Emperor's New Clothes?
Tony Mountifield
I've just finished listening to Eric Dolphy's "Out to Lunch" and Ornette
Coleman's "Free Jazz" (having borrowed them from a friend), and feel
like someone trying to see the Emperor's New Clothes. They just sounded
like a pointless cacophony. I read the liner notes and thought "who's
kidding who?"
Why would anyone want to make a noise like that?
Why would anyone want to listen to it (apart from once, like I just
have, out of curiosity to see what all the fuss was about)?
Is one supposed to enjoy listening to it?
Puzzled,
Tony
--
Tony Mountifield | Email: ton...@dmv.co.uk | PGP fingerprint:
Digi-Media Vision Ltd | Tel: +44 1703 573121 | 56 2C 65 C5 90 31 23 D9
Eastleigh, England | Fax: +44 1703 573100 | 6A 7C 7F 0E EB FD 9B 87
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Germuska
>I've just finished listening to Eric Dolphy's "Out to Lunch" and Ornette
>Coleman's "Free Jazz"
...
>Why would anyone want to make a noise like that?
That question continually stimulates my exploration of new ("avant garde")
jazz. I started from the assumption that there must be something to it,
if so many people were excited about the music. ("So many," of course, is
relative...) With many new jazz musicians, I have found one or two songs,
or a whole album, which are really beautiful, or compelling, or attractive
-- after hearing that music, I become more committed to understanding
other music the artist makes which is less easily approached. I've
repeatedly found that the music manages to grab hold of me even though it
doesn't fit into any rules for making music which I know.
The first thing to remember about jazz since Ornette is that it's
intensely personal music. The musicians search for the music which is
compellingly meaningful to them, rather than taking for granted anything
about how music should be made. Because it's intensely personal, no one
expects it to be popular on a mass level. But because it's intensely
personal, I find the music which does connect to be far more valuable and
meaningful than more "idiomatic" music.
Despite the title, "Free Jazz" may not be the best way into Ornette for
someone who is already a fan of bebop. Some of the earlier
(single-quartet) albums will probably be more readily approachable. But
to be honest, I found other "free" music important for a year or more
before I really enjoyed the original Ornette quartet music. Like I said,
it's a personal thing. I do think that the musicians deserve respect for
challenging assumptions and for exploring the roots of how music affects
people. That doesn't mean you have to buy their albums or even listen to
them, but please give them some credit.
Just my quick take on the subject -- hopefully some others will "weigh in."
Joe
--
Joe Germuska * Learning Technologies Group * Northwestern University
j-ger...@nwu.edu * http://www.nwu.edu/people/j-germuska
"I felt so good I told my leaders how to follow..." - Sly Stone
Don Herzog
In article <E0G95...@dmv.co.uk>, Tony Mountifield <ton...@dmv.co.uk> wrote:
>I've just finished listening to Eric Dolphy's "Out to Lunch" and Ornette
>like someone trying to see the Emperor's New Clothes. They just sounded
>like a pointless cacophony. I read the liner notes and thought "who's
>kidding who?"
Well, speaking for myself: I like "Free Jazz," but not a whole lot; other
early Ornette stuff blows me away by how wonderful it is, so it sets a
high standard. And I absolutely adore "Out to Lunch": if I had to play
the desert-island-disc game I'm quite sure that would make my top ten.
Remember that there are people who have very much this reaction about
*all* of jazz: all that weird dissonance, improvisation as random notes,
it just seems like noise. And we tell them, correctly, that it's a bit
like language acquisition, that after a while things will come into focus
and they will learn to hear it as music. I take it the same is true
within jazz for more outside stuff. I currently get nothing at all out of
Ayler's New York Ear and Eye Control (Eye and Ear?), but I put it on once
in a while anyway. And it fact more of it is getting more
interesting--and more engaging. A friend of mine who used to make fun of
me for listening to the Art Ensemble of Chicago as much as I do (a very
lot) just told me he has listened to nothing else for a few weeks.
Now maybe you don't want to learn to listen to this stuff. And maybe even
if you heard it as music you still wouldn't much like it. But maybe not,
right?
--don
Tony Mountifield
Many thanks to Marc Sabatella, Don Herzog and Joe Germuska for your
responses to my original posting.
I had feared with hindsight that my posting might be taken as a troll,
even thought it wasn't meant to be. Basically I'm trying to understand
what exactly the "avant garde" is trying to express, as opposed to more
mainstream styles.
Marc Sabatella <ma...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
>
> But it is also quite possible you are simply not likely to enjoy any "avant
> garde" jazz. As a first test, I'd wonder if you have heard, say, "Charles
> Mingus Presents Charles Mingus" or Wayne Shorter's "The All-Seeing Eye", and
> what you think of those.
You may well be right. I don't like avant garde "classical" music,
preferring instead almost anything from Bach to, say, Rachmaninov.
I haven't heard the albums you mention, but did try listening to Mingus'
"Black Saint and the Sinner Lady". I got about halfway through before
giving up. I struggled a bit with Trane's "Impressions" album, liking
the two short tracks best. On "Tenor Legacy" by Joe Lovano, I liked the
standards tracks, but found his own compositions difficult (too "angular").
What do I really like? Bill Evans, Oscar Peterson, Hank Jones, Dave
Brubeck, George Shearing, Stan Getz, Zoot Sims, Paul Desmond, Stanley
Turrentine (especially "More than a Mood" with Hubbard, Walton, Carter
and Higgins), K+JJ, NHOP, Joe Pass, Ed Bickert.... But I'm now trying to
discover a wider variety of artists, having had a casual interest in
jazz for many years.
If it's a fair question (if not then ignore it! :-), why does avant
garde (both classical and jazz), in its quest for something "new",
always seem to have to sound ugly? Have all the beautiful sounds been
discovered already? Is it possible to "push the envelope" and still be
euphonious?
Thanks,
Tony.
BTW, Marc. I got your Primer off the net about 3 years ago, and it's
being a big help with the improvisation class I've recently started
attending (I'm a piano player). Good work!
