Honestly, what started my interest in this: Trout Mask Replica (by Captain Beefheart and his Magic band). At first, of course, I didn't like it... but then it clicked that they were all playing different things: But it worked.

I've been really digging the 70s and onwards works of Ornette Coleman as well, that's when things got especially polyphonic/rhythmic. But how?!

I know there is no strict pattern to free jazz, and a lot of the music I listen to is atonal so I have a higher tolerance for discord than some: But it isn't just a bunch of people squawking saxes and randomly slamming drums: There is something more than that.

This is probably above, or below, my head... and like I said, as soon as some standard is set in free jazz, it stops being free jazz... is it really just "play and see what happens?"

Really generic questions, but I can't even wrap my head around some of this stuff: How and why things sound "right" to me, even though it sounds beyond wrong to some.

I know this isn't an answer, but I'm running out the door and I just wanna share, that honestly, I think a big component of it is that you just gotta hear it.

There's a lot of listening going on between the players.

... is it really just "play and see what happens?"

Sometimes, but IMO it's actually quite hard to do that for real. I remember seeing Jack Dejohnette spin some disks around on top of his drums and when they fell onto the heads he took that pattern and ran with it for twenty minutes or so. There may or may not be a strict pattern, but you'll find repeating motifs of some kind in most "free jazz" if you listen to it enough.

Really generic questions, but I can't even wrap my head around some of this stuff: How and why things sound "right" to me, even though it sounds beyond wrong to some.

I used to DJ on a community station, and over a few years I managed to make lots of "difficult" music palatable to quite a few people. IMHO the trick is finding the right gateway. For you maybe it was Beefheart, for lots of guys my age it was the Grateful Dead and/or Zappa, then Miles, then Coltrane. But really, maybe it's best to just enjoy the ride? There really is no accounting for taste, eh?

As everyone is saying it all about listening to each other and building off what someone starts. Sometimes it is organized as to who starts and who next changes things up. Other times its like jam someone decided its time to throw an new idea out. Then some there is a framework/song they are working from to start/end things or create a varity of sections. But most important is everyone is listening to each other, picking up the motifs and expanding on them.

A great place to start w/ free jazz is in Coltrane's late works, especially if you can hunt down some live stuff, and if you go chronologically in your listening from 1960 up until Trane's death, you will hear how they broke "free" from the then modern modal forms. I guess it's all about unrestricted harmony (and disharmony), that somehow works.

There really is a form/pattern to Free Jazz and it was mainly called free because a lot of elements of what was/is going on was nothing at all like the more focused aspect of Bebop,Hard bop or Strait Ahead jazz and even those three elements of Jazz has a large aspect of improvisation taking place.

It would be best to start with the earliest works of Ornette(the late 50's)before you get to the work of Coltrane because Coltrane got a lot of his conceptional understanding of Free Jazz from his studies with Ornette,before that Coltrane was playing things very very close to the safety net of improvisation compared to Ornette,Albert Ayler,Eric Dolphy,Archie Shepp and the many works of Sun Ra.

When I listen to "free jazz" what moves me the most is the interactions between all the players (I know this was said already, I just agree). I think that free jazz was maybe a step to try to get closer to conversation between instruments; sometimes traditional jazz gets so orchestrated that it loses that conversational aspect in my opinion.

sometimes traditional jazz gets so orchestrated that it loses that conversational aspect.


:D

:D :D "You know why they call it free jazz? Cause that's what you play for. Free." -The Bankrupt Bassplayer :D :D


:hiding:

Free Jazz is all about hearing things in your head, and getting them through your instrument.
It's about finding that connection between band mates, knowing what they're going to do, when they're going to do it.
Free Jazz can be very hard if it's done properly.

Free Jazz is all about hearing things in your head, and getting them through your instrument.
It's about finding that connection between band mates, knowing what they're going to do, when they're going to do it.


No disrespect Mark but that waters down considerably what Free Jazz is all about.

No disrespect Mark but that waters down considerably what Free Jazz is all about.

No Disrespect Taken.
What do you mean, Jauqo?

No Disrespect Taken.
What do you mean, Jauqo?


One of the key elements in Free Jazz and most improvisational music is that you don't know what your band mates are going to play and that is one of the many aspects of Free Jazz that makes it so powerful.


