[clarke68]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gracky Is there any recommendable book or texts introducing this genre?

I haven't read it, but Free Jazz (The Roots of Jazz) by Ekkehard Jost comes highly recommended. It'll only take you up to around 1974, when the book was written.

For a little more up-to-date vew, you could check out John Zorn's Arcana: Musicians on Music. It's out of print, but seems like it would be quite good if you can find it.

Like I said, I haven't read either one, so I can't exactly call these recommendations. One book I have read that I can recommend is Gary Giddins' Visions of Jazz: The First Century. It's not specifically about free jazz, but he covers the avant-garde with as much reverence and attention as any other kind. Good chapters about Coltrane, David Murray, Cecil Taylor, Ornette Coleman, and others.

 

[s m @]

Just got back into town, good to see this thread still going.

Please no one take this the wrong way, b/c I fully understand how 'free jazz' is associated with that skronky, abrasive sort of sound that a lot of it has. But that's not what defines free jazz, per se.

Maybe someone who knows more than I can step in here to fill in the gaps, but I'll start by defining the two more common types of traditional jazz. In the most traditional form the songs start with chord structures, and band members will solo/improv based on the chord sequence in the song. Meaning that the notes they play will be taken from whatever the chord is in that bar of the song. Things may be restructured (for length or whatever), but it's all chord-based. One of Miles' great innovations was pioneering the next form that is now considered traditional: Modal jazz. Rather than being bound by chord structures, the players are now free to choose from any notes found in the scale that the song is in (ie. if the song's in C major they can at any time use notes from the whole C maj scale).

Free jazz takes that a few steps further in that the players are free to choose ANY note they please, without restriction. Miles never would play this way as he found it to be a big mess. This is a matter of opinion, but definitely in the case of an unskilled musician this would be a recipe for disaster. But of course I like it in many cases... if the musician knows his instrument it can open doors to unconventional sounding music, IMO.

Lots of people use varying styles. Zorn, for instance, is very skronky a lot of the time, but most of his compositions are done in Hebrew scales and in most his jazz/improv bands these are adhered to strictly. However, I'll wager that anyone who is willing to pull out a duck decoy during a solo has to be considered at least somewhat 'free'.

Can anyone tell me if Coltrane ever actually played free? I'm not sure, I know some of his chord-based stuff doesn't sound like it is b/c he tweaks the chords in highly unusual ways with strange inversions and whatnot, so it almost sounds free but is actually rooted in very involved theory, which aside from his magic fingers is a large part of why he's so highly regarded as a major musical mind.

As an aside, buyer beware on some of David Murray's fusions of jazz with various other musics. He's undeniably talented, but I have a few of these that I find unbearably self-conscious and forced. I much prefer the stuff he's done in a more traditional jazz format.

Happy new year everyone!!

 

[Aman]

Well, I call Coltrane part of the free-jazz movement (particularly 'Sun Ship' and on) because he implemented note-bends and other really unique constructions into his improvisations. I have heard a few of his later recordings where he did indeed move away from progressions and particualr bars, but always stood within the scale to a degree (for example, if he were playing a C7, he often times went UNDER the C and ABOVE the top C, but never went down to like a note on a low F scale out of nowhere).

 

[y0da]

NilsTentacles i have been trying to track down ZU for awhile from what i have heard of them its really good stuff


Ahh the thread i have been waiting for

Eric dolphy- out to lunch: changed my life

others of note but not as well known

sam rivers (i have the pleasure of liveing 2 hours away from him so i have seen him live twice)

tom cora (deceassed)

no one has mentioned andrew hill point of departure is one of the best jazz albums in exsistance ( i am biased ) oh and eric dolphy is on the recoding

booker little (some of these are more avant garde but still)

wadada leo smith

erik friedlander (newer)

and a band called sticks and stones (also fairly recent)

 

