The highpoint of the “herbal assisted” genre is probably 4’20”, a free jazz tribute to John Cage.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Double Bass Help me understand "free jazz"
- Thread starter krfoss
- Start date
The highpoint of the “herbal assisted” genre is probably 4’20”, a free jazz tribute to John Cage.
Jerry Coker opined that the enjoyment of music includes a fine balance between predictability and novelty. This explains why many musical genres include a progression, because when people have heard a lot of the genre, it becomes too predictable, and someone needs to inject more novelty by breaking some of the “rules.”
But when this happens, the inexperienced listener finds the music too novel and not predictable enough. That’s one way music can go into a cul-de-sac, where only the practitioners enjoy it. But being able to listen and predict and find the balance in no way requires understanding the music intellectually.
As my first teacher often quoted, “music theory is not music, it’s a way we have of talking about music.” I’d say it’s also a way we have of organizing our thoughts about music, but still, thinking about music is not experiencing music. I don’t think we have to understand it to enjoy it, but some of us deepen our enjoyment if we understand it.
in fact, the predictability/novelty balance gains a new dimension if we understand music a little, now we can be even more surprised in certain ways. But I don’t see it as a requirement.
I think what you say here is a common and logical way to respond to art and music - but also a dead end and something to work past unless you want to be stuck with safe, known experiences from art and life in general. Not holding on to the any of the points in this post is a great way to move toward an understanding of Free Jazz & Free Improvisation. Free Jazz and visual art since the 60s is quite often looking to get beyond pretty much everything you say here - though as I say, it is normal and logical.
You don't have to have a purely emotional response to anything. It isn't often that art needs an explanation, but that further research is going to expand what you ever knew was possible.
Duchamp's bicycle wheel has set off so much incredible art and thought in the world, getting to the bottom of it can really help get more out of it. @lurk turned away from it had a more positive experience with Cezanne - still both works are part of his story! Did the fact the Cezanne was one of the first to get paint to truly express volume in his apples and rock formations? That may or may not be part of what someone takes from it.
Just as knowing about II-V-Is and 32 bar forms have zero impact on anyone's initial response to jazz, however, the more you know the more you can get out of it.
Art that does nothing for you without an explanation may or may not be great.
While they are certainly related, our activities playing music and listening to so, understanding what the listener can get out of it vs. how to play it or what the music could teach you as an overall musician are three separate things.
I have my personal taste and aesthetic like anyone else. It can be useful, but it is ultimately limiting. If I stuck with that I'd be playing in a band that would sound like the minutemen or Mingus and it would be "good" but not much else.
Making art and music that get a predictable emotional response from human beings is pretty straightforward and really just involves a frothy mix of known quantities and repetition.
The most valuable art and music to me in the last three decades is art that leaves me with questions and not answers.
A favorite artwork of mine is Day is Done by Mike Kelley. I saw the gallery show in NYC in 2006, it was incredible but I had no idea what I was seeing! It took a year before the catalog came out, so I could read about it. It is primarily a video work, so another year later the DVD was released. I am still learning about his work and finding more and more in it.
Also, we should NEVER limit ourselves to ONE response to an artwork (music included). If an artwork does not continue to reveal details over time it is far less valuable to me. A good artwork may not need an explanation as much as you need to take it in at different times in your life and see what happens each time.
You don't have to have a purely emotional response to anything. It isn't often that art needs an explanation, but that further research is going to expand what you ever knew was possible.
Duchamp's bicycle wheel has set off so much incredible art and thought in the world, getting to the bottom of it can really help get more out of it. @lurk turned away from it had a more positive experience with Cezanne - still both works are part of his story! Did the fact the Cezanne was one of the first to get paint to truly express volume in his apples and rock formations? That may or may not be part of what someone takes from it.
Just as knowing about II-V-Is and 32 bar forms have zero impact on anyone's initial response to jazz, however, the more you know the more you can get out of it.
Art that does nothing for you without an explanation may or may not be great.
While they are certainly related, our activities playing music and listening to so, understanding what the listener can get out of it vs. how to play it or what the music could teach you as an overall musician are three separate things.