Joe Germuska
>I haven't heard the albums you mention, but did try listening to Mingus'
>"Black Saint and the Sinner Lady". I got about halfway through before
>giving up.
...
>If it's a fair question (if not then ignore it! :-), why does avant
>garde (both classical and jazz), in its quest for something "new",
>always seem to have to sound ugly? Have all the beautiful sounds been
>discovered already? Is it possible to "push the envelope" and still be
>euphonious?
Interesting. I remember trying Mingus' "Black Saint" about three years
ago, and also finding it uninteresting (if not unpleasant...) I got a
copy this spring, and I now find it beautiful.
Euphony is ultimately subjective. Your listening experiences shape your
aesthetic. I'm fascinated considering how each of our personal opinions
about what is euphonious (or even just worth listening to) evolves,
although discussion of such things often devolves into flaming and name
calling.
Speaking of "Pushing the Envelope" -- that's the title of an album by
drummer/composer Bobby Previte, and I think you might actually like it! I
admit to having a hard time abstracting from "what I like" to "what other
people might like", but I think Previte is a musician who falls between
the cracks of jazz categories, and thus gets unduly overlooked. "Pushing
the Envelope" seems like a particularly accessible title out of the three
or four of his albums I know well.
Lane R. Lesperance
Joe Germuska writes:
>In article <E0KA1...@dmv.co.uk>, ton...@dmv.co.uk (Tony Mountifield) wrote:
>
>>I haven't heard the albums you mention, but did try listening to Mingus'
>>"Black Saint and the Sinner Lady". I got about halfway through before
>>giving up.
>...
>>If it's a fair question (if not then ignore it! :-), why does avant
>>garde (both classical and jazz), in its quest for something "new",
>>always seem to have to sound ugly? Have all the beautiful sounds been
>>discovered already? Is it possible to "push the envelope" and still be
>>euphonious?
>
>Interesting. I remember trying Mingus' "Black Saint" about three years
>ago, and also finding it uninteresting (if not unpleasant...) I got a
>copy this spring, and I now find it beautiful.
>
ago and thought why bother. Then about 4 years ago I got into Mingus big
time. I now think this to be an indispensable record of the highest
caliber.
From my experience, coming to appreciate Mingus, Sun Ra, etc. has taken
some effort on my part. I had to give it time to find out for myself the
genius behind these efforts.
I guess it is like coming to appreciate good cheese from someone who grew
up on Velvetta, or good wine from someone who was only exposed to Ripple.
Lane Lesperance la...@omnifest.uwm.edu
Benjamin Smith
>
>If it's a fair question (if not then ignore it! :-), why does avant
>garde (both classical and jazz), in its quest for something "new",
>always seem to have to sound ugly? Have all the beautiful sounds been
>discovered already? Is it possible to "push the envelope" and still be
>euphonious?
>
>Tony.
>
Prior to this century most of the developments and innovations in music
were furthering expression in the music and slowly dissolving tonality,
that which is harmonically centering towards a key center and modulating to
other key centers. Music between key centers became more chromatic and less
tonally defined. In both concert music and somewhat later in jazz musicians
wanted to express from the depths, without the previous eras boundaries or
the previous styles boundaries limiting their expression.
Some would argue that the 20th century has been the most tragic for human
beings. I don't know if it is but certainly ugly things have happened.
Monstrously ugly things have happened. A sensitivity to this ugliness, a
personal committment to expression those affected by the ugliness, has led
many artists, musicians amoung them, to producing sounds that are
ostensibly ugly, almost as a "in tribute" to that ugliness. But the same
musical things that guide improvised music and composed music persist.
Melodies still develop based on fragments and extensions and sequencing of
ideas, in other words, the music is generated from the creative germs. The
melodies take another form, maybe not as pleasantly lyrical, maybe the
sense of struggle is dominant, but they still develop in the same way.
Harmony has been used in many ways. Certainly many find the harmonies of
Ravel or Debussy to be very pleasing and those of the Expressionist school
led by Arnold Shoenberg to be displeasing. Rhythm also has been freed, the
bar line has been "softened" so that listeners do not sense a regular pulse
with regular accents or at least implied regular accents to this 20th
century music.
In jazz the earlier music mixed mostly the harmonies of the 19th century
with certain African-based rhythms, vocalisms. The American blues bending
of notes are also a key element. The harmonies were extended upon but you
still had the harmonic framework of the 19th century and certain types of
sounds colored the chords, musicians call these extended or altered tones.
Some chords based on more linear rather than the bass progression worked
their way into jazz, also used by the Expressionist, chords based not on
19th Century triadic harmony, but based on fourths or fifths, and not
giving the ear the familiar sense of where the overall harmonic framework
should proceed. Mostly though, even these chords were used to extend the
harmonic framework, not really dissolve it.
Ornette, Cecil and a lot of other guys wanted freedom from the harmonic
framework, the sense of rhythmic cliches being used and how that to some
degree stagnated some of the music, and melodic expression that would lead
to very human sounds. So, growls, squals, squeaks, that were part of New
Orleans music, but used in a more limited way and within the familiar
harmonic framework were expanded upon and used to more express the music.
Much of the jazz was late 50's to 60's based where social upheavels were
taking place over the USA. So the USA musicians had that in their
consciousness, whether consciously or unconsciously, and it's influence
became part of their creative output. There are those with personal
experiences also within the atmosphere of the social upheaveals and this
also led to those trying to express. These guys were not necessarily trying
to push any envelope. It is a sort of collective consciousness of some
musicians who were compelled to create in this manner. They were not
attempting to be hip or different, in fact, many of them had a hard time
putting bread on the table and had to resort to playing dance music or
making money in some other way.