If you abandon chords and you have no chords to construct what are you left with ?

you're left with a micro moment of your thought process to figure things out and make them work.

Multiple rhythms can be applied just as if it's a chord,constructing a texture that can become the tonic that leads the music into a realm of sonic chordal freedom that is not in the traditional form of chord construction.

Free Jazz is all about hearing things in your head, and getting them through your instrument.
It's about finding that connection between band mates, knowing what they're going to do, when they're going to do it.
Free Jazz can be very hard if it's done properly.

All music should meet that critieria. I would say it does apply for good groups that is what being a band is all about.

you're left with a micro moment of your thought process to figure things out and make them work.


Well said! It's that micro moment of listening that's essential to free jazz.

This fluency between your ear, reaction, and produced sound is something to work towards in Jazz and improvisational playing in general as well.

Honestly, what started my interest in this: Trout Mask Replica (by Captain Beefheart and his Magic band). At first, of course, I didn't like it... but then it clicked that they were all playing different things: But it worked. .


Several things going on here - but first I just need to say that Troutmask Replica is NOT Free Jazz!

It is not Jazz and it is not "Free" ....Beefheart composed all those tunes and the process of getting them exactly how he wanted was long and painstaking and has been well-documented - he shut the band away for long periods without distractions, getting them to play exactly what he wanted!

So in a fact - it is the very opposite of Free Jazz - which is basically co-operative - this was dictatorship! :p

"But the seeming sonic chaos is an illusion -- to construct the songs, the Magic Band rehearsed twelve hours a day for months on end in a house with the windows blacked out

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6597898/58_trout_mask_replica

I've been really digging the 70s and onwards works of Ornette Coleman as well, that's when things got especially polyphonic/rhythmic. But how?!

I know there is no strict pattern to free jazz, and a lot of the music I listen to is atonal so I have a higher tolerance for discord than some: But it isn't just a bunch of people squawking saxes and randomly slamming drums: There is something more than that.

This is probably above, or below, my head... and like I said, as soon as some standard is set in free jazz, it stops being free jazz... is it really just "play and see what happens?"


To take this second part - now Ornette is in many ways, the father of Free Jazz - so you're on the right track there!

But the thing to bear in mind is that those guys had huge experience of Jazz and the Blues to draw on - they had a big vocabulary of licks/riffs and ideas - a lot of these were held in common and would be familiar - a shared history of Jazz that they could draw on.

So by playing Jazz for many years they got great ears and a huge amount of material that could be the basis for branching 'out' and getting back.

In those records with Don Cherry and Charlie Haden etc. - you can hear motifs that recur - you can hear a lot of Jazz vocabulary cropping up at places and these guys can draw on massive experience of just playing Jazz with other people all the time.

So they have the shared history and great ears - plus many reference points from the Blues and Jazz - that's why it sounds more coherent - even when they may well be just "playing and seeing what happens"....;)

Free Jazz is actually pretty hard - hard not to repeat yourself or run out of ideas - I've had that demonstrated many times to me!! :p

So at Jazz Summerschool I've been to quite a few classes on Free Jazz and I did a whole week with the UK composer/Alto Player Jason Yarde, where we just played freely and tried to compose spontaneously!

Jason himself was a never-ending source of ideas and new takes to try - but as students we quickly ran out of inspiration! It is in fact, very easy to identify great players doing "Free Jazz" as it sounds great - whereas the less you have to draw on, the worse it sounds and the sooner the players repeat themselves...:hmm:


:p

This is question that I've had for years too. Let me amplify what I think the OP was asking.

Years ago I heard a concert with Pat Methany, Ornette Coleman, Charlie Hayden and Jack DeJohnette. They were promoting the Methany album "Song X". I count this concert as one of the major musical moments of my life. It was amazing.

Even though it was 'Free Jazz' each song had its own identity in terms of color and intensity and 'mood'. I had the album ahead of time and had listened carefully. I was expecting the concert to be a long free jam, but no.. they did the 'songs' and the same identity was there.

This was Free Jazz in every sense of the term, but there was a concept behind each piece. My question would be, what kind of pre-playing communication was there? If all elements are possible in a performance, what is done to keep out, or include the ones that give the piece the identity? I mean, if I'm on a gig and someone calls "All the Things You Are", I'm pretty sure right there that we are in Ab and once the tempo is given, many options are excluded. How is that done in Free Jazz?

