Let's talk free jazz

[Pat Clare]

Bill Dixon was asked about Free Jazz, he spoke about it being "Freedom to do something, rather than Freedom from something. Sam Rivers referred to his concept as "Spontaneous Creativity. Karl Berger has been teaching about the various types of free jazz since the 1960's at the Creative Music Studio. For me it's about finding your own voice on your instrument.

[Strings]

There's always some lead anyway

This is very important. Usually either the band follows whoever is soloing at the time, or everyone follows the leader of the group even when the leader is not soloing. There are usually not rehearsals in this style (for obvious reasons). There are sometimes informal jams, which are really auditions when it comes down to it. Leading is straight forward. As a sideman, one needs to be able to both solo while following the harmonic ideas of the leader, and play harmonies that follow the soloist's and/or leader's ideas. Is the leader trying to set up tonalities and knock them down? Are they trying to avoid any tonality at all? The sideman needs to know because they could ruin either effect. The leader will expect them to be able to hear this, it won't be discussed.

Of course at the same time one may want to play against what the leader is doing. Play everything the leader isn't both rhythmically and harmonically. If the leader doesn't look happy, the sideman needs to change what they are doing in short order or they may be looking for a new gig.
-Strings

[PatrickB]

What matters to me is if I can detect if the players are listening, digging deep while extending the vocabulary or technique on their instrument. Because it is spontaneous, I don't expect recognizable structure.

I've listened and watched lots of examples of this type of interplay, esp. during the 1970s. It really is a player's art.

[medblues]

If the leader doesn't look happy, the sideman needs to change what they are doing in short order or they may be looking for a new gig.
-Strings

Ha ha, so freedom has its limits here too doesn't it ?

[John A.]

It's not a term I like, particularly...I guess I see it as too broad to really be helpful (I mean, Ornette sounds nothing like Evan Parker who sounds nothing like later Coltrane...but anyway...

I wanted to start a thread to talk about all the different aspects of playing "free," as folks lump it together.

Right now, I'm really into just sitting down with a guitar and playing. I'll put my hands on the neck somewhere and start making connections, chase melodies, work with visual patterns, attempt to supply harmony "on the fly." It's not always successful, but it's a very satisfying way to play for me...it shows me a lot about where I am and what I know and what I need to work on.

So anyone else here playing music folks might call "free?' Tell us about it.

I guess "free jazz" has tended to be associated with various combinations of atonality, harsh timbres, formlessness, and collective chaos and when those elements are pursued completely to the exclusion of their converses, it can make for some pretty nasty sounding stuff . But when the goal is to see what sorts of structure and coordination can emerge from the chaos it can get pretty interesting. To put names on those things, I see someone like Derek Bailey as the former, and Ornette as the latter.

I think it's pretty cool when "free" elements get incorporated into or superimposed over more traditional playing, e.g., when a soloist plays almost completely outside the changes, yet still make it sound pretty and relevant to the changes. In my practicing, I mess around with that -- e.g., stray as far away from diatonic as I can while still maintaining the form of a tune in my head; play patterns of intervals (stuff like "Messaien modes" or strings of half-whole or whole-half) rather than consciously trying to hit chord tones. Sometimes I start a practice session just playing some sort of interval pattern, before falling into a tune. I do this with the goal of having more "outside" sounds become ingrained in my playing.

John

[Bikewer]

Our local PBS station, KWMU-FM, used to have their regular programming up to about 11 pm, and then they would play jazz all night.
If I was working midnights, I'd just let it play; it was about all that was on anyway unless you liked bubblegum pop or religious rants.

So, they'd start out the night playing pretty "straight ahead" material, and as the early morning hours rolled in they'd loosen up a bit and start playing some rather "outside" material.
Chicago Art Ensemble....That sort of thing.

Often, the DJ would caution that "Now, these guys really do know how to play...." Which was a clue that you were going to hear something a little strange.
For the most part, it sounded to me like you had let a group of 8-year-olds into a room full of musical instruments and said..."Make noise, kids."

I did not care for this for the most part. About as "outside" as I care to get is perhaps a group like Weather Report, who would stretch things just-far-enough and then hop back into the groove.

This is all subjective, of course. We just had a big discussion on the International Skeptics board about Jackson Pollack...."Is Pollock good art?"
Went to about 10 pages.... Some found Mr. Pollack's material very good...Emotionally moving. Others thought it was junk...That he was a con man laughing up his sleeve.

Much the same with any other art form. There's an awful lot of music that I personally don't like but that millions of people seem to.....Maybe I'm the oddball.