In my opinion, this is a cycle. I think that the ugliness will be displaced
in certain areas over time, a lot of it very intensely, and as the musician
matures they later become more economical in how they express themselves. I
also think this part of the movement of music. It goes through this period
of intensity and then some of it branches off into other spheres, and then
another phase of the cycle appears. Late Coltrane was going into an almost
ethereal phase, and I think that much of the next great jazz epoch will be
ethereal types of jazz. It will be less overtly intense but although it
will be ethereal, it will still be somewhat unsettling. The beauty of the
lines and the depths from were it came have led to its shape. It carries
the struggle with it and is becoming transcendant.
Ben S.
---------------------------------------------------
This message was created and sent using the Cyberdog Mail System
---------------------------------------------------
Mondo Mando
: What do I really like? Bill Evans, Oscar Peterson, Hank Jones, Dave
It may well be that you just have a strong set of preferences about music.
That's certainly legitimate. I can't stand the sound of synthesizers more
sophisticated than a wah pedal. That means that I'm missing out on some
interesting modern jazz, but I just can't get past that sound. I've come
to be content in having reconciled myself to being narrow-minded...;-) No,
seriously, there's nothing wrong with giving something some serious listening
and consideration, and then deciding it just doesn't float your boat.
: If it's a fair question (if not then ignore it! :-), why does avant
: garde (both classical and jazz), in its quest for something "new",
: always seem to have to sound ugly? Have all the beautiful sounds been
Two possible answers here: One is that it's not impossible to be both
innovative and euphonious, but the world of dissonant music has barely been
explored, while there's plenty of great nicer-sounding stuff out there
already (and has been since Mozart.) The other is that free jazz isn't ugly
to some people's ears. Sometimes I think it can be quite beautiful, but it's
beautiful the way Calder is beautiful, not Rodin or Michelangelo.
I really dig the vibe solo on the first track of Out To Lunch. Other parts of
it are interesting but ugly. Other parts of it are unbearable. But getting
into such individualistic, private music is always a long struggle. I like
more of it now than when I bought it, and in a few years, I may even like
all of it. But it is a much more difficult process than diving into some
Ella or Brubeck...
Let's keep this discussion going; I think it's fascinating!
Ethan
Don Herzog
In article <E0KA1...@dmv.co.uk>, Tony Mountifield <ton...@dmv.co.uk> wrote:
>
>If it's a fair question (if not then ignore it! :-), why does avant
>garde (both classical and jazz), in its quest for something "new",
>always seem to have to sound ugly? Have all the beautiful sounds been
>euphonious?
Sure. On the "classical" side of the fence, I think especially of the
late works of Morton Feldman, which are so deliriously pretty that I was
initially quite suspicious of them. (I tend to think that in the arts
generally, "pretty" is the enemy of "beautiful.") Rhythm, or anyway
conventional approaches to rhythm, has completely dropped out of these
compositions. And the harmonic logic is quite different from anything
else I know: imagine very pretty voicings clustered around--not sure what
the technical way to put this would be--three half-step dissonance: say,
using D, D#, and E in the same chord. But they're stunning and seductive
and ethereal. As well as hugely pretty.
On the "jazz" side of the fence, I'd nominate the Art Ensemble in their
less frenetic mode: some of their extended spontaneously improvised jams
work around a lush percussion background and the ability of a band that
was together for decades to listen keenly to each other and respond
brilliantly and wittily. Or for that matter Paul Bley in his more free
outings: "Questions" is a nice date in this regard, or (a trio date I
like more than some on this group) "Memoirs" with Charlie Haden and Paul
Motian. Spare, acerbic, distantly descended from bop conventions but
surely avant-garde, and often very very pretty.
--don
dro...@aol.com
In article <5607os$j...@tom.amherst.edu>, eth...@unix.amherst.edu (Mondo
Mando) writes:
>I really dig the vibe solo on the first track of Out To Lunch. Other
parts
>of
>it are interesting but ugly. Other parts of it are unbearable. But
getting
>into such individualistic, private music is always a long struggle. I
like
>more of it now than when I bought it, and in a few years, I may even like
>all of it. But it is a much more difficult process than diving into some
>Ella or Brubeck...
>
>Let's keep this discussion going; I think it's fascinating!
OK.
Funny, for me it is the opposite. Years ago, I was obsessed w/ free music,
the "uglier" the better (which I think is a result of me rediscovering
jazz after a decade or more of virtually exclusively classical collecting,
much of it avant gard). I mean, Brotzman's 'Machine Gun' ruled! Now, I
have little use for what was once one of my main listening areas. It's not
that it bother me, it just bores me.
I'm talking just the most unrelenting: Charles Gayle, Sanders-era
Coltrane, later Ayler (his groups w/ Sampson, Donald, RS Jackson),
Brotzman, etc. I still love much avant gard, like Out To Lunch-era and
style Blue Notes, earlier Ayler (the classic trio, which is more soulful
to me), a lot Braxton's music (especially his quartets), and other music
that combines "out" with structure.
Dave Royko
Preston Gardner
You are dismissed. You don't have to listen to it. You have my
permission.
I don't have the records you mention but I do have other records by
Dolphy and Coleman and like them very much.
I am a Thelonious Monk fan now but the first time I heard Monk, his
music
left me cold. I said something like "What the hell is that?"
I just got a new Paul Motian record yesterday (at the Village Vanguard)
and you know what? I don't like it. Sometimes that means I never will.
Sometimes that just means my ears aren't ready for it. Sometimes it
even just means I am not in the right mood that day.
Tony Mountifield wrote:
>
> I've just finished listening to Eric Dolphy's "Out to Lunch" and Ornette
> Coleman's "Free Jazz" (having borrowed them from a friend), and feel
> like someone trying to see the Emperor's New Clothes. They just sounded
> like a pointless cacophony. I read the liner notes and thought "who's
> kidding who?"
>
> Why would anyone want to make a noise like that?
>
> Why would anyone want to listen to it (apart from once, like I just
> have, out of curiosity to see what all the fuss was about)?
>
> Is one supposed to enjoy listening to it?
>
> Puzzled,
> Tony
>
Genie Baker
>"Black Saint and the Sinner Lady". I got about halfway through before
>giving up.
Mingus is my favorite, and that was a tough one for me to get into.
