I remember talking to my brother about jazz and his remark about free jazz was very interesting to me: "when the masters sound just like the people who have no idea what they're doing, you've got problems". At the time he said this I was not particularly well-versed or interested in it and thought this was a pretty intelligent dismissal. Since my compulsive collection and listening habits have gotten worse and worse I've listened to more and more of free jazz and have started to appreciate it a lot more, however I still have mixed feelings and am not sure if I've really come to the point where I can distinguish the "good" from the "bad".

So my question is, what do you all think? Is free jazz just annoying noise or is there actual merit to it? My personal thoughts are that Free jazz can be very evocative but the only real emotions it evokes to me are confusion, tension, fear, exhilaration etc, and also I'm much more fond of jazz players who go "In and Out" or "Inside Out" like Pharaoh Sanders, Keith Jarrett etc.., much in the same way that I dig the "meltdowns" that The Who, Hendrix, the Stooges would lead to in their performances but would probably be less likely to listen to music entirely composed of that.

Bransford Marsalis, who got shamefully little airtime in Ken Burns' Jazz miniseries, called it self-indulgent BS. I don't feel that strongly about it, but I don't dig it. Then again, I'm not one to say it's not jazz.

In any event, "Free Jazz" is superflous, IMHO. All jazz is free in spirit, despite what many jazz lovers might think.

I listen to it basically everyday. I don't have any mixed feelings towards it, unless the bands are actually bad. And yes, you are right - you can easily distinguish the good from the bad.

But the American "freejazz" movement doesn't really amount to such heights in my opinion as the later European tradition of "free improvisation". That would include such names as John Butcher, Mats Gustafsson, Keith Rowe and of course Evan Parker. These days there's also a huge underground of that style of expression all across the world.

namepeace said:

I believe Branford's comment was specifically about Cecil Taylor's contention that the audience should "prepare for him". I do think that Free Jazz as well as fusion, mystic jazz and jazz guitar got short shrift in the Ken Burns miniseries.

novabrkr said:

I was just listening to Machine gun By Peter Brotzmann, haven't really gotten too far into the european free improv movement otherwise though

I've heard some that I've liked, and some that I didn't. It's hard to describe it in terms of good or bad, but I've seen some performances where it didn't even look like the band was trying. I've heard noisy high school band rooms that were more pleasing to my ears.

Well just look at what kind of records Branford has made himself...







Fuck you Grandford.

jacktheimprovident said:

I knew my memory was fuzzy, thanks!

I think Free Jazz got appreciable, but not extensive, coverage, particularly via Ornette Coleman. But I do agree with you that they fell one episode short of perfection. See, I think covering cats like Miles in his electric period, Weather Report, Jaco Pastorius and Stanley Jordan, along with others I'm sure you're familiar with, would have brought the story full circle instead of "330 degrees."

thanks again for clarifying.

novabrkr said:

Those records don't fit the jazz orthodoxy (almost oxymoronic), but they're not "free jazz" per se. At least, as I see it.

Eh, that record and many others he has done are basically pop music sold as jazz. I am aware that he can also play in a different and non-harmonic style, but some of his solo material is the type of sell-out garbage no free jazz player would sink into making.

jacktheimprovident said:

...

I agree, I appreciate the freedom when it's occasionaly anchored-- Like you said, going in and out. For example, there's some Sun Ra I really like, and then there's other stuff that I'm just not getting...It's is kinda weird...IMO, if an experienced musician is deconstructing existing musical forms down to the point where it's just pure noise, then the sound may sometimes come full circle and meet with someone who can't play at all and is just making noise because they don't know how to play....as you say, there are many musicians that play "outside", but also evoke real emotion--but on the other hand, I suspect there are also some so-called free musicians out there who probably couldn't play a twelve-bar blues.



...
[Edited 4/12/07 12:40pm]

Is there supposed to be something wrong about playing noise?

novabrkr said:

I don't doubt that, and I'm not defending the cat.

novabrkr said:

Not at all. That's what all musicians do.