[Jonah]

To be true Bikewer... what you describe is more a matter of perception ... I mean that with the same success we can discuss that some people listen to Salieri music and see no big difference with Mozart's...
Or like my father used to tell that all that Fellini - Bergman's movies are just show-off for festivals (not too much efforts and passion for just a show-off?)...
It's more of persecption and social relation and adaption of our notions to cultural contexts..
I mean tha people who want to prove that monkey can paint as well as Pollack or kid's paintings have the same artistic values as Chagall's - this person is not dealing with art and artisitc experence, at this momet he is into social problematics... he can easily go to politics of fashion world which fit great for the purposes...


As for the topic...
imho the main diference between free jazz and 'other jazz' that initially it was is mostly conceptual definition.. they started to call 'free' something that had concept of being 'free from any pre-conditions regular for trad jazz'.
At the beginning it was definitely continuation of jazz understanding of freedom - as freedom from limitations... becasue technically that is what was behind it. That was the first step... but definitely as any negative basis it could not live long

so imediately this idea brought the new one - freedom of will, freedom to do whatever you want. Much more creative, even the words seem to have this spirit of endless spaces to go...

it is important that this last freedom is possible onlly when freedom of all limitations is conceived and lived through

So in terms of perfomers it is first of all possibility of freedom of all limitations and pre-conditions.. and then as a result freedom of creative musical will

In terms of music/audial experience - it seems that 'free' is labled to anything that sounds non-organized..
It is obvious that there are people for whom even Charlie Christian improvization would soulnd free unorganized etc/

So here we kind of come back to what Bikewer described - it is no musical name

And last but not least - historical issue - the name free jazz has become associated with certain players and it actually often does not matter if they follow one the conceptions above or not...

[pubylakeg]

It is obvious that there are people for whom even Charlie Christian improvization would soulnd free unorganized etc/

Charlie Christian plays free Jazz !

[zdub]

Most "free jazz" I'll give a listen to and think either "crap" or "interesting". Rarely, however, will it stand up to repeated listening. Can't think of any free jazz guitar players that I'm enamoured with and I don't appreciate any players that ONLY play free jazz because I tend to think that's all they CAN play. (I think Henry Kaiser is a poser who couldn't play a 12 bar blues to save his life.)

Not sure why, but some of Eric Dolphy's stuff - especially Out to Lunch - blows me away.

[princeplanet]

Some predictable thoughts about people's feelings towards Free Jazz here, and it's a welcome discussion given that most of out threads deal with more conventional types of playing.

For myself, I find it difficult to reconcile my views on Free as a style. I suppose that it's because I think I championed all things avant garde when at school, and enjoyed being involved with experimental music and experimental theatre. I was probably excited by experimental art as well, but if I'm honest, it was from a rebellious stance...

As one gets older, one usually becomes less rebellious (how silly would a 50 year old punk seem to us if he still dressed like a late 70's punk teenager?). I still like avant gard art theatre and music, but in smaller doses. How small? Well, if you compared, let's say, the number of hours spent in modern art galleries, experimental theatre shows or "difficult" music performances (fine art or jazz) as opposed to the number of hours watching movies or even Seinfeld on TV or something, well, there's no contest...

I'm no couch potato, but I admit that I only see live entertainment about once a week on average these days, and of those occasions, very few are free jazz gigs. They're OK, I like being "challenged" every once in a while, but then I'll go home and play Oliver Nelson Records, or Jackie Maclean or something - stuff that may have appeared challenging in the day - stuff that nourishes me, y'know? I just don't know that Free Jazz nourishes anyone outside of the players themselves.

I also feel strongly that some of the music made under the Free banner should not also be under the Jazz banner. Why can't it be just be called "Free Music"? Why does it have to be attached to the Jazz scene? Played by Jazz players, at Jazz venues to Jazz audiences? Why can't it be so Free that it no longer is seen to be part of the Jazz family? Why can't it be made with non traditional instruments? If I want to hear strange and unpredictable music, there's much more on offer in the big wide world than Free Jazz....

And lastly I wanted to say that people who call themselves Free Jazzers often seem to be faking it. You see it at the Jam sessions all the time, they can't play Bop, they can't even play Blues! Like the funny joke goes- the one where the young cat is free wheelin' with the old school cats when one of the oder cats calls a stop and asks what the young cat is doing. "Just playing what I'm feeling man" "Oh yeah? Well how about "feeling" something in Bb, motherfucker!"

