[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]
Charlie Parker — Bloomdido
Album: 20th Century Masters
Avg rating:
7.6

Your rating:
Total ratings: 2177









Released: 1950
Length: 3:25
Plays (last 30 days): 1
(Instrumental)
Comments (235)add comment
"Jazz isn't dead. It just smells funny." Frank Zappa. 
 aspicer wrote:

What original album was this track from? I expect not 20th C Masters!




Google is your friend.


"Bloomdido" is a jazz standard written by Charlie Parker.[1] It was originally recorded on 6 June 1950 and was released on the Clef Records album Bird and Diz.

What original album was this track from? I expect not 20th C Masters!
Charlie was indeed a darling.
What Bird did for Music, let alone, Jazz, is immeasurable. Genius... Transcendent...  In any case, gods like these are not dead -- they live forever on RP!
 eileenomurphy wrote:


GODS!!!


each and every one
 Solanus wrote:

A very clever, yet ultimately dumb statement. People that play jazz obviously understand their own genre, or do you think that they are just poseurs, honking away to their gullible audience? Fellow musicians from other genres show great appreciation for jazz, so I doubt it's simply a matter of finding a group of suckers who wouldn't know good music if it hit them. Are there musicians that don't get jazz? Sure, just as there are plenty of fans that have no ability to reproduce what they hear, or act out their favorite movies/shows, write poems like their favorite author, or play sports like their favorite player. It doesn't mean that their interest is less worthy than anyone else's.

If someone else likes jazz, good for them. If they don't, so be it. Neither condition is indicative of their intelligence or ability, just their taste.

Well Said.

Can be summarised as "I dont need to know how to make an apple pie to be able to enjoy one"

Like any art, if it connects at what ever level great, if not just move on and leave it for others. No need to judge.
Charlie Parker. Bird. Greatest alto sax 🎷 player in history. Never played squeak notes, incidentally…?!
That's a damn fine horn player. This whole ensemble is on fire.
More
 norbertZ wrote:
Sometimes ya just gotta make do.

(Holy cats what a line up!)
c.

 scrubbrush wrote:

I think it's fantastic that people like all kinds of music... people should listen to what they like and skip what they don't. I'm one of the ones who "don't get" jazz and i'm almost envious of those who do. I think of jazz as "musicians' music" (i.e. most appreciated by people who play music and can appreciate the technical difficulty of the piece). 

anyway, to those who like this: more power to you! keep the genre alive. To those who don't: don't whine, hit PSD and move on (i write this as i listen to Traffic, Can't find my way home - much more to my liking). 



Do yourself a favor and listen to some song 'break down' podcasts or You Tube videos. For instance:

Strong Songs - 'Moanin' by Art Blakey

It helps to have the song dissected by a knowledgeable host. 
Jazz is the anatomy of human conversation and emotional expression.
It’s the Engineering Ground of most music since the early 20th century.
won't you turn that be-bop down, I can't hear my heartbeat!
He is fast, can play clean, or not. His tone and style are remarkable. If you could only listen to one sax, listen to the bird.
 BonzoWiltsUK wrote:


What a line-up!
 

God like!!!!
 zenhead wrote:
"If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know." Louis Armstrong
 
Fantastic!
Crazy, man.
OK.  It's gotta be what it is.  9 > 10. 
2nd time today.  Too much is never enough with these cats. 
All ratings of Bird's music should START at 10 and go to....a big number!  
Insane.
 norbertZ wrote:
 
That was one hell of a band!
"If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know." Louis Armstrong
 unclehud wrote:

Please take your negativity elsewhere.  Why do you think it important to insult me?

I enjoy jazz immensely, and will often spend a quiet evening with bourbon, ice, Cannonball, the Birdman, or either of the Dorsey brothers.  I also played in jazz bands during high school: upright bass and trumpet -- a cornet, if you want to get precise.

I'm sorry you don't like it, but please don't think  everyone else should share your taste in music.
 

Idiocy. Practice is more important than “unlimited” training. Anyone can play and play well. To play like Bird? Not many have been as great and original. 
BIRD LIVES!!!
what a great surprise!

and yes, it’s very hard to play!!
 ciarataylor wrote:
Jazz:  The people who understand or  boast about "getting" this difficult genre of music are those, who, if were given unlimited jazz training, would still be unable to play it on any instrument whatsoever.   
 
Please take your negativity elsewhere.  Why do you think it important to insult me?

