Go Back   Jazzcorner's Speakeasy > JAZZ IN PRINT - Books and Magazines
Connect with Facebook

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April-3rd-2006, 01:04 AM   #1
Lois Gilbert
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,899
Book on Bird may be music to jazz aficionados' ears but a challenge to others

Book on Bird may be music to ears of jazz aficionados; But a challenge to the uninitiated

“Chasin’ the Bird” by Brian Priestley

c.2005, Oxford University Press $28.00 242 pages, includes discography

Don’t you hate to see promise wasted?

It’s hard to watch someone squander obvious talent. Maybe it’s a way with words, or a flair with pen-and-ink, or genius with animals. Whatever it is, you really hate to see that ability wasted by drugs, alcohol, sloth, or all of the above.

According to author Brian Priestley, nearly everyone who knew jazz great Charlie Parker recognized his incredible talent with a horn. In the new book “Chasin’ the Bird: The Life and Legacy of Charlie Parker,” Priestly says that they, too, were dismayed at promise wasted.

Charlie Parker’s early history is mostly that of conjecture, which is common with many African American musicians of his generation. He was born in 1920 in Kansas City and raised in a more rural part of town. During the Depression, Charlie’s mother took a second job and scraped up enough money to buy a house in the city.

Left on his own for much of the time, and with a $45 second-hand sax, Charlie began to skip school to hang out at clubs. Although he was just fourteen, he pretended to be eighteen and sneaked into nightclubs to play gigs. Along with the musical training that he received, he also got a lesson in alcohol, marijuana and, later, in heroin.

Priestley says that Parker was introduced to booze and pills as early as 1932, and he might have discovered heroin at age fifteen. Information is second-hand, of course, but it is known that Charlie Parker battled addiction for much of his life. He was in and out of hospitals and treatment programs. He hocked his own instruments, as well as borrowed ones. He was fired from bands and gigs nearly as quickly as he signed on. At least once, he almost killed himself when he blacked out in bed with a lit cigarette. Overdoses were all too common. Finally, beaten and tired, Charlie Parker wished for pneumonia to end his life.

On March 12, 1955, he got that wish.

But oh, that genius! Musicians who heard Parker play first-hand were awed by his talent. Many times, he had to be restrained from lengthy solos, so strong was his desire to play. No doubt about it, Charlie Parker was a cat who could make a horn wail.

“Chasin’ the Bird” is a jazz fanatic’s delight and shouldn’t be missed if you dig that jive. Author Brian Priestley is a jazz critic and author of several books on jazz artists. Here, he includes details, names, and one of the most comprehensive Charlie Parker discographies you’ll ever find.

Those same details make this book a don’t-read if you’re only a casual listener of jazz. In addition to names and gigs, Priestly examines Parker’s abilities in a chapter that deeply discusses Parker’s music in terms that musicians will understand. If you don’t jam, though, you won’t “get it.”

Jazz aficionados will want to chase down a copy of “Chasin’ the Bird”. For the non-musician or non-jazz-fan, however, reading this book will be wasting your time.

http://www.insightnews.com/aesthetic...articleID=2313
Lois Gilbert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April-3rd-2006, 03:05 AM   #2
stereojack
Registered User
 
stereojack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Everett, MA
Posts: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lois Gilbert
Many times, he had to be restrained from lengthy solos, so strong was his desire to play. No doubt about it, Charlie Parker was a cat who could make a horn wail.

“Chasin’ the Bird” is a jazz fanatic’s delight and shouldn’t be missed if you dig that jive.