The way I see it, a good introduction to free jazz is bebop. The masters - Coltrane, Coleman, Ayler, Sanders - took a definitive path to creating this music. I don't mean to say that you have to play bebop for years before you can play free jazz, but that is a great way to devlop interaction and improvisation within a form.

The Song X recording(which is a killer recording) was based off of Ornette's Harmolodic concept.I was with Ornette when we was working on some aspects of that recording and I have some of the Bass lines that Ornette had written out that appears on the recording that he gave me.Within the context of that recording a lot of it was written out and within the overall context of what was going on there was more than enough room to improvise with the written parts being the catapult and in some spots where it sound very dissonant in unison,it was Matheny playing back samples of Ornette's saxophone tone that he recorded on his Synth guitar.

I saw the Song X recording live and it was beautiful.

remember Denardo Coleman was also on the recording and tour playing a Roland electronic drum kit.

Several things going on here - but first I just need to say that Troutmask Replica is NOT Free Jazz!

It is not Jazz and it is not "Free" ....Beefheart composed all those tunes and the process of getting them exactly how he wanted was long and painstaking and has been well-documented - he shut the band away for long periods without distractions, getting them to play exactly what he wanted!

So in a fact - it is the very opposite of Free Jazz - which is basically co-operative - this was dictatorship! :p

"But the seeming sonic chaos is an illusion -- to construct the songs, the Magic Band rehearsed twelve hours a day for months on end in a house with the windows blacked out

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6597898/58_trout_mask_replica



Leave it to Rolling stone to give a rather generic explaination of an album. Though it is composed, and features often repetitive riffs, the sonic chaos is there regardless of composition, and it's very on purpose.

TMR more paved the way for my free jazz interest... chaos sounding correct, that's interesting.

The Song X recording(which is a killer recording) was based off of Ornette's Harmolodic concept.I was with Ornette when we was working on some aspects of that recording and I have some of the Bass lines that Ornette had written out that appears on the recording that he gave me.Within the context of that recording a lot of it was written out and within the overall context of what was going on there was more than enough room to improvise with the written parts being the catapult and in some spots where it sound very dissonant in unison,it was Matheny playing back samples of Ornette's saxophone tone that he recorded on his Synth guitar.

I saw the Song X recording live and it was beautiful.

remember Denardo Coleman was also on the recording and tour playing a Roland electronic drum kit.

Interestingly they did have music stands on stage with them, but I didn't really think that meant anything. I saw Cecil Taylor with a large ensemble of wind players once. I was working as the stage manager so I got to see the 'music'. All they had in the book were pictures of things that they were to use as inspiration for the music... at least that's how one of the trumpet players explained it.

Denardo was playing the Song X concert. Very excellent player. He kept up well, but that was quite a band to play with.

Leave it to Rolling stone to give a rather generic explaination of an album. Though it is composed, and features often repetitive riffs, the sonic chaos is there regardless of composition, and it's very on purpose.

TMR more paved the way for my free jazz interest... chaos sounding correct, that's interesting.

Well it's not Jazz and they are not improvising freely! :hmm:

I saw Beefheart and the Magic band live - he was a total dictator and they played the same thing every regardless - they weren't really listening to each other - in fact Beefheart was out of his head! :p

Well it's not Jazz and they are not improvising freely! :hmm:




... I guess I'll try one more time.


"Trout mask replica more paved the way for my free jazz interest... chaos sounding correct, that's interesting."

I gained an interest in the concept of "music doesn't have to play by the rules" from this album, a concept I'd say is aparent in free jazz. Where as TMR isn't free or jazz, it contains some of the dissonant elements, chaos... I don't know, if you see zero similarities between what Beefheart was doing and free jazz, that's fine. But it was a gateway drug that made sense of things for me, regardless if it seems to have any connection with you.

And yes, Donny Van is nuts, anybody who is too crazy for even Frank Zappa to deal with is nuts.

... I guess I'll try one more time.


"Trout mask replica more paved the way for my free jazz interest... chaos sounding correct, that's interesting."

