Double Bass Free Jazz and Improvised Music

[Eric Hochberg]

Damon posted this comment on another thread and I thought it would make for an interesting discussion on it's own.

That (Boston) scene has the highest bar for free jazz and improvised music in the US. I didn't see one bad set the whole time I was there!)

I have to ask, honestly. What would constitute a bad set in free jazz? Seriously, I just don't know what the criteria would be.

I know what I like and dislike, but my tastes are far from universal in that genre.

 

[Tom Lane]

I heard what I considered to be a "bad" free jazz gig while I was in Germany for the Berlin Jazz Fest last year. It was a trio; sax, bass, and drums. 20-somethings; I thought all were compelling players. As near as I could tell, their music didn't include melody or harmony or a prearranged form, but was mostly about texture. One player would start playing sparsely, and the other players would join eventually, and they'd try to increase the texture through more densely played notes, volume, and raucousness to some type of climax and then back away. Like I said, I thought they were all skilled, pretty developed players, and it was an intriguing idea, but pretty much every climax wasn't. I appreciated their efforts and am glad I was exposed to the idea, but it didn't work for me. Does that count?

 

[BarfanyShart]

To me, free jazz works when the musicians are able to lock in to a unified expression of mood or emotion, and communicate together in musical language. Everyone's gotta feel that this first thing we're doing has a "head" that keeps coming back, and we can communicate when that happens each time. The next thing may be more of a "point a to point b" thing, and we all figure out where we are going and how fast to get there by hearing each. To me good free jazz is a showcase at how well musicians can communicate with each other in purely musical terms. When it's bad, it's just weird cool noises being layered on top of each other, and doesn't resemble a conversation or a narrative or something that references a common language of musical structures. My .02.

 

[BarfanyShart]

I heard what I considered to be a "bad" free jazz gig while I was in Germany for the Berlin Jazz Fest last year. It was trio, ; sax, bass, and drums. 20-somethings; I thought all were compelling players. As near as I could tell, their music didn't include melody or harmonic or a prearranged form, but was mostly about texture. One player would start playing sparsely, and the other players would join eventually, and they'd try to increase the texture through more densely played notes, volume, and raucousness to some type of climax and then back away. Like I said, I thought they were all skilled, pretty developed players, and it was an intriguing idea, but pretty much every climax wasn't. I appreciated their efforts and am glad I was exposed to the idea, but it didn't work for me. Does that count?

Yeah, that's bad free jazz imo too. That sounds more like an improv game - which is a totally cool thing to do - but you shouldn't expect paying patrons to sit through it.

 

[Don Kasper]

"Alexa- Buy Stock in Popcorn!"
Thanks.
This Thread should be FUN!

 

[damonsmith]

Damon posted this comment on another thread and I thought it would make for an interesting discussion on it's own.



I have to ask, honestly. What would constitute a bad set in free jazz? Seriously, I just don't know what the criteria would be.

I know what I like and dislike, but my tastes are far from universal in that genre.

In "free jazz" most often it is the "jazz" element - just playing loud and hard not harnessing "swing" to do the work. Other issues can be not providing your share of material, just leeching off the ideas of the other musicians. Balance problems, being historically uninformed, struggling with the fundamentals of your instrument, etc.
I am not a big fan of material that needs to be "developed". Either something is strong enough to play once or hundred times, but there is a "hunting and pecking" that can go on, sort of throwing out feelers which brings us to possibly the worst: being indecisive!

Also, just being too slow! There is a big difference between being deliberate about playing slowly vs. not being able to think or play quickly enough - playing quickly enough also means turning over ideas, not just scale runs and such - so being able to move between textures and pitch ideas at a fast rate is important - whether you do it or not.

There are lots of other issues, just like any other music.

 

[Eric Hochberg]

In "free jazz" most often it is the "jazz" element - just playing loud and hard not harnessing "swing" to do the work.

Do you mean the jazz element, swing, is not a good thing in free jazz?

 

[damonsmith]

When it's bad, it's just weird cool noises being layered on top of each other, and doesn't resemble a conversation or a narrative or something that references a common language of musical structures. My .02.

I would say narrative and "conversation" generally kill the music unless they are in very skilled hands. Dave Holland and Sam Rivers could get some cool conversational playing going the rest of the time it is not an efficient use of the format.
Getting too wrapped up in another persons "business" is not going to be appreciated in most cases. Also, material to just let the other person know you heard them is generally extraneous and unhelpful to the structure. Wolfgang Fuchs, a master improvisor said, "it is impossible to not hear a musician who is playing next to you, believe me, I have tried!".
Evan Parker talks about locking points, places where the music comes together and then moves to a more independent state.

