Can anyopne explain Ornette Coleman's Harmolodoc theory to me?... in a way a rational musican can understand?

Don Cherry's quote in this Ornette review might provide a Cliff Notes view of harmolodics.

http://www-cs.canisius.edu/~bucheger/OrnetteReview.html

You talk to Cherry, Dewey, and Charlie about "what harmolodics is" and you get three different answers.

It "seems" to be (from trying to amalgamate everybody's take on it) that Ornette's conception of "melodic" theory is that harmony and rhythm are subservient to melody and harmolodics says that each element can function as the "lead" voice. My favorite story is from when Jimmy Garrison was playing with the group and he was really trying to get his head around what Ornette was doing conceptually and really struggling. So he goes to Ornette and says "Man I'm just not sure what you want to hear from me, what you want me to do." And Ornette stands there, minute stretching into minute. And he finally says "Well James, I want you to listen............and play, of course."


Do you want to expand on your remarks "...a rational musician..."?

and...........from Ornette's website....

http://harmolodic.com/philosophy/index.htm

not that it makes it any clearer lol

I was participating in an online discussion about this. One of the posters, an educator Paul Rinzler called harmolodics the "holy grail" of jazz. I think that's pretty accurate. Pat Metheny made similar comments at his site--view with suspician unless from the mouths of Don Cherry or Charlie Haden. I don't think there's any theory at all. Only a general philosophy that could be interpreted by others how they see fit. I think that doesn't speak well of the guy who invented it honestly. I like most people pictured in my mind--a scale and then perhaps some other scale superimpositions over it with time signature modulations, etc. who knows. Something that gave me something to interpret that approach to music. It's reasonable--if Elliot Carter can make a score of his incredibly dense music then so could Ornette. How bout this:

A-7 Dseven :hyper: All little children up to heaven. or...G7 :ninja:

I don't mind it being more of an instinctual affair. But the flashdemo (posted earlier) seems to be bear out this blurry philosophy that seems to seek to transmit meaning through words and images-as if to keep them static would somehow render less meaning. Also the homogeneity of the whole thing and how colors and sound and art and everything will be coming together (lawd, lawd, it's coming..)I think people are still frustrating themselves to find a retort to Stravinsky's famous devil's advocate remark "music means itself"

]
I don't mind it being more of an instinctual affair. But the flashdemo (posted earlier) seems to be bear out this blurry philosophy that seems to seek to transmit meaning through words and images-as if to keep them static would somehow render less meaning. Also the homogeneity of the whole thing and how colors and sound and art and everything will be coming together (lawd, lawd, it's coming..)I think people are still frustrating themselves to find a retort to Stravinsky's famous devil's advocate remark "music means itself"


What? Your honor, I'm just a caveman.

In other words, I just play the bass.

I realize that I should have a better understanding of this whole "harmolodic" concept, but the truth is, it reminds me of something Sam related in an earlier thread about George Russell's "Lydian Chromatic Concept". A Sam tells it, he was attending a class or workshop led by Russell, and remembers that, "His signature line was, 'If ya wanna play mah music, y'got ta have the CON-cept'."

Which, in a way, turns me off big-time. What was Branford's famous quip about Cecil Taylor? I don't recall exactly, but at any rate, it was something which could not be printed here on TB. The point is, the music should not need the help of any concept to speak and stand on its own two feet. In my case with Ornette, some of it does, and some of it doesn't, and that's all I need.

It seems like there might be the beginnings of a whole "inside-outside" discussion here. Do you get "outside" by abandoning everything that is "inside" in favor of something that is not, or do you get "outside" by pushing the envelope until you get through the paper? And does the little light really go out when you close the refrigerator door?

I am often as influenced as much about what people say about music as what they play, especially when the music is "difficult" to digest. The latter case is particularly telling about Cecil Taylor. I recall Matthew Shipp's recount of when he told Cecil his favorite versions of Sweet & Lovely were his and Bill Evans'. Which resulted in Taylor saying.."Bill Evans is an ordinary piano player! ordinary! Shipp countered "what are you talking about. he's a genius!" "Ordinary!" hurls back Cecil.

Well after hearing these CT comments--and some other interviews with him describing his music, I have decided for myself that he is full of it ..And also meanspirited--which is exactly the vibe that bothered me instinctually in the first place. Apart from the fact that I thought he was really not a good composer. Just now, I was seeing it reinforced by the personality component--the queen bee mentality. So now I heard his music in that light--mean-spirited jazz hissy fits. :spit: :bawl:

I mispoke when I used the term "rational musician"...What I meat was sombody coming from a more "traditional" concept of harmony and melody.

I agree with much of what has been said...I know it really does'nt matter-it is beautiful music regardless...but I read some things by Ornette that seemed like he had a textbook like definition of what he is doing...

Yeah, I'm not real hip on needing to understand a philosophy to play the music of a certain composer. I've played with cats like that and was never sure if I was doing well or not. Lotsa free jazz guys won't give you a straight answer about your playing either. I like Zappa's approach, he'd write with certain players in mind, then hire them. I do a fair amount of writing (some of it pretty far out) and try to use Zappa's model.

Lotsa free jazz guys won't give you a straight answer about your playing either.
I find it almost impossible to evaluate free-jazz playing at the time it's happening. Either the hookup's there or it's not, and it's about ears more than chops anyway. If it's there, the comment is, "Wow, that was tight" or "Mahn, you've got monstrous ears." If it wasn't there, it's obviously my fault in part -- it's not like, "I was hooking up with you and you were not hooking up with me."

Yeah, I'm not real hip on needing to understand a philosophy to play the music of a certain composer. I've played with cats like that and was never sure if I was doing well or not. Lotsa free jazz guys won't give you a straight answer about your playing either.


I think this is an "alien" concept to me!! ;)

So - I go to see a lot of UK/European Jazz and talk to the musicians at gigs and at workshops/classes. So on this "scene" - nearly all the contemporary players will include some elements of Free playing in their repertoire, sets and compositions.

So - they will have sections of their set, where there are no preconceived ideas about harmony/melody or maybe they will have tunes which are very "loose" - as in just starting with a bass ostinato and then go wherever they will, etc etc.

Anyway - my point is - I don't know of any "Free Jazz Guys" - as in people who play nothing but Free - but virtually every Jazz pro I see, incorporates some of this in their playing.

