>As for the MOST influential, however, the way to look at it, seems to me,
>isn't to identify the influences upon an act (in the way Oliver paved the
>way for Armstrong) but to find out how far, and how broadly, into the
>future a person's influence reaches. In Oliver's case it's not much further
>than Louis, is it? In Louis' case, though, it's all the way through Miles
and
>on up--and well beyond jazz into the entire culture.
>David Cantwell
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.
Lance . . .