I gained an interest in the concept of "music doesn't have to play by the rules" from this album, a concept I'd say is aparent in free jazz. Where as TMR isn't free or jazz, it contains some of the dissonant elements, chaos... I don't know, if you see zero similarities between what Beefheart was doing and free jazz, that's fine. But it was a gateway drug that made sense of things for me, regardless if it seems to have any connection with you.

And yes, Donny Van is nuts, anybody who is too crazy for even Frank Zappa to deal with is nuts.

What happened there is your ears expanding and opening up new sonic ground. that's awesome.

The irony of playing a genre of music like free jazz that has "no rules" id that unless you know the rules you aren't really in a position to break them. The free jazz pioneers started it due to feeling to confined by the rules of bebop, hard bop, modal, etc. So they threw them out the window but, as Jauqo stated, they all were experts at "the rules".

Free jazz is much harder than it seems, much, much harder........

... I guess I'll try one more time.


"Trout mask replica more paved the way for my free jazz interest... chaos sounding correct, that's interesting."

I gained an interest in the concept of "music doesn't have to play by the rules" from this album, a concept I'd say is aparent in free jazz. Where as TMR isn't free or jazz, it contains some of the dissonant elements, chaos... I don't know, if you see zero similarities between what Beefheart was doing and free jazz, that's fine.

But the point is you're asking how does that "work"?

So - you have two totally different types of music that are created in two totally different ways!

Beefheart created music by consciously trying to write stuff that was unlike anything else - throwing out any chords or riffs that sounded 'normal' - then drilling a band for months and months to play this stuff!

Whereas Free Jazz is people working together and listening to each other - then creating music spontaneously - but within a shared tradition and maybe the occasional cue..etc.

If you are not interested in how things work - then why ask the question....:hmm:?

The irony of playing a genre of music like free jazz that has "no rules" id that unless you know the rules you aren't really in a position to break them. The free jazz pioneers started it due to feeling to confined by the rules of bebop, hard bop, modal, etc. So they threw them out the window but, as Jauqo stated, they all were experts at "the rules".

Free jazz is much harder than it seems, much, much harder........

Yup agree 100% on that! :)

Catch Greg Osby live and you will see how free jazz works. I found it mind blowing that they could play continuously like they do. A set is an hour and half of non-stop music. Then they come back out and play another set. He promised all new music for the second set and I don't think he was lying. It will expand your consciousness. On the downside, I think I spent about $80 on scotch trying to keep my wife sedated enough to stay. :D

The lightbulb went on for me when I listened to Ornette's "Shape of Jazz to Come" on headphones. Listen to what Charlie Haden plays in reaction to Ornette's lines. THAT's free jazz to me.

What happened there is your ears expanding and opening up new sonic ground. that's awesome.

The irony of playing a genre of music like free jazz that has "no rules" id that unless you know the rules you aren't really in a position to break them. The free jazz pioneers started it due to feeling to confined by the rules of bebop, hard bop, modal, etc. So they threw them out the window but, as Jauqo stated, they all were experts at "the rules".

Free jazz is much harder than it seems, much, much harder........

+1

To be creative you must work with restrictions. When you have to do more with less is when you have to be truly creative.

The lightbulb went on for me when I listened to Ornette's "Shape of Jazz to Come" on headphones. Listen to what Charlie Haden plays in reaction to Ornette's lines.




Check out the duet recording by Ornette Coleman and Charlie Haden called Soapsuds, Soapsuds.

I saw the Song X recording live and it was beautiful.

The reissue with the extra cuts is really cool too. Song X has long been a favorite of mine.

Thanks for reminding me to revisit Soapsuds. I know I've got it here somewhere. :cool:

The reissue with the extra cuts is really cool too. Song X has long been a favorite of mine.



:D

Thanks for reminding me to revisit Soapsuds. I know I've got it here somewhere. :cool:

You're very welcome.

But the point is you're asking how does that "work"?

So - you have two totally different types of music that are created in two totally different ways!

Beefheart created music by consciously trying to write stuff that was unlike anything else - throwing out any chords or riffs that sounded 'normal' - then drilling a band for months and months to play this stuff!

Whereas Free Jazz is people working together and listening to each other - then creating music spontaneously - but within a shared tradition and maybe the occasional cue..etc.

If you are not interested in how things work - then why ask the question....:hmm:?