I think this is an "alien" concept to me!! ;)

So - I go to see a lot of UK/European Jazz and talk to the musicians at gigs and at workshops/classes. So on this "scene" - nearly all the contemporary players will include some elements of Free playing in their repertoire, sets and compositions.

So - they will have sections of their set, where there are no preconceived ideas about harmony/melody or maybe they will have tunes which are very "loose" - as in just starting with a bass ostinato and then go wherever they will, etc etc.

Anyway - my point is - I don't know of any "Free Jazz Guys" - as in people who play nothing but Free - but virtually every Jazz pro I see, incorporates some of this in their playing.

Here's an interview of DBist Alan Silva (http://www.paristransatlantic.com/magazine/interviews/silva.html) which I find very à propos with respect to free improv and it's historical context. Just make sure you don't loose your Simandl in the transition... ;)

I think its missing the point to attack Ornette for not having a simple to understand philosophy, or to attack people with philosophy's for forcing them on people before they can understand the music.
Ornette Coleman hasn't forced his philosophy on people, hes lived it and used it to make great music and influence other great musicians (Cherry, Haden, Blackwell, Higgins, etc). the fact that none of us is that clear what it is, but that everyone who has plauyed with him has been hugely influenced by his philosphy, shows that its not being forced on listeners but is influencing his music. From reading and speaking to people who have lived with and played with ornette, every one seems to speak very highly of him as a very "deep" person. Its too easy to ridicule something just because you don't understand it.

I have decided for myself that he is full of it ..And also meanspirited--... really not a good composer...--mean-spirited jazz hissy fits. :spit: :bawl:

This is just crap now. Cecil Taylor not a good composer... who are you to make that judgment on one of the greatest ever jazz musicians?
Why do so many great musicians (Eric Dolphy, William Parker, John Coltrane, Jimmy Lyons, Sunny Murray I could go on and on) talk about him as one of the greatest ever composers, and of playing with him as one of the highest peaks of being a musician?
Sorry if I'm coming across as overly precious or serious, but this thread seems to be full of people leaping to ridicule some truly great musicians, for very spurious reasons.

oliebrice,

The only reason I have ever listened to Cecil was because of his heavy credentials. I absolutely do NOT get any of his music after the mid 60s.

He's not the only one, Anthony Braxton is another guy...I've heard him play staright (with Dave Brubeck of all people!) and some of his stuff with Circle, etc. but of the half dozen or so releases under his own name I have picked up, I still can't get my head around it. Ditto with Albert Ayler.

It's not that I don't like free playing or atonal noise, I listen to plenty of that but sometimes it gets to the point where I can't find anything to hang my ear on :hmm:

I might not go so far as nypiano but if I can't even hear what's the composition vs. the improv how can I call Cecil a great composer? :hiding:

Anyway - my point is - I don't know of any "Free Jazz Guys" - as in people who play nothing but Free - but virtually every Jazz pro I see, incorporates some of this in their playing.

Here in Chicago there are guys that play nothing but free.

I like listening to these acts, I just find it very hard to play. I'm working on improving my ears.

What? Your honor, I'm just a caveman.

In other words, I just play the bass.

I realize that I should have a better understanding of this whole "harmolodic" concept, but the truth is, it reminds me of something Sam related in an earlier thread about George Russell's "Lydian Chromatic Concept". A Sam tells it, he was attending a class or workshop led by Russell, and remembers that, "His signature line was, 'If ya wanna play mah music, y'got ta have the CON-cept'."

Which, in a way, turns me off big-time. What was Branford's famous quip about Cecil Taylor? I don't recall exactly, but at any rate, it was something which could not be printed here on TB. The point is, the music should not need the help of any concept to speak and stand on its own two feet. In my case with Ornette, some of it does, and some of it doesn't, and that's all I need.

It seems like there might be the beginnings of a whole "inside-outside" discussion here. Do you get "outside" by abandoning everything that is "inside" in favor of something that is not, or do you get "outside" by pushing the envelope until you get through the paper? And does the little light really go out when you close the refrigerator door?

Chris - what can I say - you, a big fan of Rufus Reid's teaching griping about concept (something Rufus certainly used to insist on) and then going on to explain several concepts of playing. If you haven't got a concept of what you're going to play you waffle nonsense and no, that nonsense is not free jazz. Freedom is freedom of expression - have you got anything to express? Freedom soon sorts out those who have something to say and those who have not and whether they have the means to do it, without necesarily using standard musical devices as the means to do so.

But harmolodic mysticism is where you came in, not the later free jazz wrangle in this thread. Can you have a band giving equal weight to consitutent parts - what happens when you do, can all the musicians present cope with that - big question - need darn good musicians all hooked up together to even think of doing it - just think, if a harmony part or rhythm part isn't subservient it had better 'say something' as Ed grinds on about. In which case you will have a 3D soudscape you can move around, from one bit to the next and find something new everytime. Anyone fancy the challenge to pull this off? (Some wag could argue that Ellington's best scores did this - I wouldn't disagree but Ornette's bands, as I understand it, rely on direct individual contribution/improvisation above the score.)

As for whether free jazz engages I find myself in the reverse of Sam's situation, in the hands of good players it engages at the time but I'm not in a rush to play the cd - in fact, live it can be totally gripping. It is not an easy listen but there's nothing wrong with that.

As for fingers 'is this free playing any good?' question, its a personal expression and whilst it is hard to impossible to say whether or not it is what is in you soul, it may engage some people or not. I'm affraid you have to be internally referrenced about this - are you being true to yourself - we won't know.

This discussion seems to me to be degenerating into people slagging off abstract art becuase they can't see the pictures in it. More Jackson Pollock than Georgia O'Keefe here to name two in MOMA.

Look at it this way (just to wind everyone up before I go for a paper) Ornette (and the free movement) are talking about artistic concepts whereas TB generally discusses techniques. Indeed, some threads seem to imply that standard technique is an end through which artistry will spontaneously appear because you have the technique - **** to that - you wouldn't start a TB thread just because you'd got an English degree, you'd start it becuase you'd got something to say (and if you had an English degree you might well appreciate both Henry James and James Joyce say).

Here in Chicago there are guys that play nothing but free.

I like listening to these acts, I just find it very hard to play. I'm working on improving my ears.

