Whats the general consensus re: Ornette Coleman
Harm-Olodic
As you can tell by my handle, I am a HUGE fan of Ornette Coleman's
music and the music of his deciples (James "Blood" Ulmer, Ronald
Shannon Jackson etc) but it seems like he is almost never mentioned on
this newsgroup and the rest of the Harmolodic family is completely
ignored. I was just wondering what the general thoughts of this
newsgroup are towards Ornette.
I think his solos are some of the best sounding solos I've ever heard
in jazz, although I'm not sure how he would sound like if he played
over regular changes. The changes he plays over seem very ambiguous
because he only has the bass player playing behind him so its hard for
my novice ears to tell if what he's playing is "wrong", but I've never
heard anyone complain.
I think that some of his songs are way too out there and probably
could've sounded better if the band practiced more instead of trying
to be totally spontaneous. This becomes more and more apparent as his
music becomes more and more harmolodic. Also, the heads to his songs
are generally hit and miss with me, but usually his solos are perfect
to my ears.
David Kotschessa
I'm a big Ornette fan too. For me as a musician though, his music still
seems out of reach to me. I'm still trying to get from point A to point B
and he's somewhere around...Q? His music is exciting, passionate,
expressive... To me there is nothing lacking in his music to
invalidate it. Sometimes he goes in directions I'm not really into, but
this usually has nothing to do with his playing itself. It's usually
something more like adding rap to a track or something...
He's at the top of the musical food chain as far as I'm concerned. What
him and the people he's playing with are doing is extremely difficult. I
think we don't talk about it here because there really isn't much to say.
You can't talk about changes, because there aren't any. You can't talk
about key changes, modes, what scale fits what... It's all beyond the
scope of any kind of discussion I am capable of having about music. I
kind of see it as a place I would musically ike to get to, but I am in no
hurry.
If your goal is to be able to play that kind of music, I would work extra
hard on training your ear and being able to play over changes without
looking at them ever. Of course this is good advice for ANYBODY playing
jazz, but with harmolodic improvisation you won't be able to fake it. You
need to be ableto HEAR and RESPOND. You won't be able to look at a chart
and say "Ah, this is a ii-V-I in A major, so I can play an a major scale."
And you can't just play random nonsense either and think it's "free jazz."
There are people who do this, so help me god... and it's nowhere close to
the real thing.
Anyway, I'm with you! I kind of would like to hear it discussed more, but
like I said, it's hard to talk about. My goal is to master the
fundamentals first before I really start to worry about any of it.
A.J. Robb
> Hey guys,
>
> As you can tell by my handle, I am a HUGE fan of Ornette Coleman's
> music and the music of his deciples (James "Blood" Ulmer, Ronald
> Shannon Jackson etc) but it seems like he is almost never mentioned on
> this newsgroup and the rest of the Harmolodic family is completely
> ignored. I was just wondering what the general thoughts of this
> newsgroup are towards Ornette.
[snip]
oh god, i hope this isn't pandora's box opened again....
(he's awesome, imo)
Nick
> I'm a big Ornette fan too. For me as a musician though, his music still
> seems out of reach to me. I'm still trying to get from point A to point B
> and he's somewhere around...Q? His music is exciting, passionate,
> expressive... To me there is nothing lacking in his music to
> invalidate it. Sometimes he goes in directions I'm not really into, but
> this usually has nothing to do with his playing itself. It's usually
> something more like adding rap to a track or something...
>
> He's at the top of the musical food chain as far as I'm concerned. What
> him and the people he's playing with are doing is extremely difficult.
I appreciate that Coleman was adventurous and pushed the boundaries of
jazz. Most of the stuff I like to listen to is more dissonant than
classic bebop, and I guess Coleman is partly responsible for that.
But as for his playing, I don't really enjoy it. And I disagree that
it's "extremely difficult." On the contrary, I think it's far easier
to play "free" and not really have to worry much about harmony and
rhythm.
> And you can't just play random nonsense either and think it's "free jazz."
> There are people who do this, so help me god... and it's nowhere close to
> the real thing.
Interesting. Many, probably most, jazz fans think that much of free
jazz is just that -- random nonsense. Here's my question: if it's
almost total chaos (as much of free jazz is), how can you draw a
distinction between random nonsense and "genius"?
tomw
@aol.com says...
> Interesting. Many, probably most, jazz fans think that much of free
> jazz is just that -- random nonsense. Here's my question: if it's
> almost total chaos (as much of free jazz is), how can you draw a
> distinction between random nonsense and "genius"?
>
>
If you want to have a real conversation on this topic -- it seems to be
one you often return to -- you're going to have to quit loading the
question with unsubstantiated opinions like "Many, probably most, jazz
fans think that much of free jazz is just that -- random nonsense" and
"if it's almost total chaos (as much of free jazz is)".
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
DTohir
>almost total chaos (as much of free jazz is), how can you draw a
>distinction between random nonsense and "genius"?
Your premise is wrong making your question impossible to answer.
Marc Sabatella
> it's "extremely difficult." On the contrary, I think it's far easier
> to play "free" and not really have to worry much about harmony and
> rhythm.
It's easy to play as you long as you don't have to do it particularly
well. Just like bebop or any other style.
> > And you can't just play random nonsense either and think it's "free
jazz."
> > There are people who do this, so help me god... and it's nowhere
close to
> > the real thing.
>
> Interesting. Many, probably most, jazz fans think that much of free
> jazz is just that -- random nonsense. Here's my question: if it's
> almost total chaos (as much of free jazz is), how can you draw a
> distinction between random nonsense and "genius"?
I suppose some people might be better at creating the sound of chaos
than others. But this is beside the point - virtually none of the music
called "free jazz" is even remotely close to total chaos, nor is any of
it supposed to be.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
David Kotschessa
> David Kotschessa <da...@somewhere.com> wrote in message news:<2004042221...@meniscus.d0nuts.org>...
> > I'm a big Ornette fan too. For me as a musician though, his music still
> > seems out of reach to me. I'm still trying to get from point A to point B
> > and he's somewhere around...Q? His music is exciting, passionate,
> > expressive... To me there is nothing lacking in his music to
> > invalidate it. Sometimes he goes in directions I'm not really into, but
> > this usually has nothing to do with his playing itself. It's usually
> > something more like adding rap to a track or something...
> >
> > He's at the top of the musical food chain as far as I'm concerned. What
> > him and the people he's playing with are doing is extremely difficult.
>
> I appreciate that Coleman was adventurous and pushed the boundaries of
> jazz. Most of the stuff I like to listen to is more dissonant than
> classic bebop, and I guess Coleman is partly responsible for that.
>
> But as for his playing, I don't really enjoy it. And I disagree that
> it's "extremely difficult." On the contrary, I think it's far easier
> to play "free" and not really have to worry much about harmony and
> rhythm.
Ah, but you DO have to worry about what the other people are playing,
and respond to it. That's what makes it harmolodic. You are creating
harmonies based on what the other people are playing.
Here's a little thought experiment. What's the hardest chord
progression you've ever tried to improvise over? What was the
challenge like? Why was it difficult? Did it change keys every
measure? Every beat?
Keep that idea of difficulty in your head, and now imagine that
instead of a chord progression, you have somebody elses playing to
respond to which does not have any set progression. That means each
phrase, or possibly each note is something you have to "play over."
You don't have time to think about key or chords or anything, but you
have to respond.
It's basically like playing over the most difficult thing you've ever
tried to play, but harder... heh. The only reason it's "free" is
because there are very loose or no guidelines as to what the
progression or key or anything is. It's not hard work for the
players, because they are profficient enough to handle this sort of
thing, becuase it's what they do.
> > And you can't just play random nonsense either and think it's "free jazz."
> > There are people who do this, so help me god... and it's nowhere close to
> > the real thing.
>
> Interesting. Many, probably most, jazz fans think that much of free
> jazz is just that -- random nonsense. Here's my question: if it's
> almost total chaos (as much of free jazz is), how can you draw a
> distinction between random nonsense and "genius"?
As somebody stated before, your question has a presupposition built
into it that free jazz is total chaos. This is just your perception
of it.
Remember that many people think that ALL jazz is total chaos. I don't
know your story, but perhaps you remember a time when you didn't
listen to or even like jazz because of your perceptions of it. Those
perceptions changed while the music remained the same. You may have
even had to work at it a bit.
How do I know the difference? The very short answer is because I
tried it, and it didn't work! I tried it for a very long time in
fact. I listened to a lot of the music - really immersed myself in
it, and then tried to do it myself on the guitar by pretty much
playing random stuff. I thought if I did it long enough it would
start to make sense. The only problem is I wasn't using my ear. I
was basically just putting my fingers here and there.
I don't think it was a waste of time, but it certainly didn't get me
the result I was after at the time. For another period of time I
tried playing lines that were more melodic, but without chord
progressions or set melodies, and recorded them. Then I tried laying
a second track over them. If you ever want a good laugh, or to hear
what really shitty attempts at playing free-jazz by wannabees sounds
like, you can have a listen! Like I said, it was like playing over
the hardest chord progression I had ever played over, but about 10
times harder. It wasn't merely "dissonant," it just sounded bad,
really bad.
But by doing this I did learn the difference. I simply had a
suspicion that there was more to it than chaos and decided to stay
open minded and go with it. I listened to lots of the music, (along
with a little bit of 20th century composers like Berg and Boulez etc.)
and started to get an idea of it.
Some people are against the idea of doing any sort of work in order to
be able to listen to a certain kind of music, but the fact is I
already enjoyed it, and was just trying to find out WHY I enjoyed it
so I could appreciate it more. I learned a lot through the process.
There were actually a few distinct phases and realizations I had which
I won't get into here, but it has really opened my mind a great deal,
which for me was always the point.
You don't sound like somebody who wants to get into it and listen, but
if you do, it can be very rewarding. Just keep an open mind.
Harm-Olodic
> jazz is just that -- random nonsense. Here's my question: if it's
> almost total chaos (as much of free jazz is), how can you draw a
> distinction between random nonsense and "genius"?
Most jazz fans or most people that don't listen to jazz? Most jazz
fans I know consider free jazz to be just a regular part of jazz, but
that could be just my generation and the people that post on this
newsgroup.
As far as total chaos, I haven't heard too much free jazz that sounded
like that. I do have a complaint that some of the harmolodic free
jazz (only talking about Ornette and the people that play his music)
seem to start playing too much at one time leading to a feeling of
chaos, and I'm guessing thats because they try to be as spontaneous as
possible with the music so sometimes they're not all in the same
place. 90% of the time they do get it right, especially in the early
records before the music got too harmolodic.
I haven't heard this free jazz that is total chaos though; can you
name some albums you think fall under this category? I know some
Coltrane albums had this affect on me at first, but I quickly grew to
love his free jazz albums when I started hearing the musical ideas;
which I think I was able to hear better after I listened to more
"mainstream" Coltrane. Blue Train lead to Giant Steps lead to A Love
Supreme which ultimately led to the completely free jazz stuff. When
I went back and listened to his mainstream stuff again, it all sounded
free from the beggining. He had been working on that style since he
was playing with Miles, as I have documented from hearing some of the
live albums from that time.
I guess to answer your question, I distinguish "randomness" and
"genius" by whether or not I heard anything in the music. At first I
thought Coltrane and Cecil Taylor were random, but I never made my
thoughts public because I knew a lot of people respected their music
and I thought that maybe I didn't understand something about it; and
it turned out I didn't. Now I hear all kinds of musical ideas that I
didn't at first because the music sounded completely different then
anything I had heard before. Both Cecil's music and Coltrane's free
jazz sounded terribly dissonant at first to my ears, so I put the
albums away and came back months later and the music just seemed to
sound amazing.
What were we talking about again ;)
Nick
> In article <1d97fb30.04042...@posting.google.com>, nick8004
> @aol.com says...
> > Interesting. Many, probably most, jazz fans think that much of free
> > jazz is just that -- random nonsense. Here's my question: if it's
> > almost total chaos (as much of free jazz is), how can you draw a
> > distinction between random nonsense and "genius"?
> >
> If you want to have a real conversation on this topic -- it seems to be
> one you often return to -- you're going to have to quit loading the
> question with unsubstantiated opinions like "Many, probably most, jazz
> fans think that much of free jazz is just that -- random nonsense"
I think there's some substantiation for this comment. The avant garde
niche makes up a very small percentage of the total jazz audience.
This implies that most jazz listeners do not like it. The reasons for
this are usually some variation of "to me, it sounds like random
nonsense."
Where is my logic flawed here?
> and
> "if it's almost total chaos (as much of free jazz is)".
Sorry, but that's my opinion, and as such, it can't really be
substantiated. The OP posed the question "what do you think of Ornette
Coleman?" which sounds like it's inviting a range of opinions, not
just endorsements.
