freebop

[svenbass]

This is an exciting thread! I'm loving the Pilc Moutin Hoenig stuff.

I've been doing a duo thing with a vibraphone player and a recent concept we have been exploring is taking a standard and playing it 'backwards'. In that we will start very free on say, a tonal center or melodic motif, and slowly proceed to reel the tune into shape ending with the last chorus/melody played straight as an arrow.

Another concept has been to take the 'A' sections very loose and regroup fairly straight on the 'B'.

With both of these we have decided to pay fairly strict adherence to the form, either metronomically or harmonically ...sometimes both. I have found these parameters to be quite liberating compared to all out free playing.

It's been an incredible exercise at the very least. We've and have had some fantastic musical moments, and other times the spike comes flying. In addition to huge ears, this approach (IME) also takes a combination of patience, restraint and balls.

I look forward to hearing other thoughts, and commentary.

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by Marc Piane

So I tend to think of this stuff in gradations like Chris talked about earlier. A departure can be as simple as displacing count one, a brief cross or polyrhythm, a chord sub, etc. You can take it to things like creating an extended pedal point, a feel change to either a different feel or a related time signature (3 over 4 etc) or you can make a more deliberate departure.

You can hear this in the history of Jazz - so like Monk displacing lines across bars and then by the time you get to "Live at the Plugged Nickel" the band start with heads, but do all sorts of things with the form that I still can't follow, no matter how many times I listen!

[Marc Piane]

I really dig the idea of patience. That coupled with flexibility and a team spirit is key I think. Check ego at the door and let the Music be the leader.

Sven. You know Jeff Lien right. I've done a bunch of playing with him over the past 5 years. Unfortunately he's decided to leave Chicago and head to Austin. Fun stuff.

[Matt Ides]

Great thread everyone. This applies to a lot of my playing which is more in Folk - Eastern European - Gypsy Jazz realm.

[svenbass]

Hey Marc, I heard he was moving .. Jeff is a great player! Roger Panella, and I had a trio with him a few years back when they were in Boston.

Back OT:

I haven't a clue if, or how much it exists, but I'd like to hear any commentary from classical players that have room for improvisation within the composition.

[Treyzer]

Originally Posted by Chris Fitzgerald

Semantics aside (I don't care too much about the word one way or the other), what I'm really trying to do in these situations is to loosen the stranglehold of rigid adherence to the divisions of the barlines, harmony, and melody. When I say "disguise", my intent is to make something seem like something other than what it is by displacing or replacing something expected with something else...........

Chris, what you're describing just seems like musical vocabulary to me; ways to make something interesting, exciting or provide tension and release. These are some of the elements that make playing jazz rewarding. I don't think of these musical elements as "playing free". When I hear someone or some band slavishly following a recorded or real book version of a classic tune, I tend to think they are performing the function of a glorified copy band.

Originally Posted by Chris Fitzgerald

Many people when they play free tend to play things that sound like complete musical non sequiturs to me.....

In my mind, there is a huge difference between stretching musical boundaries and completely ignoring musical forms & parameters altogether. The former can be exciting and very musical. The latter, in my view, is musical masturbation; just so much J#@king off!

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Treyzer

In my mind, there is a huge difference between stretching musical boundaries and completely ignoring musical forms & parameters altogether. The former can be exciting and very musical. The latter, in my view, is musical masturbation; just so much J#@king off!

Personally, I agree, but not everyone does.

[Treyzer]

Originally Posted by Chris Fitzgerald

Personally, I agree, but not everyone does.

Yeah Chris I know. It's a free country and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I was just expressing mine. I certainly don't claim to know everything about anything, and I have no desire to start another semantic argument but I think "taking a tune out" is vastly different than playing "free".

I've listened to some things that are termed "Free" and whatever the musical, emotional,technical or political content, those sounds don't speak to me.

[Marc Piane]

"Playing free" can mean lots of things. It probably isn't even the 'right' term because it conjures up so many connotations and can bring to mind anything from early Ornette to Albert Ayler to Evan Parker to Tony Malaby. In this thread I was wanting to discuss, more specifically, ways of being more open when playing standards like DURLL pointed out in post #10.

I think it really depends on the cats you are playing with as to how 'out' you can go. Some guys want you to hump away and stay fairly near the harmony and will look at you funny if you go too far on the opposite end there are guys that will get bored if you do mess with stuff.

[hdiddy]

It's more like Loosebop than Freebop.

[Treyzer]

Originally Posted by Marc Piane

"Playing free" can mean lots of things. It probably isn't even the 'right' term because it conjures up so many connotations and can bring to mind anything from early Ornette to Albert Ayler to Evan Parker to Tony Malaby.

Yeah, I hear ya. It can mean lots of things to different players.

Originally Posted by Marc Piane

I think it really depends on the cats you are playing with as to how 'out' you can go. Some guys want you to hump away and stay fairly near the harmony and will look at you funny if you go too far on the opposite end there are guys that will get bored if you do mess with stuff.

Marc, It seems to me that you're really talking about stretching tunes in many ways with many musical devices and that can be so rewarding. It's actually anything but free. Musicians who can really do this well are developing so many more layers to the music. As you've stated, you really have to know a tune well and have huge ears to make these thing really work. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by Treyzer

In my mind, there is a huge difference between stretching musical boundaries and completely ignoring musical forms & parameters altogether. The former can be exciting and very musical. The latter, in my view, is musical masturbation; just so much J#@king off!

I think that if you have a group of musicians, really listening to each other and exchanging ideas - then this can be worthwhile - even if they are not using any recognised musical forms.

The better they are as musicians and listeners, then the better it will be - but I don't think you can dismiss all free improvisation.