I suppose in Chicago, you have more of a history and heritage for this, but I can't imagine there would be any audience for this in the UK - as Brian said, I think audiences need something to hang their ear on - no matter how minimal that might be...?

but I can't imagine there would be any audience for this in the UK - as Brian said, I think audiences need something to hang their ear on - no matter how minimal that might be...?

uh.. (sound of jaw dropping)...
England has had some of the richest history of free improv of anywhere, in fact a good argument could be made for England as the birthplace of free improv that wasn't jazz.
Never heard of Derek Bailey? John Stevens? Evan Parker? John Edwards? Paul Dunamll? Keith Tippett? Tony Oxley? Alan Wilkinson? Trevor Watts? Paul Rutherford? etcetcetcetc?

I might not go so far as nypiano but if I can't even hear what's the composition vs. the improv how can I call Cecil a great composer? :hiding:

I think theres a big difference between saying "I don't get someone's music and so am not in a position to call him a great composer" and to state that he isn't, as nypiano does. Fine, you don't like/understand Cecil's playing. I think he's wonderful, but we're allowed to disagree. But you, as you say, aren't in a position to judge him.
Much, much more of his music is written than might be assumed from listening, he is a unique and special composer, and theres a lot of greats who'd agree with me.

Theory is the whole Problem....


Music, last time i checked is a sonic art. As Sam said, free improv exists in the moment much like many buddhists. You got to hear it live; on record the energy and interplay is lost.

So you do not get Ornette's theory or Coltranes or anyone else's; don;t worry - just dig the music or don't dig the music.

I applaud the idea of getting into a composer and trying to figure out what the hell is going on - I know i've done plenty of it myself. In all of my years of playing and composing i've gotten to the point that I care less about the precompositional process and "why/how" the composer wrote as he did and more about how it SOUNDS...

it's easy to get caught up in theory.

I think "Balance" is the key word.

peace.
D

uh.. (sound of jaw dropping)...
England has had some of the richest history of free improv of anywhere, in fact a good argument could be made for England as the birthplace of free improv that wasn't jazz.
Never heard of Derek Bailey? John Stevens? Evan Parker? John Edwards? Paul Dunamll? Keith Tippett? Tony Oxley? Alan Wilkinson? Trevor Watts? Paul Rutherford? etcetcetcetc?


I've heard of them - but never actually heard any of them in concert -although I go to Jazz gigs every week - that was kind of my point. :hmm:

On exception - I have heard Keith Tippett's music on many occasions though and it was almost the opposite of 'Free' (IMO) - in that it was highly arranged and had many written parts. So this was where I was saying that UK musicians incorporate 'Free' elements, but mix it in with other stuff as well.

as an addendum to my previous post... I know several of Ornette's bassists and none of them have convinced me that they are down with Ornette's theories either... Sounds like Jimmy was just the only cat to bother to ask...

I agree with Olie. The english cats totally rule the free scene.

I've heard all those guys playing free in the UK Bruce several times over (someone would wouldn't they) - and don't forget basssist/composer Barry Guy, drummer Tony Levin - Stan Tracey does it - Andy Sheperd did a tour and album with Tippett playing free (packed out houses they were too). In general, people are conservative though - agreed.

Saw Ornettes Prime Time a couple of times and it struck me that the doing didn't match the concept on te nights I was in - just like Tracey Emin and Damien Hurst perhaps (sorry guys - this is so called 'Brit Art' - don't know a universal equivalent - come to think of it, I'm not always too sure these guys concepts merited doing - like free jazz on a bad night I guess).

I've heard all those guys playing free in the UK Bruce several times over (someone would wouldn't they) - and don't forget basssist/composer Barry Guy, drummer Tony Levin - Stan Tracey does it - Andy Sheperd did a tour and album with Tippett playing free (packed out houses they were too). In general, people are conservative though - agreed.


I've heard those you mention - but in no case was it totally "Free" .

So - as I said, at loads of gigs I've been to, there have been long "Free" sections - but the musicians have always come to back to tunes or riffs. A lot of people I know complained most heartily about (the UK tour of) Wayne Shorter's acoustic quintet playing: " that Free music" and how they really didn't like it - although I heard lots of melody, agreed harmony and several recognisable "arranged" pieces !! :)

I've heard those you mention - but in no case was it totally "Free" .

So - as I said, at loads of gigs I've been to, there have been long "Free" sections - but the musicians have always come to back to tunes or riffs. A lot of people I know complained most heartily about (the UK tour of) Wayne Shorter's acoustic quintet playing: " that Free music" and how they really didn't like it - although I heard lots of melody, agreed harmony and several recognisable "arranged" pieces !! :)

We're off topic here, but again, freedom is freedom of expression, and occassionally that will include spontaneously agreed free passages that will come out sounding arranged as was the case with Keith Tippet and Andy Shepard. You can't always tell. Olie pointed this out - some of the very free sounding parts of a Barry guy peice for instance I found out had scored instructions as to what sort of whoops and swoops to do - not conventionally noted for sure - same thing with Antony Braxton who toured with an orchestra of all sorts. Obscuring the boundaries is as much the point as be-bop heads sounding like solos I guess. I sort of agree with you in general terms Bruce but don't think you can make the statements you have categorically and that includes the one about riffs. Just because musicians want to earn some dough and get pleasure pleasing the public doesn't mean its their music of first choice - but it might be!

Braxton is a very detail oriented composer. I do not think that is hard to hear in his work.

As for whether free jazz engages I find myself in the reverse of Sam's situation, in the hands of good players it engages at the time but I'm not in a rush to play the cd - in fact, live it can be totally gripping. It is not an easy listen but there's nothing wrong with that.
I don’t know what you heard but it isn’t anything I said and it certainly wasn’t anything I played.

Chris - what can I say - you, a big fan of Rufus Reid's teaching griping about concept (something Rufus certainly used to insist on) and then going on to explain several concepts of playing.
Chris is obviously a big guy who can speak for himself. What I think he was reacting to was statements by George Russell and Cecil Taylor (among others) to the effect that listeners must go through special preparation or education in order to appreciate their music. I respect George Russell for many things done well and at great risk, but I don’t buy that notion any more than Chris does. As Branford Marsalis in his infamous put-down of Cecil Taylor, “I shouldn’t have to warm up just to listen to him. I don’t field grounders before I go to the ballgame.”

If you haven't got a concept of what you're going to play you waffle nonsense and no, that nonsense is not free jazz.
With respect, we disagree. It’s bad free jazz. Which is just as bad as any other kind of bad jazz. Being “free” doesn’t make it better or worse, or more or less ‘jazzy.’ I hate bad jazz. It makes it harder to succeed with good jazz.