I asked a question about which I have genuine curiosity -- when you're
judging something that's inherently chaotic, what criteria is used to
conclude that Exhibit A is "genius" and Exhibit B is "random
nonsense"?
HotchkissTrio
the heads and Ornette's soloing.
"David Kotschessa" <dkots...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4589696c.04042...@posting.google.com...
David Kotschessa
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, HotchkissTrio wrote:
> "The Shape of Jazz To Come" has some really great melodies on it, both in
> the heads and Ornette's soloing.
>
Yeah, that's one of my favorites, though I don't currently own it. The
"sound museum" albums are my absolute favorite. It's two separate albums
with more or less the same tracks, yet not...
Gerry
<paul.c.h...@intel.com> wrote:
> "The Shape of Jazz To Come" has some really great melodies on it, both in
> the heads and Ornette's soloing.
How did this thread wind up over here?
My fovorite has always been "Live at the Golden Circle".
--
First they gerrymander us into one-party fiefs. Then they tell us they only
care about the swing districts. Then they complain about voter apathy.
-- Gail Collins
HotchkissTrio
just posted about "the Shape..."
The Sound Museum albums are really cool. The songs are so different from
one take to another.
"Gerry" <222...@spam.really.sucks> wrote in message
news:230420041506229288%222...@spam.really.sucks...
Greg M Silverman
David Kotschessa wrote:
I'll agree to this. The rhythm section of Charlie Haden and Ed Blackwell was
killer!
The stuff Ornette did with Metheny on Song X was also pretty cool. He also
worked with Ensemble Modern, the same chamber orchestra that worked with both
Scofield and Herr Zappa on seperate occasions.
I am sure their collaboration with Ornette was marvey, in fact I will have to
get it!
gms--
David Kotschessa
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Gerry wrote:
> In article <c6c1kd$gkl$1...@news01.intel.com>, HotchkissTrio
> <paul.c.h...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > "The Shape of Jazz To Come" has some really great melodies on it, both in
> > the heads and Ornette's soloing.
>
> How did this thread wind up over here?
My bad. I thought it started over here, and then got disconnected, so I
tried to put it back together, and then... oh well
Max Leggett
to play 'free'. Two things: It's easy to play free badly, and I don't
think Ornette is playing free - I think he's playing very structured
music. I can't pretend to be able to describe ort analyse the
structure, but it doesn't sound free.
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 17:45:19 -0500, Greg M Silverman <g...@umn.edu>
wrote:
Ben Sharvy
chaotic or "noise" playing. The strength of his style is its lyricism.
David Kotschessa
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Max Leggett wrote:
> I missed the original thread, but I noticed someone saying it was easy
> to play 'free'. Two things: It's easy to play free badly, and I don't
> think Ornette is playing free - I think he's playing very structured
> music. I can't pretend to be able to describe ort analyse the
> structure, but it doesn't sound free.
I believe this is why Ornette prefers the term harmolodic. The best way I
can explain it is that harmonies result from simultaneous melodies rather
than a set chord progression. You could say the same about very early
music, I think, where people weren't really thinking in terms of chords,
though the music could still be analyzed that way. Harmoldic music is
"free" from chord structure and key. If you were a real theory masochist
you could probably find a way to analyse harmolodic music chordally, but
you'd probably hurt yourself. It'd be like trying to find a pattern to
the sequence of numbers in pi, which is not random but is unpredictable.
Bob Agnew
"David Kotschessa" <da...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:2004042323...@meniscus.d0nuts.org...
>
<snip/>
Michael West
> I believe this is why Ornette prefers the term harmolodic. The best
> way I can explain it is that harmonies result from simultaneous
> melodies rather than a set chord progression. You could say the same
> about very early music, I think, where people weren't really thinking
> in terms of chords, though the music could still be analyzed that
> way.
Much conventional contemporary music -- jazz, pop, classical --
is composed that way. Few, if any, composers generally start
with a chord progression and then write melodies to fit it. There
is the "variations on a ground bass" tradition, of course, and
it is that tradition that can be seen as a sort of antecedant to
jazz playing.
> Harmoldic music is "free" from chord structure and key. If you
> were a real theory masochist you could probably find a way to analyse
> harmolodic music chordally, but you'd probably hurt yourself. It'd
> be like trying to find a pattern to the sequence of numbers in pi,
> which is not random but is unpredictable.
It would be quite easy to do that retroatcively. The key
difference is that Ornette (according to this theory)
*starts out* with no set harmonic itinerary. It doesn't
mean he and his colleagues don't create or discover
one as they go along. In other words, the harmonic
development is an effect, rather than a prior condition,
of the melodic development.
--
Michael West
Steve Solomon
player in his performance on Jackie McLean's "Old And New Gospel".
Steve Solomon
Jan Winter
wrote:
>I was just wondering what the general thoughts of this
>newsgroup are towards Ornette.
Well, *my* general thoughts are that he is one of the happy few great
originals of jazz.
Somehow he skipped bop and went directly from swing to free.
Gradually I'm buying back on cd all the albums I used to have on
vinyl.
I started with my all time favourite: Ornette On Tenor.
-----
jan winter, amsterdam
email: name = j.winter; provider = xs4all; com = nl
Nick
> > But as for his playing, I don't really enjoy it. And I disagree that
> > it's "extremely difficult." On the contrary, I think it's far easier
> > to play "free" and not really have to worry much about harmony and
> > rhythm.
>
> It's easy to play as you long as you don't have to do it particularly
> well. Just like bebop or any other style.
Except that in bebop, there are clearly understood requirements for
what makes a "good" solo: playing in tune, in rhythm, with clear
articulation and at least some reference to the chords. When you
loosen such requirements to the point of non-existence (as with much
free jazz), there is no frame of reference on which to judge "good" or
"bad."
> > > And you can't just play random nonsense either and think it's "free
> jazz."
> > > There are people who do this, so help me god... and it's nowhere
> close to
> > > the real thing.
> >
> > Interesting. Many, probably most, jazz fans think that much of free
> > jazz is just that -- random nonsense. Here's my question: if it's
> > almost total chaos (as much of free jazz is), how can you draw a
> > distinction between random nonsense and "genius"?
>
> I suppose some people might be better at creating the sound of chaos
> than others. But this is beside the point - virtually none of the music
> called "free jazz" is even remotely close to total chaos, nor is any of
> it supposed to be.
Wynton Marsalis disagrees with you:
"I've talked to Ornette about his conception of free jazz. I don't
understand it. I think it's chaos. Maybe it's not, but that's what I
think it is. Chaos is always out there; it's something you can get
from any fifty kids in a band room. I'm in favor of using that
conception when kids first start playing. It helps them explore their
instruments without restraint." Marsalis/American Heritage 1995
Nick
> > But as for his playing, I don't really enjoy it. And I disagree that
> > it's "extremely difficult." On the contrary, I think it's far easier
> > to play "free" and not really have to worry much about harmony and
> > rhythm.
> Ah, but you DO have to worry about what the other people are playing,
> and respond to it. That's what makes it harmolodic. You are creating
> harmonies based on what the other people are playing.
That sounds fine in theory.
> Here's a little thought experiment. What's the hardest chord
> progression you've ever tried to improvise over?
Probably, "Giant Steps" or "Countdown."
> What was the
> challenge like?
Always high.
> Why was it difficult?
Coming up with interesting lines to play over fast moving changes is
hard if you want to play with clean articulation, good rhythm (i.e.,
"swing" eighth notes) and notes that outline or at least moderately
refer to the underlying chords. If I had chosen to forego all of the
above and not worry about playing in time or harmonically in sync with
the rhythm section, it would've been massively easier.
Did it change keys every
> measure? Every beat?
Every two beats.
> Keep that idea of difficulty in your head, and now imagine that
> instead of a chord progression, you have somebody elses playing to
> respond to which does not have any set progression. That means each
> phrase, or possibly each note is something you have to "play over."
> You don't have time to think about key or chords or anything, but you
> have to respond.
You still have to think about key or chords. When you hear a note (or
chord), you have to make a decision about how consonant or dissonant
you want to be and choose accordingly. Otherwise, you're just shooting
in the dark and creating stuff by accident (which I think does occur a
lot).
> It's basically like playing over the most difficult thing you've ever
> tried to play, but harder... heh. The only reason it's "free" is
> because there are very loose or no guidelines as to what the
> progression or key or anything is.
That's the thing I have a problem with. I don't believe in "no
guidelines" unless you want to invite chaos.
> Remember that many people think that ALL jazz is total chaos.
I think people mostly feel this way about uptempo bebop solos, and
stuff that's further left of that. I doubt if anyone hears Stan Getz'
bossa nova stuff or Coleman Hawkins playing "Body and Soul" and thinks
it's chaos. They just don't like it because they prefer vocals, or it
has a sound they haven't grown a taste for.
I don't
> know your story, but perhaps you remember a time when you didn't
> listen to or even like jazz because of your perceptions of it. Those
> perceptions changed while the music remained the same. You may have
> even had to work at it a bit.
Interestingly enough, I've alway been into fairly dissonant, chaotic
music, but played with a little more compositional thought and
precision than is usually found in free jazz, e.g., some things by
prog rock groups Yes and Gentle Giant, or classical stuff like
Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring."
> You don't sound like somebody who wants to get into it and listen, but
> if you do, it can be very rewarding. Just keep an open mind.
I've listened to it plenty, and it has never really grabbed me, except
for a few things here and there.
Nick
> I missed the original thread, but I noticed someone saying it was easy
> to play 'free'. Two things: It's easy to play free badly, and I don't
> think Ornette is playing free - I think he's playing very structured
> music. I can't pretend to be able to describe ort analyse the
> structure, but it doesn't sound free.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Like many artists, Ornette has tried
different things. But he definitely has some stuff that is way out
there.
Nick
> > jazz is just that -- random nonsense. Here's my question: if it's
> > almost total chaos (as much of free jazz is), how can you draw a
> > distinction between random nonsense and "genius"?
>
> Most jazz fans or most people that don't listen to jazz?
Jazz fans.
> Most jazz
> fans I know consider free jazz to be just a regular part of jazz,
Including me -- but that doesn't mean we have to like it.
> As far as total chaos, I haven't heard too much free jazz that sounded
> like that.
Listen to some late-period Coltrane.
> I do have a complaint that some of the harmolodic free
> jazz (only talking about Ornette and the people that play his music)
> seem to start playing too much at one time leading to a feeling of
> chaos,
That's one of the things I don't like, either.
> I haven't heard this free jazz that is total chaos though; can you
> name some albums you think fall under this category?
No thanks -- I've done that before it just invites rebuttals from fans
of anyone I mention, which gets us nowhere.
> I know some
> Coltrane albums had this affect on me at first,
Me too.
> but I quickly grew to
> love his free jazz albums when I started hearing the musical ideas;
> which I think I was able to hear better after I listened to more
> "mainstream" Coltrane. Blue Train lead to Giant Steps lead to A Love
> Supreme which ultimately led to the completely free jazz stuff.
I'm still digging Blue Train and Giant Steps -- but I haven't had the
same experience of it helping me with the freer stuff.
> When
> I went back and listened to his mainstream stuff again, it all sounded
> free from the beggining.
Only if you give "free" a different definition than the way we're
using it here. 50's Coltrane is the height of virtuosity, discipline,
and adherence to standards in place at the time (and now) for the
highest level of playing.
> I guess to answer your question, I distinguish "randomness" and
> "genius" by whether or not I heard anything in the music.
Which is fine and I understand, but of course, totally subjective.
> What were we talking about again ;)
I think it was something about how the Internet is "free" .... ;-)
Patrick Powers
some were poor (that record with his 10-year-old son on drums).
Science Fiction in particular doesn't sound like chaos at all, some
GREAT ballads there like "All My Life." Wow! That could be a
standard. He sure can write a beautiful melody when he puts his mind
to it. Has changes and everything.
It isn't so much Ornette himself, its the band. Charlie Haden and
Billy Higgins or Ed Blackwell, you aren't ever going to get a better
rhythm section than that. Especially on Science Fiction the band is
TIGHT. Its EXCITING! There some other tunes there that could be
standards, especially the Haden feature. It isn't like free Coltrane
at all, that group was loose to very loose. These have cool
arrangements, not just head-solos-head, something I wish boppers would
do.
There are plenty of Ornette records I haven't heard. He's done some
great stuff but the percentage is not all that high, so I got tired of
buying his records.
David Kotschessa
On Sun, 24 Apr 2004, Nick wrote:
> You still have to think about key or chords. When you hear a note (or
> chord), you have to make a decision about how consonant or dissonant
> you want to be and choose accordingly. Otherwise, you're just shooting
> in the dark and creating stuff by accident (which I think does occur a
> lot).