I have my personal taste and aesthetic like anyone else. It can be useful, but it is ultimately limiting. If I stuck with that I'd be playing in a band that would sound like the minutemen or Mingus and it would be "good" but not much else.
Making art and music that get a predictable emotional response from human beings is pretty straightforward and really just involves a frothy mix of known quantities and repetition.
The most valuable art and music to me in the last three decades is art that leaves me with questions and not answers.
A favorite artwork of mine is Day is Done by Mike Kelley. I saw the gallery show in NYC in 2006, it was incredible but I had no idea what I was seeing! It took a year before the catalog came out, so I could read about it. It is primarily a video work, so another year later the DVD was released. I am still learning about his work and finding more and more in it.
Also, we should NEVER limit ourselves to ONE response to an artwork (music included). If an artwork does not continue to reveal details over time it is far less valuable to me. A good artwork may not need an explanation as much as you need to take it in at different times in your life and see what happens each time.
Very, very quotable. Thank you.
Common sayings that let you off the hook for making an effort or doing any work are bad sayings.
First of all I apologise for not coping with the social media, posting/liking/quoting protocols very well. I’ve tried but got it all very wrong and have had to delete and edit my posts. (old dog, new tricks, etc). I’ve been a talkbass member for a while, but only an observer until recently, so please forgive my old fashioned steam driven quotation methods.
In reply to ZootSaxes who said (pst #164) “I don’t know why so many people wanna get into semantic arguments about the nature of art”. I would say firstly, I don’t want to to get into any arguments. I was hoping for an exchange of views and secondly, it’s because we are discussing an art form and the nature of that art form. Semantics, well that’s just because there are a lot of words flying about here, it’s inevitable.
Then Zoot said, “Perhaps because this is still ‘the internet’ and NOT reality”. My answer is no, the exact opposite, I am interested in the nature of my art, because this is my reality as an artist and certainly not the internet speaking.
Finally from Zoot, “Life and Music are like an “open world” video game, from a certain perspective. Just because you can VISIT the ‘water temple’ doesn’t mean you’re ready to PLAY it until you get that dang ‘hookshot’, ya dig?”
My response to that is, no I’m sorry but I don’t dig, I haven’t the slightest idea what you mean.
Damon Smith says, “The "elitist", "insider" digs are just silly”. Firstly they are not on my part, digs or silly, they are valid discussion points and secondly Damon doesn’t seem to understand what being an elitist or behaving in an elitist manner is. It doesn’t mean knowledge or commitment, it means a superior attitude towards those “not in the know” and implies exclusion.
Only a sentence later Damon says the listener must be part of the process, this after saying about elitism, “It is really one of the best things about it” (post#63).
I believe that elitism is a damaging and destructive thing in any art form and particularly minority interest art forms.
With reference to the free jazz/trad jazz connection mentioned earlier, in days gone by there was a whole set of musicians in this country (UK) who played both styles in a really earthy instinctive way. The free/bop connection always seemed less convincing to me.
In reply to EdS who asks about comparisons with visual abstract art, I feel it is a valid comparison and there have been many collaborations between the two art forms over the years. It’s difficult to pin down what makes it valid because of the imprecise nature of these things, but those comparisons definitely help to explore what this music is about. It’s also interesting to ask how visual art from different schools and eras relates to music from different genres and times? I agree totally with what Ed says about looking at Pollock and Rothko. I think a lot of people experience exactly that, particularly because these two artists are so widely viewed.
In my Art School days, I always found being instructed to learn the craft of the art a difficult thing and rallied against it. I just wanted to get on with it and create. I felt exactly the same about music. I soon realised how counter productive this was to creating as I wanted to and found out the hard way when I started playing with improvising musicians (Harry Beckett, Tony Marsh, Lol Coxhill, Gordon Beck, John Taylor, etc) that I wasn’t up to the job and my “method” didn’t work, I needed to learn the craft. However, I still stand by my 20 year old self in thinking that if a three year old creates the same image as Picasso, then those images have exactly the same worth. I feel exactly the same about music and particularly about improvised music. That Art is not to be “understood” is still my feeling.