Freedom soon sorts out those who have something to say and those who have not and whether they have the means to do it, without necessarily using standard musical devices as the means to do so.
Eloquently said, but again, we disagree. There is so much room in free jazz for soul-less honking and blorting, just as there is so much room in standard jazz for mindless running of pre-packaged quasi-musical noises. The freedom in standard jazz sorts the real from the sham just as quickly – it’s simply that poor listeners don’t pick up the flatulence as easily. Bad jazz sucks no matter what variety. (Reminds me of a toast at my niece’s wedding this weekend: “Champagne for my real friends and real pain for my sham friends.”)

Ornette (and the free movement) are talking about artistic concepts whereas TB generally discusses techniques. Indeed, some threads seem to imply that standard technique is an end through which artistry will spontaneously appear because you have the technique - **** to that.
Art is about expressing who we are. TB/DB will tend to spend more time on technique than artistic development because the only real thing we can do online to help somebody to develop artistically -- to find something real to express -- is to say, "Have you checked xxx out?" Besides, many people actively avoid engaging who they are on a deep level and their playing (whether free, standard, classical, rock or whatever) reflects that.

I would like to see exactly what John Coltrane said-because I obviously respect/revere him. He is an example of a person who is was extremely dilligent and also fabulously talented. Also misunderstood in certain circles. I don't respect Cecil Taylor and there are plenty of great players through the years that felt/feel that way too.So--the whole "who are you to criticize this great man" stuff--well I am in that camp of individuals that just speak their mind about something they think--rather than hedging because they think they're not hearing something that someone else might. I'd rather do that they qualify what I say and let the critics rule who they think is good.

I give people benefit of the doubt until they say certain things. If they stuff that sounds fishy--like I've explained with the Matthew Shipp quote then that immediately drops them a notch. It did Matthew. You might say the same about the things I say here--but that's the democratic way. This is an instinctual reaction-and it's the right one. There is a certain wave of people that have decided to embrace him in certain artistic circles-especially in Europe and the UK. I'm catching that vibe from other message boards. This will pass. Same thing with the neo bop conservatives in NY- who are picking the bebop greats dead bones--without a prayer of moving music forward either. It's just the other side of the coin-they are both the status quo. Because I think neither are truly investigating the problem. If this is a 180 from the underground jazz movement looking to turn the world on it's ear so be it .And I think that's the problem with it. It's trying to do something different--but not living through different musics--something that Coltrane did.The adherents are just spouting what other people say.

I would leave abstract art out of this whoever brought that up-if you don't really know anything about it. I have an original from the 50s in my living room and it speaks to me. But some of the art critics who have written about them--in the most unintelligble mixture of vagueries ever written. Many of these critics will wax expert on free jazz too. Any wonder?

Let me ask you directly: what do you like about his music-specifically. which record. If you give me a concrete reason why you like it--measure per measure- I'll listen. That's another thing I allow myself to do. Change my mind in the wake of irrefutable evidence. But then I would ask you to listen to some of the great contemporary classical composers of our time--Elliot Carter, Oliver Messian, Anton Webern, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Bartok and then some of the lesser knowns--really put Cecil Taylor into that realm. These are guys that really understood dissonance and how to control musical density. I used to immerse myself in their scores when I was in college. Does CT's music really hold up to this type of scrutiny. Sorry, don't think so.

It's off topic but so be it. These mix it up discussions are important to get people to think--whatever the outcome.

uh.. (sound of jaw dropping)...
England has had some of the richest history of free improv of anywhere, in fact a good argument could be made for England as the birthplace of free improv that wasn't jazz.
Never heard of Derek Bailey? John Stevens? Evan Parker? John Edwards? Paul Dunamll? Keith Tippett? Tony Oxley? Alan Wilkinson? Trevor Watts? Paul Rutherford? etcetcetcetc?


By coincidence, I just picked up the November edition of JazzWise magazine and was reading about a "stand out" gig at the London Jazz festival on 15th November!

So it includes a trio of Cecil Taylor with drummer Tony Oxley and trumpeter Bill Dixon, supported by Antony Braxton's quintet - the article is headlined : "Free for All" ;)

And not that he needs my backup, but Jon (nypiano) has one of the best sets of ears I've come across in my playing experience. His playing is deep, because his involvement is deep. His opinion is his opinion, sure. But he ain't just saying stuff that he heard somebody else say, he ain't saying stuff without listening to the work in question and he ain't saying stuff just to play devil's advocate.

I've been playing with Jon for almost 17 years now, he's opinionated but constantly open to re evaluate his position.

I read something the other day -
"I have my opinion and you have your opinion and they are both right. Our opinions are rooted in our expereince and we have different experiences."

When we're all dead, nobody will remember ANY of this "conceptual" music (or "conceptual" art of any kind) if it doesn't have some non-conceptual mojo living inside of it. Nobody today gives a flying fart what Bach thought of his music, or even Stravinsky for that matter. The critics of those times, and what they said? Forget about 'em, history has flushed them, they are totally irrelevant.

In the long run, the only thing that counts is the music and whether it's dug or not dug.

That being said, let me say that I've tried for decades to dig Cecil Taylor's music and I can't. Combine that with Taylor's mouth and I'm with BIG APPLE 88.

Let me ask you directly: what do you like about his music-specifically. which record. If you give me a concrete reason why you like it--measure per measure- I'll listen. That's another thing I allow myself to do. Change my mind in the wake of irrefutable evidence. But then I would ask you to listen to some of the great contemporary classical composers of our time--Elliot Carter, Oliver Messian, Anton Webern, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Bartok and then some of the lesser knowns--really put Cecil Taylor into that realm. These are guys that really understood dissonance and how to control musical density. I used to immerse myself in their scores when I was in college. Does CT's music really hold up to this type of scrutiny. Sorry, don't think so.
.

Its always hard to explain in words why you love someones playing, and I certainly couldn't explain measure by measure. I could list things like I love the energy and excitement of his playing, I love the relationship, especially rhythmically, between him and sunny murray and jimmy lyons in the early trio, or his interplay with William parker and Tony Oxley more recently. And I do think that a lot of that interplay is down to his compositions, which have been described much longer than it might often sound. I can't remeber the precise quote, but Jimmy Lyons said something about taylor's music being 70% or so composed.

With the exception of Carter, who I don't know well, and Stravinsky who I've never really fully appreciated, I love the composers you mention. And yes, I do think Unit Structures, for example, is a comparable peice of composition.

Out of interest, do you think he's fooling the likes of Murray, Lyons, parker, etc.. or are they all crap as well?