Just wanted to point out that my belief is that if you have to "think" at
all, you've missed your opportunity to do anything truly creative. That
may just be where we part ways in terms of thinking of improvisation.
> > It's basically like playing over the most difficult thing you've ever
> > tried to play, but harder... heh. The only reason it's "free" is
> > because there are very loose or no guidelines as to what the
> > progression or key or anything is.
>
> That's the thing I have a problem with. I don't believe in "no
> guidelines" unless you want to invite chaos.
>
> > Remember that many people think that ALL jazz is total chaos.
>
> I think people mostly feel this way about uptempo bebop solos, and
> stuff that's further left of that. I doubt if anyone hears Stan Getz'
> bossa nova stuff or Coleman Hawkins playing "Body and Soul" and thinks
> it's chaos. They just don't like it because they prefer vocals, or it
> has a sound they haven't grown a taste for.
Well, that perfectly illustrates my point. They don't have a taste for
it. That does not make it total chaos. It sound like chaos to the
perceiever. It's in the "ear of the beholder."
>
> I don't
> > know your story, but perhaps you remember a time when you didn't
> > listen to or even like jazz because of your perceptions of it. Those
> > perceptions changed while the music remained the same. You may have
> > even had to work at it a bit.
>
> Interestingly enough, I've alway been into fairly dissonant, chaotic
> music, but played with a little more compositional thought and
> precision than is usually found in free jazz, e.g., some things by
> prog rock groups Yes and Gentle Giant, or classical stuff like
> Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring."
>
> > You don't sound like somebody who wants to get into it and listen, but
> > if you do, it can be very rewarding. Just keep an open mind.
>
> I've listened to it plenty, and it has never really grabbed me, except
> for a few things here and there.
I was listening to Ornette's Sound Museum last night, thinking about this
discussion (wasn't that nice of me, and do I have a life?) and realized
that it's probably the most "pallatable" album I've ever heard in terms of
free jazz or harmolodic music. There are points in the album that are just
downright tonal! Melody dominates the album. It's very beautiful and
eerie - also a great recording too in terms of the overall sound
production. Don't know if you've heard it but it could be at or slightly
above your tolerance for that kind of thing. The album is actually in two
forms and I'm referring to the one called "Three Women."
I think it's just a certain personality and mindset that likes it. I
listened to a lot of punk rock and metal growing up, along with jazz. My
favorite punk rock was always the dirty, nasty unpolished raw stuff where
you can't understand the lyrics. I liked it because it had "spirit"
Anyway, my tolerance for dissonance has always been pretty high...
Oddly, I find that the more free and "chaotic" music is the more soothing
it is to my ear. I can fall asleep listening to Ornette. Perhaps the
lack of structure frees up my mind from a logical mindset or something and
allows me to cease rational thought. It's sort of like a musical koan,
like "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" When you stop trying to
"figure it out" and just listen, then that's when you really have figured
it out.
David Kotschessa
I either love or hate the Ornette albums I've come across. It usually
doesn't have a lot to do with the actual chaotic or free nature of the
music though. It's usually something else, as you mentioned the 10 year
old playing drums. I haven't heard it but....eh..well
Then there's some album where somebody is rapping.... Sorry, just can't do
it.
Even on my favorite album (Sound Museum: Three Women) there is one track
with vocals. It's horrible cheesy fluff, a man and woman singing to each
other. I hit the "skip" button at the first syllable.
But when he does something I like, I really really like it.
I love the fact that people make all kinds of music. I'm trying to be
more accepting of that fact, personally. Even when I act like a jerk
about the kinds of music I dislike, the truth is, it's all basically
interdependent. Something bad can sometimes lead to something good and
vice versa. It's like Frank Zappa. He just put out tons and tons of
music. I don't even think he gave half of his music a second thought, he
just kept making it. He made music that was absolute crap, but then took
a snippet of something from here, a snippet there and put it together into
something extraordinary. Musical extremes give us new variety, and the
further we go out with them, the more we contribute to the collective
"gene pool" of the art and create new possibilities. But no, we don't
have to always like it.
-D
(no more coffee today I promise)
Skip Elliott Bowman
>
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2004, Nick wrote:
>
> > You still have to think about key or chords. When you hear a note (or
> > chord), you have to make a decision about how consonant or dissonant
> > you want to be and choose accordingly. Otherwise, you're just shooting
> > in the dark and creating stuff by accident (which I think does occur a
> > lot).
>
> Just wanted to point out that my belief is that if you have to "think" at
> all, you've missed your opportunity to do anything truly creative. That
> may just be where we part ways in terms of thinking of improvisation.
I'm with Nick on this one, though. While I do agree that when one is on the
highest plane of creativity the Self disappears and the soul is merely the
conduit of the muse, as uninfluential on the music as a pipe is to the water
flowing through it, when I'm learning a tune I have to concentrate on what
the changes are, the rhythm, the accents, etc. It's merely a temporary
condition, but it's still there.
> > > It's basically like playing over the most difficult thing you've ever
> > > tried to play, but harder... heh. The only reason it's "free" is
> > > because there are very loose or no guidelines as to what the
> > > progression or key or anything is.
> >
> > That's the thing I have a problem with. I don't believe in "no
> > guidelines" unless you want to invite chaos.
> >
> > > Remember that many people think that ALL jazz is total chaos.
> >
> > I think people mostly feel this way about uptempo bebop solos, and
> > stuff that's further left of that. I doubt if anyone hears Stan Getz'
> > bossa nova stuff or Coleman Hawkins playing "Body and Soul" and thinks
> > it's chaos. They just don't like it because they prefer vocals, or it
> > has a sound they haven't grown a taste for.
>
> Well, that perfectly illustrates my point. They don't have a taste for
> it. That does not make it total chaos. It sound like chaos to the
> perceiever. It's in the "ear of the beholder."
Very well put. I hated "Interstellar Space" until I understood what it was
and how it was happening. Now I can't get enough.
<snip>
> I was listening to Ornette's Sound Museum last night, thinking about this
> discussion (wasn't that nice of me, and do I have a life?) and realized
> that it's probably the most "pallatable" album I've ever heard in terms of
> free jazz or harmolodic music. There are points in the album that are just
> downright tonal! Melody dominates the album. It's very beautiful and
> eerie - also a great recording too in terms of the overall sound
> production. Don't know if you've heard it but it could be at or slightly
> above your tolerance for that kind of thing. The album is actually in two
> forms and I'm referring to the one called "Three Women."
You might also check out Ornette's very first album as a leader, "Something
Else!!" with Don Cherry, Walter Norris, Billy Higgens, and I can't quite
remember the bassist. It's the only album he did with a pianist or any
chordal instrument, and there are definite chord changes on every song, head
and blowing. Probably the most "traditional" album he ever did.
> I think it's just a certain personality and mindset that likes it. I
> listened to a lot of punk rock and metal growing up, along with jazz. My
> favorite punk rock was always the dirty, nasty unpolished raw stuff where
> you can't understand the lyrics. I liked it because it had "spirit"
> Anyway, my tolerance for dissonance has always been pretty high...
It's all music--as long as it's played with confidence, sincerity, and
conviction I can listen to it and probably dig it. Oh, and at least a
minimum of competency and technique :)
> Oddly, I find that the more free and "chaotic" music is the more soothing
> it is to my ear. I can fall asleep listening to Ornette. Perhaps the
> lack of structure frees up my mind from a logical mindset or something and
> allows me to cease rational thought.
Even lack of structure denotes structure, if that makes any sense.
It's sort of like a musical koan,
> like "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"
<smacking palm on forehead> There is the sound of one hand clapping.
When you stop trying to
> "figure it out" and just listen, then that's when you really have figured
> it out.
Hear hear, David.
JC Martin
news:1d97fb30.0404...@posting.google.com...
You're trolling. Ornette plays to sold-out audiences in large theaters.
I'd dare say that the majority of jazz fans appreciate his legacy. If you
yourself can play his music *easily*, reaching the same level of quality,
let's hear it.
-JC
David Kotschessa
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, JC Martin wrote:
> You're trolling. Ornette plays to sold-out audiences in large theaters.
> I'd dare say that the majority of jazz fans appreciate his legacy. If you
> yourself can play his music *easily*, reaching the same level of quality,
> let's hear it.
I don't think he's trolling, but I do think there is a lack of
understanding going on.
I'm not one of these people that says "If you don't like it it's because
you don't understand it." You can like something and not even understand
it. You can understand something and not like it. But I do think that he
neither likes, nor understands, nor wants to, and there is nothing wrong
with that. The only thing I have a problem with is saying that it's
"easy" and calling it "random nonsense," simply because that's not what it
is. Calling it that shows the lack of understanding about harmolodic
music.
All I ask is that people not make assumptions about things they don't
understand. Whether they like it or not is their business. He is invited
to open himself to the experience, or not.
And as much as I love Ornette, selling to sold out audiences is not really
indicitive of anything relevant to this conversation.
Tom Lippincott
> You might also check out Ornette's very first album as a leader,
"Something
> Else!!" with Don Cherry, Walter Norris, Billy Higgens, and I can't quite
> remember the bassist.
that would be Don Payne. He lives around here in S. Florida now. He's got
lots of great stories and photos from those days; I've seen pictures of him
rehearsing with Ornette in his apartment. He was also buddies with A.C.
Jobim, and was at the famous Girl From Ipanema recording session (as an
observer, not a player).
It's the only album he did with a pianist or any
> chordal instrument, and there are definite chord changes on every song,
head
> and blowing. Probably the most "traditional" album he ever did.
>
> When you stop trying to
> > "figure it out" and just listen, then that's when you really have
figured
> > it out.
>
> Hear hear, David.
>
>
I'd agree also; sort of like people who don't "get" abstract art who keep
asking "yeah, but what's it a picture OF?"
--
Tom Lippincott
Guitarist, Composer, Teacher
audio samples, articles, CD's at:
http://www.tomlippincott.com
8 string guitar audio samples at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/3/tomlippincottmusic.htm
JC Martin
>
>
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, JC Martin wrote:
>
> > You're trolling. Ornette plays to sold-out audiences in large theaters.
> > I'd dare say that the majority of jazz fans appreciate his legacy. If
you
> > yourself can play his music *easily*, reaching the same level of
quality,
> > let's hear it.
>
> I don't think he's trolling, but I do think there is a lack of
> understanding going on.
The majority of his posts historically are trolls against what he perceives
to be free jazz.
> I'm not one of these people that says "If you don't like it it's because
> you don't understand it." You can like something and not even understand
> it. You can understand something and not like it. But I do think that he
> neither likes, nor understands, nor wants to, and there is nothing wrong
> with that. The only thing I have a problem with is saying that it's
> "easy" and calling it "random nonsense," simply because that's not what it
> is.
Right. This has been gone over time and time with Nick and he still sees
fit to engage in wording his posts in a way to maximize negative responses.
>Calling it that shows the lack of understanding about harmolodic
> music.
>
> All I ask is that people not make assumptions about things they don't
> understand. Whether they like it or not is their business. He is invited
> to open himself to the experience, or not.
Exactly. He doesn't have to like it. But to pretend that he knows enough
about this music when he's admitted on one occasion that he's only listened
to musical snippets off of Amazon calls his motives into question.
> And as much as I love Ornette, selling to sold out audiences is not really
> indicitive of anything relevant to this conversation.
Well, it's relevant in the sense that Nick implied that the majority of jazz
fans don't appreciate Ornette's music.
-JC
David Kotschessa
I see. Well then I will just have to see how the rest of this plays out.
Seems like you have been through this before. I hope I have something
maybe a bit different to bring into the conversation than what people may
have presented previously.
Max Leggett
<tomlip...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> When you stop trying to
>> > "figure it out" and just listen, then that's when you really have
>figured
>> > it out.
>>
>> Hear hear, David.
>>
>>
>I'd agree also; sort of like people who don't "get" abstract art who keep
>asking "yeah, but what's it a picture OF?"
It doesn't have to be a picture of anything. And music doesn't have to
be pretty and lilting and melodic. Ornette plays what he hears, and
what he hears reflects what he sees. I think it's tremendously honest
music, although I'm not sure I could define honesty in music. Jasper
Johns did some crazy stuff, really powerful, and it wasn't
representational - just good. Ornette doesn't play representational
music, but he sure is good. I'm not sure what I'm saying here, apart
from, If you don't like it ['it' being Jasper Johns or Ornette Coleman
or Kid Thomasr] then that's cool. There's no law that says we have to
be in tune with every cultural thread that ever existed. Personally, I
just say no to PoMo, cos I think post modernism is, by and large, a
cover for lack of chops. People who know more about PoMo than I do are
welcome to eviscerate me, but I feel no compunction to see any more
"installations" that "challenge society's preconceptions". And I don't
care. And if someone doesn't like Ornette, that's cool. I don't care.