What I don’t understand as a Social media newbie is why these questions on a thread like this have to be addressed by some in such an adversarial manner. Everybody here, practitioners and listeners alike, seem invested in the subject so all should be given equal respect. When I talk to my friends and colleagues, artists, musicians, audiences and concert promoters, about such things (and unlikely as it may seem, I do), I’m looking to share individual insight and actually there is a lot of insight on this thread. But I’m not looking to be “swatted down” (quote, Damon Smith post #98). Perhaps this what ZootSaxes meant by “this is still the internet”? I wish we could sit around a table and talk, we might understand each other a little better.
Damon also says in his recent post (#185), “Common sayings that let you off the hook for making an effort or doing any work are bad sayings”.
My response is threefold, Firstly a listener or viewer should not be required to do any “work”, other than listen or view, it’s the artists job to do the work for them. Secondly, if you are talking about a musician or artist “doing any work”, then surely that doesn’t need to be said, hopefully we are all working hard. Finally, I’m not on any kind of hook to be let off, my “common saying” is also my measured opinion. Again Damon, why so adversarial? Your response to my opinion sounds just as generic as mine, but also deliberately provocative. It is exactly what I was talking about earlier, I won’t take offence because you tend to spray words around in such a scatter gun manner that I’m not sure if you intend offence. There is another “common saying” which I also believe and that is that “Art should speak for itself”. Or another, “Art should stand on its own two feet”. Common sayings are not necessarily cliches and often have more than a grain of truth in them.
I completely understand why several people have said that research into the art and artist gives them a greater understanding and even enjoyment of the process and the work. However, I feel that if you apply this to the listening experience, it becomes more intellectual and less visceral, less pure. If the listener is to do any work, then it should be to not think about what they are listening to.
We all know what Damon means when he says “Not holding on to any of the points in this post is a great way to move toward an understanding of Free Jazz & Free Improvisation”. But from my perspective that supports my views about emotion in creating and responding.
“Making art and music that gets a predictable emotional response from human beings is pretty straightforward and really just involves a frothy mix of known quantities and repetition.” Damon, who said anything about “predictable emotion”? I thought we were discussing free jazz and improvised music. The very nature of improvised music is hopefully it’s unpredictability. Emotion is just as unpredictable.
One more comment on the subject of an emotional response to Art if I may. Some years ago I visited an extraordinary exhibition by Edvard Munch and had an almost overwhelming emotional response, much the same as I had once at a Francis Bacon exhibition. I needed (if I was going to get through the day) an emotional antidote. Fortunately there was another one man exhibition nearby featuring Howard Hodgkin, he gave me the alternative emotional response I was hoping for. At no time was I looking for questions or answers, but something much deeper. I can never forget the Munch, but thank heavens for Hodgkin.
The written word is a totally inadequate and frustrating medium to discuss the deeper impacts of visual and musical art. But we keep trying and fail every time.
I’m sorry about the long, long and now even longer post, but one thing leads to another.
ps. Zoot and Damon and many others have also posted things that do share real insight that I have appreciated and I’m very pleased to have read.
In reply to ZootSaxes who said (pst #164) “I don’t know why so many people wanna get into semantic arguments about the nature of art”. I would say firstly, I don’t want to to get into any arguments. I was hoping for an exchange of views and secondly, it’s because we are discussing an art form and the nature of that art form. Semantics, well that’s just because there are a lot of words flying about here, it’s inevitable.
Then Zoot said, “Perhaps because this is still ‘the internet’ and NOT reality”. My answer is no, the exact opposite, I am interested in the nature of my art, because this is my reality as an artist and certainly not the internet speaking.
Finally from Zoot, “Life and Music are like an “open world” video game, from a certain perspective. Just because you can VISIT the ‘water temple’ doesn’t mean you’re ready to PLAY it until you get that dang ‘hookshot’, ya dig?”
My response to that is, no I’m sorry but I don’t dig, I haven’t the slightest idea what you mean.
Damon Smith says, “The "elitist", "insider" digs are just silly”. Firstly they are not on my part, digs or silly, they are valid discussion points and secondly Damon doesn’t seem to understand what being an elitist or behaving in an elitist manner is. It doesn’t mean knowledge or commitment, it means a superior attitude towards those “not in the know” and implies exclusion.
