The "New Bird" Paradox

I recently read something on Wikipedia about the alto saxophonist Phil Woods, who I recently went through a short listening phase with, stating that Woods was known as the “New Bird.”  This phrase struck me as interesting so after doing something thinking about the topic, I’ve been able to formulate some ideas regarding Phil Woods and the “New Bird” paradox.

Charlie Parker, or “Bird,” is among the top innovators in jazz music along with John Coltrane and Louis Armstrong to name a few.  He was at the head of the new jazz style of Bebop in the 1940’s with his friend and co-conspirator Dizzy Gillespie.  Bird was heavily influenced by the tenor saxophonist Lester Young who made his mark playing with Count Basie in the Kansas City blues-based style, and it was rumored that Bird would play Young’s solo on “Lady Be Good” before every gig he had.  Young can also be considered an innovator for his combination of jazz language, that was a direct precursor to bebop, and highly melodic improvisation.  Phil Woods made his mark on the bebop scene throughout the 50’s and has been playing and recording ever since.  Much of his language is derived directly from Bird, but he is in no way a copy and has his own unique sound and approach to improvisation.  The one thing that Phil Woods hasn’t done is contribute to the evolution and expansion of the jazz genre; he hasn’t innovated in the same fashion as Bird.

This brings us to the point of this short essay.  I would consider Bird one of the leading innovators in the entire history of recorded music.  Therefore, to be considered a “New Bird,” Phil Woods would have to have the same impact on jazz music that Bird did.  Woods has by no means found his niche sound like Bird did and hasn’t contributed to the evolution of jazz music and the progression of the genre as a whole.  What Woods did instead was continue a tradition that he made his mark on at the tail of its existence (that being the bebop tradition).  Coltrane began with his work in the Miles Davis Quintet in the late 50’s but continued to build upon what he knew and expanded what was considered part of the jazz genre.  Phil Woods merely took what was laid down before him and continued the sound of Bird and Gillespie.  Much of the same points can be made about Sonny Stitt who was one of Bird’s main disciples.

I believe that Joe Lovano can be considered a “New Bird” in many ways and it is evident in his playing that he has a superior knowledge of the jazz language that Bird and Gillespie laid down.  However, he alters it in many ways and his presentation and homage to Bird isn’t proven through bebop clichés and so-called “licks.”  In many ways Lovano has transcended the traditional application of bebop language and found ways to apply it in new and interesting ways, while adding on to the tradition in positive ways.  I believe what makes him an innovator is that he knows everything there is to know about the roots of jazz, but is able to find his own sound and unique approach while still being rooted in jazz.  Saxophonists who have no knowledge of bebop or of the past who attempt to go in their own direction before obtaining a solid understanding of their predecessors have no hope of progressing this music to the next level.  If you ask any modern players who they derive their inspiration from, 90% would most likely choose musicians from the 50’s and 60’s.  Chris Potter has repeatedly stated that he usually defaults to Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie when listening to music, and Chris Speed is heavily influenced by the Tristano School (which in turn was influenced by Parker).    

It would be quite an honor to be seen as the next up-and-coming Charlie Parker in many ways, but it would also be incredibly crippling in terms of putting a small label on a person with so much potential to push the boundaries of jazz music.  By labeling Phil Woods as the “New Bird,” it condemns him to play the music and style that Bird played.  It raises an expectation that Woods will simply continue where bird left off and continue to play music in the style of Charlie Parker.  I would see this as being incredibly detrimental to the personal growth of a musician with regard to the absence of individuality and personal progression.  However, it seems like Woods has embraced this label because he continues to play in the style of Bird and maintains a large fan base both nationally and internationally.

I guess the main point that I’m trying to make would be to learn from the masters, in whatever field you’re interested in, but also maintain the search for your own sound or niche.  Sound is such a subjective topic when speaking of jazz and of music in general and what sounds good, but that’s why there is so much good music out in the world.  Musicians have repeatedly had the audacity to stretch the boundaries of their genres in the attempt to create something interesting and new.  This becomes more and more difficult as time progresses and more music is created.  It almost seems like there are no new ideas to come up with.  We all have to obtain influence somewhere and it all leads back to the roots and those that came before you.