And neither does Ornette, and neither should you. I still think Lonely
Woman with Don Cherry is gorgeous, but that's me, and I'm hardly the
sine qua non of cultural hipness.
JC Martin
Well admittedly, there are people I respect on this board who disagree with
me. You ultimately can judge for yourself. The quality of this newsgroup
has really gone downhill in in the last couple of years IMO, and I think
people like Nick are somewhat responsible. But then, I don't think they
come here to learn. I'm always suspect of those who defend trolls like Sum1
and Amos aka Zed as legitimate. But that's an area that has some history
which you may not be familiar of. Be aware though, Nick's logic is very
rigid yet circular in effect.
-JC
Marc Sabatella
> > It's easy to play as you long as you don't have to do it
particularly
> > well. Just like bebop or any other style.
>
> Except that in bebop, there are clearly understood requirements for
> what makes a "good" solo: playing in tune, in rhythm, with clear
> articulation and at least some reference to the chords.
Which is precisely why it's relatively easy to master - the requirements
are laid out for you nicely.
> When you
> loosen such requirements to the point of non-existence (as with much
> free jazz), there is no frame of reference on which to judge "good" or
> "bad."
Sure there are. Lots of the same things apply. Or is someone running
apreggios on each chord considered to be playing a good solo, just
because they are hitting the changes? No, you have to also exhibit some
creativity and melodic interest. But of course, we all know that many
times, people don't really pull this off, and "coast" based on running
some pattern that happens to fit the changes well. Furthermore, the
changes force you to changes you note choice from chord to chord, to
some extent controlling the color of your line over time. That is, you
don't have to come up with certain aspects of harmonic coloration on
your own; they are provided for you by the composer. It is the absence
of crutches like these to salvage an uninspired improvisation that make
improvising *well* in the absence of chord changes so difficult.
> > But this is beside the point - virtually none of the music
> > called "free jazz" is even remotely close to total chaos, nor is any
of
> > it supposed to be.
>
> Wynton Marsalis disagrees with you:
I challenge Wynton to name some specific pieces that are close to total
chaos, and to show that these represent anything other than an
insignificant miniscule percentage of free jazz. I'm guessing hed
either name peices with structure that is obvious to anyone who
understands the music, or he'd only be able to pick one or two very
obscure and isolated cases in which others would actually agree there is
no structure.
> "I've talked to Ornette about his conception of free jazz. I don't
> understand it. I think it's chaos."
The second sentence is key here. He doesn't understand the music, so of
course he isn't capable of seeing the structures.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Marc Sabatella
> > Remember that many people think that ALL jazz is total chaos.
>
> I think people mostly feel this way about uptempo bebop solos, and
> stuff that's further left of that. I doubt if anyone hears Stan Getz'
> bossa nova stuff or Coleman Hawkins playing "Body and Soul" and thinks
> it's chaos. They just don't like it because they prefer vocals
Because without vocals, they can't perceive the order in it. Just as
some are unable to perceive order with chord changes.
Marc Sabatella
sounded
> > like that.
>
> Listen to some late-period Coltrane.
Again, to someone who doesn't understand the structures employed, it
makes sense that they would consider it chaos, just as virtually all
jazz sounds chaotic to those who don't understand it.
Marc Sabatella
> I'm not one of these people that says "If you don't like it it's
because
> you don't understand it." You can like something and not even
understand
> it. You can understand something and not like it. But I do think
that he
> neither likes, nor understands, nor wants to, and there is nothing
wrong
> with that. The only thing I have a problem with is saying that it's
> "easy" and calling it "random nonsense," simply because that's not
what it
> is. Calling it that shows the lack of understanding about harmolodic
> music.
Right. Saying "I don't like the music" is fine, and it's a vlaid
comment from someone who understands the music as well as one who
doesn't. Saying it is "random nonsense" or "close to total chaos"
clearly demonstrates which is the case here, though.
sum1
> I was just wondering what the general thoughts of this
> newsgroup are towards Ornette.
As you can see from the replies thus far, there is no consenus. And
just to add to the stew I'll throw in my carrot, which is this:
Ornette's music is boring.
Max Leggett
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>"Nick" <nick...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> > Remember that many people think that ALL jazz is total chaos.
>>
>> I think people mostly feel this way about uptempo bebop solos, and
>> stuff that's further left of that. I doubt if anyone hears Stan Getz'
>> bossa nova stuff or Coleman Hawkins playing "Body and Soul" and thinks
>> it's chaos. They just don't like it because they prefer vocals
>
>Because without vocals, they can't perceive the order in it. Just as
>some are unable to perceive order with chord changes.
The way I play chord changes, you're right.
J Bongo Zed
news:0nVic.8097$Fo4.1...@typhoon.sonic.net
> I'm always suspect of those who defend trolls like Sum1
> and Amos aka Zed as legitimate.
Don't drag me into your circus, twit. And learn to respect other
opinions, even if they differ from yours; if you don't you'll continue
to wallow in ignorance.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Jerry Freedman
>
> As you can tell by my handle, I am a HUGE fan of Ornette Coleman's
> music and the music of his deciples (James "Blood" Ulmer, Ronald
> Shannon Jackson etc) but it seems like he is almost never mentioned on
> this newsgroup and the rest of the Harmolodic family is completely
> ignored. I was just wondering what the general thoughts of this
> newsgroup are towards Ornette.
>
> I think his solos are some of the best sounding solos I've ever heard
> in jazz, although I'm not sure how he would sound like if he played
> over regular changes. The changes he plays over seem very ambiguous
> because he only has the bass player playing behind him so its hard for
> my novice ears to tell if what he's playing is "wrong", but I've never
> heard anyone complain.
>
> I think that some of his songs are way too out there and probably
> could've sounded better if the band practiced more instead of trying
> to be totally spontaneous. This becomes more and more apparent as his
> music becomes more and more harmolodic. Also, the heads to his songs
> are generally hit and miss with me, but usually his solos are perfect
> to my ears.
I love Ornette Coleman's writing. I'm getting along in years and have
been into Jazz since about 1960. Its gotten so that when I hear an
improviser running II Vs or a pianist playing a slow ballad as loaded
up with altered chords as possible, I switch off. Somethings are just
overdone. But even today I can listen to Lonely Woman and find
freshness in it. Same as when I listen to Bird.
Bill Barner
recently. He played a concert last summer as part of the JVC Jazz Festival
in New York and I think the press made a big deal of it. And he is booked
at the festival again this year, playing at Carnegie Hall on a double bill
with Abbey Lincoln. In February Jazz at Lincoln Center with Wynton Marsalis
played a concert of Ornette Colman tunes with Dewey Redman as guest soloist.
In a review of that concert
(http://www.onefinalnote.com/columns/2004/mandel-jalc/) Howard Mandel wrote
that Ornette played Lincoln Center in 1997 but not under the Jazz at Lincoln
Center mantle. At that time his symphony "Skies of America" was performed
and Ornette played a concert with his acoustic trio and with Prime Time.
Piotr Michalowski
I would urge anyone who has the opportunity to listen to try to hear
Ornette's current two-bass quartet, which is currently on tour. I wrote
about their Ann Arbor concert in a different thread ("outside
Coltrane"). His playing is as vital as ever and his alto sound was
simply spectacular. It was fascinating to see a large audience of
people, many of whom had never even heard of him before, come to grips
with his music. He had them on his own terms and could not leave
without an encore.
Piotr
Bill Barner
"Piotr Michalowski" <pio...@umich.edu> wrote in message
news:Ql8jc.4560$Nz2....@news.itd.umich.edu...
This is encouraging. Ornette was born in 1930 so he is now 74. It is good
to know that he is reaching large audiences, playing well, and doing
something new. I remember when Miles Davis was getting on in years he
published an autobiography, reminisced about Bird in interviews and played a
Gil Evans Big Band reunion concert at the Montreux Jazz Festival. At the
time this seemed out of character for someone I thought of as always forward
looking.
Marc Sabatella
> without vocals, they can't perceive the order in it. Just as
> some are unable to perceive order with chord changes.
Of course, I meant "without chord changes".
Marc Sabatella
Realistically, I don't think this generally favorable reaction to
Ornette is all that new - it seemed his position was clearly established
by the 70's at the latest. That is, he still has had his detractors,
but much of the initial controversy had died out, and it was quite
common even in the initial wave of "neo-conservative" musicians to pay
tribute to Ornette's music. See, for example, the liner notes to the
first couple of Wynton Marsalis records from the early 80's.
What has changed since then, however, is Ornette himself. For a long
time, many of his records were out of print, he wasn't putting out
anything new, and he wasn't performing live muich - at least, not with
an acoustic ensemble. I think the turning point for a lot of folks was
the release of "In All Languages" in the late 80's. That's what changed
his perceived status from "a guy who produced some revolutionary, and in
retrospect, quite nice music back in the 60's before he started playing
trumept, violin, and funk and working with his little kid" to "living
genius", as for the frist time, many people were able to reconcile the
two Ornette's by hearing them together on the same record. And then,
more recently, the release of the "Sound Museum" albums, which put him
back in the public eye.
David Kotschessa
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Marc Sabatella wrote:
> "Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>
> > without vocals, they can't perceive the order in it. Just as
> > some are unable to perceive order with chord changes.
>
> Of course, I meant "without chord changes".
>
> --------------
> Marc Sabatella
> ma...@outsideshore.com
Very good way of explaining the parallels between the misunderstandings of
bebop and harmolodic music.
Bill Barner
"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
news:108qi2s...@corp.supernews.com...
[...]
. I think the turning point for a lot of folks was
> the release of "In All Languages" in the late 80's.
as for the frist time, many people were able to reconcile the
> two Ornette's by hearing them together on the same record.
> --------------
> Marc Sabatella
> ma...@outsideshore.com
>
> The Outside Shore
> Music, art, & educational materials:
> http://www.outsideshore.com/
>
>
>
And playing the same tunes with each group!
Jazz Guy
found it melodic. Maybe you had to be there at the time it was first
released to understand what all the fuss was about. To my ears we've
definitely asimulated the music in "The Shape of Jazz To Come" and
moved on to other ideas.
Guy
Harm-Olodic
> > newsgroup are towards Ornette.
>
> As you can see from the replies thus far, there is no consenus. And
> just to add to the stew I'll throw in my carrot, which is this:
> Ornette's music is boring.
The consensus seems to me that everyone likes him except two people
Nick
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, JC Martin wrote:
>
> > You're trolling. Ornette plays to sold-out audiences in large theaters.
> > I'd dare say that the majority of jazz fans appreciate his legacy. If you
> > yourself can play his music *easily*, reaching the same level of quality,
> > let's hear it.
>
> I don't think he's trolling, but I do think there is a lack of
> understanding going on.
>
> I'm not one of these people that says "If you don't like it it's because
> you don't understand it."
Good for you!
> You can like something and not even understand
> it. You can understand something and not like it.
I couldn't agree more.
> But I do think that he
> neither likes, nor understands, nor wants to, and there is nothing wrong
> with that.
Uh ... wait a second. What happened to that reasonable guy of a couple
of paragraphs ago? With no knowledge of my background or skills, on
what basis can you say I don't understand it? And by the way, what is
"it"?
> The only thing I have a problem with is saying that it's
> "easy" and calling it "random nonsense,"
"Random nonsense" was your phrase: "And you can't just play random
nonsense either and think it's "free jazz." There are people who do
this, so help me god... and it's nowhere close to the real thing."
I happen to have had similar experiences -- I've heard recordings
where people play random nonsense and think it's "free jazz." So what
do you think makes your experience different from mine? What are some
examples of random nonsense that you've heard, and what do you not
like about it?
> simply because that's not what it
> is. Calling it that shows the lack of understanding about harmolodic
> music.
I didn't say harmolodic music, specifically, was random nonsense. I
did say "Many, probably most, jazz fans think that much of free
jazz is just that -- random nonsense." Do you disagree with this?
>
> All I ask is that people not make assumptions about things they don't
> understand.
That's fair enough. But it seems like you're making the assumption
that because I don't like something, it's because I "don't understand
it" (i.e., I'm ignorant).
You stated elsewhere that you've "hated" some of Ornette's recordings,
e.g., the one with 10-year old Denardo on drums, or the one with rap.
Do you think this is because you just don't understand the music?
Nick
> "Nick" <nick...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > It's easy to play as you long as you don't have to do it
> particularly
> > > well. Just like bebop or any other style.
> >
> > Except that in bebop, there are clearly understood requirements for
> > what makes a "good" solo: playing in tune, in rhythm, with clear
> > articulation and at least some reference to the chords.
>
> Which is precisely why it's relatively easy to master - the requirements
> are laid out for you nicely.