Only a sentence later Damon says the listener must be part of the process, this after saying about elitism, “It is really one of the best things about it” (post#63).
I believe that elitism is a damaging and destructive thing in any art form and particularly minority interest art forms.
With reference to the free jazz/trad jazz connection mentioned earlier, in days gone by there was a whole set of musicians in this country (UK) who played both styles in a really earthy instinctive way. The free/bop connection always seemed less convincing to me.
In reply to EdS who asks about comparisons with visual abstract art, I feel it is a valid comparison and there have been many collaborations between the two art forms over the years. It’s difficult to pin down what makes it valid because of the imprecise nature of these things, but those comparisons definitely help to explore what this music is about. It’s also interesting to ask how visual art from different schools and eras relates to music from different genres and times? I agree totally with what Ed says about looking at Pollock and Rothko. I think a lot of people experience exactly that, particularly because these two artists are so widely viewed.
In my Art School days, I always found being instructed to learn the craft of the art a difficult thing and rallied against it. I just wanted to get on with it and create. I felt exactly the same about music. I soon realised how counter productive this was to creating as I wanted to and found out the hard way when I started playing with improvising musicians (Harry Beckett, Tony Marsh, Lol Coxhill, Gordon Beck, John Taylor, etc) that I wasn’t up to the job and my “method” didn’t work, I needed to learn the craft. However, I still stand by my 20 year old self in thinking that if a three year old creates the same image as Picasso, then those images have exactly the same worth. I feel exactly the same about music and particularly about improvised music. That Art is not to be “understood” is still my feeling.
What I don’t understand as a Social media newbie is why these questions on a thread like this have to be addressed by some in such an adversarial manner. Everybody here, practitioners and listeners alike, seem invested in the subject so all should be given equal respect. When I talk to my friends and colleagues, artists, musicians, audiences and concert promoters, about such things (and unlikely as it may seem, I do), I’m looking to share individual insight and actually there is a lot of insight on this thread. But I’m not looking to be “swatted down” (quote, Damon Smith post #98). Perhaps this what ZootSaxes meant by “this is still the internet”? I wish we could sit around a table and talk, we might understand each other a little better.
Damon also says in his recent post (#185), “Common sayings that let you off the hook for making an effort or doing any work are bad sayings”.
My response is threefold, Firstly a listener or viewer should not be required to do any “work”, other than listen or view, it’s the artists job to do the work for them. Secondly, if you are talking about a musician or artist “doing any work”, then surely that doesn’t need to be said, hopefully we are all working hard. Finally, I’m not on any kind of hook to be let off, my “common saying” is also my measured opinion. Again Damon, why so adversarial? Your response to my opinion sounds just as generic as mine, but also deliberately provocative. It is exactly what I was talking about earlier, I won’t take offence because you tend to spray words around in such a scatter gun manner that I’m not sure if you intend offence. There is another “common saying” which I also believe and that is that “Art should speak for itself”. Or another, “Art should stand on its own two feet”. Common sayings are not necessarily cliches and often have more than a grain of truth in them.
I completely understand why several people have said that research into the art and artist gives them a greater understanding and even enjoyment of the process and the work. However, I feel that if you apply this to the listening experience, it becomes more intellectual and less visceral, less pure. If the listener is to do any work, then it should be to not think about what they are listening to.
We all know what Damon means when he says “Not holding on to any of the points in this post is a great way to move toward an understanding of Free Jazz & Free Improvisation”. But from my perspective that supports my views about emotion in creating and responding.
“Making art and music that gets a predictable emotional response from human beings is pretty straightforward and really just involves a frothy mix of known quantities and repetition.” Damon, who said anything about “predictable emotion”? I thought we were discussing free jazz and improvised music. The very nature of improvised music is hopefully it’s unpredictability. Emotion is just as unpredictable.