[gratefulshrink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by s m @ Please no one take this the wrong way, b/c I fully understand how 'free jazz' is associated with that skronky, abrasive sort of sound that a lot of it has. But that's not what defines free jazz, per se. Maybe someone who knows more than I can step in here to fill in the gaps, but I'll start by defining the two more common types of traditional jazz. In the most traditional form the songs start with chord structures, and band members will solo/improv based on the chord sequence in the song. Meaning that the notes they play will be taken from whatever the chord is in that bar of the song. Things may be restructured (for length or whatever), but it's all chord-based. One of Miles' great innovations was pioneering the next form that is now considered traditional: Modal jazz. Rather than being bound by chord structures, the players are now free to choose from any notes found in the scale that the song is in (ie. if the song's in C major they can at any time use notes from the whole C maj scale). Free jazz takes that a few steps further in that the players are free to choose ANY note they please, without restriction. Miles never would play this way as he found it to be a big mess. This is a matter of opinion, but definitely in the case of an unskilled musician this would be a recipe for disaster. But of course I like it in many cases... if the musician knows his instrument it can open doors to unconventional sounding music, IMO. Can anyone tell me if Coltrane ever actually played free? I'm not sure, I know some of his chord-based stuff doesn't sound like it is b/c he tweaks the chords in highly unusual ways with strange inversions and whatnot, so it almost sounds free but is actually rooted in very involved theory, which aside from his magic fingers is a large part of why he's so highly regarded as a major musical mind.

Excellent post.

Again, i wish I had the musical/jazz theory background to explain myself here better, but I do think stated boundaries between "avant-garde" jazz and "free" jazz (and even "post-bop" or "hard bop") are somewhat arbitrary. At a practical level, creative artists push the sonic envelope in either case.

Specifically, in terms of Coltrane, I'll add some comments from allmusic to attempt to try to back this up:

"Ascension is the single recording that placed John Coltrane firmly into the avant-garde. Whereas, prior to 1965, Coltrane could be heard playing in an avant vein with stretched out solos, atonality, and a seemingly free design to the beat, Ascension throws most rules right out the window with complete freedom from the groove and strikingly abrasive sheets of horn interplay."

[Stellar Regions]: "This is a major set, "new" music from John Coltrane that was recorded February 15, 1967, (five months before his death) but not released for the first time until 1995. ....The performances by the quartet (with pianist Alice Coltrane, bassist Jimmy Garrison, and drummer Rashied Ali) are briefer (from two-and-a-half to five-plus minutes) than Coltrane's recordings of the previous year, but that might have been due to the fact that this music was played in the studio (as opposed to the marathon live blowouts with Pharoah Sanders) or to Coltrane's worsening health. Actually 'Trane (who sticks exclusively to tenor here) is as powerful as usual, showing no compromise in his intense flights, and indulging in sound explorations that are as free (but with purpose) as any he had ever done."

[Interstellar Space]: ..."this set of duets by tenor saxophonist John Coltrane and drummer Rashied Ali are full of fire, emotion and constant abstract invention. The original four pieces ("Mars," "Venus," "Jupiter" and "Saturn") are joined by "Leo" and "Jupiter Variation." Coltrane alternates quiet moments with sections of great intensity, showing off his phenominal technique and ability to improvise without the need for chordal instruments. Rousing if somewhat inaccessible music."

 

[s m @]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gratefulshrink ...I do think stated boundaries between "avant-garde" jazz and "free" jazz (and even "post-bop" or "hard bop") are somewhat arbitrary.

I definitely agree with this. For instance, I've always really wondered if the 'involved theory' I've heard applied to Trane's more out-there stuff is actually there (intended), or if it's just something that people stretched to put on it themselves simply b/c Coltrane started as and was so hugely respected as a player in conventional jazz. As opposed to someone like Ornette Coleman, who'd had no previous work that those same people liked, so they felt free to label his music as messy crap.

 

[clarke68]

Happy New Year, guys!

Quote:

Originally Posted by s m @ In the most traditional form the songs start with chord structures, and band members will solo/improv based on the chord sequence in the song. Meaning that the notes they play will be taken from whatever the chord is in that bar of the song....One of Miles' great innovations was pioneering the next form that is now considered traditional: Modal jazz. Rather than being bound by chord structures, the players are now free to choose from any notes found in the scale that the song is in (ie. if the song's in C major they can at any time use notes from the whole C maj scale).