That may be laid out nicely, but I doubt if the musicians who have
dedicated years to mastering bebop would agree that it's "relatively
easy."
I would venture to say that abominable bebop is instantly derided as
such by jazz fans, while abominable free jazz gets much more latitude
because how can you criticize bad intonation or sloppy technique when
they aren't required by the music?
>
> > When you
> > loosen such requirements to the point of non-existence (as with much
> > free jazz), there is no frame of reference on which to judge "good" or
> > "bad."
>
> Sure there are. Lots of the same things apply. Or is someone running
> apreggios on each chord considered to be playing a good solo, just
> because they are hitting the changes? No, you have to also exhibit some
> creativity and melodic interest. But of course, we all know that many
> times, people don't really pull this off, and "coast" based on running
> some pattern that happens to fit the changes well.
Cannonball, Sonny Stitt, Dexter Gordon, Johnny Griffin, Fats Navarro,
Clifford Brown, Lee Morgan, Bud Powell -- none of them really strayed
far from the guidelines set down by Bird & Diz. Do you think any of
them played "creative" solos? If so, what made them creative?
> Furthermore, the
> changes force you to changes you note choice from chord to chord, to
> some extent controlling the color of your line over time. That is, you
> don't have to come up with certain aspects of harmonic coloration on
> your own; they are provided for you by the composer. It is the absence
> of crutches like these to salvage an uninspired improvisation that make
> improvising *well* in the absence of chord changes so difficult.
Sure -- and then it's a question of taste, I suppose. I like players
who take liberties with the chords and rhythm -- Brecker, Kenny
Garrett, early Wynton.
> I challenge Wynton to name some specific pieces that are close to total
> chaos, and to show that these represent anything other than an
> insignificant miniscule percentage of free jazz. I'm guessing hed
> either name peices with structure that is obvious to anyone who
> understands the music, or he'd only be able to pick one or two very
> obscure and isolated cases in which others would actually agree there is
> no structure.
> > "I've talked to Ornette about his conception of free jazz. I don't
> > understand it. I think it's chaos."
It's clear that by referring to "Ornette's conception of free jazz,"
he is making a blanket statement and not just referring to one of two
pieces. Wynton is about as a good a player as it gets, and has played
some of the edgier, more dissonant post-bop I've heard in the last
twenty-five years. If he isn't qualified in your eyes to make a
knowledge-based musical judgement, then I don't know who would be.
>
> The second sentence is key here. He doesn't understand the music, so of
> course he isn't capable of seeing the structures.
That's a misinterpretation. More Wynton:
"TS: "It has been a criticism of you that you're deaf to a lot
> of interesting music since the era of Coltrane and Coleman."
>
>WM: "I've listened to it. I've played with the msuicians. I
> was at the first concert the World Saxophone Quartet gave.
> I played on bills with the Art Ensemble of Chicago. It's not
> interesting to me to play like that. If I've rejected it,
> it's not out of ignorance of it. I don't know any people
> who like it."
>
WM: "It doesn't resonate with anything I've experienced in the
> world. No food I've eaten, no sports I've played, no women
> I've known. I don't even like Coltrane's later stuff, to
> be honest. I don't listen to it like I do to _A Love
> Supreme_. It was with the type of things that that late-
> period Coltrane did that jazz destroyed its relationship
> with the public. The avant-garde conception of music
> that's loud and self-absorbed--nobody's interested in hearing
> that on a regular basis. I don't care how much publicity
> it gets. The public is not going to want to hear people
> play like that."
Nick
> I missed the original thread, but I noticed someone saying it was easy
> to play 'free'. Two things: It's easy to play free badly, and I don't
> think Ornette is playing free - I think he's playing very structured
> music. I can't pretend to be able to describe ort analyse the
> structure, but it doesn't sound free.
We talk about "structure" or "no structure" as if they were absolutes,
but obviously that's not the case. You can play a very free solo over
a very structured rhythm section, e.g.
Ornette, like most prolific musicians, has produced a range of things
from structured to free and all shades in between. "Skies of America"
is dissonant and chaotic, but you certainly wouldn't call it "free."
Nick
> When you stop trying to "figure it out" and just listen, then that's when you > really have figured it out.
That sounds great, but it's a lot easier to say about music you like
than music you don't like. How many people reading this have "stopped
trying to figure it out and just listened" to rap, country music, or
Britney Spears?
Nick
Good stuff, Max. Thanks for your honesty. I agree that post modernism
is by and large a cover for lack of chops. Or much of it, anyway.
There are some exceptions, like Coltrane, e.g.
Nick
> "Nick" <nick...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Remember that many people think that ALL jazz is total chaos.
> >
> > I think people mostly feel this way about uptempo bebop solos, and
> > stuff that's further left of that. I doubt if anyone hears Stan Getz'
> > bossa nova stuff or Coleman Hawkins playing "Body and Soul" and thinks
> > it's chaos. They just don't like it because they prefer vocals
>
> Because without vocals, they can't perceive the order in it. Just as
Lack of chord changes alone doesn't automatically make something
chaotic. Some of Brian Eno's early ambient recordings lack obvious
harmony, yet it inspired a whole genre of "relaxation" music.
Nick
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Patrick Powers wrote:
>
> I love the fact that people make all kinds of music. I'm trying to be
> more accepting of that fact, personally. Even when I act like a jerk
> about the kinds of music I dislike, the truth is, it's all basically
> interdependent. Something bad can sometimes lead to something good and
> vice versa. It's like Frank Zappa. He just put out tons and tons of
> music. I don't even think he gave half of his music a second thought, he
> just kept making it. He made music that was absolute crap, but then took
> a snippet of something from here, a snippet there and put it together into
> something extraordinary. Musical extremes give us new variety, and the
> further we go out with them, the more we contribute to the collective
> "gene pool" of the art and create new possibilities. But no, we don't
> have to always like it.
>
> -D
>
> (no more coffee today I promise)
Even though I gave you a hard time tonight, you have some valuable
things to say. Keep it up.
I agree about Zappa -- lots of refuse, mixed with some amazing stuff.
Nick
>
> > You still have to think about key or chords. When you hear a note (or
> > chord), you have to make a decision about how consonant or dissonant
> > you want to be and choose accordingly. Otherwise, you're just shooting
> > in the dark and creating stuff by accident (which I think does occur a
> > lot).
>
> Just wanted to point out that my belief is that if you have to "think" at
> all, you've missed your opportunity to do anything truly creative. That
> may just be where we part ways in terms of thinking of improvisation.
Obviously, you have to have fast mental reflexes if you're responding
to other players, but there's still "thinking" involved. If the bass
player hits an F#, and you decide you want to produce a dissonant
phrase in response to that, how can you choose what constitutes
"dissonant" without thinking about it? Granted, it's almost
instantaneous thought, or should be.
> I think it's just a certain personality and mindset that likes it. I
> listened to a lot of punk rock and metal growing up, along with jazz. My
> favorite punk rock was always the dirty, nasty unpolished raw stuff where
> you can't understand the lyrics. I liked it because it had "spirit"
> Anyway, my tolerance for dissonance has always been pretty high...
I think that's common, and it makes perfect sense. Punk evolved in
response to the clean, corporate rock sound of groups like Boston and
Chicago in the mid-70's. Harsh, unpolished and chaotic was the goal;
nobody looked up to the punkers as masters of their instruments; in
fact, barely being able to play was actually a point of pride, adding
to the rawness.
Since much free jazz seems to strive for the same harsh, unpolished
and chaotic aesthetic, it puzzles me why some feel the need to ascribe
a level of "polish" and "structure" where clearly none was intended.
> Oddly, I find that the more free and "chaotic" music is the more soothing
> it is to my ear. I can fall asleep listening to Ornette. Perhaps the
> lack of structure frees up my mind from a logical mindset or something and
> allows me to cease rational thought. It's sort of like a musical koan,
> like "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" When you stop trying to
> "figure it out" and just listen, then that's when you really have figured
> it out.
I also enjoy relaxing to what most would consider abstract, esoteric
music, but it's usually more electronic spacey stuff ala Tim Story,
Michael Stearns, Steve Roach, or Jonn Serrie.
Nick
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 13:23:21 -0400, "Tom Lippincott"
> <tomlip...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> > "figure it out" and just listen, then that's when you really have
> figured
> >> > it out.
> >>
sum1
>
> Well admittedly, there are people I respect on this board who disagree with
> me. You ultimately can judge for yourself. The quality of this newsgroup
> has really gone downhill in in the last couple of years IMO, and I think
> people like Nick are somewhat responsible. But then, I don't think they
> come here to learn. I'm always suspect of those who defend trolls like Sum1
> and Amos aka Zed as legitimate. But that's an area that has some history
> which you may not be familiar of. Be aware though, Nick's logic is very
> rigid yet circular in effect.
>
> -JC
*If* it's gone downhill it's because _some_ people are quick to judge
and unable to accept that others have tastes that differ from their
own.
sum1
"Everyone" being the 23 other people that have posted in this thread.
(But I think it's less as some didn't post with an opinion about
Ornette's music but with opinions about other posters.)
David Kotschessa
On Tue, 26 Apr 2004, Nick wrote:
> Uh ... wait a second. What happened to that reasonable guy of a couple
> of paragraphs ago? With no knowledge of my background or skills, on
> what basis can you say I don't understand it? And by the way, what is
> "it"?
He goofed. Generally I thought you were of the opinion that it was
nonsense. I inferred that from most of your posts. I can go back and
look for evidence if you want. :)
You did say, however, that it was "easier to play free." To me, this
shows a lack of understanding. Then again this could be confusing, so let
me talk about this a little bit.
When I say "very difficult." What I mean is that it takes a great amount
of skill to do. Playing like Charlie Parker is difficult for most of us
mortals. I don't think it was difficult for Charlie Parker!
To me though, free jazz, (or I really do prefer the term harmolodic)
represents a more harmonically advanced type of playing. I believe that
is is FAR more difficult to play harmolidic music than it is to play over
changes. That is, it takes a certain kind of player who can hear what is
going on and react, without thinking, and be completely expressive. I
think that in order to play this music (which I truthfully would like to
be able to do one day) and to play it well, one should have a pretty solid
grounding in traditional jazz, or if it is an exceptional person, have at
least an EXTREMELY good ear and capacity to play honestly and melodically
without (consciously) referring to scales or chords.
Is it difficult for Ornette? I'm thinking probably not.
>
> > The only thing I have a problem with is saying that it's
> > "easy" and calling it "random nonsense,"
>
> "Random nonsense" was your phrase: "And you can't just play random
> nonsense either and think it's "free jazz." There are people who do
> this, so help me god... and it's nowhere close to the real thing."
Ok, sorry, my bad. But you did refer to it as "total chaos." To me that
would not be to far off.
> I happen to have had similar experiences -- I've heard recordings
> where people play random nonsense and think it's "free jazz." So what
> do you think makes your experience different from mine? What are some
> examples of random nonsense that you've heard, and what do you not
> like about it?
Well it seems you are now making a distinction between real "free" music
and people playing "random nonsense." Before, you had asked me how I knew
the difference.
The examples I've heard have generally been in live music, usually
amatuers, usually "kids." (College, high school, ??) They have said to
each other "Hey! Let's start an avant garde band!" And then they got
together to "jam." It's horrible. In generally, they are letting their
fingers do the walkking and not their ears.
> > simply because that's not what it
> > is. Calling it that shows the lack of understanding about harmolodic
> > music.
>
> I didn't say harmolodic music, specifically, was random nonsense. I
> did say "Many, probably most, jazz fans think that much of free
> jazz is just that -- random nonsense." Do you disagree with this?
Nope. I'm sure many people think that. They just happen to be incorrect.
> > All I ask is that people not make assumptions about things they don't
> > understand.
>
> That's fair enough. But it seems like you're making the assumption
> that because I don't like something, it's because I "don't understand
> it" (i.e., I'm ignorant).
No, If it's true that you do not understand it (and how can I *really*
know this?) I think your not-liking and not-understanding are a
coincidence. I do not believe that "understanding" is a prerequisite to
appreciation, but it helps. I liked this music before I even had any idea
what was going on. It just took me awhile to find out where the order was
and WHY I liked it, which allowed me to appreciate it more.
> You stated elsewhere that you've "hated" some of Ornette's recordings,
> e.g., the one with 10-year old Denardo on drums, or the one with rap.
> Do you think this is because you just don't understand the music?
No, I think I didn't like it because I didn't like it. Remember, when I
was still being reasonable :) I said that you can understand something and
still not like it.
You are well aware yourself that there can be bad music in any genre.
Often when we're talking about some specific genre people forget this
fact. I've had people tell me "classical music is boring." Well no shit.