Nevermind, as always, you win Bruce.

http://i.ivillage.com/DF/103105/snackbars/DF_Kudos_366.jpg

Honestly, what started my interest in this: Trout Mask Replica (by Captain Beefheart and his Magic band....

I know there is no strict pattern to free jazz,

But it isn't just a bunch of people squawking saxes and randomly slamming drums: There is something more than that.

This is probably above, or below, my head... and like I said, as soon as some standard is set in free jazz, it stops being free jazz... is it really just "play and see what happens?"

Really generic questions, but I can't even wrap my head around some of this stuff: .

Nevermind, as always, you win Bruce.


Well I was just trying to answer the question you asked in your original post (see above) - why bother asking a question if you are not intersted in the answer ...:confused:

So my point is that if you really wanted to know how they work (?)- you are talking about two completely different ways of making music!

I don't know why you are offended by this - I'm simply telling you how it is! Or was! :p

So - my view :
Person asks a question
I try to answer it
Person then gets abusive....huh???? :confused:

OK - can somebody tell me what's going on here....?

So - my view :
Person asks a question
I try to answer it
Person then gets abusive....huh???? :confused:

OK - can somebody tell me what's going on here....?

I gave up trying to figure it out.

I post and some read it and say thanks they got something out of it. Then other complaint I didn't say what they wanted to hear. Most of the time that isn't the OP. So I post and people can do with it as they please. I just hope it gets them thinking and trying things out.

Keep up the good work.

Well I was just trying to answer the question you asked in your original post (see above) - why bother asking a question if you are not intersted in the answer ...:confused:

So my point is that if you really wanted to know how they work (?)- you are talking about two completely different ways of making music!

I don't know why you are offended by this - I'm simply telling you how it is! Or was! :p

So - my view :
Person asks a question
I try to answer it
Person then gets abusive....huh???? :confused:

OK - can somebody tell me what's going on here....?




Bruce: You've won, you can stop typing now.

What you mean you have lost interest in playing Free Jazz now...:p

I find that I'm increasingly getting into Free Jazz and had a great time playing it last summer :)

Well I have been through the thread twice now and all I can tell you is that "Free Jazz" based on the explanations presented here is what we used to call "jamming". Now the fact that someone has decided that "jamming" done by a set of folks who, prior to starting the "jam", are from a particular style of music giving rise to the "licks" they bring to the "jam" are primarily from a "Jazz" background created this "jam" classification of "Free Jazz".

Now you can make it sound as cerebral as you wish, since we all have a tendency to want to sound "educated" or "artistic" but if what I read here is accurate then logically there are the genres of "Free Rock", "Free Soul", "Free R&B", "Free Blues", "Free Country", "Free Classical" (this last one is a stretch as I have never actually been to a "classical jam" but you never know), "Free Pop" (where themes from major bubble gum hits of the late 60s are randomly interjected into free form chord executions derived from completely different bubble gum hits from the late 60s...quite complex really), and of course my personal favorite "Free Polka".

Sorry for the sarcasm but after over 30 years as a musician, playing virtually ever style of music imaginable (often against my will in order to put food on the table) when I hear something that sounds like a "jam", walks like a "jam"...well you know the phrase.

Now if this observation is incorrect than how about telling us if there are any unspoken rules or techniques in the construction of "Free Jazz" that would keep it from being just an excuse to make a "jam" sound like a musical form. Is there an unspoken chord concept that tends to be at the root? Do the players often pick the theme that occasionally gets picked up by the various participants early in the music or is it part of that "conversation" that someone earlier alluded to? Is it that the beats in "Free Jazz" tend to be more swing oriented than say fusion oriented? Answer these and I believe that you will have begun to answer the original posters questions.

Let the education begin!!!


Spin

I believe I did answer the OP's question and most of my answers come from first hand experience with Ornette Coleman and my own concept which Ornette recognized as being conceptually legitimate..

and sorry to say but the key elements that go into Free Jazz is totally different from what is referred to as Jamming and again I described aspects of this in my posts throughout this thread.

Well I take it you thought that my post was directed only at you, a consistent occurrence in threads I have visited in other forums. The fact that you stated "I have explained this already" (a paraphrase of your last post) isn't sufficient for me especially after listening to your stuff and the various artists listed as examples.