(Then I went through a 2-week period where I listened to nothing else,
literally, including the radio. Haven't played it since then.)
Mingus Ah Um or Blues and Roots are probably more accessible. I
think Changes 2 may be also, but by the time I first heard it I had long
since lost my perspective on what Mingus sounds like to the uninitiated.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Baker gba...@umich.edu
Jeff Beer
In article <E0G95...@dmv.co.uk>, Tony Mountifield <ton...@dmv.co.uk> wrote:
>I've just finished listening to Eric Dolphy's "Out to Lunch" and Ornette
>Coleman's "Free Jazz" (having borrowed them from a friend), and feel
>like someone trying to see the Emperor's New Clothes. They just sounded
>like a pointless cacophony. I read the liner notes and thought "who's
>kidding who?"
If you are new to it, it may seem that way. But they know what they
are doing, and they are doing it.
>Why would anyone want to make a noise like that?
Because they find expression in it.
>Why would anyone want to listen to it (apart from once, like I just
>have, out of curiosity to see what all the fuss was about)?
Because it is beautiful.
>Is one supposed to enjoy listening to it?
I know I do.
Jeff
Jeff Beer
I think the statement by Charles Ives that people confuse beauty
with something that lets your ears sit in its easy chair applies.
Jeff
yob...@aol.com
I'm not really sure if the avant garde musicians were trying to "push the
envelope" or merely expressing their surroundings. I do know that at some
point music normally needs someone to listen to it and the trends toward
what you call ugliness usually do run through cycles. To me, the most
wonderful stuff comes when someone finds a way to express their life, etc.
within music that provides listeners with something (even something small)
to hold on to. Musical anarchy is not really a case of "no rules",
because now you have to create without references to more established
modes of expression. It creates its own rules. It seems that to be able
to create "free" expression within a form, offers listeners the best
chance to really receive the communication from the musician.
Tony Mountifield
I wrote, regarding some avant-garde Ornette and Dolphy I'd been listening to:
> Why would anyone want to make a noise like that?
Jeff Beer replied:
> Because they find expression in it.
OK, perhaps what I am trying to understand is, what are they actually
expressing? And why does the expression come out sounding like it does?
I'm sure those who play avant-garde would not always be expressing
negative emotions (although Mingus' Black Saint seems to be).
I'd like to understand a bit of the why, even if I never acquire a taste
for the genre (and who knows?).
Tony.
G. Jeffrey Gower
On 9 Nov 1996, Jeff Beer wrote:
> I think the statement by Charles Ives that people confuse beauty
> with something that lets your ears sit in its easy chair applies.
Ives is da man! Ives was decades ahead of his time. I strongly suggest
listening to his Symphony #4 and Three Place in New England. No doubt
about it, Ives was a genius. I think that anyone who likes free jazz,
etc., would enjoy and appreciate these works, especially considering when
they were written. Also, for Ives fans, there is a new book about Ives by
the excellent music writer Jan Swafford.
Jeff
Nils G. Jacobson
yob...@aol.com wrote:
: I'm not really sure if the avant garde musicians were trying to "push the
Yeah, lately I've been thinking about this. In certain frames of mind
the only thing that really "works" for me musically is free jazz. You
know, you're sitting at home and you just have to listen to Charles
Gayle. Why is that? I think it has to do with some of the stuff you
mentioned, but also I think the big draw for me is that free jazz has
less overt structure. It's not that the music is unformed, or
uncomposed, or does not have a beginning, middle, and end -- but the
rules that govern the construction of a piece allow more inference. As
in, he played that really low rumbly sound and now he's squeaking up
high, what's the connection there, where's it going and what's it trying
to say. It's more fun sometimes to listen to music where you have to
participate more. Where you have to involve yourself in order to make
sense of it. Try listening to Zorn's Classic Guide to Strategy. The
whole thing. Not a snippet. Give it careful consideration and there's a
lot going on there. It really is a whole language in and of itself.
With its own rules. Its own humor. Its own brand of emotional
intensity. But unless you exert yourself absorbing exactly how all of it
works, you're nowhere and you're probably wasting your time listening.
(Plus the liner notes are brilliant: a language that one man spoke and no
one understood. How can you argue with that?)
-Nils
Nils G. Jacobson
Tony Mountifield (ton...@dmv.co.uk) wrote:
: I wrote, regarding some avant-garde Ornette and Dolphy I'd been listening:
: > Why would anyone want to make a noise like that?
:
: Jeff Beer replied:
: > Because they find expression in it.
:
: OK, perhaps what I am trying to understand is, what are they actually
: expressing? And why does the expression come out sounding like it does?
: for the genre (and who knows?).
This is good stuff. You have to want to know why before you can get it.
It took me a while too. Usually it helps to have a gentle introduction.
Something sort of "out" but not extreme. For me, a couple of the
formative recordings were Pat Metheny's 80/81 and Ornette's Shape of Jazz
to Come. Who knows what will work for you.
Free jazz attempts to express exactly what other forms of music do, with
the difference that a lot of formalism and politeness disappear and are
replaced by directness. When is music funny? When do you feel sad?
These types of things. Who knows why it sounds like it does. That's a
function of the personality of the artist and his or her listening
tastes. But the performance and delivery are not intended to be easy
listening. In fact, that's the whole point. You have to pay attention,
you have to involve yourself, you have to figure out what they're trying
to say. Learn a new language. It's not everybody's cup of tea.
-Nils
JC Martin
Benjamin Smith <bsm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<AEA94B6...@207.92.153.188>...
> >
> >If it's a fair question (if not then ignore it! :-), why does avant
> >garde (both classical and jazz), in its quest for something "new",
> >always seem to have to sound ugly? Have all the beautiful sounds been
> >discovered already? Is it possible to "push the envelope" and still be
> >euphonious?
> >
> >Tony.
That would depend on what you, the listener, considers ugly. What you
might consider ugly may sound beautiful to me. Take Kenny G. Every time I
hear him I feel like vomiting. Many people out there though, are
completely moved by him.
