The difference between Bebop and Swing

This has been an issue that's concerned me a fair bit over the past couple of years.

It's my feeling that the fundamental difference is the way phrases are put together rhythmically. Charlie Parker introduced a new rhythmic language which he expressed melodically. However, this language is often mistakenly understood from a vertical standpoint - Parker plays x scale or chord arpeggio over y chord.

In fact Parker's harmonic language is almost entirely drawn from blues phrases, simple triads, 6th, m6, dim7 and dom7 arpeggios, diatonic scales and chromatic embellishments - all very much 'off the shelf' swing era material familiar from Coleman Hawkins, say. Don't believe me? Look at a page or two of the Omnibook and analyse Parker's lines without thinking of the background harmony.

It is Bird's phrasing and rhythmic understanding which is truly revolutionary and marks his music out from swing in the same way as Louis Armstrong was the rhythmic revolutionary who created the rhythmic landscape of the swing era.

This seems poorly understood from academic viewpoint, perhaps because, as Mike Longo points out, the Western education system is ill equipped to teach the African elements of the music - rhythm in particular. Bird's rhythmic concept is as fresh and powerful in music as ever it was. We can see its influences in music far outside the 'jazz' umbrella.

What bebop certainly isn't is fomulaic chains of 8th notes over ii-V progressions - at least if by referring to bebop, we mean what Charlie Parker did. That stuff gives bop a bad name. (And I say that as a formulaic 8th note player of many years standing :-))

Steve Coleman wrote the best article I have ever read on the technique of bebop (Parker in particular.) While he doesn't tell what to practice per se, he does provide a persuasive 'musician's eye' perspective on what Bird is doing and why. Here it is.