First, please no "you just don't get it, man" responses. I'm already establishing this.
Its a granted point that each musician is likely doing something very complex and theoretically technical in their own right, but I find it to be musical gibberish.
Is this just a form of jazz that I don't like on a personal taste basis? Or, is there some element of it I'm not listening to correctly that needs to be appreciated in a specific way? Kinda of like a " you don't know what you dont know' way? I love dixieland jazz, which has elements of free jazz where everyone is playing their own part, but that seems much more coherent and listenable to me.
So, help me out. I'm not trying to be insulting to those who love it (necessarily), just trying to see behind the curtain a little.
An easy an answer, is: Free Jazz is different from free improvisation. Free Jazz still uses swing, chromatic harmony and lines, and retains a relationship to jazz, the jazz part is important. There are constant changes. When are we
not playing a unison, there is a harmony if more than one person are playing.
They freed themselves from the set forms, however, form then becomes extremely important. Since you are not bringing a form from home you have to build one each time and learn how to navigate it.
There are often sets of chords that relate to the lines being played, there is just no obligation to play them beyond their usefulness.
Albert Ayler and early Cecil Taylor are good places to start. After those two, the rhythm section really opens. Still, the drums and bass are responsible for propulsion.
As far as taste, it is more about starting to explore what other elements of music do taste takes a back seat. Human beings love backbeats and diatonic harmony - this we know. At a certain point some of us want to find out what else there is!
As far as gibberish, to a point - this is true - but on purpose. No matter what is going into each of our sounds, many of them are designed to not solicit a rote response - this idea gets taken much further in realm of free improvisation. how impossible is it to hear a II-V-I as pure sound? What would happen if you did? If you could? So there is a bit of that in there. So some of the material is about keeping everyone on their toes!
It has a long history and a lot of variations around the world.
As far as anger, much of the roots are in the Black Power Movement of the '60s, then you bring in the Germans who were pissed at their fathers in that time for obvious reasons, less obvious was that German music was co-opted during the war and those born during and just after WW2 were pissed as well. So yeah, there is some anger in it still. There are also lots of beautiful versions of it. Paul Motian's Dance is as beautiful as anything and it is free jazz. The musicians who came out of the AACM in Chicago, The Art Ensemble of Chicago (a fantastic name!), Muhal Richard Abrahms, Wadada Leo Smith, George Lewis, Anthony Braxton, Henry Threadgill and many others have written all kinds of complex music with all kinds of systems they were "free" to write those things.
Sun Ra had whole other systems that changed often. Checking out his work is deep task, but to start just make sure Ronnie Boykins is in the band try Nothing is, Heliocentric Worlds & The Magic City. Steve Lacy is another one to check out.
Anyway, don't feel bad if it is not for you - however, you are asking so there is probably something in it for you. Just keep listening and asking questions - if you don't get any answers maybe come back to it in a few years.
There are some strong remasters of a lot of great free jazz classics here, just poke around there for a while:
ezz-thetics by Hat Hut