One more comment on the subject of an emotional response to Art if I may. Some years ago I visited an extraordinary exhibition by Edvard Munch and had an almost overwhelming emotional response, much the same as I had once at a Francis Bacon exhibition. I needed (if I was going to get through the day) an emotional antidote. Fortunately there was another one man exhibition nearby featuring Howard Hodgkin, he gave me the alternative emotional response I was hoping for. At no time was I looking for questions or answers, but something much deeper. I can never forget the Munch, but thank heavens for Hodgkin.
The written word is a totally inadequate and frustrating medium to discuss the deeper impacts of visual and musical art. But we keep trying and fail every time.
I’m sorry about the long, long and now even longer post, but one thing leads to another.
ps. Zoot and Damon and many others have also posted things that do share real insight that I have appreciated and I’m very pleased to have read.
Last edited:
I am not trying to ruffle and feathers and also don't want to get into any arguments. A lot of people like to sport argue, like high-school debate club. I find it to be a waste of time, for me, personally.
I don't think we're talking about the same thing. Talking about music is like tap-dancing about architecture, as Monk used to say. Feel free to expressively communicate the nature of your art on the internet, but alls I'm saying is that that's a separate art from the art of music-making.
In the Legend of Zelda video games (arguably some of the best of all time), the "water temples" are notoriously the hardest levels, requiring you to first complete other parts of the game to gain the necessary tools to be able to play them. Sorry, I'm showing my age with this one - I could have been more clear.
My feelings about the internet are a result of my own predisposition for addiction and abuse. I mean no judgement or criticism of anyone else, but I can tell you from my own personal experience - this medium doesn't bring out 'the best' in me. I find it to be a breeding ground for ego and uninformed (by experience) opinions. Talkbass is a magic corner of the internet where people tend to treat eachother with kindness and respect, but even this space is not immune to the toxic nature of social media.
Sorry if I offend(ed) anyone.
To Zoot, no offence was taken, then or now.
First off - this trio of your guys is some of the most "convincing" Free Bop ever:
&
You are adding good insight to the thread, still, your perspective is from someone who hasn't quite come to terms with the music, which again is a normal and logical place to be!
I'd say there is room for music and art with "more to it" that is enriched by a non-passive involvement. It is perfectly fine for that not to be for you, however, I am most compelled by music and art with more behind it.
Elitism is a word very often misused. I don't mind elitism gained by skill or information one bit. Paul Chambers got himself to an elitist position as far who he could interact with at a level others couldn't. Pop music on the other hand and the industry behind it is the realm of the financial elite.
There is inherent elitism in learning the double bass, for example. When all you have to do is practice and listen to some albums, getting worked up about the entry point to "free jazz elitism" is pretty dumb.
Be Bop is far more elitist with its cutting contests and specific rules but I am not even bothered by that. Again, like your saying earlier in the thread, people want to trot out the "elitism" dig when something requires a bit of research an effort. Rather than saying appreciating wine is elitist, I'd say I am not interested putting in that time and money. Getting a richer experience out of anything worthwhile tends to take some effort and focus - and yes, there is a difference between those who have made that effort and those who haven't but no one is stopping anyone from taking the time.
I mean, you have a far more "elite" experience than others having played with incredible players like Coxhil, Marsh and Beckett. All fantastic players and Marsh is particularly underrated.
Fancy degrees are not really a point of respect in Free Jazz - unless it meant you got study closely with an old master. In general, the entry points (beyond buying a bass!) are things anyone can just do if they feel it. It is a pretty lower middle class art form in general.
&
You are adding good insight to the thread, still, your perspective is from someone who hasn't quite come to terms with the music, which again is a normal and logical place to be!
I'd say there is room for music and art with "more to it" that is enriched by a non-passive involvement. It is perfectly fine for that not to be for you, however, I am most compelled by music and art with more behind it.
Elitism is a word very often misused. I don't mind elitism gained by skill or information one bit. Paul Chambers got himself to an elitist position as far who he could interact with at a level others couldn't. Pop music on the other hand and the industry behind it is the realm of the financial elite.
There is inherent elitism in learning the double bass, for example. When all you have to do is practice and listen to some albums, getting worked up about the entry point to "free jazz elitism" is pretty dumb.
