is the man. Satchmo was the foundation not just of modern jazz,
as you say, but of modern popular music.
And the edifice? I guess that'd have to be Elvis. --david cantwell
At 05:38 PM 4/19/99 -0500, you wrote:
>It's hard to argue AGAINST Armstrong, but I think Charlie Parker put Louis'
>massive instrumental contributions into something of a musical perspective.
>Not only was Bird--like Hendrix later on--the most imaginative and
>"electric" player of his era, but unlike Armstrong, there has never been a
>time since when his ideas have fallen out of favor. Bird's reconception and
>reorganization of Armstrong's formal solo made even Louis' monumental
>earlier efforts seem a bit dated (which was admittedly unfair). Bird made
>complex harmonic and melodic ideas swing, and he made oddly accented and
>angular rhythmic reinventions seem natural. Plus, and most importantly I
>think, there was very rarely a sense that even his most "out there" ideas
>weren't still the blues.
>
>Once Bird appeared on the scene, musicians emulated his playing and not,
>directly anyway, Armstrong's. (Unfortunately, too many players also emulated
>his junkie lifestyle for ANY insight into his muse). Charlie Mingus once
>said something to the effect that if horn-playing was gunslinging there'd be
>a whole lot of dead copycats. The same, of course, could be said about
>Armstrong, which is why it's impossible to argue AGAINST him. However, the
>influence of Bird on even contemporary players is still huge compared to
>Armstrong (which is, once again, unfair to Satch). If Armstrong was the
>foundation upon which modern jazz was built, Parker was the edifice itself.
>Personally, I don't think either man should be slighted at the other's
>expense, but the role of Bird from the early '40's onward is a tough chunk
>of history to look past.