It does happen in Classical Music as well - I saw Ligeti's Violin Concerto, performed by Tasmin Little and the Berlin Philharmonic at the Royal Albert Hall.

At the end, the soloist is instructed to play an unaccompanied, improvised cadenza which sums up their feelings about the whole work and summarises what they felt about the performance, orchestra etc.

This was a completely free improvisation - based on something that was already quite tenuous, with parts written in different tunings and with microtonality.

Yet a packed audience at the Proms cheered it to the roof and demanded an encore!

[Treyzer]

Originally Posted by Bruce Lindfield

It does happen in Classical Music as well - I saw Ligeti's Violin Concerto, performed by Tasmin Little and the Berlin Philharmonic at the Royal Albert Hall.

At the end, the soloist is instructed to play an unaccompanied, improvised cadenza which sums up their feelings about the whole work and summarises what they felt about the performance, orchestra etc.

This was a completely free improvisation - based on something that was already quite tenuous, with parts written in different tunings and with microtonality.

Bruce, I think what you are describing is still a musical endeavor based on something. Maybe it's just semantics, but based on what you have described, I would not call that free. There is a great You Tube clip that has been in another thread on this forum "The Mind of Bill Evans". He eloquently discusses the concepts/ideas that have been the topic of conversation here. For your consideration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nsnh21ae6YI#!

[Marc Piane]

I love that interview. I've watch it about 10 times.

I think that freejazz it's kind of a misnomer. While there are plenty of examples of songs that lack any parameters there are also plenty of tunes in that same genre that do have parameters they're just not the standard ones of form length and traditional chord changes.

I suppose that's not really what this discussion is about but I thought I would mention.

[DoubleMIDI]

As I know, free jazz is not meant as a style ("the" free jazz) but as a break out from historically grown styles ("free" that jazz). So historically it was a search for new ways of playing jazz, not everybody playing totally free what he might want to play.

Playing jazz in a group is always an action-reaction thing, not musician playing at the same time not refering to the other group members.

The kind of action-reaction can be quite different and in different levels and time frames. The practical problem is, do the musicians know what happens in the group to react in a meaningful way and probably also wether the listeners can follow the music or not.

[gerry grable]

In my mind, there is a huge difference between stretching musical boundaries and completely ignoring musical forms & parameters altogether. The former can be exciting and very musical. The latter, in my view, is musical masturbation; just so much J#@king off! [/quote]

I am inclined to agree with you and Chris F, but then I somtimes run into perplexing exceptions. A case in point is guitarist, Dom Minasi. Dom is a major mover and shaker in what is known as the "Downtown Scene" in NYC (you can google him or check him out on Facebook. He also teaches!). I played with Dom often in the 60s and he was an excellent straight jazz player, so I know he can play. He now has devoted himself to what he calls "outside music." He plays in all kinds of formats: single, duos, strings, horns. I've heard some stuff that I liked (a couple of interesting bass players, too) and a lot that I didn't, or at least didn't understand So is he musical or just J#@king off? If it's the latter, I've got to give him credit for persistence and perseverance. He's stuck with it for 30 or 40 years.

[damonsmith]

Free Jazz and Free Bop certainly are styles. They are included in both the wider headings of Jazz and Free improvisation.
Free Jazz means freely improvising form and texture but keeping a forward motion still related to swing and using melody and harmony as primary materials. This music still has the potential to be quite extreme: YouTube Cecil Taylor or Peter Brötzmann.

Free bop is freely improvising with bebop materials. It sounds like Jazz, but there are no tunes.
Most often, as in Ornette Coleman's early LPs the melody runs free and the band harmonizes it much like it would during any standard but it is possible for the harmony to constantly move.
"Out" playing does not have to sound dissonant. For example, a chromatic run of Major thirds is "out" but not displeasing to most ears in the least.

Free Improvisation can use any combination of any musical material as primary structure: texture, silence, rhythm, harmony, scale, pitch, contrast, etc.
There are many styles within it but it remains possible to create endless new variations and combinations.

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by Treyzer

Bruce, I think what you are describing is still a musical endeavor based on something. Maybe it's just semantics, but based on what you have described, I would not call that free.

Well - I was there at the concert and I subsequently read interviews with Tasmin Little and the point was that the improvised violin cadenza was not based on any musical structures - in that sense it was free.

Tasmin Little explained how it was more about her feelings and certainly was not about any harmonic or melodic concepts - it was as free as I have ever heard in the (classical) concert hall.

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by damonsmith

"Out" playing does not have to sound dissonant. For example, a chromatic run of Major thirds is "out" but not displeasing to most ears in the least.

Free Improvisation can use any combination of any musical material as primary structure: texture, silence, rhythm, harmony, scale, pitch, contrast, etc.

I was just thinking about Wayne Shorter's latest Quartet with John Patitucci etc.

That was quite pleasant listening - but when I saw them in the UK - they just played, with no apparent cues or collusion. They just went on playing without a break for over an hour. It seemed to go randomly and freely - but was never unpleasant to the ear.

Some audience members I talked to, were disappointed that he didn't play any "tunes" - but nobody in the large audiences, seemed to feel it was unpleasant listening.

There are quite a few recordings around - I wonder what others think about this - how "free" is it, what is their improvising based on - do you hear structures?

[damonsmith]

The Wayne Shorter Quartet is about as good as music gets, IMO. When I heard them it sounded like a lot of free playing bridged by notated sections. I honestly couldn't tell if the were using the written material to frame to improvisations or if they were basing the improvisations on it.
This touches on the idea that pre-given material - whether agreed on beforehand, or even your own personal set material can be used in may different ways while improvising.