Free Jazz I need an explanation

[WheelHead]

I have a hard time understanding Free Jazz or fusion Jazz. Smooth Jazz and early Jazz from the 1900"s- through the early 1930"s I get. But I have a hard time with Jazz from John Coltrane or Chick Corea, or even Miles Davis and Theloneous Monk.

 

I thought "jazz is F#" (tapping the F# key) as Pete Barbutti said [video:youtube]

 

How about a little 'Moonlight in Vermont' on an accordion by Pete?

 

WH

[jazzpiano88]

[video:youtube]

Is that Bentley?

[niacin]

I don't understand what John Abercrombie is doing in terms of harmony or melodic construction or whatnot, but it makes enough sense to my ear for me to really enjoy a lot of what he recorded, and I think he sits somewhere between what we might agree is jazz fusion and free jazz. Coltrane's A Love Supreme is superb if you're in the mood for it, but it's not for casual listening.

[niacin]

See what you make of this, it's jazz fusion but funky as hell. If you think they're playing wrong notes maybe listen through it a few more times and see if your ears start to make sense of it:

 

[video:youtube]

[CEB]

Jazz was the section in the record store they put all the albums that didn"t fit anywhere else.

[Muad’Dib]

Was New Age thrown in there as well?

[Mike Davis]

This should make it all clear:

 

[timwat]

So in general why should I have to study a style in order to like or appreciate it?

 

tl;dr - if there is a style of music you don't like, it may be because unlike the styles you do like, you haven't spent a lifetime listening to it.

 

This question caught my eye. I think it's a good one, and one as musicians we face from listeners from time to time, right? Full disclosure: I've played pop, rock, metal, prog, top 40, experimental, bop, fusion, straight jazz, standards and dabbled a little in experimental. And like a lot of us here, I also compose a little.

 

Certainly, jarrell is on to something with the aspect of prior familiarity. And yet, that's a continuum. At some point, all music was brand new to us. Familiarity only grows with repeated listenings - when we're kids, we often don't have the power to choose, but soon as adolescents we can. Often, we simply choose what our peers are listening to - the power of peer conformity.

 

Some of us were fortunate to have music lessons as children. We got steeped in an unfamiliar musical genre (for me, it was classical) as a vehicle to not only learn a skill, but also to expand our appreciation of what is possible with music. Possible to move us, touch us, and even what it is possible to say with music.

 

I would suggest that while music is much about what experience it evokes in the listener, it is at least as much about what the musician is trying to "say" in the music. The player has intent - whether that is properly conveyed to the listener is a topic for another thread, but the intent is there nonetheless.

 

Art is a vehicle of self-expression. I play, not mainly because there are listeners, but mainly because I have something to say about life and love and pain and joy and love and loss and all that stuff - in a way that only I can say it. I have limited skills and many of you have a broader palette of colors to draw from, but you cannot say what I say in exactly the same way.

 

Such it is with free jazz. At its best, it takes the idea of instant, unplanned improvisation to its extreme logical end. The players are reacting to each other with little or no constraint of form or meter or key or rhythm. It is mostly about the energy I bring, and the energy you respond with. It can be exhilarating for the players. It can also be boring, aimless and chaotic (in a bad way) for the players. And let's be honest, it can be all of that and worse for the unsuspecting listener. Appreciation presumes the listener has a whole bucket of understanding what is going on to differentiate it from traffic noise. My personal opinion is appreciation of free jazz benefits from prior familiarity with many (most?) of the history of jazz music, an understanding of the tradition it came from and why it is trying to not be constrained by...and even then it might come off like Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music, or Metheny's Zero Tolerance for Silence (in that, a very few say they like either of those two albums, but far and away most folks loathe them).

 

And remember, it's not the first genre to demand a lot of the listener. Most art forms that reward prior understanding, and study, and - to reference jarrell - prior familiarity - are rejected by casual audiences who have not "put in the time" - this could be said about classical, modern sculpture, non-representational painting, opera and more.