I enjoy jazz immensely, and will often spend a quiet evening with bourbon, ice, Cannonball, the Birdman, or either of the Dorsey brothers.  I also played in jazz bands during high school: upright bass and trumpet -- a cornet, if you want to get precise.

I'm sorry you don't like it, but please don't think  everyone else should share your taste in music, or that we want to hear you chide us for our taste in music.
 secretsauce wrote:

The people who make statements like that are so incapable of understanding or "getting" jazz, that they can't imagine anybody else can.

I really, sincerely like jazz ... I will choose to listen to it for hours when alone.  I don't just put it on when around other people in order to "boast" that I "get it."  
 
On the other hand, I don't "get" jazz most of the time, but I know other people do and I assume that there is a lot they hear that I don't. If anything, I am impressed by people who really enjoy it. 
One of the first Jazz CD's that I bought for my brand new CD-player back in the late 80's when I went off to college.  A great piece of music to trigger some bittersweet nostalgia.

I think I'm going to enjoy this fantastic track and focus on the SWEET.  
 secretsauce wrote:

The people who make statements like that are so incapable of understanding or "getting" jazz, that they can't imagine anybody else can.

I really, sincerely like jazz ... I will choose to listen to it for hours when alone.  I don't just put it on when around other people in order to "boast" that I "get it."  
 

Bird soars!
It's bebop baby! Niiiice.... ;-)
 rbrise wrote:
what a great little number. The selection and diversity that Bill and Rebecca put together is tasty

 

 secretsauce wrote:

The people who make statements like that are so incapable of understanding or "getting" jazz, that they can't imagine anybody else can.

I really, sincerely like jazz ... I will choose to listen to it for hours when alone.  I don't just put it on when around other people in order to "boast" that I "get it."  
 

 ciarataylor wrote:

Jazz:  The people who understand or  boast about "getting" this difficult genre of music are those, who, if were given unlimited jazz training, would still be unable to play it on any instrument whatsoever.   
 
 
A very clever, yet ultimately dumb statement. People that play jazz obviously understand their own genre, or do you think that they are just poseurs, honking away to their gullible audience? Fellow musicians from other genres show great appreciation for jazz, so I doubt it's simply a matter of finding a group of suckers who wouldn't know good music if it hit them. Are there musicians that don't get jazz? Sure, just as there are plenty of fans that have no ability to reproduce what they hear, or act out their favorite movies/shows, write poems like their favorite author, or play sports like their favorite player. It doesn't mean that their interest is less worthy than anyone else's.

If someone else likes jazz, good for them. If they don't, so be it. Neither condition is indicative of their intelligence or ability, just their taste.
This song was also released on The Verve Story 1944-1994.  An excellent box set.
This is a treasure.
Several years ago I decided to try to appreciate good cigars, single malt, and jazz. Not necessarily at the same time.

I made it with both scotch and jazz, and they are some of my favorite things/experiences.  Cigars are still meh.

This is wonderful music. 

That's fine f you don't like jazz. However, I suggest you give it a fair hearing. It can be an acquired taste. I try not to dismiss any musical style, although I am as yet immune to the charms of hick-hop...

And for the unconvinced, try to check out an intimate jazz club when you travel. It can be a fun, immersive experience. Went to two clubs in Madrid last week; and Tokyo (Blue Note) and Paris (Caveau de la Huchette) earlier this year. Felt all grown up :)
OK, now when I say "hit it" let's all play a different song. 

I think it's fantastic that people like all kinds of music... people should listen to what they like and skip what they don't. I'm one of the ones who "don't get" jazz and i'm almost envious of those who do. I think of jazz as "musicians' music" (i.e. most appreciated by people who play music and can appreciate the technical difficulty of the piece). 

anyway, to those who like this: more power to you! keep the genre alive. To those who don't: don't whine, hit PSD and move on (i write this as i listen to Traffic, Can't find my way home - much more to my liking). 
 ciarataylor wrote:

Jazz:  The people who understand or  boast about "getting" this difficult genre of music are those, who, if were given unlimited jazz training, would still be unable to play it on any instrument whatsoever.   
 
 
The people who make statements like that are so incapable of understanding or "getting" jazz, that they can't imagine anybody else can.

I really, sincerely like jazz ... I will choose to listen to it for hours when alone.  I don't just put it on when around other people in order to "boast" that I "get it."  
Yah babies just go with the flow and let it take you where it will.