I'm not a musician, but I don't think this is exactly right. Jazz solos have always been performed using any of the notes in the scale of the root chord. For example, if the changes are F - A - C the soloist will solo using an F scale, then switch to an A scale, then a C scale. Any of the seven notes of the scale are available at any time, not just the ones in the chord.

In modal improvisation, the soloist uses pre-determined modes instead of scales. What's a mode? I don't thoroughly understand them, but they're something like a sub-set of a scale. There is a different mode for each note in the scale (Dorian, Ionian, Lydian, etc.), and (I think) others beyond that. A pentatonic scale, what all the heavy metal guys play, is a mode of sorts. Anyway, this opened up the soloist to a number of options they didn't have before (when there were just 2 choices, major & minor). There's a number of web sites on the subject, but they all fly over my head pretty quick (Although this in an interesting one).

Quote:

Originally Posted by s m @ Free jazz takes that a few steps further in that the players are free to choose ANY note they please, without restriction.

True enough, but the real revolution with Free jazz was getting rid of the chord-based structure. While technically, the musicians are free to play any note they want, there's typically some sort of structure or frame of reference from which they choose (at least in the stuff I like). Ornette Coleman's music, for example, the basic melody is written out, and everyone in the band (including the bass player) improvises around the single melodic line. Coleman never really strays too far from the blues in his soloing...listening to his early Atlantics these days kind of makes you wonder what all the fuss was about. His Harmolodic concept goes quite a bit beyond that, but I couldn't even begin to explain it.


Quote:

Originally Posted by s m @ Can anyone tell me if Coltrane ever actually played free?

Sure. Check out Ascension or Om, although Ascension is regarded by many as being far more successful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by s m @ As an aside, buyer beware on some of David Murray's fusions of jazz with various other musics. He's undeniably talented, but I have a few of these that I find unbearably self-conscious and forced.

I only have one, Gwotet, with Pharoah Sanders and the Gwo-Ka Masters. I bought it at a show after seeing the same band live, so perhaps I'm biased, but it rocks! Fiery horn playing over red-hot rhythms. I think there are a lot of countries in the world (outside of the US) where this type of music would actually get played on the radio.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gratefulshrink ...I do think stated boundaries between "avant-garde" jazz and "free" jazz (and even "post-bop" or "hard bop") are somewhat arbitrary.

I agree, they are arbitrary, but I don't even see them as separate. Avant-garde is a broad category, and free jazz is a sub-category (if you will) within the avant-garde. Categories are useful, I think, for discussions like this, but in the long run often do a disservice to the music. John Zorn, in the intro to Arcana (mentioned above), puts it like this:

Quote:

Rock. Jazz. Punk. Dada. Beat. These words and their longer cousins, the ism-family (surrealism, postmodernism, abstract expressionism, minimalism), are used to commodify and commercialize an artist's complex personal vision. This terminology is not about understanding. It never has been. It's about money. Once a group of artists, writers, or musicians has been packaged together under such a banner, it is not only easier for work to be marketed--it also becomes easier for the audience to "buy it" and for the critic to respond with prepackaged opinions. The audience is deprived of its right to the pleasure of creating its own interpretation, and the critic no longer has to think about what is really happening or go any deeper than the monochromatic surface of the label itself, thus avoiding any encounter with the real aesthetic criteria that make any individual artist's work possible.

 

[Aman]

Quote:

I'm not a musician, but I don't think this is exactly right. Jazz solos have always been performed using any of the notes in the scale of the root chord. For example, if the changes are F - A - C the soloist will solo using an F scale, then switch to an A scale, then a C scale. Any of the seven notes of the scale are available at any time, not just the ones in the chord. In modal improvisation, the soloist uses pre-determined modes instead of scales. What's a mode? I don't thoroughly understand them, but they're something like a sub-set of a scale. There is a different mode for each note in the scale (Dorian, Ionian, Lydian, etc.), and (I think) others beyond that. A pentatonic scale, what all the heavy metal guys play, is a mode of sorts. Anyway, this opened up the soloist to a number of options they didn't have before (when there were just 2 choices, major & minor). There's a number of web sites on the subject, but they all fly over my head pretty quick (Although this in an interesting one).

