Approaches To Free Improvisation?

[mrblues]

Sorry for the off, and I know I will be stoned from a lots of You guys, but I have to say I never enjoyed this kind of music, and I dont know I ever will. For me this music is totally random notes, with ad-hoc rhythm, pointless "hooting" on that wood wind.

But I am happy some of You like this. And now, throw those stones on me

[mr. beaumont]

Definitely not the AACM though- .
"

Oh, definitely not, those guys can PLAY.


Most of the stuff I'm talking about is young white guys with glasses and beards who never played jazz...the actual free jazz is excellent.

[christianm77]

I think it depends on the scene.

The European free improvisation scene can have more of a modern classical vibe sometimes. Classical players who improvise tend to start with free....

And as Keith Tippet points out - many players interested in free improvisation have no interest in jazz - in fact they might actively dislike it. Derek Bailey certainly had a very complex relationship with jazz, and he was a jazzer for sure!

Myself I'm quite interested in free, or at least open form improvisation that due to constraints on pitch selections used does not sound like free jazz or avant garde improvisation... Kind of improvised chamber music. I'm doing some stuff like this, albeit in quite short sections with my string trio....

Much as I've checked out the modern stuff, my ears are drawn to tonality. But the organisation of music and improvisation is really interesting to me... I think it's possible to do interesting stuff while using conventional harmonic sounds.

[christianm77]

As far as the argument goes that 'the human ear favours consonance' - apparently this is not necessarily the case, according to SCIENCE [citation needed :-)] Well I heard it on Radio 3, so it must be true.

But historically we've seen the idea of a resolution expand

Middle Ages - perfect fifth
Renaissance - major triad
Baroque - major and minor chord
Jazz - Major 7ths, 9th and 6ths on major and minor chords,

And so on, even missing Schoenberg out ....

Why can't people say 'my ear favours consonance.'

I don't feel the need to say 'the human palette favours not having sultanas in scones.'

[gator811]

Dissonance is creating like a really strong flavour (I like spicy food), but sometimes flavours are incredibly subtle....

Indeed. How much dissonance is necessary for consonance to exist? How much spice does one need to make bland interesting?

Here's another question. Is there a function in which music should challenge the listener? It seems to me that throughout most of the 20th century much of jazz has done that - to varying degrees, so then there's another question. Is there a limit to how much music should challenge the listener?
By challenge I dont necessarily mean "impress' with one's prowess.
This is music I'm talking about ,not just playing. Deep concepts of making music are not limited to the realm of Western Art music despite the deeply ingrained idea perpetuated by Academic silos that this is so - at least as much within the institutional territory most of it exists in and the 'acknowledgement' of what is defined in academia as 'ethnomusicology".

This to me this is a serious decision on behalf of the artist - because there is plainly a price to pay by challenging the listener. Apart from loving alot of his music (not all of it) , not so much for instigating the 12 tone system , but because as an artist he was a true romantic wrestling with this very question and I feel I can hear that - I think Schoenberg ultimately had a vision that music (and music listeners) would progress in sophistication - and it drove him batty - probably in disappointment. Varese and Bartok too, may have recognised that like many jazz artists, Parker, Coltrane et al, their lives followed a similar trajectory. Varese of course collaborated with a number of avant garde jazz illuminati including Trane.

Personally I love the fact that the full buffet is there even if some of it may disagree with me - and the efforts, conviction of artists who persist in their vision even if it marginalises them, and even if it doesn't agree with my taste personally. And as far as Jazz goes, the 'free' thing goes back a long way - to the whole idea of freedom, particularly from ideas that constitute the limited scope of Western thought when it comes to making music.

[mrcee]

There are many approaches that can be utilized
Karl Berger: Freedom within structure
Ornette Coleman: Composed Theme with free solos
Bill Dixon: Freedom to do something rather than Freedom from something
Sam Rivers: Spontaneous Creativity

Another good approach is to use motifs as a basis. John Gilmore supposedly helped Coltrane by suggesting this.

[Alter]

these guys i really like:

[christianm77]

I think this is the perfect opportunity for the middle way philosophy. Not too much pretty-pretty, not too much jangly stuff. That's music. At least good music.

We can choose what music we want. Put it on and turn it off as we choose. That's not the same as seriously doing this free jazz stuff all the time, over and over. I'd like to know what a shrink would make of it. No, really.

Well it's funny you should say that because one of free improvisation's most powerful uses is in music therapy. I have a book on it. It's a very healing thing to participate in.

Improvisation in this context is not necessarily about the end goal, or performance. It can be completely about participation, or the use of musical processes beyond the usual amateur/pro, audience/performer baggage which we have in Western musical culture.