There does seem to be specifics to the form. It doesn't just feel like improvisation without any structure but rather a structure that supports and encourages free expression within that structure. Now if you are not able to provide more of an explanation or more answers to continue to support the theory that "Free Jazz" is somehow different from any other genre driven orchestrated "Jam Session" performed by genre specific "Jam Bands" that's just fine. Just don't get offended because I pointed out my confusion with the current thread and the lack of more substance than just "listen to this guy" or "the fellow started it all you should listen to him". I personally don't care. I just "jam" when opportunity to be free of structure comes along and someone shouts "common Spin, play with me".

To challenge this discussion to be more informative about this subject and the concept that almost anything played by competent musicians with a strong command of the conversational language of music could conceivably create a genre that is best described as "Free".

Never was knocking Ornette. Never was knocking Jauqo III-X. Wasn't after Till or Lindfield. Maybe out for DocBop but that would be just jealously for how laid back and often stunningly insightful I have found many of his posts.

I am now sorry however that I added my little perspective.

No not at all Spin and I didn't feel that you were knocking me or any one else I just think that some of the explanations from me and others were legitimate at introducing the basics of Free Jazz to at least get the OP or those who may be interested started.

I understand your perspective and Jamming and free jazz are two different idioms.

Well I take it you thought that my post was directed only at you, a consistent occurrence in threads I have visited in other forums. The fact that you stated "I have explained this already" (a paraphrase of your last post) isn't sufficient for me especially after listening to your stuff and the various artists listed as examples.

There does seem to be specifics to the form. It doesn't just feel like improvisation without any structure but rather a structure that supports and encourages free expression within that structure. Now if you are not able to provide more of an explanation or more answers to continue to support the theory that "Free Jazz" is somehow different from any other genre driven orchestrated "Jam Session" performed by genre specific "Jam Bands" that's just fine. Just don't get offended because I pointed out my confusion with the current thread and the lack of more substance than just "listen to this guy" or "the fellow started it all you should listen to him". I personally don't care. I just "jam" when opportunity to be free of structure comes along and someone shouts "common Spin, play with me".

To challenge this discussion to be more informative about this subject and the concept that almost anything played by competent musicians with a strong command of the conversational language of music could conceivably create a genre that is best described as "Free".

I think you have a point - so whereas in America there is a clear history and tradition which shows you how Free Jazz was arrived at - in Europe it is not so cut and dried!

So there is a lot of European, Freely improvised music and it may not be 'Jazz' as such - and you could get 'classical' musicians involved - people from folk traditions etc. etc.

It then gets much harder to say why this is not just a 'jam' between like-minded souls...?

I think my earlier points are also related to a difference between "American Popular Music ", which could be said to include Jazz - and European, "Art or Serious Music"....

So there is a lot of 20th century and later, avant-garde music in Europe which sounds totally chaotic - but which may have been through-composed, note-for note !

There is also music written with random elements (stochastic) or unplayable pictorial descriptions/suggestion - see Stockhausen's scores!! ;)

In America in 1960 - "Free Jazz" was just the title of an album by Ornette Coleman's "Double Quartet"!

But in any other time or place, "Free Jazz" is much harder to pin down! :p

Then in the spirit of continuing this conversation, which I do indeed find very interesting, is it reasonable to suggest that at some point in the past several forms of music, including the three most closely associated with "jamming" Blues, Jazz and Rock, most likely were born out of "jamming" in some other musical form? If so, that is that Jazz itself is an outgrowth of jams involving musicians attempting to stretch thier musical muscles beyond another form, then "Free Jazz" may be in some ways a matter of Jazz coming full circle. This is the part of the idea of a "Free Jazz" form that I find most interesting.

I believe I did answer the OP's question and most of my answers come from first hand experience with Ornette Coleman and my own concept which Ornette recognized as being conceptually legitimate..

and sorry to say but the key elements that go into Free Jazz is totally different from what is referred to as Jamming and again I described aspects of this in my posts throughout this thread.

+1

I agree Jamming isn't the right term to use relation to Free Jazz and IMO Jazz in general. Free Jazz is about exploration like a scientist. There is a specific territory being explored and ideas expanded on.

Jamming is looser in general and more about saying something than finding something.

Well - people jam in Rock and Blues - but this is more like a limited form of "normal" Jazz improvisation - based on changes.