I think that it's up to interpretation as to which form of soloing is actually the 'authentic' jazz kind. However, I think that this is incorrect. As far as I'm aware, there aren't too many chord changes in jazz pieces. Monk, for example, popularly used the C7 Major chord but I can't think of a time where he went into an F or a C. If you're speaking of instrumentalists that stayed on one scale but the chord progression went F - A - C (this really isn't a full progression, or, in the eyes of most jazz artists anyway, isn't) I'd say that's a little limiting.

The way jazz songs work is that they choose a scale and they choose a progression - often times, jazz artists simply chose a chord and the scale was obviously the lowest note of that chord. So, if they played a chord whose lowest note was B flat, they may play a B flat chromatic scale. This means that the lowest note is the A natural below the low B flat, and the highest note is the C natural above the high B flat. Conventional jazz artists limited themselves to these notes in particular. However, free jazz artists went above and below the high/low notes of these scales. Most of the time they kept to the rules of the scale, so they still were limited by the notes that they had to play on the scale, but they could go down or up entire octaves. Then you had the whole thing of note bending, and separating notes by very extreme differenciating notes (Coltrane, for example, sometimes went from, say, a low C to a middle, sometimes even high, G without a rest in between).

That's at least what I have gathered. I have had this confirmed by others, but I guess there's still a bit of it that can be left to interpretation.

 

[clarke68]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman As far as I'm aware, there aren't too many chord changes in jazz pieces. Monk, for example, popularly used the C7 Major chord but I can't think of a time where he went into an F or a C.

Actually, jazz is traditionally all about chord changes. Check out the chart for Round Midnight, one of Monk's thorniest tunes (to play). There's two changes in almost every measure!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman The way jazz songs work is that they choose a scale and they choose a progression - often times, jazz artists simply chose a chord and the scale was obviously the lowest note of that chord. So, if they played a chord whose lowest note was B flat, they may play a B flat chromatic scale.

No, that's how blues & pop solos are played. Jazz is a whole 'nother ballgame...every time the chord changes, the solo key changes. That's what makes it so incredibly difficult to play...it requires an encyclopedic knowlege of chords & scales just to be able to correctly navigate a tune with chord changes every measure, let alone play something interesting. Read more here.

 

[s m @]

^^^ I think you're getting chords and scales a bit mixed up (in your first post) maybe? This will explain it better than I could:

Quote:

An understanding of modal jazz requires knowledge of musical modes. Modes are the seven scales used in medieval music which were 'rediscovered' by composers like Claude Debussy and frequently used by 20th century composers. In bebop as well as in hard bop, musicians used chords to provide the background for their solos. A song would start out with a theme, which would introduce the chords used for the solos. These chords would be repeated throughout the whole song, while the soloists would play their parts. By the 1950s improvising over chords had become such a dominant part of jazz that sidemen at recording dates were sometimes given nothing more than a list of chords to play from. Creating innovative solos became exceedingly difficult. In the latter 1950s, spurred by the experiments of composer and bandleader George Russell, musicians frustrated with ever repeated chords tried the modal approach. They chose not to write their songs using chords, but instead used modal scales. This meant that the bassist, for instance, did not have to 'walk' from one important note of a chord to that of another - as long as he stayed in the scale being used and accentuated the right notes within the scale, he could go virtually everywhere. The pianist, to give another example, would not have to play the same chords or variations of the chords, but could do anything, as long as he stayed within the scale being used. The overall result was more freedom of expression. In fact, the way that a soloist creates a solo changed dramatically with the advent of modal jazz. Before, the goal of a soloist was to play a solo that fit into a set of chords. However with modal jazz a soloist must create a melody in one scale (typically), which could be potentially boring for the listener. Therefore, the goal of the musician was now to make the melody as interesting as possible. Modal jazz was, in essence, a return to melody.

More reading for those interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_jazz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_mode

Modes are just relatively simple diatonic scales, more or less. To sum up in one sentence:

Chord-based trad/Modal/Free=Rigid Rules/Less Rigid/Totally Open

Although you're correct when you say that some/most free players still often stay partially within recognized structures, no doubt for varying reasons.

 

[clarke68]

Quote:

Originally Posted by s m @ ^^^ I think you're getting chords and scales a bit mixed up (in your first post) maybe?