 

[damonsmith]

Do you mean the jazz element, swing, is not a good thing in free jazz?

No, it is essential. The most advanced swing I have ever experienced was playing with Cecil Taylor.

 

[Eric Hochberg]

No, it is essential. The most advanced swing I have ever experienced was playing with Cecil Taylor.

That's what I would think.

 

[damonsmith]

it sounds like I may have liked it. Like a lot of things, certain things are not going make sense as "entry points" to the music, but may be interesting in terms of finding a different or unexpected way to go about playing together.
One of the things improvised music is about is expanding how we meet and play together.
So, there are those stand out recordings or gigs that great works of art outside of the collective process, and things are really only interesting as part of moving ideas forward.

Another way it can be bad: being WILLFULLY uninformed. Which really means a person is just using the networks to get gigs for themselves an opting out of growing the music together.

I heard what I considered to be a "bad" free jazz gig while I was in Germany for the Berlin Jazz Fest last year. It was a trio; sax, bass, and drums. 20-somethings; I thought all were compelling players. As near as I could tell, their music didn't include melody or harmony or a prearranged form, but was mostly about texture. One player would start playing sparsely, and the other players would join eventually, and they'd try to increase the texture through more densely played notes, volume, and raucousness to some type of climax and then back away. Like I said, I thought they were all skilled, pretty developed players, and it was an intriguing idea, but pretty much every climax wasn't. I appreciated their efforts and am glad I was exposed to the idea, but it didn't work for me. Does that count?

 

[TroyK]

Timely thread. I listened to Don Ellis - New Ideas today, which is an album that I like and connect with from a genre that I struggle to connect with. There are others that I like too, but I have more trouble as things get freer. I'm not sure, @damonsmith, if you would consider this "free" or not. Interested in your take.

Years ago, I went to an "improvised music" festival here in Seattle headlined by Barre Philips without knowing what I was getting into. I will say with all respect that I struggled with the day, but I could tell a difference in "goodness" as we progressed from opening acts to Mr. Philips as the headliner. It would be tough for me to say what accounted for that difference. There was a very good and devoted listening audience, I was just an outsider.

Maybe we've reached the point in quarantine when I should pull some other "free leaning" sides off of my shelf and give them a spin. Some things I consider "not good" and others I consider myself "just not ready for." I recognize that in the case of the former, it's always possible that it is actually a sign of the later.

 

[Don Hergert]

I have to naively ask, is "Improvised Music" a genre with specifications to qualify? Or is it a general term that can be used with all of the improvised genre such as bluegrass and others? And I'm not trying to make a point here, it's an honest question.

(Peaking out from my stool in the front corner of the schoolroom.)

 

[damonsmith]

Don Ellis is great! More proto-free music than free, but new ideas at the time for sure, same with George Russell. With Barre, you have the fact that he is master double bassist as a way in, but, since the music is not prioritizing being pleasing or listenable - it isn't for everyone and we know this!

Timely thread. I listened to Don Ellis - New Ideas today, which is an album that I like and connect with from a genre that I struggle to connect with. There are others that I like too, but I have more trouble as things get freer. I'm not sure, @damonsmith, if you would consider this "free" or not. Interested in your take.

Years ago, I went to an "improvised music" festival here in Seattle headlined by Barre Philips without knowing what I was getting into. I will say with all respect that I struggled with the day, but I could tell a difference in "goodness" as we progressed from opening acts to Mr. Philips as the headliner. It would be tough for me to say what accounted for that difference. There was a very good and devoted listening audience, I was just an outsider.

Maybe we've reached the point in quarantine when I should pull some other "free leaning" sides off of my shelf and give them a spin. Some things I consider "not good" and others I consider myself "just not ready for." I recognize that in the case of the former, it's always possible that it is actually a sign of the later.

The condensed story is free jazz offered a way in for European & Japanese musicians as well as Americans and soon musicians from all over joined in. When it dropped jazz and tried to be "non-idomatic" it became what is called "improvised music".
Improvised music is more open as far as what music you are "grounded" in. Jazz, rock and classical are still most common and this would include all the classical traditions, Indian, Japanese, Korean, etc.
Rather than being non-idomatic each person decides what sections of genres they like are useful. Since material from a given genre is not met with the response from that genre it can lead to new spaces. For example a crackling electronic noise could be met by a single lush jazz chord from a guitar.

I have to naively ask, is "Improvised Music" a genre with specifications to qualify? Or is it a general term that can be used with all of the improvised genre such as bluegrass and others? And I'm not trying to make a point here, it's an honest question.

(Peaking out from my stool in the front corner of the schoolroom.)