So Rock and Blues improvisers - tend to stick to a fairly limited set of scales or chord tones when they jam .

Jazz started expanding this vocabulary and it is part of what makes it Jazz - so Jazz players will use a much wider variety of scales and will also play chromatic notes... etc etc

The difference with Free Jazz is that you are precisely not jamming on a few chords as you would in a blues or rock jam - there are no chords - you are not aiming to find the hidden chord progression and play together in that way - you are aiming to create something that could go anywhere....

Well as I was saying it is hard to pin down and it is probably easier to say what it is not - it's not a blues jam in F! :p

Wonderful!

I missed that part Bruce although I think I subconcously picked up on it as I was listening but didn't put it together until you wrote here. No chords (and since I tend to always look for sense to be made at the chordal and time signature level this is the clue I was looking for). Exploration without form leading always to the unknown. A form without form. A stream of licks going where the conversation between players leads it. No destinct responsibility placed on anyone to hold it together or lead on to the next section or theme. A musical free for all. A dangerous journey down a musical cliff. In other words...fun.

Now i must go a listen again with a fresh perspective.

Spin

Now i must go a listen again with a fresh perspective.


What are you listening to ?

Wonderful!

I missed that part Bruce although I think I subconcously picked up on it as I was listening but didn't put it together until you wrote here. No chords (and since I tend to always look for sense to be made at the chordal and time signature level this is the clue I was looking for). Exploration without form leading always to the unknown. A form without form. A stream of licks going where the conversation between players leads it. No destinct responsibility placed on anyone to hold it together or lead on to the next section or theme. A musical free for all. A dangerous journey down a musical cliff. In other words...fun.

Well I think I was trying to say earlier that while it very rewarding, I think it is actually very hard to play freely and avoid cliches or repeating yourself, or playing something that just falls nicely under your hands etc. etc.

I think that's why a lot of it is noisy and raucous, as without intensity, the music is nothing really...?

Bowing out of a thread politely seems difficult here.

First to answer Jauqo question; I have been digging up the artists and examples that were suggested by folks during the course of this thread. Among those examples I came across at least one vid that feature you (Jauqo that is) playing what seemed to be a piece that fit the descriptions utilized during the course of this thread.

And for Bruce; well dude I was indeed simply attempting to bow out and suggest that I would continue to listen with perhaps a clearer understanding of what I should be listening for (or perhaps what I shouldn't expect to hear). In general, based on the few examples I have listened to so far, I think that I have heard much in the way of musicianship from individual players in this form but I haven't quite figured out exactly whether or not it is possible for a non-participant to have quite the same appreciation for the whole as either the players or perhaps folks who follow those players so closely that the hear what others might not.

I haven't been all that impressed with bass playing in these pieces (not saying bad just saying no one really held my attention for long or showed any real innovation or departure from main stream styles or executions). The pieces as a whole did sound like so much noise in places although occasionally I did hear points where there seemed to be an intersection of ideas and that can be thrilling even for an audience if they feel that sudden convergence of ideas as the outcome of group improvisation.

Overall however many simply were like an episode from one of those improv comedy shows were the actors start with a premise and characters to play and then wing a scene. Sometimes its funny sometimes it goes nowhere.

Now I intend to nose around for a few more examples but it is mostly because I like to know things not because I intend to go down this road. It ain't gonna happen as my life is getting shorter everyday and I have my own compostitions and directions I prefer to pursue.

So now that I am writing my last post in this thread I leave you with a very important task...play nice!

Spin

:D

Foyee and I was so gone from this thread.

Jauqo - I need to appologize, although I am hoping you did not take my comment about not finding the bass playing impressive the wrong way. I did not mean you in particular. I may not completely get this specific form of Jazz but I have seen you play a number of times (on vid sad to say not live) and certainly you are a very fine player.

I just saw your post here and realized that what I said about the quality of bass playing might get misinterpreted. Hopefully, and I think you are a reasonable fellow so I am not overly worried, you did not think I was aiming at you.

Spin

Spin there's no need to apologize I could have taken it as you not digging my bass playing(maybe you don't)but I learned a long time ago that some aspects of my bass playing is not for every one but then again maybe all aspects :D

I think to the untrained ears(and I feel that your ears are untrained when it comes to the music discussed in the thread) that your description would be pretty close to accurate.