Nice interview with the great Phil Woods, but it doesn’t really address the question posed by Rok.
**** I could not tell if he changed Jazz , or was he just the best player to express the change. ****
That’s actually a very interesting and important question. I think the answer is both.
First, I am really glad to see questions like that raised. When this thread was still young the notion of “evolution” in jazz was not only misunderstood, but was practically entirely dismissed as a pointless academic exercise. The significance and importance of “evolution” in jazz cannot be overstated. While it is true that some players come along that shake things up in a way that is radical, to a very large extent that new and radical change in the direction of any art form builds on what came before it. There is usually a certain logic to the evolution.
Parker’s music can be said to be a culmination of musical trends that were already taking shape with jazz players in general moving away from the typical swing style that was prevalent up until then. If one listens to what players like Bud Powell and Coleman Hawkins were doing before Bird came on the scene it is easy to hear and understand the lineage. When Bird went to New York (yes, NY) he found that many players there were already experimenting with musical ideas which built on and departed from the traditional swing style and that would lay the groundwork for bebop. It could be said that Bird (and Dizzy) put it (the new trends) all together in a way that was the most cogent and clear.
One of my favorite stories in all of jazz lore and one that makes the point about the inevitable “logic” of this evolution is the story of when Sonny Stitt met Charlie Parker in the early ‘40s. Having grown up and worked as a jazz player in Michigan, Stitt had never even heard Parker play. Yet, when they met they found that their styles were remarkably similar. This has been corroborated by many prominent players that knew them both.