If you listen to boring classical music. I find a big percentage of it
boring myself. I find a lot of Beethoven's symphonies boring - genius -
but boring. It's just a matter of taste. There is a lot of free jazz out
there that hurts my ears too. There is some out there that I can't even
tell whether it's "the real thing" or not. All I know is that I don't
like it.
This can always be affected by my mood, the context, the attitude or
perceived attitude of the players, the sound production. I remember one
night I was at a jam session and this bagpipe player came in and started
playing "When the saints go marching in." So everybody started playing,
and here's this bagpipe droning and it sounded awful. But it was just
crazy and spontaneous and fun as hell. If I heard a recording of it, my
finger would be on the "eject" button (of the CD player OR the plane I was
flying in...) before the words "in that number." Anyway, sorry for the
tangent...
Anyway, I'm still not sure where you stand at this point, but I think we
are having a perfectly reasonable discussion. I wouldn't ask you to
"like" something, but just to be careful how you phrase your thoughts
about it. That is to say, you should designate fact vs. opinion and
nobody will get hurt.
The facts, very generally stated, are that free jazz, in the hands of
honest and talented musicians, is a perfectly legitimate form of
expression which has it's place in jazz as a whole. It requires enourmous
talent, and a fantastic ear. These are the only things which I would ask
(nicely) of you to accept. And I am not forgetting that this music can
just as easily become something quite different in the "wrong hands";
awful noise, random bullshit, pure chaos, unfeeling, pretentious crap
which people defend by the "You just don't understand it" princible.
I prefer "harmolodic" because it's an accurate description, to me, of free
jazz done well. That is a musical conversation amongst talented musicians
that is a complete paradox; every musician has their individual
expression, based on thier interpretation of every other musicians
individual expression within the group. You express your thought in the
form of an Aminor7th chord, but I hear it as an F9 and express my thought.
(Really really oversimplified example). We each use our own voice (our
opinions) to form a collective voice which is the result.
Sorry for the long post!
David Kotschessa
With music like that, there isn't really anything to "figure out," IMO.
It's simplistic and self-evident. To me it's like reading poetry vs.
reading a children's book. One of the beauties of poetry is
interpretation, or even lack of interpretation. But it doesn't take a lot
of critical thinking to figure that Jonny went to the store to buy seeds
for Twit-twit the parakeet and lost his shoe.
Smack
nick...@aol.com (Nick) wrote:
> Good stuff, Max. Thanks for your honesty. I agree that post modernism
> is by and large a cover for lack of chops. Or much of it, anyway.
> There are some exceptions, like Coltrane, e.g.
Actually, I think a more accurate way to describe it would be that
post-modernism has been hijacked by people to cover for lack of chops.
People hear a genius like Coltrane, read some like Cummings, etc., and
they don't understand it. It sounds like gibberish to them, so they
say, "Hey, i can do that," and they go out produce total dreck.
An interesting study on political postmodernism was done in Berkeley
during the Vietnam War. After testing a large group of war protestors,
they found that only about 20% of them were truly concerned about the
loss of life going on Vietnam, while the other 80% were just pissed at
the government (i.e. authority) telling them what to do. I think you'd
find a similar division in postmodern art (20% true progressives, 80%
pretenders), but I don't think the pretense of the 80% invalidates the
art of the 20% (the pretenders, after all, aren't even really
postmodernists, but pre-conventionals).
Wow, this is the first time in a long time I've come to the *defense* of
postmodernism.
--
Stephen Mack
Arka Music - Engraving, Copying, Transposing
www.arkamusic.com
"Nobody's smart enough to be wrong all the time." -Ken Wilber
Smack
nick...@aol.com (Nick) wrote:
> > Because without vocals, they can't perceive the order in it. Just as
> > some are unable to perceive order without chord changes.
>
> Lack of chord changes alone doesn't automatically make something
> chaotic. Some of Brian Eno's early ambient recordings lack obvious
> harmony, yet it inspired a whole genre of "relaxation" music.
For further reference, see the entire history of Western music prior to
the 17th century.
Smack
David Kotschessa <da...@somewhere.com> wrote:
> > That sounds great, but it's a lot easier to say about music you like
> > than music you don't like. How many people reading this have "stopped
> > trying to figure it out and just listened" to rap, country music, or
> > Britney Spears?
>
> With music like that, there isn't really anything to "figure out," IMO.
> It's simplistic and self-evident. To me it's like reading poetry vs.
> reading a children's book.
Actually, the children's book in this analogy would be songs like "Row
Row Row Your Boat" and "Farmer In the Dell." Britney Spears is
significantly more advanced, on the level of your typical Bestseller at
a bookstore. Not terribly deep, but not self-evident either.
Smack
> It's clear that by referring to "Ornette's conception of free jazz,"
> he is making a blanket statement and not just referring to one of two
> pieces. Wynton is about as a good a player as it gets, and has played
> some of the edgier, more dissonant post-bop I've heard in the last
> twenty-five years. If he isn't qualified in your eyes to make a
> knowledge-based musical judgement, then I don't know who would be.
Isaac Newton "disproved" relativity in his time. Aaron Copland once
said the music of Vaughan Williams was dull and could not "bear
exportation." There is no true authority. If you want to validate or
invalidate certain music, you have to go to the music itself.
David Kotschessa
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Smack wrote:
> In article <1d97fb30.0404...@posting.google.com>,
> nick...@aol.com (Nick) wrote:
>
> > Good stuff, Max. Thanks for your honesty. I agree that post modernism
> > is by and large a cover for lack of chops. Or much of it, anyway.
> > There are some exceptions, like Coltrane, e.g.
>
> Actually, I think a more accurate way to describe it would be that
> post-modernism has been hijacked by people to cover for lack of chops.
> People hear a genius like Coltrane, read some like Cummings, etc., and
> they don't understand it. It sounds like gibberish to them, so they
> say, "Hey, i can do that," and they go out produce total dreck.
Yeah, I even tried it once. That's when I realized what a stupid dork I
was and realized I had a lot of work to do and would ahve to come back ot
it at another time.
Max Leggett
Oh, hell, Trane's not postmodern. I'm referring to the academic notion
of postmodern, all that self-referential BS.
Nou Dadoun
jazz, there is an excellent primer written by Walter Davis (a sometime
contributor to rmb not seen in these parts for some time now) available
at http://users.bestweb.net/~msnyder/avantgarde/avant.htm
In that, he refers to Ornette's music as freebop (a term borrowed from
Kevin Whitehead) as well as defining (reasonably but not necessarily
definitively) the various types of 'avant-garde' jazz that one is likely
to encounter. I think it helps to have some working definitions for
these things just so everybody has some common frame of reference.
As a sidenote, one of the other recent discussions dealing with
'standards' a player should know is also addressed in the faq:
http://users.bestweb.net/~msnyder/
-------------------------------------------------------> Nou
sum1
>
> The facts, very generally stated, are that free jazz, in the hands of
> honest and talented musicians, is a perfectly legitimate form of
> expression which has it's place in jazz as a whole.
But if it's free, it is by defintion lacking structure - at least the
structure that would make it something identifiable as jazz or rock or
classical.
A "legitimate form of expression," yes; "jazz," I'm afraid not.
Perhaps you are right in preferring "harmolodic."
In which case it might be best if you were not to post about thsi
subject to a jazz newsgroup, but instead start a harmolodic newsgroup
where afficiandos of this kind of music can get together and share
their experiences and opinions (without cluttering up this _jazz_ ng).
All the best,
sum
Harm-Olodic
> (But I think it's less as some didn't post with an opinion about
> Ornette's music but with opinions about other posters.)
"Everyone" being everyone I asked. Since you and the other guy both
answered, it seems to me that one out of 23 jazz fans don't like free
jazz
;)
Zoot
true but polka lovers don't hang out here. and they don't pretend it's
jazz in order to get reactions.
Smack
aba...@ns-design.com (Zoot) wrote:
> > *If* it's gone downhill it's because _some_ people are quick to judge
> > and unable to accept that others have tastes that differ from their
> > own.
>
> true but polka lovers don't hang out here. and they don't pretend it's
> jazz in order to get reactions.
Do you suppose that's because polka lovers are nicer people than smooth
jazz lovers? What about fans of death metal, punk rock, country, etc?
What is it that makes smooth jazz lovers so unique in this regard?
Honestly, I can't understand why you all give a damn. It would be much
more pleasant for me to simply pick through the posts about smooth than
to pick through all the posts bitching about why smooth isn't jazz.
ric
> Honestly, I can't understand why you all give a damn. It would be much
> more pleasant for me to simply pick through the posts about smooth than
> to pick through all the posts bitching about why smooth isn't jazz.
What's *really* a bitch is picking through the posts that contain
bitching about the bitching about why "smooth" isn't jazz. <g>
Smack
LOL. . . my bad.
Marc Sabatella
> > Which is precisely why it's relatively easy to master - the
requirements
> > are laid out for you nicely.
>
> That may be laid out nicely, but I doubt if the musicians who have
> dedicated years to mastering bebop would agree that it's "relatively
> easy."
Now you know how musicians who have dedicated years to mastering free
jazz feel about your characterization of their music.
> I would venture to say that abominable bebop is instantly derided as
> such by jazz fans, while abominable free jazz gets much more latitude
> because how can you criticize bad intonation or sloppy technique when
> they aren't required by the music?
Contrary to what you seem to believe, people *do* crticize bad
intonation or sloppy technique when they are inappropriately found in
free jazz. Particularly the intonation - people don't cut Jackie McLean
or Eddie Gomez any more or less slack than they cut Eric Dolphy. Of
course, "sloppy" is a very loaded and very subjective term. Suffice it
to say that some music requires eighth notes of consistent length, and
if they are off, people notice and complain. Some music requires a more
organic feel to the rhythms, and if they are too mechanical, people
notice and complain.
In any case, the real problem here is that you continue to make the
mistake of assuming that intonation and technique are the msot important
elements in music. They aren't, even in bebop. The quality of the
melodic line is still more important. It's just that in bebop, it's
possible to mask poor melodic skills if you execute your lame ideas
well. It's much harder to do this in free jazz.
> > Sure there are. Lots of the same things apply. Or is someone
running
> > apreggios on each chord considered to be playing a good solo, just
> > because they are hitting the changes? No, you have to also exhibit
some
> > creativity and melodic interest. But of course, we all know that
many
> > times, people don't really pull this off, and "coast" based on
running
> > some pattern that happens to fit the changes well.
>
> Cannonball, Sonny Stitt, Dexter Gordon, Johnny Griffin, Fats Navarro,
> Clifford Brown, Lee Morgan, Bud Powell -- none of them really strayed
> far from the guidelines set down by Bird & Diz. Do you think any of
> them played "creative" solos?
Of course they did. I'm not talking about the masters here - I'm
talking about the masses.
> It's clear that by referring to "Ornette's conception of free jazz,"
> he is making a blanket statement and not just referring to one of two
> pieces.
But blanket statements, if they are true at all, should surely apply to
at least once specific example? And in order to be true as blanket
statements, not just statements about that one specific example, should
be true about a large number of examples. Again, I challenge Wynton to
name them.
> Wynton is about as a good a player as it gets, and has played
> some of the edgier, more dissonant post-bop I've heard in the last
> twenty-five years. If he isn't qualified in your eyes to make a
> knowledge-based musical judgement, then I don't know who would be.
He's knowledgeable about the music he's knows, and ignorant about the
music he doesn't. This is a truism - by definition, it's true about
anyone. I don't know the first thing about Chinee opera, but then, I
don't pretend to, and make blanket statements about it that people who
*are* knowledgeable about that music would instantly recognize as
bullshit.
> > The second sentence is key here. He doesn't understand the music,
so of
> > course he isn't capable of seeing the structures.
>
> That's a misinterpretation.
No, it's not. Having listened to one or two records and played with one
or two of the musicians a couple of times isn't the same as being
knowledgeable about it. Merely *saying* you are not ignorant about
something doesn't prove you aren't. Not saying ignorant things about
the music - that would prove to me he understands it. As it is:
> > I don't know any people
> > who like it."
How experienced with this music can a guy be if hasn't hung out with
anyone who likes it?
> > The public is not going to want to hear people
> > play like that."
The public doesn't want to hear people play jazz, period. Again,
popularity doesn't mean squat as a measure of quality.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Nick
>
> > Uh ... wait a second. What happened to that reasonable guy of a couple
> > of paragraphs ago? With no knowledge of my background or skills, on
> > what basis can you say I don't understand it? And by the way, what is
> > "it"?
>
> He goofed. Generally I thought you were of the opinion that it was
> nonsense. I inferred that from most of your posts. I can go back and
> look for evidence if you want. :)
I said that much of free jazz is almost total chaos (opinion), and to
many jazz fans it sounds like random nonsense (fact).