{#Bananapiano}
Oh no ... here come the dreaded jazz streams ... {#Drunk}
 ciarataylor wrote:

Jazz:  The people who understand or  boast about "getting" this difficult genre of music are those, who, if were given unlimited jazz training, would still be unable to play it on any instrument whatsoever.   
 

 
Your point being ... ?
 ciarataylor wrote:

Jazz:  The people who understand or  boast about "getting" this difficult genre of music are those, who, if were given unlimited jazz training, would still be unable to play it on any instrument whatsoever.   
 

 
That's promising, it means I should be able to play all other genres in short order.
 Skydog wrote:

i do understand what you are saying
but to me they are very much connected and rely on each other
i understand you because there is some music that i too don't hear
for example REM and Pink Floyd
i have tried and tried but they both seem bland, shallow and superficial to me
not that i am correct and you are not
who knows?
 

 
Jazz:  The people who understand or  boast about "getting" this difficult genre of music are those, who, if were given unlimited jazz training, would still be unable to play it on any instrument whatsoever.   
 
My cat is also called Charlie - he is just learning to play the sax...

Kool kat
 
Fabulous
These guys should really have learned how to better play their instruments.  {#Notworthy}
As a consequence, I'm bumping this 8 > 9.  
{#Angel}   {#Wink}  {#Biggrin}   {#Roflol}   {#Cheesygrin}   {#Cool}  {#Mrgreen}
Simply the best! 
 scrubbrush wrote:
Jazz.
I just don't get it.
Sounds like someone playing random scales on a horn with some unrelated percussion and piano in the background...
PSD for me.

 
i do understand what you are saying
but to me they are very much connected and rely on each other
i understand you because there is some music that i too don't hear
for example REM and Pink Floyd
i have tried and tried but they both seem bland, shallow and superficial to me
not that i am correct and you are not
who knows?
 
kingart wrote:
Jeez, given some of the comments for this, and jazz in general, I wonder just what organs some of you guys employ when listening to music. Dissing Charley Parker is like saying Michael Jordan or Ted Williams were just average ball players.  

  
No, it is not. There is no truth in this analogy.  We should rate songs not on how well someone plays an instrument, but how good the song is, which is subjective.  MJ can be measured by objective methods.  It would be a very bad thing for jazz in any case to insist on an objective criteria.  The most commonly used objective measurement in art is sales, of course, and jazz sells very poorly. 

Oh. Gee. 
Truth is, Vincent Van Gogh died pretty poor, indebted to his brother Theo. 
Beethoven had to sometimes scrounge for commissions and get enough money to eat. 
Renowned film director John Cassavettes had a very modest income. 

Are we consuming their work subjectively, or with an objective awe of their art, despite how much money they made?I think when someone plays their instrument, or composes, or writes lyrics very well, the track, is by definition, quite good, even if I/we choose to not like it, which is quite another matter. I don't have to like Neko Case or Thom Yorke to recognize that they are talented by most definitions. There are a few songs by, for instance, The Beatles, I don't care for very much, but they are on my short list of desert island music options. I semi-loathe The Stones post-78, but they are the same fellows who more or less gave birth to Gimme Shelter and Dandelion, I must give them their due, and them selling 50 million more records after '78 is almost objectively irrelevant to whether I listen to them with enjoyment or not. 
  

 


Jazz.
I just don't get it.
Sounds like someone playing random scales on a horn with some unrelated percussion and piano in the background...
PSD for me.
 WonderLizard wrote:
Bird lives.

 
and soars
Bird lives.
How did I not already rate that at a 9?
This makes me wan to walk sideways and then in circle and a few steps forward and then back.

And take giants steps like in a Monty Python skit. And spin around on the floors like Curly of the Three Stooges.  

And then several minutes later you find yourself in a different place and time (e.g., farther down the street) but somehow things are different.

It's about time, space, and light all coming together and messing with ya.     
I try to avoid the A-word but ... AWESOME! 
10 times a 10! {#Bananasplit}
 rdo wrote:
 The most commonly used objective measurement in art is sales, of course, and jazz sells very poorly. 
 
That is an amazing comment, rdo.
 rpdevotee wrote:
Okay this is straight jazz...no fusion, no crossover, no ifs and or buts!

 
Of the be-bop era. When jazz first got crazy... and wonderful.
 Byronape wrote:
So, do I rate this song based on how much I like it, or based on my perceptions of the influence and importance of Charlie Parker.  I want to rate this a 9 just based on the musical mastery shown here, but I have never been able to get into this kind of make-it-up-as-you-go jazz. 

