Charlie Parker with Strings: The Master Takes

This is a great album for anyone who may have a hard time approaching the sometimes harsh sound and abstract harmonics of the bebop era. If you come with a more melodic approach to music and would like to encounter Parker as a soloist for the first time, this would be a good way to do it. Even in his improvisations, Parker stays pretty close to the melodies on this album, and when he doesn't he is backed by the strings which do it for him.Critics label this attempt to bridge musical gaps and widen the audience with words ranging from popularization to commercialization, selling out, and on occasion (among the more theoretically-minded) domestication. Many of them saw the strings work as a departure from the high-minded artistic integrity of this jazz genius. The somewhat thorny problem these critics have to face, however, is that the strings recordings were not only enthusiastically endorsed by Parker. They were initiated by him. This is where he wanted to go.Certainly the very position Parker's critics adopt show that he was successful in his objective here. Those who criticize him for his "commercial" sell-out seem to admit his commercial success. One might ask legitimately what is wrong with the desire for commercial success or the wish to reach a wider audience. The answer most often given is that there's nothing wrong with it unless it compromises the integrity of the music--that the Parker on these recordings is not the Parker of the small sessions of the mid to late 40s, and that therefore the figure the public is seeing on the strings recording isn't really the Parker who was revolutionizing jazz.Well, yes and no. Obviously, if you change the musical situation, you change the music. But in that case, the Parker who played with Miles Davis or Red Rodney is not the Parker who played with Diz. Of course, the string orchestra is a much more radical departure. But you still have the same harmonic and rhythmic intelligence of the player. You simply have that player removing to another context--and not all that different, I might add, from what Miles Davis was doing around the same time with Gil Evans in giving birth to "the cool."And the other tricky thing here is that this direction of Parker's was not simply adopted with an eye toward commercial success. All evidence suggests that he really liked playing with the strings. Parker's humility is sometimes mentioned with admiration, but his sometimes prosaic-seeming musical judgment is passed over as an embarrassment, or at best and endearing character flaw. Thus the fact that the last musician he was reported to have been listening to, and with great joy and admiration, was Tommy Dorsey.This kind of sits uneasily with Parker's critic-fans, who sometimes respond to the awkward facts of Parker's broad musical taste in the same way that those who adore Mother Theresa might have responded to her announcement that she is a great fan of the Rambo movies.The awkward thing, however, is for the critic-fans rather than for Parker himself. It is awkward indeed to find that the man you have proclaimed a musical genius does not, in fact, share your narrow musical taste. Surprise, surprise. Neither did Mozart. To maintain consistency, the critic must place his own musical judgment at a higher rate than Parker's creativity.But in avoiding the snobbery of Parker's musical critics, we also have to negotiate the attendant danger of overvaluing his work just because it was, you know, his work. The hordes of Latter Day Ornimaniacs who proclaim shrilly the unassailable genius of the Master seem, if anything, to lack the courage and integrity of those who are at least willing to criticize the man whose work they so admire. Most of them are people of indifferent musical talent themselves who, in the absence of any such talent, attempt to inflate their musical credentials by loudly proclaiming "it is good" anything that is safe to call good.These guys tend to look at Parker like he's Jesus Christ Almighty. The Master can do no wrong. Even his death magnifies him.The position does a disservice to our own judgment, and certainly offers no help to anyone who is thinking about purchasing the album. "Everything Bird did is great, Bird lives, buy the album!" What that tells me is if I'm an Ornimaniac, I need to buy this album. But if I'm an Ornimaniac, I'm going to buy it regardless of what a reviewer says anyway.So--a measured response to the question of Parker's work with the strings.Let's return to the Mozart analogy. Like Parker, Mozart was also a fan of popular musical forms which later critics would claim to be inferior to his own work. But Mozart imports those forms into his own operas.The difference is that Mozart transforms the works in taking them. He incorporates them into his own ideas--those ideas in turn may be shaped and enriched by the new material, but the product is a new musical form.Not so with Parker and the strings. I can hear how Parker enriches the strings. But I fail to see how the string setting enriches Parker.The interplay between Parker and the strings doesn't really go anywhere for me. It was a somewhat typical device of the time among big bands, however. The Dorsey Orchestra, which I had mentioned earlier, added a string section in the late 40s if memory serves me. The result was a richer, more elegant sound, fit for an elegant ballroom. But Dorsey's strings built on what the band was already doing. Parker's do not--they replace his earlier band. A better approach might have been to have the strings working some of the more complicated bebop numbers, rather than having both strings AND popular melodies. Or, in lieu of that, see what kind of stuff Parker and his group could have done if they were riffing on, say, "Night on Bald Mountain" or "The Planets."The work with the strings, then, in my ear, really doesn't take either Parker or the string orchestra in any new direction. It may, as I have mentioned, provide an easy bridge to Parker from a musical experience more comfortable with, oh I don't know, Kenny G.So why have I given this album four stars rather than three? The answer is simple: Parker's playing. Although his work lacks the energy of the small group exchanges, his melodic imagination is quite beautiful. Even for seasoned musicians--if you really want to learn how to play a ballad, listen to three people: Louis Armstrong, Coleman Hawkins, and Parker with strings.So I'm convinced that listeners who are not familiar with Parker but who may find his small group work harsh or intimidating will love his sound on the strings album especially.As for Parker fans, well the Ornimaniacs are going to buy the album and probably mutter riffs from it as they count rosaries. But what about the more measured fans of Parker? Does this album hold anything for them?For one thing, there is the broadening experience of Parker's own musical taste. It seems to me difficult to listen to Parker with strings and then to go back to his other work without your ear being affected. We hear, for a moment, the same kinds of things that Parker heard. We listen to other musicians playing through the phone of Parker's creative mind rather than the limiting cypher of musical judgment. When I first read that Parker had called Tommy Dorsey "a wonderful trombonist," I went back to listen to Dorsey again, this time wondering what it was Parker heard. You hear things differently when you listen in these ways.Then there is the issue of musical heritage and history. All of Parker is needed for a whole assessment of the musician and the man. So nobody who really likes Parker can afford to ignore his work with the strings.But more than these reasons to look at the album is just it's sheer fun. It's sort of a Batman meets Billy the Kid type of thing. Charlie Parker actually plays with Mitch Miller. What's not fun about that? It's a gas. Parker was a musician, and the bottom line for him was that he just wanted to play. Well, he's playing.So I would recommend this album BOTH for newbies who are a little put-off by the hard bebop style but who want to get to know Parker, and for Parker fans with the proviso that exchange between Parker and the strings is not as dynamic or interesting as that between Parker and the other players in the small group setting. One musician in particular, Buddy Rich, is praised on one of the early album covers for showing such uncharacteristic restraint with the strings. Well, how much fun is a restrained Buddy Rich? You get Rich, you want a loud, unsubtle maniac.The only listeners for whom I would not recommend this album are the Latter Day Hipsters and hard boppers who are looking for edgy bebop. This one isn't your cup of tea. Then again, neither is the other 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the human musical oeuvre. Stay in your own little world, and enjoy every aspect of 1947-1949.