I do get the feeling that this is not something you have ever tried doing. I think it would be good for you. I think detaching the process of making music from it's end goal of making a style or something that sounds conventionally 'good' is very liberating even if you don't necessarily listen to that music or have any interest doing it as a performer.

For myself - I also find free improvisation very hard actually. It's easy for a trained and experience jazzer to play in a quartet with assigned roles of bass, drums, guitar and sax, say, and make a passable fist of it without necessarily listening. To improvise well in a group without these crutches is much harder, and actually in the end I think helps me with my jazz playing.

[TH]

Well it's funny you should say that because one of free improvisation's most powerful uses is in music therapy. I have a book on it. It's a very healing thing to participate in.

Improvisation in this context is not necessarily about the end goal, or performance. It can be completely about participation, or the use of musical processes beyond the usual amateur/pro, audience/performer baggage which we have in Western musical culture.

I do get the feeling that this is not something you have ever tried doing. I think it would be good for you. I think detaching the process of making music from it's end goal of making a style or something that sounds conventionally 'good' is very liberating even if you don't necessarily listen to that music or have any interest doing it as a performer.

For myself - I also find free improvisation very hard actually. It's easy for a trained and experience jazzer to play in a quartet with assigned roles of bass, drums, guitar and sax, say, and make a passable fist of it without necessarily listening. To improvise well in a group without these crutches is much harder, and actually in the end I think helps me with my jazz playing.

Excellent points. Many of the players I've been lucky enough to work with in this context have become exceptional players within jazz with formal structure. The acute awareness and responsibility for listening, form, initiative and contextual interaction contrasts strongly with the virtuosic lick and paste process. Not better, just different and rigorously accountable in the moment.
When your every moment is coupled with your unified control of dynamics, pitch, rhythm, time, space, continuity, weight, motif, impact, harmony, texture AND form, it can impart a deeper awareness of your options when someone calls Stella...
It's truly up to you.
David

[Thumpalumpacus]

As a recovering metalhead, I've heard enough music which is burdened by other, greater goals -- to show off how clean you can play those tapping licks, demonstrating one's prowess. Free jazz, to my ears, often winds up being an exercise in how far out you can go, and perhaps I'm being unfair, but it often seems to be thrown down, for want of a better term, as a means of shocking folks.

There's a place in music for discomfort. I mean, if it is the Universal Language(tm), then it should encompass discomfort. Rather than throw stones at players because I don't understand them, I think it's a good thing for me to try and understand them. If it comes to the point that I sense that their music is secondary to this or that point they're trying to make, I will confess tuning them out. No matter the skillset, wankery bothers me. Make music and leave the mind games at home.

[bako]

NSJ,

Just because something is physically unrealistic on a single guitar in standard tuning doesn't negate it's existence.
Cluster chords are in fact are relatively common as a horn section voicing style and solo piano is also well configure
to execute them. The number of notes is not a given, 3,4,5,6,7 or more tones are all possibilities.
They can be diatonic, chromatic or some combination of both and can include other intervals in addition to 2nds.


Thumpalumpacus,

Free jazz, to my ears, often winds up being an exercise in how far out you can go, and perhaps I'm being unfair, but it often seems to be thrown down, for want of a better term, as a means of shocking folks.

That is unfair and based on conjecture to ascribe motivations to musicians playing in a style that you don't enjoy.
If you are willing to explore the subject further, I would suggest watching or reading some interviews.
The stories are often inspiring to me and in no way resemble what you have written above.

[gator811]

Yeah but its hard to do - this is what some people seem to misunderstand. Wankery? I think a number of people have pointed out that this challenges musicians - the only thing left at home are the support concepts of changes, tunes and time signatures etc. If its wankery to embark on something which may upset or alienate the listener - its must surely be uber masturbation to play in such a way that while seemingly virtuosic never threatens the veil of determinacy - not mentioning any genres or names....

Its even more challenging when playing 'free' encounters certain rules that are aside from the usual tune based stuff.

I find that kind of playing really difficult - and yeah I dont doubt that its hard for some listeners too - thats ok. They can stay home , its not for them.
I work once a month with a band that has a repertoire of original tunes which are at once central and also totally disposable in the course of any gig. Anyone in the band can introduce any tune during the improvisational flow , the tunes become fluid, combined, can be repeated for some time or simply dumped as the group moves on, segue's between tunes or abruptly kicks into another. Its incredibly challenging in a number of ways because the tunes themselves are on the whole difficult to play , and while some demand an approach to harmony , odd times or tricky written cues, this improvisational flow, or what ever idea you're pursuing has to synch with all that - its been challenging and beneficial for us all.

Yes its a concept - and its not for everyone. But when I think of the legacy of this music, the instensity of my favourite jazz music is in the moment of indeterminacy that subverts the concepts- whether its Mile's 60's 5tet or Tim Berne and Jim Black , the structures, rules or whatever become secondary to the dealing with the moment.