I think maybe you're talking about the loss of melody in advant garde.
Even that argument is based on an old school of thought. I understand
though, Archie Schepp is not exactly a peaceful sound.
You might want to check out ECM material, if you haven't already. The
music on that label is melodic, beautiful, and definitely "pushes the
envelope".
Peace, JC MARTIN
jcmartin@ jaffe-soeder.com
Joe Germuska
In article <567oqe$l...@newsreader.wustl.edu>, ngja...@artsci.wustl.edu
(Nils G. Jacobson) wrote:
>Yeah, lately I've been thinking about this. In certain frames of mind
>the only thing that really "works" for me musically is free jazz. You
>know, you're sitting at home and you just have to listen to Charles
>Gayle. Why is that?
I like to use the metaphor of spicy food -- it takes some getting used to
free music, but once you get a taste for it, it's the only way :-)
That said, I've recently been going through a big phase of interest in
American roots music, tango, highlife, and other fairly structured forms.
I have many different "purposes" for listening to music, and different
styles fit in at different times. Some people only "use" music in one or
two ways, and so they only need one or two styles, and are more interested
in variations on that style than in a variety of approaches to music
making. With free music, which is necessarily a very personal experience,
you get as many approaches to music making as you have musicians
multiplied by the different groupings they organize.
There's something uniquely beautiful about musicians making music for no
other reason than that they have to make it. With any formal genre of
music, I may begin to wonder if the artist really liked the sound he/she
made, or if it was a compromise made to appeal to some other aesthetic.
With "free" music, I trust that the artist made choices "for the right
reason" (since there's no market for the stuff!), and whether or not I
enjoy the sound, it gives me a look (listen) into the complex world-view
of another human -- something that's priceless in our global
marketplace...
Joe
ps I've also found reading about the music quite valuable. Before I
really listened to any Anthony Braxton, I read "Forces in Motion" by
Graham Lock, a very readable two-week travelogue and interview with
Braxton and his quartet that put many things into a more understandable
light -- it showed me some ways in which Braxton really is just an
ordinary guy, and of course, many ways in which he is utterly unique.
I've also enjoyed Val Wilmer's "As Serious As Your Life" and John
Litweiler's "The Freedom Principle: Jazz Since 1958" -- check your local
library...
pps Most of all, I've found seeing the music live and meeting some of the
musicians who make it to be supremely valuable. I'm lucky enough to live
in Chicago, which is home to a hotbed of activity in this area, but it's
by no means the only place where it happens, and little by little, it is
growing all over the place...
drick...@aol.com
Hmm....interedting post. I haven't heard "Free Jazz", but "Out to Lunch"
is one of my favorite jazz records. I really feel like this records
opened up new vistas for me in terms of listening to not just jazz but all
music in general. However, I understand that everyone has their own
particular tastes in music so I won't attempt to convince you that these
records are great and therefore your opinion sucks. That doesn't seem to
be all that productive. My hope is that by explaining what I like about
"Out to Lunch" you may approach it in a different way.
For me this record highlights one of the most important elements of a good
jazz performance: communication. This is what separates a good jazz comdo
from a bad one-the individual musician can be solid but if they can't (or
are unwilling to) listen to where each member is pushing the music, all is
lost. On "Out to Lunch" each member seems to be very much in tune,
rhythmically and melodically, with what everyone else is up to. By
playing in a free format, this means that the players do not rely on
prescribed chord changes but instead follow music ideas, tonal centers,
etc. (you may already know this). In my opinion, the level of interplay
these guys reach is amazing.
The other feature I would highlight is the uniqueness of the melodies
themselves. None of these songs is what you might call pretty; but Dolphy
certainly has a voice of his own. Compositionally, this record sounds
quite different from any other I've heard, alothugh someone who doesn't
care for free jazz may not pick up on the finer points.
Above all, don't let anyone tell you that you need to appreciate these
records; listen to what YOU enjoy listening to.
Dave
Joe Germuska
In article <Keith_Myath-13...@ppp-11.ts-4.nyc.idt.net>,
Keith...@backdoor.com (Keith Myath) wrote:
> I guess 'freer' forms are fun to play, but not always fun to listen to.
> I have and eclectic recording collection, but I've walked out from
clubs after 5 minutes of lets say Reggie Workman's band. Sorry but once at
the KF and once more at the Vanguard w/ Bill Frisell.
> They're both fantastic players but on this particular time they
were frankly lame.
>Free or not free, IT'S GOTTA GROOVE!!!
> Yes, keep your ears open, but don't swallow everything you're
given just beacause is 'avantgarde' and threrfore is good!
"It's gotta groove," is, of course hugely subjective, although it's a
sentiment I often feel. Ultimately, groove, like conventional harmonic
and melodic structures, is an "easy" way into music -- and if you don't
feel like spending a lot of energy putting yourself inside the music, they
of course you want music which sort of "welcomes" you in more readily. I
listen to different types of music with different degrees of rhythmic,
melodic, and harmonic structure depending on the situation (not that I sit
down and say "hmmm, I need about a 7.5 on the rhythmic, with at least a 5
on the melodic -- how about the Ritual Trio?" )
That said, music which is free only along one of these "axes" can help
someone become more interested in music which is free along multiple
"axes" -- the very strong rhythmic cohesion of the Ritual Trio's "Another
Kind of Groove" was my first entree into this music from my early dabbling
in the bop continuum. There are plenty of other examples, and we could
revive the topic in another thread if people are interested...
But there's no doubt about it -- listening to very free music is not meant
to be easy -- it demands that the listeners and the musicians each open up
and pay close attention to the whole in each instant. In the liner notes
to Anthony Braxton's Performance (Quartet) 1979, (among other places), he
condemns "the myth of the great night" -- he stresses the importance of
considering each concert or album in the context of his entire body of
work. (ah, maybe it's just a ploy to sell more records :-) The risks
these musicians take and the risks you take in going to see the music are
such that there will inevitably be times when you don't connect
completely. To me, the pay-offs when you do connect are worth the
occasional near-misses. (The near-misses themselves are fairly
interesting for trying to understand how that connection works...)