[QUOTE=Bruce Lindfield]I've heard those you mention - but in no case was it totally "Free" .
[QUOTE]

If you're interested, Bruce, there is a huge wealth of completely free music happening in England, mostly in London. have a look at www.londonimprov.com for gigs etc..

most of the people I mentioned mostly play completely freely.

of course the improv scene involves quite a bit of bad music, but also some truly wonderful stuff, the names above are only tip of the iceberg.

and sorry for hogging the thread everyone

I had a teacher once who told me to learn how to play "in" before I attempted to play "out." I found that to be really good advice.

I think in regards to free improv that a parallel can be drawn between it and abstract art. What style of jazz is more abstract and less inhibited by form than free jazz ? The NY painters of the 40's and 50's were thinking along the lines of obliterating form and content (not to steal Ben Shahn's title) and this eventually filtered into musical thinking.

Music has always been behind the visual arts when it comes to concepts...

I would like to see exactly what John Coltrane said-because I obviously respect/revere him.
"There is never any end," Coltrane said at the conclusion of our conversation about this album. "There are always new sounds to imagine, new feelings to get at. And always, there is the need to keep purifying these feelings and sounds so that we can really see what we've discovered in its pure state. So that we can see more and more clearly what we are. In that way, we can give those who listen to the essence, the best of what we are. But to do that at each stage, we have to keep on cleaning the mirror."

-- Nat Hentoff's notes to John Coltrane's Meditations.

Thanks, Jon, for the opportunity to revisit these thoughts in more detail. They are never "off topic."

When we're all dead, nobody will remember ANY of this "conceptual" music (or "conceptual" art of any kind) if it doesn't have some non-conceptual mojo living inside of it. Nobody today gives a flying fart what Bach thought of his music, or even Stravinsky for that matter. The critics of those times, and what they said? Forget about 'em, history has flushed them, they are totally irrelevant.


I'm not sure - so everybody seems to remember that Stravinsky said that he didn't really compose the Rite of Spring, but rather - "I am the vessel through which The Rite passed'.

So this adds something to the mystique of the piece and that idea that it is about a primeval energy rather than just "music".

Also - when I listen to Messiaen, it is obvious there are some big concepts being played out and it does help to know about the Hindu ideas or birdsong that inspired a certain piece or that Chronochromie is about his own Synaesthesia - etc. etc.

If you're interested, Bruce, there is a huge wealth of completely free music happening in England, mostly in London. have a look at www.londonimprov.com for gigs etc..

most of the people I mentioned mostly play completely freely.



Hmmm....I looked at that - my one thought was : "Is this Jazz?"

;)

Chris - what can I say - you, a big fan of Rufus Reid's teaching griping about concept (something Rufus certainly used to insist on) and then going on to explain several concepts of playing. If you haven't got a concept of what you're going to play you waffle nonsense and no, that nonsense is not free jazz. Freedom is freedom of expression - have you got anything to express? Freedom soon sorts out those who have something to say and those who have not and whether they have the means to do it, without necesarily using standard musical devices as the means to do so.

Hmm. Well, Sam basically made what I was trying to get across come out the way I meant it, but just in case anybody didn't catch that, I would just say this:

I'm not against having a concept of the music you play - in fact, I think everyone needs to have a concept. What I'm against is the notion that the listener needs to know what the concept is and "understand it" in order to somehow "Get" the music - and THAT is what I find to be pure BS. In my opinion, the listener shouldn't have to know a damn thing in order to listen - the music should stand up and speak on its own, because its "concept" should speak directly through the music and not need further explanation.

Remember, I did not say that Ornette was asking this of his listeners, only that the discussion of "harmolodics" reminded me of another composer who instised that in order to get with the music, you had to understand the concept. And it is this notion that I BOO heartily. As long as we're already way off topic, I feel the same way about 12-tone music. To my ears, a piece either speaks to me, or it doesn't - I don't care how brilliantly the math works out. Quite honestly, I don't "get" Webern when the paper gets put away, but I do "get" Berg. I don't "get" much of Schoenberg's 12-tone stuff without the paper, but his earlier atonal music makes perfect sense to me aurally. In other words, the music either works or it doesn't...and if it doesn't, I don't want to hear any wankery about how the concept "makes it all make sense". :eyebrow:

But harmolodic mysticism is where you came in, not the later free jazz wrangle in this thread. Can you have a band giving equal weight to consitutent parts - what happens when you do, can all the musicians present cope with that - big question - need darn good musicians all hooked up together to even think of doing it - just think, if a harmony part or rhythm part isn't subservient it had better 'say something' as Ed grinds on about. In which case you will have a 3D soudscape you can move around, from one bit to the next and find something new everytime. Anyone fancy the challenge to pull this off? (Some wag could argue that Ellington's best scores did this - I wouldn't disagree but Ornette's bands, as I understand it, rely on direct individual contribution/improvisation above the score.)



Agreed, and that's an admirable goal, whether you are playing "free" music, or whether you are deconstructing standards. Sometimes I hear a 3D soundscape, and sometimes I hear what appears to me a bunch of aimless wandering played very emphatically. Like Uncle Frank was fond of saying, "if it sounds good to you, then it is good to you." That's all I meant. :)

I think in regards to free improv that a parallel can be drawn between it and abstract art. What style of jazz is more abstract and less inhibited by form than free jazz ? The NY painters of the 40's and 50's were thinking along the lines of obliterating form and content (not to steal Ben Shahn's title) and this eventually filtered into musical thinking.

Music has always been behind the visual arts when it comes to concepts...

... and the waste bin into which, over time, conceptual visual pieces have been tossed overflows. We look at Picasso, Pollock, Rauschenberg, whoever from 20th century, and the ones that are still looked at, let alone loved, have got some mojo goin'. Our experience of them works pre-conceptually. They speak to the viewer in some way. It's in that mysterious speaking where the staying power lives or doesn't live.

If the art's got no mojo, it's headed for the dustbin. No exceptions.

What's interesting here is that the conceptually-fed stuff can, in fact, create new appetites and tastes in viewers and listeners over time. Pollock is "beautiful" to modern eyes in ways he wasn't to those who first saw the pieces. Similarly, our modern ears tolerate all kinds of harmony that would have made folks from 100 years ago think someone's out of tune.

Art rules on its own terms -- people like what they like, are moved by what moves them, by forces that care not a whit about ideas and concepts. The ideas and concepts are for critics, intellectuals, enthusiasts and crackpots. More power to 'em, I got nothing against them.