99.9% of Charlie Parker's record catalogue is free from string arrangements. Only two volumes of original vinyl titled "Charlie Parker with Strings" contain string arrangements. Yet some critics, even on this site, have registered their dismay and dislike for Bird accompanied by strings. Lest we forget, this material was recorded over sixty years ago. Why would anyone purchase a CD titled, "Charlie Parker with Strings" if they disliked the artist playing material accompanied by strings?Others have responded, as a counterpoint, that Charlie publicly praised this album and stated this was one of his favorites. These comments are sometimes referenced to defend the artistic credentials of the project. Specifically, that Charlie Parker was not posturing to blatant commercial appeal at the expense of his true higher calling, Bebop. Secondly, that Producer, Norman Grantz, did not maintain a sinister plan to exploit Bird's talent for short term commercial gain. There are always three sides to every story, your, mine and the cold hard truth. Charlie respected and admired Norman Grantz's professional instincts. Mr. Grantz, who produced the string project, had an uncanny ability to successfully "mix and match" artists, venues, tours and record dates. Case in point is the wildly success (financially and critically) "Jazz at the Philharmonic (JATP)" series.His vision for the string project, featured Bird playing American Standards with straight ahead chart arrangements, supported by some of the best jazz artists in the business. These musicians, used on the three separate studio dates, included Ray Brown, Al Haig, Buddy Rich, Tommy Potter, Roy Haynes and Shelly Manne. He also enlisted the legendary Skitch Henderson to handle the full orchestra and string arrangements.There was great commercial potential for an album of this nature. During the late forties and well into the fifties, albums associated with full string orchestras were selling millions. Artists (now mostly forgotten) such as Mantovani, Percy Faith, Ray Conniff, Andre Kostelanetz and others, were considered superstars within this genre.Both Norman and Charlie recognized the potential windfall associated with this project. Bird's audience would increase a hundred fold. He'd crossover from an exclusive jazz audience and achieve mass commercial appeal. He'd transition from night club dates to concert venues with international recognition. Last but certainly not least, was the potential for major financial rewards for both artist and producer.History proved Bird and Norman were exceedingly correct on all accounts. The album proved an international best seller and the most financially successful in Charlie Parker's record catalogue. It also had the added benefit of exposing Bird's more serious work to a mass audience. Not everyone "got it" but, thanks to the string project, more of the public opened their hearts, soul and ears to this art form.All 24 tracks on this CD, 6 live and 18 studio dates are flawlessly performed. Andrew Nicholas contributed a splendid Mastering effort and Joe Goldberg provided some valuable background liner notes.This project represents a commercial and artistic watermark for Charlie Parker. It was one of many related to his brief but multi faceted career. You can't fully appreciate his complete genius without experiencing all his musical endeavors

Charlie Parker's musical ideas were so complex that even for someone like me who has listened to a lot of jazz for a lot of years can get lost. But with string arrangements of familiar old chestnuts as a backdrop, a map is provided that allows the listener to keep track of the basic line that bird is flying over, under, around and through. It's a rare offering that appeals to both the jazz fan and the unintiated.Update: I have become a lot more familiar with Bird since I wrote this thanks to Ted Kendall's brilliant  Charlie Parker: A Studio Chronicle 1940-1948 , sadly unavailable now. (Right now, I'm serious, go order it used before the price inevitably goes to the moon). I've come to love this 5CD set but one thing becomes clear vs. the strings CD: you get a lot more Parker per tune on the stings CD. On the classic bebop sides, Parker solos during maybe 30 seconds to a minute per song. But on this CD, he's wailing away most of the time.It also occurred to me that this works as a gateway to Parker's more difficult sides if you are old enough, or otherwise musically savvy enough, to be familiar with these "standards", most of which were popular in the 30's through the 50's.

A truly amazing Jazz album by Charlie Parker. I only ordered it after hearing " Laura" on Jazz FM a few weeks ago. I think I have played it everyday since.

Good sound quality and nice presentation, with a booklet containing an essay and listing of full personnel and recording dates for each track. And a lovely cover drawing!

I bought this after hearing some tracks on a radio programme about Charlie Parker, it went straight onto my wish list and i am not disappointed.

Little disappointing. Perhaps I expected too much

Great music and well worth the money.