[christianm77]

fdba;ljbc\dwq;jbf

qe'pgj2\perbhin2\enfbv\q

[rictroll]

Here we are, 50 or so years down the road since Free Jazz emerged in the Sixties.

Taste aside, should Free Jazz now be considered part of the Jazz tradition or Jazz 'toolkit'?

And as part of the tradition should we be expected to be familiar with it and be able to deliver?

It certainly shows up in charts as a color or formalistic device - even in largely mainstream settings...

Seems like these discussion continue to come down to our views on jazz being a process and/or genre.

[grahambop]

fdba;ljbc\dwq;jbf

qe'pgj2\perbhin2\enfbv\q

yeah cool very spontaneous but where's the melody?

[rictroll]

Well, how many times have you seen a band play the head one time through and then spend the next fifteen minutes going around the horn playing everything they know with little reference to the melody of the tune?

And then do the same thing on the next tune.

Lack of respect for the melody isn't limited by style.

Perhaps another thread, but I think a lot of players learn how to play standard chord progressions rather than learning the tunes and how to improvise variations of the melody. I think we should aspire to be able to do both.

[eddy b.]

I was originaly inspired to try jazz from listening to James Blood Ulmer's album "Freelancing" I played free long before I played tunes or any of the stuff I do now. I have gone completely backwards in my development so to speak. Though I seldom play free these days I do like it and enjoy people gettin' down doing their thing. I have found some free concepts that work in any context like... playing the rhythm of a verbal phrase, playing melodic phrases maintaing the pitch order but altering the rhythms, playing off the meaning (to me) of the lyrics or song title etc. I think of the three main elements of music rhythm, melody and harmony for me to maintain my interest the rhythm has to be consistent steady so to speak predictable. I believe as long as one of the three elements is predictable the other two can go off on tangents, so long as brevity and focus of ideas are maintained. I also like free playing as a "spice" in the overall presentation of a tune like a free intro or outro, or part of the lull between soloists as the rhythm section renews it's focus. As far as free in the sense of spontaneous song creation goes I think having a theme and a time constraint help such as ... For the next 5 minutes I'm gonna play what that argument felt like or for the next 3 minutes I'm gonna play the sound of love whatever just having a concept of what I want to express helps the focus. The option of what to play is pretty limitless that can be daunting so for me I like a little bit of a concept so I can proceed. Also playing call and response with birds or dogs barking meowing cats traffic sounds everything around us can be great for opening the creativity channel. Music is music we should just let it play us.

[jtizzle]

I've been playing free music for a while now, and it's probably my favorite thing to do musically. I've also gotten to study with and hang out with people like Tyshawn Sorey, Joe Morris, Kris Davis, Ingrid Laubrock, and Eric Revis (who under his own name does a lot of free stuff). The general consensus is that free music isn't about dissonance or playing the first thing that comes to your head. I totally agree with that point. Free music is about having the freedom in music to do something, but knowing when to do it. Not just playing freely without any consideration for what's going on. I generally think you're not playing free music correctly if you find it easier than playing preconceived musical ideas. The goal is to always try to play something new, not necessarily innovative, but ideas you haven't played before. It's also important to listen all the time. Your ideas should be fueled by the interactions you're having with other musicians, which is hopefully the reason why your ideas will be new.

Free music should also always have a vibe or something that holds it together. A lot of free music has written out ideas that should guide where the music might go (or not guide, in fact). Something like a 12 tone row, a rhythmic idea, a harmonic idea, a melodic fragment, cues, or even pictures.

There's a great book that Joe Morris wrote about free music, which explains not only his, but a lot of views that his peers have about free music. Half the book is a bunch of small interviews with about 20 musicians who get the same questions about the music, and you get to read how they all answer the questions and what their views are.

[nakim55]

Hung out with James Emery at his apartment in NYC for a night in 1979. He was playing me Bud Powell and Charlie Parker records. He was whistling along with the solos, then would pick up the guitar and play along with any solo note for note, by memory, nonchalantly, like not even breaking a sweat. He figured all that stuff out by ear, no transcription books back then. He does not sound like those cats at all, when he plays his own style. Lots of videos of him and his music on you tube now. He can play any fake book tune & improvise on them non stop, or sight read any abstract Anthony Braxton angular up tempo chart. Check him out, that is how a master plays free jazz. And Karl Bergers music is not only free, but (gasp) beautiful. Masters listen to each other and have a conversation, that is what it is about. And the masters can read music and play standards, etc. I wish Lenny Breau and Jaco could have walked onto a stage and just improvised a conversation, now that would have been interesting!