What the hell is "self-indulgent" supposed to mean anyway? These musicians are playing the type of music they truly want to play themselves. You think they got into a marginal form of music because they wanted to benefit from it in some other manner than actually making the type of music they always wanted to? Are they "self-indulgent" because they are not pitifully whoring themselves to the remnants of what is left of the commercial jazz marketplace?

The notion that these people are "tricking" people into buying their records and trying to get recognition they don't deserve because of their "incompetent skills" on a musical instrument is really ridiculous (especially as the records really don't sell and everybody in the scene knows it). It just comes to show that people like the Marsalis brothers are merely slaves to money, to the institutionalized form of cultural life and all kinds of crossover projects they have to get involved in on a constant basis. "Self-indulgent" here clearly refers to "something that refuses to play by the wider public audience's standards". "You are evil because you so clearly don't want to please me!" ? Well, some people just may want to make music for a smaller faction of people who can and will appreciate such a form of expression.

novabrkr said:

Read jti's comment. I quoted Bransford out of context.

In any event, I don't dig free jazz, but I don't think it ISN'T jazz. I think Wynton moreso than Bransford considers jazz a precious artifact more than a living, breathing art form.

I do think some of the schlock that sits in the jazz aisles bastardizes jazz in all its forms such that it doesn't deserve consideration as "jazz" but as "r&B" or "easy listening." That being said, I think some of the forms of electronica and ambient are as deserving of the jazz label as some of what passes for jazz these days.

Well I was attempting to refer to the use of the expression "self-indulgent" and similar on a larger scale. It's the same thing really with rock music - people can appreciate Sonic Youth for what they do, but they still need the reference point of rock songs to be able to enjoy the other half of it. Then you have a direct descendant of them, Wolf Eyes, who are basically a straight-forward noise band most of the time but people still get big audiences because they happen to stand on the stage with guitars. Yet another reference point on a formal point, but the same audience won't attend proper noise bands that sound pretty much the same but don't use guitars (I just mentioned this really because I'm going to go see Wolf Eyes on Saturday, just rang a bell)

But it's the same thing with the jazz-end of spectrum. Don Byron once noted that it's really curious how much noise people are able to tolerate when it comes out of an electric guitar, but the saxophone is an abomination for such a thing. People still want the dissonance mixed with melodies / more standardized jazz soloing / rhythmic structures, and they get extremely pissed off when they don't. It's not just that, the compositions have to be based on the formal qualities, and the dissonance can be there just as an extra.

It's like drinking Diet Coke. You drink the semblance of the original product of the cola brand, and a seriously watered-down version of it for that matter, just because you're told in a social context that too much of the real thing is bad for you. Even if you already were a smoker, meat-eater and an alcohol drinker and it already should be too late for you to consider the health values of soft drinks. One still chooses the Diet Coke in the end.

(rant off)

This is a very good question novabrkr.

I've said this before, you can generally trace each Free Jazz/Avant Garde player of merit (Cecil Taylor, Sun Ra, Anthony Braxton, Coltrane, Sam Rivers, etc) back to traditional Jazz roots.

Meaning that they didn't come out of the gate playing the free-wheeling style, but have a recorded history of "conventional" playing.
This tells me that disciplined study preceded the progression into the Free Jazz/Avant Garde world.

Maybe they were Born To Be Wild but their musical paths did not start there.



tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

theAudience said:

Yeah, it seems as if each of those guys reached a point where they felt the need to go beyond the possibilities of the Jazz up to that point--bebop, modal jazz, etc.--practically a rebellion against the confines, really...




...

Yes. And even today with the tradition of European "free improvisation" they are obviously linking themselves ultimately with the (American, and specifically African-American) jazz tradition with the choice of instrumentation. Many are adamant to state publicly that what they are playing isn't really jazz, so it shouldn't be judged by its standards either. But anybody can see they are standing there on the stage in the role of a "jazz band" anyway. They could have chosen laptops, washing machines, whatever. But they chose jazz instrumentation mostly, and still center the expression around those. Also the greatest free jazz / improv. players have developed very distinct techniques of their own and those are hard to replicate by the newcomers. I think the model for forming qualitative statements that distinct one act as better than another come strongly from the traditional jazz side of things. The aesthetic permeats through in that sense too, you're still compared to someone who's been compared to Charlie Parker. etc.