[dasein]

This month, I will start playing in a Free Jazz ensemble. Over the fall we're going to be working on the music of Albert Ayler. I thought I'd see if I can crowdsource some insights from the people here. I know free jazz isn't the most popular style here, but I welcome anyone's input on ideas to create musical phrases, tension, resolution, without necessarily referring to functional harmonic relationships. David Liebman has a couple of great books on the subject, but I don't know where else to go from there. Does anyone have any experience playing in this context?

I would check out Joe Morris' book, Perpetual Frontier -- a terrific book on the subject. If you ever get a chance to take a lesson with him, it's very much worth your while.

[Alter]

In the West we prefer our notes and forms to be fairly constrained. In the East and music of other cultures, it's not so. But who has the more advanced music? Those wavering Indian or Arabic sounds or the settled certainty of a piano concerto? It's interesting that they can usually do our stuff but we can't really do theirs.

Eastern microtonal music is actually constrained too. People in these cultures can hear all these individual, between the semitone notes. They have different scales with them, and each musician in countries like india kind of follows and develops a small part of the whole scale vocabulary, according to his personality and predisposition. Kids that will become musicians go to live with the master, practice all day long, and after many years, give their first concert. If anything, it resembles schools like Juliard here in the west, in terms of commitment, dedication, passion and work.

[christianm77]

Eastern microtonal music is actually constrained too. People in these cultures can hear all these individual, between the semitone notes. They have different scales with them, and each musician in countries like india kind of follows and develops a small part of the whole scale vocabulary, according to his personality and predisposition. Kids that will become musicians go to live with the master, practice all day long, and after many years, give their first concert. If anything, it resembles schools like Juliard here in the west, in terms of commitment, dedication, passion and work.

Yeah, turns out to master any musical tradition takes years. Who'd of thunk it?

Free improvisation can be a music stripped of tradition, which is interesting. A sort of common ground between musicians. In Improvisation, Derek Bailey relates an account of one of his workshops featuring Buckethead alongside classical musicians. (In fact Buckethead and Derek Bailey were later band mates in one of Bill Laswell's bands lol.)

When I studied free improvisation with Keith Tippet briefly, he was keen to point out that it was possible for a small child with no musical training to make a valid contribution in free improvisation. I feel - like him - that's one of its strengths.

BTW Tippet's improvisations (with his wife and other collaborators) I do actually really enjoy as a listener.

I have seen musicians with little or no formal 'chops' be incredibly musical in this environment. It's very democratic.

I also want to mention that music people think of as 'free' can often be very composed. 'Free' like 'atonal' is often a code word for 'shit that sounds bad to me' rather than any intelligent commentary on the music or its methods.

It can be hard to tell of course. Wayne Krantz's music is actually pretty free - at least according to him. It's locked into a clear groove of course but timing and dynamic changes are improvisational and the form is open.

[christianm77]

BTW, to the OP, check out Mary Halvorson - definitely free jazz rather than European free improv. I really like her stuff actually:

I'm not really sure how free though it is though. I hear a lot of form and changes going on.

[TH]

A very wide spectrum of styles are fair game in Free Improvisation. SO much of it depends on who you're playing with and your mutual agreement on what music is; what's in your hands as well as what is in your imagination. I've played duo with Mick Goodrick and there was no agreed upon song form, but it included tonality as well as open non centred chromaticism. It can only be described as non metrical counterpoint. It felt a little like Bach, Charles Ives and Webern on an outing. The form reflected our love for many traditions. It was immensely satisfying and beautiful. It also didn't feel very different from running a really good reading of Stella on many levels.

I've also played with someone who had no respect for space or conversation. I felt like I was being run over by a truck. I felt like it didn't matter whether I was playing or not. This too was free improvisation and the form reflected two personalities, and like meeting someone you understand but don't find pleasant to be around, I will not play with him again. And in a strange way, it reminded me of people I've played standards with for whom it never occurs to listen and interact.

Free improvisation, and the free improvisation that comes from people with a deep and thorough working knowledge of more traditional jazz can take many forms. But one thing it does create is an expression of the individual. Even in the case of wannabee Ayler clones and fire-in-a-petshop wankers, that desire to hide behind the personality of another is a personal choice.

So, with so much untapped and beautiful potential, so much of an artform that has a respectful spirit of continuum with the creative and compositional aspects of the jazz tradition, it always gets me just how just the mention of the term "Free Jazz" stirs up the judgemental and close minded prejudice based on an unexplored ignorance of so much of the genre.
Isn't that kind of anti-jazz?