The artist that maintains that an audience has to know stuff before the audience can dig the art is in for a world of pain. Maybe that artist likes the world of pain...

I am somehow reminded of a schoolboy fight. Ed you watchin my back :D ?

I have not heard the CT recording Unit Structures you mention. So I will go straight to it and find it. I will let you know what I think. I remember seeing two full sets of Cecil Taylor's music at a NY club (way back when). The one comment I had was that it all was one dark color which in a way is not that much different than a major triad--repeated 50 billion times with the intent to hypnotize. Somebody else might call that a brilliant statement but is that really the right kind of diligent creativity we want to put forward?

The other thing I would have to say is it's foolhardy to take on music that poses such harmonic and structural difficulties and just throw yourself into it and expect the results to speak volumes. It's just not practical. Except when you are serious musician that has played everything, studied, composed etc. Then your likelihood of producing something musical is very high. And it really doesn't matter what style you play in that case.

I don't want to lump any other guys into my assessment right now... everybody is an individual--they can't be grouped with somebody else. For example some people lump Don Pullen in with Cecil Taylor. He didn't really like that. Personally I feel his history coming through. I think organ playing played a big part in his approach to piano

I am also interested in your opinion not David Murray or anybody else. I would put them to the same scrutiny though. What do they have to say about music? Whom did they study with? How long? How’s their inside playing? Technical knowledge. What do they think about the established “inside” players. This would greatly affect my opinion of them. And it should for you too.

kinda akin to "not playing for the audience.." I agree. I think the painters of the 40's and 50's say Franz Kline painted from ideas and people liked them. As I said earlier, it's about the sound not the theory.

The other thing I would have to say is it's foolhardy to take on music that poses such harmonic and structural difficulties and just throw yourself into it and expect the results to speak volumes. It's just not practical.



Unless I'm greatly misinterpreting your post, this is exactly what I dislike about musicians/composers/artists etc. who try to "Jump outside the Box" and create an entirely new art form. No matter how you slice it, the space outside the box is still defined by THE BOX itself. If you don't have intimate working knowledge of THE BOX, then how can you know the difference? Or, as Hal Galper so eloquently put it years ago, "Your outside **** is only as good as your inside ****". For me, these are truly words to live by.

Whether we want to admit it or not, we do all stand on the shoulders of those who came before us...or if we don't, we're blind men claiming prophetic visions, likely because we were afraid to really see what's going on. In my opinion, of course.

Chris just said what I said earlier...

I think we agree (Chris/Sam) bad jazz sucks and improv should say something but not where the most obvious fakers are - no worries.

Concepts, especially mathematical ones, have been buried in scores before, usually without being announced. Should art stand on its own without explanation or depth of study? I'm not sure this is a question posed by CT (a friend’s wife called it 'music to leave home by' and she did) but appreciation does increase with knowledge and understanding in all fields - our ears get better, we recognise quotes, challenges overcome - ok these are technical aspects but they can have an aesthetic beauty of their own or contribute to a message. This is more so for figurative visual media from a Leibskind building to a Renaissance painting. I can't think of a totally abstract example though.

Cecil may well be an exemplar of an artist determined to pursue art for arts sake until an audience recognises his genius. Such people have their place in history and are described retrospectively as being ahead of their time. Does this apply to CT or is it a conceit?

Its a bit of a fruitless argument to just rubbish it - people in the past had a different aesthetic born of different experiences and this is even the case with contemporaries as shown by disagreements here and that nice quote of Ed's. Some of the critics of Ornette at the time he was first coming to attention seemed to me to be in three camps, for, against and those who were frightened to say they didn't like it in case it was the next big thing. Safer and more honest to say whether it moves you or not regardless. Freedom was/is also associated with left politics and ideals. This gets forgotten because it doesn't matter to the musical result - the concept cannot be divined from the music. Same applies to Wagner - unless you study the librettos and context closely.

My theory of freedom going wrong is this: where you have a blank piece of paper and are determined to fill it and nothing comes to mind you can only fill it with rubbish - where you have a chord sequence to fill and are determined to fill it you stand a chance of leaning on experience to sound ok even if it's not very inspired.

Much as I don't need to be a supporter of Foghorn, you need to feel something about a piece/moment or whatever, want to express it and come up with the vehicle to do so. If you don't - don't play - BUT, this is music as art to be listened to as art and a lot of the time its a gig, its background music, its entertainment, its a dance - you've just gotta play. These gigs are only free if you're not being paid.

Back to harmelodics for a thought. You can give everything equal weight - but not at the same time. … and its funny that people should use instruments designed to reproduce tonal music to create abstract sounds but there you go – anyone asked Ornette to get his fiddle out recently?

Cage used to fill blank sheets with random dots to be interpreted by the performer. The results were and are sometimes horrible and sometimes inspiring. It goes back to having the background down.

I think we agree (Chris/Sam) bad jazz sucks and improv should say something but not where the most obvious fakers are - no worries.

Concepts, especially mathematical ones, have been buried in scores before, usually without being announced. Should art stand on its own without explanation or depth of study?


In my opinion, yes. If you choose to create "art" that is inaccessible or intentionally obtuse, or if you prefer to think that your "art" is just over the heads of the philistines who are ill-equipped to understand it, then that's fine, and no skin off my proverbial backside. But where I get a rash on that same backside is when these "artists" and their devotees start slamming the ignorance or intelligence of those who don't care to go to the trouble to "understand" the art in question, and who therefore just don't bother with it. This is - in my opinion, of course - the worst kind of whining imaginable, more befitting a spoiled toddler than a serious artist.

If a serious artist really believes in his/her art, he/she will create it regardless of the reaction to or against it. In other words, if the art in question is created by an honest need of someone to express themselves, great. If, on the other hand, the art is created because of an insecure need for others to recognize the brilliance and/or genius of the artist, then I'd just as soon use it to line my cat litter box.

Shakespeare had a great take on this kind of attitude, calling it, "too cunning to be understood". To me, that about sums it up. :D

Cecil may well be an exemplar of an artist determined to pursue art for arts sake until an audience recognises his genius. Such people have their place in history and are described retrospectively as being ahead of their time. Does this apply to CT or is it a conceit?


Monk, yes. Cecil Taylor, no.