> You did say, however, that it was "easier to play free." To me, this
> shows a lack of understanding. Then again this could be confusing, so let
> me talk about this a little bit.
Doing anything really well is never easy. I consider "free jazz"
easier in the sense that you can have weak skills and get away with
more. Like those college kids you mentioned; I'm sure they realized
they weren't remotely close to having the skills to attempt bebop, but
"avant garde" jazz was feasible because the genre is much more
forgiving of sloppy articulation, bad intonation, and lots of wonking
and screaming to make up for the lack of musical ideas.
>
> When I say "very difficult." What I mean is that it takes a great amount
> of skill to do. Playing like Charlie Parker is difficult for most of us
> mortals. I don't think it was difficult for Charlie Parker!
The difficulty is not employing the skills once you've acquired them,
it's the years of practice and dedication that's necessary to get to
that level.
>
> To me though, free jazz, (or I really do prefer the term harmolodic)
> represents a more harmonically advanced type of playing. I believe that
> is is FAR more difficult to play harmolidic music than it is to play over
> changes. That is, it takes a certain kind of player who can hear what is
> going on and react, without thinking, and be completely expressive.
I understand what you're saying, and I agree that it's much more
enjoyable when the musicians are really listening and playing off of
each other than when they just seem to be chugging along in their own
little musical worlds. Which, sadly, is often the case in mainstream
jazz.
The question isn't "is Harmolodic good or bad?" It's "are the
musicians displaying a high level of creativity, virtuosity, and is it
fun to listen to?" This, of course, is highly subjective. For much of
free jazz, for me the answer is "no." I do like some things that are
fairly abstract, though. For me, an example of what you're talking
about is the Herbie Hancock CD "Directions in Music" from a few years
ago. The rhythms and harmonies are very fluid, and the playing is
excellent. I suspect, though, that many folks here would not consider
this particularly "avant garde" or "free."
>
> Ok, sorry, my bad. But you did refer to it as "total chaos." To me that
> would not be to far off.
Again, I was referring to "much of free jazz." I will never say a
whole genre sucks, because there's good and bad in every one.
> The examples I've heard have generally been in live music, usually
> amatuers, usually "kids." (College, high school, ??) They have said to
> each other "Hey! Let's start an avant garde band!" And then they got
> together to "jam." It's horrible. In generally, they are letting their
> fingers do the walkking and not their ears.
And that's my experience of a lot of the free jazz I've heard on
record. And just having a willingness to listen, and having your
"heart in the right place" and all of that, doesn't compensate for
lack of mastery on your axe.
> > You stated elsewhere that you've "hated" some of Ornette's recordings,
> > e.g., the one with 10-year old Denardo on drums, or the one with rap.
> > Do you think this is because you just don't understand the music?
>
> No, I think I didn't like it because I didn't like it.
Right -- and I don't like certain things because I don't like it. Not
because I "don't understand it."
> You are well aware yourself that there can be bad music in any genre.
Of course.
> Often when we're talking about some specific genre people forget this
> fact. I've had people tell me "classical music is boring." Well no shit.
> If you listen to boring classical music. I find a big percentage of it
> boring myself. I find a lot of Beethoven's symphonies boring - genius -
> but boring. It's just a matter of taste.
I find a lot of baroque music boring. I appreciate the high skill
level of the performers, but the structure and harmony is very
predictable. I have the opposite problem with free jazz -- I like the
concept a lot more, but it doesn't work for me when it gets overly
unpredictable, with excruciatingly long solos, and sloppy playing.
There is a lot of free jazz out
> there that hurts my ears too. There is some out there that I can't even
> tell whether it's "the real thing" or not. All I know is that I don't
> like it.
One problem can be the obligation to like something because we're
supposed to, because it's the "real thing." It's very dangerous to say
something negative about an icon like Ornette Coleman, as this thread
demonstrates. If you recorded that crappy college band you mentioned
and played it for your jazz loving friends, they'd probably agree with
you that it sucks. How much do you want to bet that if you told them
it was a long-lost Ornette Coleman or Albert Ayler session, their
reaction would be much more favorable?
There's no such thing as "the real thing." There's only stuff that
grabs you or doesn't.
> This can always be affected by my mood, the context, the attitude or
> perceived attitude of the players, the sound production.
Good point.
I remember one
> night I was at a jam session and this bagpipe player came in and started
> playing "When the saints go marching in." So everybody started playing,
> and here's this bagpipe droning and it sounded awful. But it was just
> crazy and spontaneous and fun as hell. If I heard a recording of it, my
> finger would be on the "eject" button (of the CD player OR the plane I was
> flying in...) before the words "in that number." Anyway, sorry for the
> tangent...
That's okay, because you make another good point. One common
observation about avant garde music is "it's a lot more fun to play
than listen to." I find that to be true. And yes, I have played it.
> Anyway, I'm still not sure where you stand at this point, but I think we
> are having a perfectly reasonable discussion. I wouldn't ask you to
> "like" something, but just to be careful how you phrase your thoughts
> about it. That is to say, you should designate fact vs. opinion and
> nobody will get hurt.
I would hope that nobody gets hurt from any honest discussions of this
type, whether they agree with it or not, or it affirms their tastes or
not.
> The facts, very generally stated, are that free jazz, in the hands of
> honest and talented musicians, is a perfectly legitimate form of
> expression which has it's place in jazz as a whole.
The key word here is "talented," which is highly subjective. But
really, I have no problem with anyone enjoying whatever turns them on,
whether I think it's chaos or not.
> It requires enourmous
> talent, and a fantastic ear. These are the only things which I would ask
> (nicely) of you to accept. And I am not forgetting that this music can
> just as easily become something quite different in the "wrong hands";
> awful noise, random bullshit, pure chaos, unfeeling, pretentious crap
> which people defend by the "You just don't understand it" princible.
I think we're in agreement here. I appreciate music that demonstrates
enormous talent and good ears. I don't like the awful noise or
pretentious crap.
>
> I prefer "harmolodic" because it's an accurate description, to me, of free
> jazz done well.
You are entitled to your preferences. Keep in mind that this might
create some confusion, though, because in general "harmolodic" is
viewed as a specific term invented by Ornette Coleman for some of his
music, and not as a definition for free jazz across the board.
That is a musical conversation amongst talented musicians
> that is a complete paradox; every musician has their individual
> expression, based on thier interpretation of every other musicians
> individual expression within the group. You express your thought in the
> form of an Aminor7th chord, but I hear it as an F9 and express my thought.
> (Really really oversimplified example). We each use our own voice (our
> opinions) to form a collective voice which is the result.
That sounds fine to me, but I have to say, at the risk of sounding
cold, I'm less interested in what anyone wants to express than in the
end result. In other words, if I think the Am7 chord sounds bad with
the F9 over it, I don't really care that it was a true and genuine
expression of the artist's innermost voice.
As David O'Bedlam said in a recent thread:
"If Charlie Parker only did "Ornithology" to make money for smack it's
still as meaningful to me as if he meant to Save the Planet: it if
hits me a certain way that's all it has to do. And some music just
bores me to tears, or grates on my nerves -- but rather than get all
mystificationary about it, I say "I just don't dig it."
Nick
Well then, you've lost me. Which jazz musicians do you consider postmodern?
Max Leggett
I see that you mean. We're using different definitions of postmodern,
but, yeah, if Dizzy and Bird played modern jazz, then Trane and
Ornette are postmodern. I guess. :-) All sounds like jazz to me, and
I don't like splitting hairs, but I could go along with that. And yes,
there are, by that definition, postmodern players who suck, largely by
being all flash and no cojones, but there are players in the
modern/bebop style that suck, too, and the classic jazz scene is
inundated with people who simply can't play, and they use stylistic
arguments to cover up their ineptitude.
I was using postmodern in the academic sense, though, not that I'm an
academic or an expert on postmodernism.
http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/pomo.html has a
discussion of postmodernism.
To me it all reads, looks, and sounds self referential, and self
consciously arty. It always seems to me that postmodernists abdicate
the responsibility or art in favour of being clever. Hence all these
"installations" that "challenge society's preconceptions." All art
challenges society's preconceptions, and if you have to stand up and
say that your art is doing just that, then the art isn't capable of
speaking for itself, in which case, why bother? Bad free jazz is
postmodern. Good free jazz is just good jazz. Please don't ask me to
define the difference. :-)
Smack
hepkatre...@hotmail.com (Max Leggett) wrote:
> To me it all reads, looks, and sounds self referential, and self
> consciously arty. It always seems to me that postmodernists abdicate
> the responsibility or art in favour of being clever. Hence all these
> "installations" that "challenge society's preconceptions." All art
> challenges society's preconceptions, and if you have to stand up and
> say that your art is doing just that, then the art isn't capable of
> speaking for itself, in which case, why bother? Bad free jazz is
> postmodern. Good free jazz is just good jazz. Please don't ask me to
> define the difference. :-)
How 'bout this: good free jazz is the progressive, healthy form of
postmodernism; bad free jazz is the extreme, unhealthy version of
postmodernism. Postmodernism, like modernism before it and
traditionalism before that, is not inherently bad. Just like the
movements in consciousness that came before, it has its healthy
manifestations and its extreme manifestations.
Gary Hogan
don't know if he understood I was asking about his music or just about
his general life situation. He was smiling when he said it.
I've already written about the wild nights at the 5 Spot in NY when
Ornette first arrived on the scene. The crowd yelling at the band, and
at each other. The feeling
of excitment in the air...
The other night I was asked to sub for a friend who had suddenly
taken ill. It was a trio. I played trumpet and there was a bass player
and a drummer. The ephasis was free jazz, although we did play some
Mingus and Monk heads, etc. It was quite an experience for me, not
really being a free player.
First of all, the other musicians were very high quality guys,
which always makes a difference no matter what kind of music you play.
But, I banged into some difficulties right away. For one thing, I soon
discovered I wasn't that free! I had been leaning on rhythm sections and
chord changes for years and when those were pulled out from under me and
I was more or less on my own, it was a little disconcerting, to say the
least.
One of the weak spots in my playing turned out to be playing with "
conviction." With nothing to really relate to, I often just wasn't sure.
I realized later that my former conviction ( and confidence ) had been
sort of a "relative" one and the result of relating to what I knew. I
could play with conviction because I knew where I was in the tune and I
knew the changes, etc.
The result of getting into free jazz just a bit has been very
beneficial. One of the things that happens in jazz playing is that we
often acquire a lot of tricks and licks and we play them over and over.
In other words, we crystalize. Free jazz can help break that up. Then
when you approach bebop or whatever, from a free jazz position, you
start creating again, not just warming up old soup.
Another thing I noticed that night is how much the audience liked
it. This really surprised me!
Cheers
Zoot
> > jazz in order to get reactions.
>
> Do you suppose that's because polka lovers are nicer people than smooth
> jazz lovers?
i'm sure that nice people like smooth and all kinds of music. as usual
the conversation is about the resident troll. we don't really know
that he likes smooth. we just know that he uses it to get
attention.
Smack
> Smack <sm...@arkamusic.nospam.com> wrote in message news:<smack- polka lovers
> don't hang out here. and they don't pretend it's
> > > jazz in order to get reactions.
> >
> > Do you suppose that's because polka lovers are nicer people than smooth
> > jazz lovers?
>
> i'm sure that nice people like smooth and all kinds of music. as usual
> the conversation is about the resident troll. we don't really know
> that he likes smooth. we just know that he uses it to get
> attention.
Then why give it to him?
jeff b.
Citi Movements, because of the manner of its pastiche and historicism.
Among others. (And I haven't been the only one to notice this.)
As to the discussion at hand, Ornette has been one of the most
important musicians in my life. For me he is more important than
Trane because he is more interesting architecturally. He also was
fortunate to live longer and thus has been able to develop his music
in more directions. And nobody can play melody like Ornette.
I remember one summer while still a teenager I made a reel-to-reel
tape of "Change of the Century", "Tomorrow Is The Question", "The
Shape of Jazz to Come", and "Twins" to play on my Wollensak. I
listened and practiced to that whole set almost every day for the
whole summer. (Or maybe some days I only listened to one of sides)
There never were so many musical discoveries made.
I remember Archie Shepp stating in an interview that with each year
"Free Jazz" became more important. He was referring to the recording,
not the genre. This is the legendary double quartet recording of
Ornette, Don Cherry, Charlie Haden, Billy Higgins, Eric Dolphy,
Freddie Hubbard, Scott LaFaro, and Edward Blackwell.