David

[Thumpalumpacus]

I've also played with someone who had no respect for space or conversation. I felt like I was being run over by a truck. I felt like it didn't matter whether I was playing or not. This too was free improvisation and the form reflected two personalities, and like meeting someone you understand but don't find pleasant to be around, I will not play with him again. And in a strange way, it reminded me of people I've played standards with for whom it never occurs to listen and interact.

David

This part in particular struck me. No matter the genre, I've long thought that the most important skill a musician can have is the ability to listen. Those who listen, I think of them as inside the song, even if they're playing outside. Those who don't listen, it doesn't matter that their every note is consonant -- it's the fact that they can't STFU and let the song breathe which is irritating.

And how much harder it is when it's a duo- or group-improv! The ability to lay back and let someone else feed the music their own feelings is a hard thing to learn -- but when we get to that point where we can listen and then play (again, no matter the genre), that's where the music stops being entertainment and becomes instead transporting. Everyone benefits from that approach -- listeners and musicians both.

A little off-topic, but my little riff here.

[omphalopsychos]

Then why say 'I wonder if I can...'? It seems to refer to another thread which he has not yet started. Anyway, I think he can answer for himself.

When I wrote that, I meant it rhetorically, but I'm sure I actually will try another thread as my experience with the band goes on. I'll try to be more explicit with my questions.

I find it ironic that your first comment was a criticism of the masturbatory nature of free improv, yet you managed to dissolve the thread's discourse with the force of your self-gratifying monologue.

[bako]

omphalopstcos,

How soon is your first meeting with the band?
It sounds like a fantastic opportunity.

[PMB]

That's really interesting.

When I listen to serial works I often feel there's a central tonality on any instrument

Was it actually Schoenberg's aim to write music without a central tonality though? Did he say that was his goal or is it something that was attributed to him by others?

I know that he disliked the term "atonal", preferring "pantonal" to describe his music.

[PMB]

When I studied free improvisation with Keith Tippet briefly, he was keen to point out that it was possible for a small child with no musical training to make a valid contribution in free improvisation. I feel - like him - that's one of its strengths.

BTW Tippet's improvisations (with his wife and other collaborators) I do actually really enjoy as a listener.

Speaking of Keith Tippett, here's a rare appearance with King Crimson on Top of the Pops:

[cosmic gumbo]

Some heavies.

[cubistguitar]

I love this thread! So many great artists and ways to make great free improv have been mentioned and talked about. I am surprised that this forum has so many real fans of the genre.

I have had a funny relationship with the music over my life.

I am really a rock guitarist that wants to play jazz and have chased the dragon for many many years.

After a period of trying to be a good traditional player, I sort of threw up my hands and said, why do I train so hard to do something that feels unnatural to me. I was listening to lot of "free jazz", I love the energy and noise and sounds, and I thought why not get immersed in this type music. Never mind that nobody was doing it in my area or that it was hard to convince guys to go out on that limb and play with me, but for years I never played a tune or thought about chord progressions, just energy noise and sound. I took a lot of cues from Derek Bailey, Ornette Coleman, late Coletrane, John Zorn, and classical music like Elliott Carter and George Crumb. I made a lot great noise and attracted some fine friends to play fun music.

Then I left that pursuit to start making rock music again, I made the best stab at a fun rock band with fun music, even recorded a good record at a nice studio. It was great. I even incorporated the free elements in this too, but it was composed for the most part.

Then as that group dissolved, I realized I loved certain composers more than other, especially Monk. So for several years I learned his music, especially about 45 tunes that a trio I put together performed around town. I learned the backbone of bebop and really got excited about harmony and melody in jazz. Now I'm back slogging through books and learning bop tunes, deja vu!!

But free has a special place in my life and the players that take it serious and make great music are just terrific.

It just that I see both sides now, how to be free inside all the form and structure and how to knock down form and structure and still say something meaningful. I notice some players can work all of it, like Metheny, compose, straight ahead, free-ish, to all out mayhem. Thats talent and I give props to that kind of depth.

I love finding unique players that breathe life into the music, some finds that turned my ear on guitar are

Derek Bailey
Sonny Sharrock
Eugene Chadbourne
Joe Morris
Marc Ribot
Mary Halvorson

[gator811]

I enjoyed cubistguitar's post. I have come across a few players over the years who have discovered Bebop via Free Jazz. There's been a bit of "learn to play properly first" rhetoric around even since I was a youngster but it didnt always sit right with me - and wasnt always based on anything other than a few generalisations.
That someone hears the connection is reaffirming and makes me happy.
The first time I heard John Gilmore play for instance was with the Jazz Messengers, but he had been with Sun Ra before that - that guy could play anything. Metheny - is much more of a hardcore jazzer now than he was 30-40 years ago when he was really exploring jazz ala Ornette (It's a personal thing but I know which era of PM I prefer). I heard Archie Shepp playing standards back in the 80's and loved it . The idea of a horse before the cart is never that simple in this music.