Hey, just ask Wynton, he knows!! :hiding:

But where I get a rash on that same backside is when these "artists" and their devotees start slamming the ignorance or intelligence of those who don't care to go to the trouble to "understand" the art in question, and who therefore just don't bother with it. This is - in my opinion, of course - the worst kind of whining imaginable, more befitting a spoiled toddler than a serious artist. :D

maybe I'm being overly defensive here, but there is a difference between attacking people who "don't care to go to the trouble of understanding it", and attacking those who say that it is rubbish because they don't understand it. NYPiano, much as I disagree with him about CT, is different again in that he claims to understand it but still things its rubbish. But there were several emails on this site dismissing music as rubbish because the writers didn't understand it.

maybe I'm being overly defensive here, but there is a difference between attacking people who "don't care to go to the trouble of understanding it", and attacking those who say that it is rubbish because they don't understand it. NYPiano, much as I disagree with him about CT, is different again in that he claims to understand it but still things its rubbish. But there were several emails on this site dismissing music as rubbish because the writers didn't understand it.


Yes - this opens up several cans of worms - like : is music criticism worthwhile if you think it's just a case of like it/don't like it?

I find that I enjoy music a lot more and get a lot more out of it, if I have an idea of what the composer was trying to do and why he/she did certain things etc etc.

So - pieces like Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique or Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony (a couple of simple examples amongst literaly hundreds of similar ) are obviously enjoyable without knowing anything about them - some great tunes! - but can be more enjoyable if you know that Beethoven has a story in mind and is including depictions of nature; or that Berlioz is superimposing the Dies Irae on a Black Mass etc. etc.

maybe I'm being overly defensive here, but there is a difference between attacking people who "don't care to go to the trouble of understanding it", and attacking those who say that it is rubbish because they don't understand it. NYPiano, much as I disagree with him about CT, is different again in that he claims to understand it but still things its rubbish. But there were several emails on this site dismissing music as rubbish because the writers didn't understand it.

Hmm. I don't recall you ever calling Jon stupid or ignorant. I just recall you disagreeing with him. My post fragment you quoted is really more a way of saying that if the music doesn't speak to me on its own, I don't care what the theory behind it is. In the case of Cecil Taylor, I haven't heard much, haven't liked what I've heard, and haven't seeked out more. All I'm saying by that is that I don't like it. I have no universal authority to decide for everyone else if it's any good or not - that would make me God or Stanley Crouch. Either way, I wouldn't be a musician any more. :)

I have no universal authority to decide for everyone else if it's any good or not -

But isn't this what all musical or literary criticism is attempting to do?

And over time, it becomes universally accepted for example, that certain works by composers or albums by Jazz artists are the best of their type...?

That Stravinsky's Rite of Spring is a truly great work of art, while some of his earlier work, owes a lot to Rimsky Korsakov..?

But isn't this what all musical or literary criticism is attempting to do?

And over time, it becomes universally accepted for example, that certain works by composers or albums by Jazz artists are the best of their type...?

That may well be what it's trying to do. If so, it's nothing more than a sign of an inflated sense of self-worth on the part of the writer, IMO. The music should speak for itself in the end.

That Stravinsky's Rite of Spring is a truly great work of art, while some of his earlier work, owes a lot to Rimsky Korsakov..?

I've heard something to that effect. I've also heard high praise for stuff from various sources that I find to be an intellectual circle-jerk. Writers can write what they want, but in the end, I feel free to love what they hate and hate what they love if that's what the music says to me. That doesn't mean that I'm right and they're wrong, it just means that they are writing in a subjective arena, and everyone is a different subject. :)

Chris, I think Ollie was saying that I wasn't among the groups that was stupid because I gave a reason for not liking. Although I don't think he said stupid anywhere (?)
Reminds of me of that Odd Couple episode where Felix comes to Oscar's rescue from this hockey player who then tells Felix that "anyone who doesn't go outside is a chicken." And felix says, "that's a stupid assumption." The tough guy goes, "Oh so you're calling me stupid, huh? Felix says, "No, I'm calling you're assumption stupid." The hockey guys then says sheepishly, "What's an assumption?"

In reference to what people like, dismiss. I think you really need to challenge what people think about aretists and then give details of what you think. All artists are people--including iconized ones. I remember hearing Robert Glasper, young piano phenom saying that a lot of musicians put others on a pedestal--(I'll never be a Coltrane, etc) limiting themselves right out of the box.

All this balanced by the other side of the argument, which is when you criticize others consistently you are really just criticizing yourself. Really good artists tend not to bother, unless they have a curious chip on their shoulder
And that's okay...
because doggone it.. I'm good enough..I'm smart enough and people like me :help:

I think you're stupid AND fat.

In the nicest possible sense, of course.

I think you're stupid AND fat.

In the nicest possible sense, of course.

Ed, you forgot "obnoxious..."

Ed, you forgot "obnoxious..."

So I guess using the "other side of the argument" rule...you guys think you're collectively stupid, fat and obnoxious, correct? :spit: :D

Is the "I know you are but what am I.." mantra by kids deeper than we all suspected? :eyebrow:

Hedgehog: did you get my Ray..midithingading via email? :bassist:

So I guess using the "other side of the argument" rule...you guys think you're collectively stupid, fat and obnoxious, correct? :spit: :D

Is the "I know you are but what am I.." mantra by kids deeper than we all suspected? :eyebrow:

Hedgehog: did you get my Ray..midithingading via email? :bassist:

No no, I was just making a joke in reference to all the "Big,Fat, and Obnoxious" references flying around the tube lately.

That's all...

In reference to what people like, dismiss. I think you really need to challenge what people think about aretists and then give details of what you think. All artists are people--including iconized ones. I remember hearing Robert Glasper, young piano phenom saying that a lot of musicians put others on a pedestal--(I'll never be a Coltrane, etc) limiting themselves right out of the box.

All this balanced by the other side of the argument, which is when you criticize others consistently you are really just criticizing yourself. Really good artists tend not to bother, unless they have a curious chip on their shoulder
And that's okay...


I think Robert Fripp is right in one thing. To paraphrase him, the intent of music criticism is to evaluate the music, but the effect is not that. Criticism only says something about the critic, not the music. Hence, "criticizing yourself."

To be charitable, then, there are two ways to respond to criticism. Either ignore it ("dismiss"), if you have no interest in the critic, or explore with the critic what their background and the experience of the music is that leads them to express the opinion they did. In either event, it is about the critic and not the music.