I had listened to that recording early on, and as I gained more
experience in listening to the (what is now termed) canonic jazz that
followed (Miles, Trane, Shorter, Herbie, Henderson, and all the Blue
Notes), I noticed an interesting effect whenever I would go back to
it. All of a sudden, I recognized that many of the "plays" on Free
Jazz had become conventions in straight ahead jazz. Of course, in the
straight ahead jazz, these plays were presented as more iterated
structures, while on "Free Jazz" they were discarded just as quickly
as they arose. This makes an interesting conception of "Free Jazz"-
it is kind of the genetic material, the "Big Bang" if you will.
That is why Ornette's early recordings should not be so mysterious to
the listeners of jazz here in the 21st century. History has caught
up, and this is what I think Mr. Shepp meant by his statement.
Jeff
David Kotschessa
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Marc Sabatella wrote:
> Contrary to what you seem to believe, people *do* crticize bad
> intonation or sloppy technique when they are inappropriately found in
> free jazz. Particularly the intonation - people don't cut Jackie McLean
> or Eddie Gomez any more or less slack than they cut Eric Dolphy. Of
> course, "sloppy" is a very loaded and very subjective term. Suffice it
> to say that some music requires eighth notes of consistent length, and
> if they are off, people notice and complain. Some music requires a more
> organic feel to the rhythms, and if they are too mechanical, people
> notice and complain.
>
> In any case, the real problem here is that you continue to make the
> mistake of assuming that intonation and technique are the msot important
> elements in music. They aren't, even in bebop. The quality of the
> melodic line is still more important. It's just that in bebop, it's
> possible to mask poor melodic skills if you execute your lame ideas
> well. It's much harder to do this in free jazz.
>
I think intonation and technique are that much more important in free
music. When you're playing music that is dissonant and/or atonal you
really need to have your chops together to make it sound convincing. I've
discovered this with modern classical pieces. Some of the modern
classical music is so ugly that if you don't play with conviction it
sounds like one big mistake. I don't think this music is any different.
And, some people are really not going to like this one, but I think there
can also be cases where what you are hearing as bad intonation is
intentional to create a mood or express a thought. This is ugly music
we're talking about here. There is no question about that. But art
imitates life, no? Awaiting sarcastic replies to this one...
David Kotschessa
Thanks for sharing that experience. I'm glad you talked about playing
"with conviction" because I was just mentioning that in my last thread,
and even when you believe yourself it's nice to hear somebody else say the
same thing, especially considering you did not see my post when you wrote
this. One of the things I'm trying to get across is while the music is
freeing, it is no less demanding.
And your ending statements concur with my beliefs about the scope of jazz.
The reason I *decided* to learn to understand free jazz is that I knew it
would free me up creatively. Even if I can't play, it my understanding of
"what is possible" is much broader because of it.
Sean Holland
sm...@arkamusic.nospam.com wrote on 4/28/04 4:14 PM:
> In article <40902a68....@News.sprint.ca>,
> hepkatre...@hotmail.com (Max Leggett) wrote:
>
>> To me it all reads, looks, and sounds self referential, and self
>> consciously arty. It always seems to me that postmodernists abdicate
>> the responsibility or art in favour of being clever. Hence all these
>> "installations" that "challenge society's preconceptions." All art
>> challenges society's preconceptions, and if you have to stand up and
>> say that your art is doing just that, then the art isn't capable of
>> speaking for itself, in which case, why bother? Bad free jazz is
>> postmodern. Good free jazz is just good jazz. Please don't ask me to
>> define the difference. :-)
>
> How 'bout this: good free jazz is the progressive, healthy form of
> postmodernism; bad free jazz is the extreme, unhealthy version of
> postmodernism. Postmodernism, like modernism before it and
> traditionalism before that, is not inherently bad. Just like the
> movements in consciousness that came before, it has its healthy
> manifestations and its extreme manifestations.
"Itšs all folk music, cause horses donšt sing." Big Bill Broonzy (or was it
Mingus?)
--
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/0/seanhollandmusic.htm
pantssea...@telus.pants.net Remove pants to email me.
David Kotschessa
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Sean Holland wrote:
> "It¹s all folk music, cause horses don¹t sing." Big Bill Broonzy (or was it
> Mingus?)
It was Big Bill. I looked it up.
BTW, his version of "This Train" is one of the coolest recordings ever,
and I really wish my friend would give my CD back.
Marc Sabatella
> music. When you're playing music that is dissonant and/or atonal you
> really need to have your chops together to make it sound convincing.
Well, that's certainly one common approach - are there really, from a
technical standpoint, many jazz pianists who can touch Cecil Taylor in
this department, or saxophonists who can touch Evan Parker? - but I
would agree with those who say it isn't a necessatiy. On the other
hand, it clearly isn't a necessity in mainstream jazz either - plenty of
players have high reputations despite lingering complaints about their
technique (Miles Davis, Chet Baker, etc).
> And, some people are really not going to like this one, but I think
there
> can also be cases where what you are hearing as bad intonation is
> intentional to create a mood or express a thought.
There is also this implict assumption that intonation can be measured
objectively, presumably by comparing a given to the pitch of the nearest
note in 12-tone equal temperament. Or perhaps another tuning scheme,
like just intonation. But one has to remember that these particular
tuning systems were invented to suit the needs of diatonic music, with
limited amounts of chromaticism in well defined harmonic contexts. It
isn't clear why this should be relevant in music not based on this
harmonic language. That is, if one isn't expected to play over a C
major triad, what difference should it makes whether the pitch one is
playing happens to exactly fit the common definition of "E" or not?
Myth
"Nick" <nick...@aol.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1d97fb30.04042...@posting.google.com...
> I said that much of free jazz is almost total chaos (opinion), and to
> many jazz fans it sounds like random nonsense (fact).
"Fact" about a lot of peoples opnion on FJ, that frankly says more about
those people than it does about the music.
I've snipped a lot because I found to be a very longwound way of expressing
that you really don't like most free jazz, which you of course in no way are
obliged to;-)
sum1
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Nick wrote:
>
> > David Kotschessa <da...@somewhere.com> wrote in message news:<2004042508...@meniscus.d0nuts.org>...
> >
> > > When you stop trying to "figure it out" and just listen, then that's when you > really have figured it out.
> >
> > than music you don't like. How many people reading this have "stopped
> > trying to figure it out and just listened" to rap, country music, or
> > Britney Spears?
>
> With music like that, there isn't really anything to "figure out," IMO.
> It's simplistic and self-evident. To me it's like reading poetry vs.
> reading a children's book. One of the beauties of poetry is
> interpretation, or even lack of interpretation. But it doesn't take a lot
> of critical thinking to figure that Jonny went to the store to buy seeds
> for Twit-twit the parakeet and lost his shoe.
Depending on how it's told, that story could be absorbing.
sum1
That's true, I haven't seen any polka fans around here lately. At
least none that have identified themselves as such.
I've seen mostly jazz fans, except for the Ornette-groupies who
continue to post here about "harmolodic music."
Nick
> "Nick" <nick...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Which is precisely why it's relatively easy to master - the
> requirements
> > > are laid out for you nicely.
> >
> > That may be laid out nicely, but I doubt if the musicians who have
> > dedicated years to mastering bebop would agree that it's "relatively
> > easy."
>
> Now you know how musicians who have dedicated years to mastering free
> jazz feel about your characterization of their music.
If they are truly masterful on their instruments, then my
characterization doesn't apply. If not -- well, if the shoe fits ...
> > I would venture to say that abominable bebop is instantly derided as
> > such by jazz fans, while abominable free jazz gets much more latitude
> > because how can you criticize bad intonation or sloppy technique when
> > they aren't required by the music?
>
> Contrary to what you seem to believe, people *do* crticize bad
> intonation or sloppy technique when they are inappropriately found in
> free jazz.
Except that it seems like "inappropriately" rarely applies. I can go
on Amazon right now and find recordings that I think contain very
sloppy playing, inevitably accompanied by at least a few reviews that
claim the work is "brilliant," "genius," etc. I mean, to each their
own, but obviously good technique is not something these reviewers
have required, or perhaps can even detect, in their listening.
Particularly the intonation - people don't cut Jackie McLean
> or Eddie Gomez any more or less slack than they cut Eric Dolphy.
Bad intonation is probably the least of my complaints. Most of the
people I have a problem with bury their bad intonation under blizzards
of notes anyway so it's kind of hard to detect.
Of
> course, "sloppy" is a very loaded and very subjective term. Suffice it
> to say that some music requires eighth notes of consistent length, and
> if they are off, people notice and complain. Some music requires a more
> organic feel to the rhythms, and if they are too mechanical, people
> notice and complain.
"Organic" has no meaning for me as a musical term. I think what you
really mean to say is that in free jazz, precision is not required and
may actually be seen as something that detracts from the "emotion."
This doesn't necessarily make the music bad, but then I go right back
to saying that it's easier to play a style of music that has no
requirement for precision than music that requires eighth and other
notes to be of consistent length.
> In any case, the real problem here is that you continue to make the
> mistake of assuming that intonation and technique are the msot important
> elements in music. They aren't, even in bebop.
That's your interpretation; I've never said it, and don't say it now.
> The quality of the
> melodic line is still more important. It's just that in bebop, it's
> possible to mask poor melodic skills if you execute your lame ideas
> well.
Sonny Stitt didn't have lame ideas -- he had no ideas. At least, not
original ones. He was carbon copy of Bird. So why is he considered one
of the great bebop saxophonists? Is it possible that the melodic lines
he delivered, though not very "creative" by your standards, were
played with good tone, intonation, articulation, and a general level
of virtuosity that resulted in a sound people enjoyed?
> It's much harder to do this in free jazz.
It can also be much easier, depending on the player. It's quite
possible for a player to do nothing but honk, holler, wail, make
squeaking noises, and run his fingers as fast as possible up and down
the keys, with the result being accepted as perfectly legitimate "free
jazz." I've heard it more than once. Playing in such a manner is far
easier than playing bebop or any other style of jazz *masterfully,*
and would be seen as meaningless noise in any genre except free.
I'm not saying all free players are this limited -- Coltrane and
Dolphy are notable exceptions.
> > > Sure there are. Lots of the same things apply. Or is someone
> running > > > apreggios on each chord considered to be playing a good solo, just > > > because they are hitting the changes? No, you have to also exhibit
> some > > > creativity and melodic interest. But of course, we all know that
> many > > > times, people don't really pull this off, and "coast" based on
> running > > > some pattern that happens to fit the changes well.
We have discussed this before: *all* players coast to some extent,
depending on their pet licks and patterns that have been prehearsed.
Transcribe seven or eight Bird solos, and you will see the same
patterns over and over again. You, yourself, have stated in the past
that players who are known for great technique, like Oscar Peterson or
Michael Brecker, typically rely on a lot of riffs that have been
highly practiced.
> >
> > Cannonball, Sonny Stitt, Dexter Gordon, Johnny Griffin, Fats Navarro,
> > Clifford Brown, Lee Morgan, Bud Powell -- none of them really strayed
> > far from the guidelines set down by Bird & Diz. Do you think any of
> > them played "creative" solos?
>
> Of course they did. I'm not talking about the masters here - I'm
> talking about the masses.
You left out my key question: since these players are for the most
part following in the footsteps of Bird and Diz, playing lines and
arpeggios that closely stick to the chord, what about them do you
think is "creative"?
>
> > It's clear that by referring to "Ornette's conception of free jazz,"
> > he is making a blanket statement and not just referring to one of two
> > pieces.
>
> He's knowledgeable about the music he's knows, and ignorant about the
> music he doesn't. This is a truism - by definition, it's true about
> anyone. I don't know the first thing about Chinee opera, but then, I
> don't pretend to, and make blanket statements about it that people who
> *are* knowledgeable about that music would instantly recognize as
> bullshit.
Have you played concerts with some of the top Chinese opera companies?
Have you performed music, that while not pure Chinese opera, is fairly
close? Wynton obviously has had enough exposure to the music to have
an informed opinion. When he says he knows what he's talking about, I
believe him.
> > > The public is not going to want to hear people
> > > play like that."
>
> The public doesn't want to hear people play jazz, period. Again,
> popularity doesn't mean squat as a measure of quality.
Well, it's certainly true that most people aren't interested in jazz.
But I think the reasons the general public doesn't want to hear jazz
are different than the reasons most *jazz lovers* don't want to listen
to free. Everything about jazz is foreign to a normal person: the fact
that it's instrumental, the focus on a sax or trumpet as the main
instrument, the emphasis on improvisation, unorthodox song structures.
These are not impediments to the typical *jazz lover* liking free.
There has to be something else going on.
Nick
I agree with you, but I can almost guarantee that fans or rap,
country, or Britney Spears wouldn't. I recently posted in a forum for
computer music users, and stated that Rap is overly reliant on loops
which results in a very repetitious, robotic sound. Someone replied
that I obviously "didn't understand the music" because Rap can be
highly creative with lots of interesting drum patterns, loads of
dynamics, etc. etc.