 

I might argue the more nuanced and unfamiliar the usage of forms might be, the greater it demands of the listener. This naturally leads to not attracting audiences not willing / able / inclined to invest the time to get familiar, and thus naturally smaller audiences. The safer path is to appeal to more casual audiences.

 

And thus we have pop (popular) music, and Jann Wenner telling us what we should like, what has value, and what is important. The first time Rolling Stone slagged something I enjoyed listening to, I recognized what was going on.

[BluMunk]

So in general why should I have to study a style in order to like or appreciate it?

 

tl;dr - if there is a style of music you don't like, it may be because unlike the styles you do like, you haven't spent a lifetime listening to it.

 

This question caught my eye. I think it's a good one, and one as musicians we face from listeners from time to time, right?

 

Well said, Tim.

 

To put it another way: appreciation of all art is context-specific. For some art, we develop the context from which to appreciate it "naturally" from the environment in which we're born, without making any effort. Other art requires context that we don't get "naturally", maybe it comes from a different time/culture/sub-culture than the one in which the listener is familiar. Maybe, even, there aren't enough overlapping contextual hooks to help one appreciate that different art.

 

Ultimately, any art requires something from its observers in order to be appreciated. It only "makes you work" inasmuch as you don't have the specific cultural context to "get" it. It doesn't make it better or worse, but it does mean that probably fewer people are going to appreciate it. And that's ok. It's not "more advanced" or "more sophisticated" art, it's just art that exists within a specific context.

 

I think we often fall into a trap of confusing art that is culturally specific with being "better" art than art that relies on more universal touchstones.

[timwat]

I think we often fall into a trap of confusing art that is culturally specific with being "better" art than art that relies on more universal touchstones.

 

So true!

 

I "learned" that very early from peers, teachers and others I respected. And it's incorrect. I still remember Herbie's story of being a young player believing that, until encountering Miles' record collection - which embraced all sorts of different genres which Herbie thought was "below" him. And that opened his eyes.

 

A related (but more narrow) example - I once asked Peter Horvath about playing "tired" standards that are overplayed. He responded that there aren't any "unhip" standards - just unhip players who have nothing to say, or who aren't willing to put in the effort to play their ass off on Fly Me To the Moon or Girl From Ipanema. That really opened my eyes too.

[MathOfInsects]

Also....liking hamburgers doesn't always mean you "just don't understand" steaks. It could just mean hamburgers are your jam. I think we can confuse the process of "advancing" or "expanding" a form with the qualitative value of that form--that is, we can imagine the result is itself "advanced" from the original approach. But that's incorrect: all genres exist on an equal horizontal plane. It's perfectly natural for someone to like some of options on that plane, and dislike others, and I think we can all engage in a little bit of condescension or elitism when we find our way in to the options on the farther reaches of that expanse.

[timwat]

Part of that can be a natural equivalency we make when particular genres take more investment of time, focus, practice and education to learn. Objectively, there is more complexity in jazz and classical than some other genres. While this doesn't cede more value or worth to either of those genres, the fact that we've had to spend more time at it than other genres will lead most people to the conclusion the destination was worth the journey, and therefore the harder journey takes you to the more valuable destination.

 

It may not be fair or correct, but I can understand why we think that.

[RandyFF]

TL;DR

Have never liked 'free jazz', but had an experience in the mid 70's that blew my mind.

 

I always want melody, and typically feel like free jazz is just people wanking off, being self-indulgent. But when I walked into that small jazz joint in Stockholm I had an 'experience'. No drugs or large amounts of alcohol involved.

 

3 piece band, playing at loud volume. They were playing music I usually really dislike, but for some reason it had an affect on me, I came out of the club just buzzing. Had a similar experience with a Black Sabbath record once, music that I never listen to, but on that particular day it transported me to another world, my whole body was tingling. Have never had this experience before or since these two times.

[ProfD]

Art is a vehicle of self-expression.

Bingo.