That having been said, I have every right to evaluate the experience and meaning of a body of musical work for me. And to express that, but with no expectation that it is about the music, but about me and my experience of it. And, an interesting discussion can ensue, but not if the focus is on whether I am "right" in my assessment of the music. If that is the focus, there is no discussion, only argument. Smoke, no fire. Exploring each other's experience, positive or negative, might result in one or another learning something about the music or about themselves. That would be the good outcome.

Can anyopne explain Ornette Coleman's Harmolodoc theory to me?... in a way a rational musican can understand?Geez. After reading through this entire thread my head is swimming like no other TalkBass thread previous.

Now, as far as the original question/quote above:
I asked the very same question of a guitarist I played with about 20 years ago, who was very, very into Harmolodics (Harmelodics?).

He ;) at me and said: "It's all the wrong notes".:eek: :D

How's that for dumbing-down a conversation?:p

He ;) at me and said: "It's all the wrong notes".:eek: :D

How's that for dumbing-down a conversation?:p

As any fule doth know - the correct reply is :

There are no wrong notes, only wrong resolutions!!! ;)

As any fule doth know - the correct reply is :

There are no wrong notes, only wrong resolutions!!! ;)That's what I told him!:smug:
Sheeez,...friggin' guitar players.:rollno:
:p :p :p

I auditioned for ornette about 10 years ago. I have no idea where he got my number but I met him at a studio on 125th street. For about 3 hours we played and he talked about roles of insturments, bass playing in alto clef, trumpet playing in F clef,and just TONS of other concepts. years earlier I had tried to figure out harmolodics like most of my friends, but gave up. So I a very basic idea but MAN, this guy has a lot of stuff going on in his head. Anyway, after about 2 hours of mostly talking, he said something and all of a sudden the last 2 hours made complete sense and logic to me. For a split second I think I really understood it, everything. I stared at him with my mouth open and he looked at me and said, "Yeah, I know what I'm talking about." It was pretty funny. And as quickly as it came, whatever it was left my mind and I was, and still am, as confused as ever about harmolodics. Towards the end of our afternoon we played If I Should Lose You and he played the living **** out of it. just incredible. Anyway, thanks for letting me throw my story out there.

Tim, you played with ORNETTE!?! I mean this sincerely from the bottom of my heart.
F**k you!
You bastard.

That must have been scary/wonderful....

Ed, the list of legends that I've played with once is very long. ones I've played with more than once,,, very short. Notice how well I parlayed my 3 hours with Ornette into many duo gigs at Sophia's.
Joking aside, it was an incredible experience at the most perfectly wrong time in my life. I really wish something more could have come of it.

I hear ya. Still and all, that's 3 more hours than most of us have had.

Oh great....someone merely mentioned the Lydian Chromatic Concept and now I've got a migraine. Dang it.

-Scot

Saw Cecil Taylor the other night, with Tony Oxley and Bill Dixon, and now I'm going to have to bring this up again!

Cecil build his entire 30 minutes improvisation from one 4 note motif, and the amount of structure going one was incredible. I already loved his playing, but now I'm really sold... although he was obviously going fairly out-there, I could hear the relation the the 4 note pattern the whole way through. The amount of rhythmic variation round the pattern, harmonic stuff built off it, build and release of tension, I'm compltely convinced that you could apply webern-esque analysis to the complete peice.

Joh and others, go and hear him again and listen carefully, or get some recent recordings (especially with the feel trio, Tony Oxley and William Parker) and again, listen carefully..

Well at some point I have planned try to listen to his discographic history to see if this helps orient me into why some people dig him. I printed it out the other day. Getting a hold of such recordings in a library for example would probably be difficult. I read an interview he did where he talks about architecture in response to questions on practicing. Honestly he may be a Diaghelev type character-very sensitive to all of the arts and the great artists in the general sense, but my question still remains the specifics of his approach to music. The devil is in the details--which is in a way is funny when he described Miles personality as devil possessed. :eyebrow:

Well, there's a lot of "interesting" music out there - we don't have to like it all, even if the concepts are in some way "valid"?

I've listened to a fair amount of Stockhausen's music and it always has an interesting concept and some kind of unique and new approach - e.g. in terms of notation or performance protoculs.

BUT - some of it sounds wonderful and is genuinely moving music - while some of it is dreadfully dull, boring and not worth the effort - IMO of course!

Just because somebody is a musical genius, doesn't guarantee that they will make great music or that anybody will like it....

Can anyopne explain Ornette Coleman's Harmolodoc theory to me?... in a way a rational musican can understand?
the word harmolodic is ornette's contribution to ebonics to describe the fact that he can't or won't play changes

klepto, if you checked out some of Ornette's earliest stuff, stuff that had everybody talking about how freaky he was, you'll hear that by today's harmonic standards it's quite tame and plain Jane. I'm on record here as not having a lot of respect for "conceptual" music. When I listen to something like "The Shape Of Jazz To Come", I hear blues. Not very scary.

Ornette Coleman can play changes. It's silly to suggest otherwise.

klepto, if you checked out some of Ornette's earliest stuff, stuff that had everybody talking about how freaky he was, you'll hear that by today's harmonic standards it's quite tame and plain Jane. I'm on record here as not having a lot of respect for "conceptual" music. When I listen to something like "The Shape Of Jazz To Come", I hear blues. Not very scary.

Ornette Coleman can play changes. It's silly to suggest otherwise.
damon, thanks for the advice... i'm actually a fan of ornette and i have checked-out quite a bit of his music--i own a lot of his recordings and i've seen him play live a few times

my curiosity has gotten the best of me... i wonder what you think of charlie parker, since you claim that you don't have a lot of respect for "conceptual" music

I think I'm on record earlier in this very thread about what I mean by "conceptual" music.

It's kinda like having an ideology -- if I'm a Communist, then everything is class struggle; if I'm a libertarian, everything is because of too much government. Yada yada. If you go too far down that road, you're not making original ideas anymore, you're stamping out product.

If I have a theory about how to make music and insist upon the theory -- without reference to what musicians and listeners actually, empirically, verifiably like about music -- then I say that the probability the music sucks, the likelihood that the music will not survive beyond the moment, has risen.

Charlie Parker did all kinds of things, some of which he knew about and others of which he didn't. Not enough people talk about the revolution in rhythm and swinging he and Diz set upon the music world. The harmonic breakthroughs? I say it's much more likely his inner ear heard a music that he was driven to express than it is that he had this intellectual idea he had to realize.

By "conceptual" music, I'm much more thinking about Stockhausen, Anthony Braxton, sh*t like that.