So, it's indeed inescapable that it comes from a tradition where the mastering of the instrument and relative relation of cohesion were always a standard. However what I personally view as painstakingly troublesome is when people start calling the whole genre as "bullshit" or "self-indulgent", when they just really crave for a pop song themselves, masked as experimental artistic expression or served exclusively together with it (i.e. the Sonic Youth example). As if people who like freeform music wouldn't be able to tell themselves what they really like.Of course, the wider confusion is part of the deal. But as a listener, or a player, you'll get used to it. And quite easily in the end, actually.

(connection closed by remote server)
[Edited 4/12/07 12:42pm]

novabrkr said:

Great post Nova! I agree. Free Jazz was basically an extension of where jazz was headed. Miles Davis' 60's quintet had started pushing the boundaries and I think in the end, the only way it could really go much further was by taking the changes out altogether.

theAudience said:

that's a very good point as well. Goes back to what Picasso said "you have to know the rules before you can break them". This thread has generated a lot more discussion than I thought .

I'm curious Aud, what are your opinions on some of the free jazz or "skronk" guitarists like Sonny Sharrock and James Blood Ulmer. I'm actually unfamiliar with their pre-"out" background, but so far I dig what recordings I have of theirs.

jacktheimprovident said:

Sonny Sharrock:
I'm not familiar with his early recordings.
Listening to Tauhid by Pharoah Sanders (Sonny's recording debut & Pharoah's second) now to see which side of the fence he was on.
Based on his parting of the ways with the Berklee School of Music, this cat may have started "out" from jump street.

James Blood Ulmer:
Supposedly he started in Funk bands.
The fact that he then did time with Art Blakey would mean that he was playing "straightahead tunes".
So in his case there's evidence of a "conventional" beginning.



tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

its better than paying for it.

Ornette Coleman.

I love all forms of jazz so to me it does not matter.In my opinion,free jazz is almost similar to jazz fusion.What I mean by that is another form of expression by a new generation of young jazz artists.

jacktheimprovident said:

Mystic jazz??? That's a new one on me. School me, please?
[Edited 4/13/07 19:13pm]

NuPwr319 said:

Wellll I'm not sure you can say it's an official sub-genre of jazz (it has it's own itunes playlist though ) but the way I'd define mystic jazz is thus: Mystic jazz is essentially jazz that aims to create a feeling of Transcendence, or to put it another way to be evocative/transportative like psychdelic music, only not drug-oriented and with much more sparing (if any) use of electronics or amplification. Usually this means infusing elements of various "world" music (which is why "world jazz" and "mystic jazz" can be interchangeable or at least overlap) such as indian raga, indonesian gamelan, various types of african or middle eastern music etc. vis a vis use of exotic modes, or densely layered instrumentation (especially percussion or various chiming or droning instruments). A Love Supreme is often considered the first mystic/spiritually oriented jazz album, and it was just recorded with John Coltrane's "normal" quartet, though, so all these "Trappings" aren't prerequisites.

I'd say the best place to go for "mystic" jazz are two of Coltrane's own former sidemen Pharoah Sanders and his widow Alice Coltrane. Karma by pharoah Sanders is perhasps the quintessential and best. "Brown Rice" by Don Cherry is also very interesting as it has elements of mystic jazz as well as the eerie "voodoo funk" of Bitches Brew and Miles' other early 70s fusion albums (fyi the funky "guitar" sounds on that album are actually an upright bass plugged into a wah wah pedal
[Edited 4/14/07 20:20pm]
[Edited 4/14/07 20:22pm]

Some Cecil Taylor...



...Pontos Cantados

Part 1
Part 2


tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431