 

[Don Hergert]

The condensed story is free jazz offered a way in for European & Japanese musicians as well as Americans and soon musicians from all over joined in. When it dropped jazz and tried to be "non-idomatic" it became what is called "improvised music".
Improvised music is more open as far as what music you are "grounded" in. Jazz, rock and classical are still most common and this would include all the classical traditions, Indian, Japanese, Korean, etc.
Rather than being non-idomatic each person decides what sections of genres they like are useful. Since material from a given genre is not met with the response from that genre it can lead to new spaces. For example a crackling electronic noise could be met by a single lush jazz chord from a guitar.

Thank you Damon, I really appreciate the education!

 

[jheise]

I approach the question the same way I approach other music.
There is always a lot of subjectivity regarding quality involved.

The harder the musical content becomes to grasp, three aspects come to the front (for me) so I can keep an open mind and listen.

- do I sense honesty in the music?
- do the musicians seem to have fun doing what they're doing?
- is it a group effort or is somebody "showing off"?

If I keep open minded to listen till the end, I guess it's a good concert.

 

[damonsmith]

This is a good point, you have to go in realizing that the idea is to find the music in other ways of relating and interacting so the phrase "the harder the musical content becomes to grasp" is a good one.
In free jazz and improvised music the words "jazz" and "music" are the keys to what the goals are. Things may get very textural, but we are still trying to find the music in the sounds we are working with and in the case of free jazz, we are still trying to find the jazz.

The harder the musical content becomes to grasp, three aspects come to the front (for me) so I can keep an open mind and listen.

- do I sense honesty in the music?
- do the musicians seem to have fun doing what they're doing?
- is it a group effort or is somebody "showing off"?

If I keep open minded to listen till the end, I guess it's a good concert.

 

[brianrost]

A few decades ago, Wynton Marsalis did a radio series on jazz and one episode was about free playing. He interviewed a number of players and explored a few ideas I found very interesting:

-- How much composition is allowed in free playing? How does a player decide what to extract from the composed material? What about compositions that do not use conventional notation, like Anthony Braxton's mathematical diagrams?

-- John Coltrane's free playing was more accepted than Albert Ayler's by the general public. Few people ever heard Albert play straight ahead but they knew that Coltrane could play.

-- If all the members of the ensemble are creating the music as they go along, how does what each one plays affect how the others play? How are ideas being communicated? What is the goal?

As a listener, free playing is good if it reaches me at some emotional level. I like noise, dissonance and energy in general but it has to somehow sound musical to me. There's such a wide gamut of free playing...Lee Konitz's free playing would never be confused with Albert Ayler or Cecil Taylor. From the recorded evidence (I never heard them live), the free playing of Keith Jarrett's Standards Trio isn't that different from how they played standards.

I saw cellist Deidre Murray and bassist Fred Hopkins perform once in Cambridge, MA with local trombonist Bill Lowe sitting in. There was also a guitarist (Brandon Ross?). At one point, Fred was deep into a solo section and got into "extended techniques". After a minute or two of this, Deidre looked over at him with a disapproving expression, he noticed it, started laughing and moved into another direction. Great show that I really enjoyed.

I saw William Parker and Cooper-Moore perform in Worcester, MA and was disappointed. The best way I could express it is that I was waiting for something to happen but it never did.

 

[Keith Rawlings]

The best way I could express it is that I was waiting for something to happen but it never did.

This, my friends, is exactly how I feel about free jazz/improvised music. I just can’t get into it. I feel like it’s just players messing around in a practice room trying to figure something out and seeing what sticks. I’d rather listen to a band perform the finished product with a polished song with an actual melody. Too much of what I’ve heard as far as improvised music is just disorganized noise.

I just buttered the popcorn.

 

[damonsmith]

From the recorded evidence (I never heard them live), the free playing of Keith Jarrett's Standards Trio isn't that different from how they played standards.

Their first recording was Tales of Another under Gary's name. That one is more open, but the same group is recognizable.

I saw William Parker and Cooper-Moore perform in Worcester, MA and was disappointed. The best way I could express it is that I was waiting for something to happen but it never did.

On one hand, I'd say that "waiting for something to happen" is a bit like trying to find a cat face in a Pollock or Rothko - even if you do find one it has nothing to do with what the artist is doing! You could have missed what actually happened by waiting for an expectated moment. On the other hand: one thing that can make this music "bad" is playing longer than the ideas need! If scale isn't one of the elements you are working with, a shorter set is something that is easy to give the listener without compromising the work.
Still, I don't think it is slight on the music that most of it doesn't work for an average listener. I am actually pretty astounded at how much of it actually can communicate to the those not immersed in it.