I want to like it, I really do, but I just can't get into it.  I'm rating it a 6 because Charlie Parker does not deserve anything less.
 
Don't rate it based on anything except how you like it; how it makes you feel.  Other people's opinions are based on ... well, who knows what motivates other people?  Why does Charlie Parker "deserve" a minimum score of 6?  Because hipsters from NYC thought so in 1958?

With all due respect, Byronape -- and I've read lots of your posts -- you should just say what you feel and ignore hipsters whether they be from NYC, SoCal, Liverpool, Hamburg, or eastern Mali.

Me?  This style makes me laugh internally, because it makes me feel good and flies in the face of 6 years worth of formal music education.
 Shmelo wrote:

10 =GODLIKE, because Bird, was a God.



 
Ya know, I gave this an "8" for the same reason. But this is one of those cases (rare on RP, thankfully) when I know a piece is excellent musically, but I just don't care for it. I make this admission regretfully. I can't rate it lower only because I just can't dis' Bird.  {#Curtain}
Okay this is straight jazz...no fusion, no crossover, no ifs and or buts!
 kingart wrote:
Jeez, given some of the comments for this, and jazz in general, I wonder just what organs some of you guys employ when listening to music. Dissing Charley Parker is like saying Michael Jordan or Ted Williams were just average ball players.  

 
No, it is not. There is no truth in this analogy.  We should rate songs not on how well someone plays an instrument, but how good the song is, which is subjective.  MJ can be measured by objective methods.  It would be a very bad thing for jazz in any case to insist on an objective criteria.  The most commonly used objective measurement in art is sales, of course, and jazz sells very poorly. 

10 =GODLIKE, because Bird, was a God.


 ritingon wrote:
Would you judge me if I just came out and said that I vastly prefer post-bop to bebop?  Give me any cut from In a Silent Way or A Love Supreme over this just-a-little-too-technical stuff.
Having said that, it made me smile tonight.  So up to a 7 it goes.
 
In A Silent Way! One of my all-time faves!  {#Cheers}
 kingart wrote:
Jeez, given some of the comments for this, and jazz in general, I wonder just what organs some of you guys employ when listening to music. Dissing Charley Parker is like saying Michael Jordan or Ted Williams were just average ball players.  

 
Would you judge me if I just came out and said that I vastly prefer post-bop to bebop?  Give me any cut from In a Silent Way or A Love Supreme over this just-a-little-too-technical stuff.

Having said that, it made me smile tonight.  So up to a 7 it goes. 
Umm.....simply AWESOME will suffice!!!
Jeez, given some of the comments for this, and jazz in general, I wonder just what organs some of you guys employ when listening to music. Dissing Charley Parker is like saying Michael Jordan or Ted Williams were just average ball players.  
WOW just tuned in and Bloomdido.... Nice one RP where else would ya get it.
BIRD!
Great talent, and a good example for 'why I'm not a modern jazz fan'.
 Proclivities wrote:

What you call "make-it-up-as-you-go" could more accurately be called "improvisation" within the structure of a composition.  I believe this recording features Dizzy Gillespie, Thelonious Monk, and Buddy Rich, but it's obviously not for everyone.
 
Yes its called improv bro.Geez

What a talent !!
 Byronape wrote:
So, do I rate this song based on how much I like it, or based on my perceptions of the influence and importance of Charlie Parker.  I want to rate this a 9 just based on the musical mastery shown here, but I have never been able to get into this kind of make-it-up-as-you-go jazz

I want to like it, I really do, but I just can't get into it.  I'm rating it a 6 because Charlie Parker does not deserve anything less.
 
What you call "make-it-up-as-you-go" could more accurately be called "improvisation" within the structure of a composition.  I believe this recording features Dizzy Gillespie, Thelonious Monk, and Buddy Rich, but it's obviously not for everyone.


 Byronape wrote:
I want to like it, I really do, but I just can't get into it.  I'm rating it a 6 because Charlie Parker does not deserve anything less.
 
I'm with you. . . except it's a generous 3 from me. I particularly dislike the very average drum solo at the end.