If you don’t jam, though, you won’t “get it.”
I had to select some of the highlights from this lame review, which should have been posted on April Fool's Day. Brian Priestley is a respected jazz scholar, and this "review" is an insult to him.
stereojack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April-3rd-2006, 05:33 PM   #3
gardenshed
Garden Shed
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereojack
I had to select some of the highlights from this lame review, which should have been posted on April Fool's Day. Brian Priestley is a respected jazz scholar, and this "review" is an insult to him.
How does this new bio add to the Ross Russell Bird?
gardenshed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April-4th-2006, 01:45 AM   #4
Tom Storer
Registered User
 
Tom Storer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 6,161
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereojack
I had to select some of the highlights from this lame review, which should have been posted on April Fool's Day. Brian Priestley is a respected jazz scholar, and this "review" is an insult to him.
You mean you didn't "dig" the "jive"? "Man," that is one "hep cat"!
Tom Storer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April-4th-2006, 05:23 AM   #5
Richardo Caerleoni
"Long way from home"
 
Richardo Caerleoni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 1,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereojack
I had to select some of the highlights from this lame review, which should have been posted on April Fool's Day. Brian Priestley is a respected jazz scholar, and this "review" is an insult to him.
AGREED!

For a decent review : http://www.onefinalnote.com/features/2006/bird/

You may not agree with all of it ~ I don't, but its well argued!
Richardo Caerleoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April-4th-2006, 07:24 AM   #6
walto
Plus ça change...
 
walto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Boston area
Posts: 16,919
I must say, I don't really understand Waxman's "arguments" myself. Take this, for example:

Quote:
When sober, Parker’s musical powers were such that with his photographic memory he could sight-read a big band arrangement and fit in as if he had rehearsed with the group for weeks, and his technical skills allowed him to deflate all comers in jam sessions—as British pianist George Shearing discovered when Bird called for “All the Things You Are” in five sharps.

But he was also realistic about his talents. By the late 1940s Parker often discussed seriously studying composition and 20th century classical music—after all, he had already taken all he could from the 18th and 19th century. Just before his death, self-pitying anecdotes aside, he admitted how his lifestyle choices had detrimentally affected his improvising. Considering the medical examiner’s famous estimation of his age at time of death at 53—19 years older than his actual lifespan—whether he would have continued to thrive and innovate had he lived is open to speculation.
Still as Priestly writes, Parker’s “particular combination of European and African elements was more complex than any previously achieved and… [w]as capable of infinite variation.”
There are all these "buts" and "stills," but I really don't get how they are being used or exactly what Waxman is trying to say here.
walto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April-4th-2006, 08:30 AM   #7
Gary Sisco
The Bluegrass
 
Gary Sisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: no country for old men
Posts: 30,835
Cormac McCarthy has been hammering on a theme I've finally embraced myself after years of denying it: There's no point in talking about what might have been if this or that. There isn't any might-have-been world. There is only the one we live in and our lives today or any day are the result of everything we've done on the previous days. Nothing more. Nothing less. Unchangeable.

Parker did what he did for as long as he did it. That's all. And he did more in short life than nearly everyone does with theirs, no matter how long they live. Habits and so forth change nothing about that. His death was the result of his own way of living his life but the habits that led to it are mere footnotes compared to what *else* he did during the whole of his days.
Gary Sisco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April-4th-2006, 08:59 AM   #8
stereojack
Registered User
 
stereojack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Everett, MA
Posts: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Sisco
Cormac McCarthy has been hammering on a theme I've finally embraced myself after years of denying it: There's no point in talking about what might have been if this or that. There isn't any might-have-been world. There is only the one we live in and our lives today or any day are the result of everything we've done on the previous days. Nothing more. Nothing less. Unchangeable.

Parker did what he did for as long as he did it. That's all. And he did more in short life than nearly everyone does with theirs, no matter how long they live. Habits and so forth change nothing about that. His death was the result of his own way of living his life but the habits that led to it are mere footnotes compared to what *else* he did during the whole of his days.
I agree. All we can do is celebrate the accomplishments of Bird, Trane, and the others who died young for what they accomplished during their short stay on the planet. Any speculation about what they might have done is pointless.
stereojack is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Jazzcorner's Speakeasy > JAZZ IN PRINT - Books and Magazines

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All material copyright 2009 jazzcorner.com