Not everything that's "avant garde" is necessarily good, but the ultimate
evaluation of good or bad is a very personal subjective decision. It _is_
a decision which should be made after paying close enough attention to
evaluate the music on its own terms, rather than on some pre-existing
convention for quality. Just like the initial entry into jazz listening
from pop, entering into free music means learning new aesthetics. Where
some people get confused is that the aesthetics in free music are nobody's
but your own -- that's where the "free" part really comes in!
Joe
ps the latest Cadence has an interview with Rufus Reid where he mentions
learning to play with Muhal Richard Abrams and Henry Threadgill as well as
Eddie Harris, Dexter Gordon, Thad Jones -- the whole spectrum! He speaks
for a couple of columns about what he's learned from being open to
different styles...
Nils G. Jacobson
Keith Myath (Keith...@backdoor.com) wrote:
: > I like to use the metaphor of spicy food -- it takes some getting used to
: > free music, but once you get a taste for it, it's the only way :-)
: True!, HOWEVER........... there's some people out there trying to
: convince us of the delicate taste of curry rat feet!!
:
: I guess 'freer' forms are fun to play, but not always fun to listen to.
That of course depends on your mood. It's not fun to have somebody
screech in your ear most of the time. But sometimes there's really
nothing like it.
: Free or not free, IT'S GOTTA GROOVE!!!
That's a closedminded point of view to which you are entirely entitled.
Not everyone would agree. Music can jam hard without a groove. Do you
have to be able to tap your toes? Nod your head? (Metaphorically
speaking of course.) Is it not enjoyable if you can't follow a regular beat?
-Nils
R Shapiro
>Free or not free, IT'S GOTTA GROOVE!!!
Always nice to be told definitively what music's gotta do...
--
rs/rsha...@bbn.com
Walter Davis
In article <01bbd02a$e6a075a0$51fe...@marketingDir.jaffesoeder.com>,
"JC Martin" <jcma...@jaffe-soeder.com> wrote:
>You might want to check out ECM material, if you haven't already. The
>music on that label is melodic, beautiful, and definitely "pushes the
>envelope".
>
the original poster likes, I'm not overly surprised that avant-garde
(esp. what they've tried) isn't his (I think it was a male posting)
thing. If memory serves, it consisted of folks like Jim Hall and Paul
Desmond - very smooth and fluid, generally laid-back, and generally very
precise types of players. Coming from that aesthetic I could certainly
see where Ornette's _Free Jazz_ could come across as "ugly" or
"chaotic." On the other hand, coming from that aesthetic, I'm not sure
that hard bop or Monk or Atlantic/early Impulse Coltrane wouldn't also
sound rough, aggressive or ugly. Obviously I don't know this poster's
full listening history, but if it does consist primarily of the folks
listed, more "introductory" material may be needed - Monk, Blakey,
Mingus, Ellington, early Coltrane, then maybe some Coleman, etc.
That said, he may also find the quieter, more abstract, "chamber" styles
of "avant-garde" jazz to be more comfortable. (On the other hand, with
an expressed dislike for avant-garde classical, these may not work
either). JC suggests some ECM recordings which may not be a bad
place to start. I'm also thinking of folks like Jimmy Giuffre (check
out Jimmy Giuffre 3 with Jim Hall on Atlantic), maybe Paul Bley, maybe
the hornless BN dates of Andrew Hill and Bobby Hutcherson, as well as
newer stuff like String Trio of New York and trumpeter Dave Douglas's
string-heavy recordings. Perhaps also the very clean and precise sound
of Steve Lacy, especially in smaller group settings, would be appealing.
Still his style may be too "clipped" and definitely avoid it if it has
Irene Aebi singing on it (This is not a dig at Aebi, but I feel very
confident that the poster won't find her vocals "beautiful.") His duets
with Mal Waldron might be a place to start.
Finally, if you still want to try Coleman, many people seem to prefer
his compositions played by other people. You might want to check out
the group Old and New Dreams (all Coleman alums), but that may still be
too out there. Perhaps other folks can suggest some more straight-ahead
versions of Coleman tunes.
-walt
Walter Davis walter...@unc.edu or
Department of Sociology and wdavi...@mhs.unc.edu
Health Data Analyst at the ph: (919) 962-1019
Institute for Research in Social Science fax: (919) 962-4777
UNC - Chapel Hill
Jeff Beer
In article <E0pG7...@dmv.co.uk>, Tony Mountifield <ton...@dmv.co.uk> wrote:
>I wrote, regarding some avant-garde Ornette and Dolphy I'd been listening to:
>> Why would anyone want to make a noise like that?
>
>Jeff Beer replied:
>> Because they find expression in it.
>
>OK, perhaps what I am trying to understand is, what are they actually
>expressing? And why does the expression come out sounding like it does?
If it seems like I don't have a good answer for it, that is because
music is music, and talking about music is not the same as music.
So if you don't like what I say about what the expression is,
let us see what you can say about expression of Bird or Louis
Armstrong. In all cases, it is something that cannot be completely
defined in words.
That said, I think the artists on the albums in question are expressing
swing, energy, intensity, momentum, celebration, movement and togetherness.
The formal elements can be talked about too.
>I'm sure those who play avant-garde would not always be expressing
>negative emotions (although Mingus' Black Saint seems to be).
>
>I'd like to understand a bit of the why, even if I never acquire a taste
>for the genre (and who knows?).
I remember several years ago, the art exhibition "Degenerate Art"
played in Chicago. Great stuff, it basically was the stuff that
the Nazi's rounded up as "degenerate" to their way of thinking.
Compared to a lot of modern art that came after it, this art had a dark
edge, an anger, and art historians have said that ironic to the
Nazis' assertion of degeneracy, nobody had the Nazis' number better
than the artists themselves.