Bloomdido? Isn't that the Mayor of New York City? {#Whistle}
The beginning of this always reminds me of "Going to the Show" with the 'regular guy' on Chicago's WXRT.  Not sure if he still does that, I moved away but always enjoyed it. 

or maybe it's the Sloan sessions, like I just saw someone mention.  Still, I liked the 'regular guy'... :)

So, do I rate this song based on how much I like it, or based on my perceptions of the influence and importance of Charlie Parker.  I want to rate this a 9 just based on the musical mastery shown here, but I have never been able to get into this kind of make-it-up-as-you-go jazz. 

I want to like it, I really do, but I just can't get into it.  I'm rating it a 6 because Charlie Parker does not deserve anything less.
Great work
The best saxophonist......evah!{#Notworthy}
I don't know when I heard this before but I rated outstanding then 2
HazzeSwede wrote: from the era when it took some skills to be a musician.
 
Such a shame they didn't use them on this recording!
 jbjnr wrote:

Such a shame they didn't use them on this recording!

 
One dumb comment follows another .
 HazzeSwede wrote:
from the era when it took some skills to be a musician.
 
Such a shame they didn't use them on this recording!

8 + 1
 Aegean wrote:
This genre defines the meaning of cacophony...  how do you tell the "good" from the "bad"?  {#Stop}
 

?????

{#No}
 Aegean wrote:
This genre defines the meaning of cacophony...  how do you tell the "good" from the "bad"?  {#Stop}
 
Experience. Having a musical background helps.
THAT'S what it's reminding me of..!! thanks! it was driving me crazy...

 
pattiecovert wrote:
Aha! When I hear this on MarketPlace it always catches my ear. It's nice to find out the musician and hear the whole thing. RP, you widen my musical knowledge every week!
 


Okay, I love the skills, but I'm a very simple person, and this scattering of notes and tones just screws with my brain. Not my favorite - but some very talented musicians making great music. (I like Froot Loops...)
Dang!  Who's that kickin' it on the skins?
(As if I didn't know!)
from the era when it took some skills to be a musician.

jump to y library i mean
i wont jump...or jive
Ahhhh, Bird! I wonder at his talent, whenever I hear him play.

Excellent! Thanks Bill. {#Wave}
 sirrus wrote:
The Sloan Sessions!!

 
Yeah, always makes me think that Charlie Parker has joined the staff of Marketplace . . .

Talk about going from the ridiculous to the sublime.  Bill, you just redeemed yourself after that rapping yogi crap.
Now ya ruined it!
How do I rate this a perfect "10" again?
pattiecovert wrote:
Aha! When I hear this on MarketPlace it always catches my ear. It's nice to find out the musician and hear the whole thing. RP, you widen my musical knowledge every week!
The Sloan Sessions!!
Way to go Bill - keep expanding the artificial musical genre boundary lines!
denbear wrote:
So unexpected. So appreciated. Love you. Mean it.
I second that! Thank you, RP!!!
corndog4000 wrote:
Rejected: The Quintet (Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, Bud Powell, Charles Mingus, Max Roach) - A Night in Tunisia wow. how?
I have no idea why "A Night in Tunisia" was rejected, but if you're talking about the Massey Hall concert from 1953, I've read that Mingus walked off the stage after the first or second number--couldn't stand Gillespie's antics (c.f. "Salt Peanuts"). His parts were later overdubbed in the studio, so some of them are off the beat and end in the wrong place. Just a thought.
Odyzzeuz wrote:
You know, you have to find something to do between marrying your cousin and saying y'all.
So unexpected. So appreciated. Love you. Mean it.
More Parker, please!!
Aha! When I hear this on MarketPlace it always catches my ear. It's nice to find out the musician and hear the whole thing. RP, you widen my musical knowledge every week!
To the 18 of you who rated this a one: PLEASE GO AWAY AND NEVER COME BACK!!! Thank you.
THANK YOU, thank you, thank you, RP! God it's good to hear some real jazz instead of that crap smooth jazz in the elevator every morning.
nate917 wrote:
All of Texas is kind of amazing like that. I think that several schools, perhaps buoyed by oil money, managed to lure a lot of great teachers down there, resulting in several such prestigious programs. I know one of them is quite famous for organ music (TCU maybe?).
You know, you have to find something to do between marrying your cousin and saying y'all.
nvigo wrote:
you went to UNT?? they have one of the most prestigious jazz programs in the country. my jazz instructor played in the one o'clock band there. you must like jazz if you went there!!!
All of Texas is kind of amazing like that. I think that several schools, perhaps buoyed by oil money, managed to lure a lot of great teachers down there, resulting in several such prestigious programs. I know one of them is quite famous for organ music (TCU maybe?).