No, just not explaining it very clearly. However the idea of elucidating my thoughts on the subject is making me rather sleepy so... Quote:

Originally Posted by s m @ To sum up in one sentence: Chord-based trad/Modal/Free=Rigid Rules/Less Rigid/Totally Open

...that's probably all that really needs to be said.

Hey...good stuff you dug up on modes/modal jazz. I didn't know a thing about George Russell until I followed your links. I had no idea the breadth of his influence...looking forward to checking out some of his recordings.

 

[wab]

These are the kind of threads that make me come back to Headfi. I'm listening to Albert Ayler's Spirits Rejoice and Eric Dolphy's Far Cry. This music is intense and fascinating, even though I'm still not sure how to interpret some of it. I also checked out more music from Sun Ra, but quickly decided it's not for me.

 

[VicAjax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by s m @ Lots of people use varying styles. Zorn, for instance, is very skronky a lot of the time, but most of his compositions are done in Hebrew scales and in most his jazz/improv bands these are adhered to strictly.

actually, it's really just since he conceived of Masada that Zorn has composed primarily this way (generally based around a harmonic minor scale). previous to Masada, Zorn performed much more free jazz, notably his Spy vs. Spy album and his fantastic concept band Cobra, which was based entirely around improvisation.

also, even in Masada, Zorn encourages simultaneous improvisation in his combos. that is, more than one soloist improvising at any given time. this is a distinct element of free jazz. of course, it generally happens in a situation carefully controlled by Zorn.

a great example of this is zorn's sax dueling with dave douglas's trumpet on "Ziphim" from Gimel (Masada Vol. 3).

then again, i agree that the purpose of sub-categorizing music is generally to break concepts into digestible, bite-sized pieces that are easier to swallow (for both the consumer and the critic).

it certainly has its purposes, but it also has its limits.

as for free/avant jazz players i love... i'll rename my favorites among the usual suspects:

dolphy (i think would have been a bigger influence than coleman), coleman, ken vandermark, NRG ensemble, art ensemble of chicago, LOVE the NYC downtown scene (primarily, but not limited to zorn, lurie, ribot)...

and i'll add Kahil el'Zabar, especially his Ethnic Heritage Ensemble... out of chicago. brilliant stuff that incorporates african tribal music into free jazz. it's mesmerizing.

 

[gratefulshrink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wab I also checked out more music from Sun Ra, but quickly decided it's not for me.

wab, what Sun Ra did you try?

There are several mellower albums he made, still available on CD.

 

[clarke68]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VicAjax previous to Masada, Zorn performed much more free jazz, notably his Spy vs. Spy album and his fantastic concept band Cobra, which was based entirely around improvisation.

You probably already know this, but just to elaborate (because it's fascinating)...Cobra isn't a band, but actually a game...an improvisational music game. Zorn wrote the rules and "conducts" the sessions using flash cards, hand signals, color-coded headbands, etc. with varying numbers of musicians. Instrumentation doesn't matter. Really great write up about it here.

I saw it played in San Francisco years ago. Zorn wasn't present, it was being conducted by a music professor from Mills College, but it was amazing...non-stop action and of course a lot of very unique music. Evidently it still gets played from time to time.

I had the HatHut recording of it a while back, played by a vertiable "who's who" of the Downtown music scene (Bill Frisell, Wayne Horvitz, Arto Lindsay, Christian Marclay, Zeena Parkins, Elliot Sharp, et. many al.), but even with the all-star cast it didn't really do a whole lot for me, something akin to hearing a basketball game on the radio (without commentary) compared to seeing it person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VicAjax ...simultaneous improvisation in his combos. that is, more than one soloist improvising at any given time. this is a distinct element of free jazz.

Klezmer actually has a big emphasis on collective improvisation (as does Bluegrass and Dixieland jazz). In fact, Zorn's use of collective improv in Masada is probably as much from Klezmer as it is from free jazz.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VicAjax a great example of this is zorn's sax dueling with dave douglas's trumpet on "Ziphim" from Gimel (Masada Vol. 3).

I'll check it out! Chris Potter and Robin Eubanks do a really great one on "Prime Directive" on the remarkable Dave Holland album Extended Play: Live at Birdland.