So certainly, whenever art tells the truth, it is a good thing,
whatever its message might be. So if you are looking for
something that will go down the jars at a pub, Coleman and Dolphy
might not be the right thing.
On the other hand, one of the interesting comments by some letter
to the newspaper was that these artists were angry at the modern
world, the fragmentation and disassociation, but now modern
artists celebrate that, and hence that the "old" modern stuff was
good, and the "new" modern stuff was bad, because it celebrated
a "bad" thing.. But what is wrong with that in finding positive
celebratory expressions in the forms of fragmentation and chaos?
You might say a work of art is chaotic, and that very word "chaos"
send shivers up your spine, because it is a very baaaaaad thing.
But why? Chaos can be a useful tool, in the sciences as well
as the arts. Did you know that the first computer program that
counts white blood cells uses probability distributions to identify
textural boundries which distinguish white cells from the rest?
So here is chance and randomness being a tool, a form, as useful
in definition as the 32 bar AABA form.
Jeff
Marc Sabatella
Tony Mountifield wrote:
> OK, perhaps what I am trying to understand is, what are they actually
> expressing?
What does anyone playing music try to express? I do not think it is even
possible to answer such a question in general.
I honestly do not think I am expressing anything much different when I play
"freely" than when I play standards. It is just a different vehicle of
expression. There is no reason to suspect that, say, Stan Getz felt different
emotions than, say, Eric Dolphy.
> And why does the expression come out sounding like it does?
I personally find value in variety. And frankly, the possibilities inherent in
the combined systems of tonal harmony, song forms, and consistent pulses seem
limiting to me. Even while any single example might be beautiful, it is not
the only form of beauty, and I crave all forms.
As an analogy, I think Monet's waterlily paintings are some of the most
beautiful things I've seen. But I would not want to go through life seeing
nothing but this. I also have a need to see crisp lines, to see three
dimensional images, to see darker backgrounds, to see more use of space, to
feel texture, and so forth. In other words, I would not want the whole world to
look like a Monet painting. I am very glad that part of it does, but I am also
glad there are other things to look at.
Similarly with music. The conventions of tonal harmony, song forms, and
consistent pulses can produce beauty. But I do not hear beauty as being
defined by these conventions, and indeed, I need to hear other forms of beauty
as well. As they say, it's in the eyes of the beholder, but when I hear, for
example "The Black Saint And The Sinner Lady", I hear almost indescribable
beauty. I most certainly do not hear anger. I *do* hear anger in some later
music by Coltrane (much later than Impressions, though), but even then, I do
not think anger and beauty are necessarily at odds. I find some forms of
harshness beautiful. A rose without thorns would be a lesser flower.
I am not saying that everything is beautiful to me. There are some free
improvisers who simply annoy me with too much harshness. I do not find this
beautiful. But there are also improvisors playing standards who bore me. I do
not find this beautiful either. However, over time, I have noticed that my
threshold for harshness has increased, while my patience for conformity for its
own sake has decreased. What we think of as beauty in music is largely a
function of our own culture and the type of music we have been exposed to. To
some extent, as our experiences grow, our tastes will change to reflect this.
That doesn't mean that any unfamiliar form of music will eventually be found
beautiful, but it does suggest that we should learn to be less absolute in our
declarations of what is or is not beautiful.
The bottom line is, my enjoyment for this music has nothing to do with any
conscious decision to enjoy it or not based on some attributes I assign it.
When I say I find "The Black Saint And The Sinner Lady" to be beautiful, this
is a simple statement of my taste, and is not really reducible any more than if
you say you find Bill Evans to be beautiful. We can each point to specific
facets that we enjoy, but our reaction is more instinctive - any
intellectualization we do to attempt to explain our tastes is secondary.
--
Marc Sabatella
--
ma...@fc.hp.com
http://www.fortnet.org/~marc/
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.
Keith Myath
> I like to use the metaphor of spicy food -- it takes some getting used to
> free music, but once you get a taste for it, it's the only way :-)
True!, HOWEVER........... there's some people out there trying to convince us of the delicate taste of curry rat feet!!
I guess 'freer' forms are fun to play, but not always fun to listen to.
I have and eclectic recording collection, but I've walked out from clubs after 5 minutes of lets say Reggie Workman's band. Sorry but once at the KF and once more at the Vanguard w/ Bill Frisell.
They're both fantastic players but on this particular time they were frankly lame.
Free or not free, IT'S GOTTA GROOVE!!!
Yes, keep your ears open, but don't swallow everything you're given just beacause is 'avantgarde' and threrfore is good!
K.
Patrick Foley
Tony Mountifield <ton...@dmv.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm sure those who play avant-garde would not always be expressing
> negative emotions (although Mingus' Black Saint seems to be).
Huh? What are the "negative emotions" expressed on _The Black Saint and
the Sinner Lady_? I'm not saying it expresses "positive emotions" or
some rot -- I just don't have the faintest idea what you're talking
about. Maybe you could elaborate a little on your reaction.
Pat
Adam Schneit
How about Bley playing an Ornette tune? Like "Latin Genetics" from
Memoirs. This might give some insight into Ornette's aesthetic. Or Keith
Jarrett's solo on "The Windup" from Belonging. Both good examples of
melodic playing in a "free" environment. Maybe the Paul Motian Trio
playing one of Motian's ballads?
-adam
Marc Sabatella
For what it's worth, I just listened to one of the more "beautiful" yet still
"avant-garde" recordings in my collection - Bill Dixon In Italy, Volume 1
(BS/SN). This is the first time I've really listened to it as opposed to had
it on as background. I recall some discussion about the relative merits of
volume 1 (which I have) versus volume 2 (which I don't) - anyone care to
reprise this for me?
Tony Mountifield
In article <56a3qg$6...@newz.oit.unc.edu>,
Walter Davis <wdavi...@mhs.unc.edu> wrote:
> In article <01bbd02a$e6a075a0$51fe...@marketingDir.jaffesoeder.com>,
> "JC Martin" <jcma...@jaffe-soeder.com> wrote:
> >You might want to check out ECM material, if you haven't already. The
> >music on that label is melodic, beautiful, and definitely "pushes the
> >envelope".