 

Regardless of the labels and rules people try to tag on music, it's always been about what the musician(s) want to convey.

 

When it comes to music, regardless of the style or genre, listeners are welcome to come along for the ride or find another piece of art or entertainment in which to indulge themselves.

 

IMO, there is no reason for the question of "help me to understand" or "why should I like this" type of music or any artform. The "audience" gets it.

[Muad’Dib]

Then obviously I can"t call myself a musician! I have no feeling, or expression!

[ProfD]

Then obviously I can"t call myself a musician! I have no feeling, or expression!

Paul, there is no need or reason to define yourself as a musician. I didn't think that was the purpose of this thread.

 

But, as it relates to needing an explanation regarding Free Jazz or any other style of music, as others have stated in dfiferent ways, accept that it if doesn't "speak to you", it's not your thing and that's OK too.

[Tusker]

I don't know if a broader discussion of the different aspects of music can help, but the video below helped me develop a perspective on what aspects of music I enjoy and how I enjoy engaging with it. Perhaps it will do the same for you?

 

[video:youtube]

[Muad’Dib]

I"m sorry

[El Lobo]

A friend of mine who is in her 70's was talking about music to her granddaughter who is in her 20's. My friend said how much she liked Motown. Her granddaughter said, "What's Motown?"

[Muad’Dib]

A friend of mine who is in her 70's was talking about music to her granddaughter who is in her 20's. My friend said how much she liked Motown. Her granddaughter said, "What's Motown?"

 

[MAJUSCULE]

A friend of mine who is in her 70's was talking about music to her granddaughter who is in her 20's. My friend said how much she liked Motown. Her granddaughter said, "What's Motown?"

 

I mean, I have a new non-musician roommate who moved in last month and so far... when I played Booker T & the MGs, he said "It sounds like the music from the Tasty videos". And when I played King Curtis Live at Fillmore West and asked him if he recognized the Signed, Sealed, Delivered cover, his first guess was the Mario Kart theme song. But he did recognize Tom Jones singing "What's New Pussycat".

 

So, yeah, can't really assume much nowadays. Your grain of salt may vary.

[niacin]

A friend of mine who is in her 70's was talking about music to her granddaughter who is in her 20's. My friend said how much she liked Motown. Her granddaughter said, "What's Motown?"

 

I mean, I have a new non-musician roommate who moved in last month and so far... when I played Booker T & the MGs, he said "It sounds like the music from the Tasty videos". And when I played King Curtis Live at Fillmore West and asked him if he recognized the Signed, Sealed, Delivered cover, his first guess was the Mario Kart theme song. But he did recognize Tom Jones singing "What's New Pussycat".

 

So, yeah, can't really assume much nowadays. Your grain of salt may vary.

 

I drove taxis for a while when I was at uni and if I was driving a Friday or Saturday night I'd have a funk playlist happening, and teenagers would say things like "Hey this is a great song, I know this, but, wait, what is this?" They'd recognize part of a song that had been sampled and used in a song they knew, but do you think they could recognize James Brown?

[niacin]

Back to the original topic, I might add that I understand, in terms of compositional technique (harmony etc.), how bebop works, but I don't generally enjoy listening to it, and the same goes for the music of Mozart (see Glenn Gould's analysis on Youtube) and Anton Webern, to pick 3 totally different examples. But I really like the music of English composer Harrison Birtwistle, who like Webern is using 12-tone rows, but who also owes much to Stravinsky, whose music I love and have studies and listened to a lot, and I think my appreciation of Birtwistle is built on the back of immediately enjoying Stravinsky's early works (Petrushka, Rite of Spring) and then then working my way through his later output which then provided me with a path into Birtwistle's music.

 

So Paul, given you know that you like early jazz, let's take Duke Ellington, start here and work your way through the album:

 

[video:youtube]

[Muad’Dib]

I first heard this on the Cosby Show!

[Muad’Dib]

I think i was confusing Free Jazz with experimental music?