> >
> Along these lines let me add that, given the names of the musicians that
> the original poster
That's me....
> likes, I'm not overly surprised that avant-garde
> (esp. what they've tried) isn't his (I think it was a male posting)
Yep, I'm a him... :-)
> thing. If memory serves, it consisted of folks like Jim Hall and Paul
> Desmond - very smooth and fluid, generally laid-back, and generally very
> precise types of players. Coming from that aesthetic I could certainly
> see where Ornette's _Free Jazz_ could come across as "ugly" or
> "chaotic." On the other hand, coming from that aesthetic, I'm not sure
> that hard bop or Monk or Atlantic/early Impulse Coltrane wouldn't also
> sound rough, aggressive or ugly.
That's true. I wasn't keen on a Blakey/Monk album I listened to recently
(too many wrong notes! :-) Although a track I have of Monk playing
"Round Midnight" (on a CBS anthology) I do quite like. I've only heard
Coltrane on two albums - Impressions (I preferred the short tracks) and
Kind of Blue (which I like a lot, although in some places I'm not sure
whether it is Coltrane or Adderley playing). I intend to check out some
more of his work.
> Obviously I don't know this poster's
> full listening history, but if it does consist primarily of the folks
> listed, more "introductory" material may be needed - Monk, Blakey,
> Mingus, Ellington, early Coltrane, then maybe some Coleman, etc.
Well, for many years (since my teens - I'm nearly 40) I've liked what
might be called straight-ahead jazz: swing, mainstream bop, cool (I like
straight-ahead classical music, too). More recently, within the last few
months my interest in jazz has been intensified and I am trying to find
out about a wider range of styles and artists and to increase my
understanding.
I agree with someone else who posted, distinguishing between the live
experience and listening to recordings. I thoroughly enjoyed attending a
Courtney Pine concert a year or so back, but decided I wouldn't want to
listen to the same thing at home on CD.
> That said, he may also find the quieter, more abstract, "chamber" styles
> of "avant-garde" jazz to be more comfortable. (On the other hand, with
> an expressed dislike for avant-garde classical, these may not work
> either). JC suggests some ECM recordings which may not be a bad
> place to start. I'm also thinking of folks like Jimmy Giuffre (check
> out Jimmy Giuffre 3 with Jim Hall on Atlantic), maybe Paul Bley, maybe
> the hornless BN dates of Andrew Hill and Bobby Hutcherson, as well as
> newer stuff like String Trio of New York and trumpeter Dave Douglas's
> string-heavy recordings. Perhaps also the very clean and precise sound
> of Steve Lacy, especially in smaller group settings, would be appealing.
> Still his style may be too "clipped" and definitely avoid it if it has
> Irene Aebi singing on it (This is not a dig at Aebi, but I feel very
> confident that the poster won't find her vocals "beautiful.") His duets
> with Mal Waldron might be a place to start.
>
> Finally, if you still want to try Coleman, many people seem to prefer
> his compositions played by other people. You might want to check out
> the group Old and New Dreams (all Coleman alums), but that may still be
> too out there. Perhaps other folks can suggest some more straight-ahead
> versions of Coleman tunes.
I really appreciate all the responses and suggestions, and am saving
them with interest.
Michael Polesky M.P.A.
Kenz William wrote:
>
> : In article <E0KA1...@dmv.co.uk>, Tony Mountifield <ton...@dmv.co.uk> wrote:
> : >
> : >If it's a fair question (if not then ignore it! :-), why does avant
> : >garde (both classical and jazz), in its quest for something "new",
> : >always seem to have to sound ugly? Have all the beautiful sounds been
> : >discovered already? Is it possible to "push the envelope" and still be
> : >euphonious?
>
> and - what are "beautiful sounds"?
>
> I think, for example, the sound of overtones and extremely high notes on
> soprano sound great. Squawks and overtones on tenor sax also sound refreshing
> to me. Cymbals pulsing along sound like heaven to my ears. Distortion and
> feedback sound enlivening to me. I consider all these sounds, and many other
> usually associated with "avant garde", to be lovely more often than not.
>
> There is also plenty of lush sounding (or, traditionally excepted sounds)
> among the so-called avant garde that people all too often ignore. It could be
> form or other devices and aspects of the music they're dealing with, and not
> necessarily the more extreme sounds.
>
> There're way too many misconceptions regarding the so-called avant garde. One
> of them is that people seem to think it's all outrageous sounds and disregard
> for "true" and "accepted" styles of playing - there's always some truth to
> these things, but there are plenty of examples which refute them.
>
> Bill
>
> --
> William G. Kenz
> Library - Documents Dept.
> 1104 S. 7th. Ave.
> Moorhead State University
> Moorhead, MN 56563
> ke...@mhd1.moorhead.msus.edu
Tony,
I agree with Wiliam. Ugly is a poor choice of words. Avante
Garde jazz, in the Ornette tradition, tends to be very unmelodic and
unharmonic. What you hear are a lot of rythms, but not really "notes" in
the traditional sense. In the avnte garde tradition, harmonay stood in
the way of improvisation the way a fusion rythm section stands in the way
of a bop player. Harmony was a "limitation" to what you could do. I
think that some "classical" avante garde composers may think the same
way.
If you approach listening to avnate garde the way you would
approach listening to a purely percussion group, you may get a better
perspective of what the are doing. this doesn't mean that melody and
harmony are not used in this tradition, but rather that they are secodary
to the rythmic possiblities available-in particular by freeing the
soloist form the cahnges so there won't be a Bar1 every 8 bars or so that
he has to come to. This is how I approach it, but even I have difficulty
finding the "beauty" in the music from time to time. I always ask myself
why because guys like Don Cherry and Ornette have some interesting ideas
to work on the intent of which are not always easy to figure out unless
you begin to take a more "insider" approach to the playing. Hope that is
at least an answer good or bad.
Michael Poleksy
!