Be Bop is far more elitist with its cutting contests and specific rules but I am not even bothered by that. Again, like your saying earlier in the thread, people want to trot out the "elitism" dig when something requires a bit of research an effort. Rather than saying appreciating wine is elitist, I'd say I am not interested putting in that time and money. Getting a richer experience out of anything worthwhile tends to take some effort and focus - and yes, there is a difference between those who have made that effort and those who haven't but no one is stopping anyone from taking the time.
I mean, you have a far more "elite" experience than others having played with incredible players like Coxhil, Marsh and Beckett. All fantastic players and Marsh is particularly underrated.
Fancy degrees are not really a point of respect in Free Jazz - unless it meant you got study closely with an old master. In general, the entry points (beyond buying a bass!) are things anyone can just do if they feel it. It is a pretty lower middle class art form in general.
I went right from a warehouse to my gigs for years. You can joke about that all you want. We don't get called for the Matrix reloaded soundtrack, but we get to make more than one album! Some jokes do write themselves!
Some jokes write themselves, apparently.
IMFO, of course.
Sheesh.
OK, I will. - Let me know when Anthony Braxton appears at the Grand Ole Opry.
You missed a couple of others that I'm on, FYI, but that's OK.
Thanks.
In all seriousness, most of the progenitors were generally scuffling on the lower east side and living pretty rough. A handful, like Coltrane, Shepp, Ornette and Cecil Taylor made decent money playing, Cecil Taylor and Bill Dixon were from upper middle class families. The German and UK players were generally working class, except for Schlippenbach, some of the Dutch were well off. In the US some of the late 70s and 80s players had degrees, some of the old masters got nice teaching gigs. My generation tended to come from punk & noise which is pretty low class. In the last decade we are seeing more rich kids from liberal arts colleges, but it wasn't the norm until then.
The point is, the music gets called "elitist" all the time and it is music from dingy bars, lofts and record store culture, not higher education - even if it is studied in recent years.
You can update discogs!
I went through a period, a few years, of listening to nothing else, entirely on record. I didn’t hear anything at first, but I wanted to like it. The reasons for that are complex, but I kept trying and it was work. Then, eventually, I began to favor particular cuts on a for example an AEC album, and listened to those more often. And then i noticed that every listen was a new experience in some ways, hearing something different, and that I was digging it. Finally, i would thoughtlessly put something on the stereo or in the car with other people around, because that’s what I wanted to hear, and get some very perplexed looks and questions: Why are you listening to that, it’s just noise? Are those musicians all playing the same song? Etc
Glad I made the effort. It was like learning a new language, a very complex one, and very rewarding. I couldn’t play it if I worked on it 100 years.
Glad I made the effort. It was like learning a new language, a very complex one, and very rewarding. I couldn’t play it if I worked on it 100 years.
It is good to give it the respect, but if you are hearing that deeply into it, it is likely you could play it if you want to. Part of what tends to vex people is there is mix of simplicity and complexity in getting started playing it. Yes, you can just do it, thought it is often more than what we expected out of the gate.
There are some people playing in Little Rock around a saxophonist named Chad Fowler.
I think what @Peter M really brings up is a difference between art that meets expectations and art that doesn't. Earlier in this thread, I said that all art needs a context, art that you think does not is just art you already have a context for.
In other words, art that doesn't need to be explained has actually just already been explained to you.
Free Jazz and Free Improvisation are both about pushing forward without worrying about meeting any obvious expectations - what those are have changed and morphed over the last 60 years. In general, free jazz still requires and expanded sense of swing, which is hard to grasp for many people.
He is so freakin' cool. I'm glad you know Chad - Memphis misses him.
He’s got such a unique voice on the horn(s). I went to bebop university and was trained to be a Bird clone (alto). I played a gig with him one time and asked him about developing his own sound and he told me it came out of not wanting to compete with the bebopers. He said he knew right away that “wasn’t him” and took his sound the “free” direction, instead (he can play the heck outta some bebop, too, tho). When I put a horn in my hands, I still feel like my professors are sitting right there with clipboards, noting what is “right” or “wrong” with my performance. This doesn’t exist in “free jazz” and is a large part of the appeal to me, personally. Ultimately, YOU are the only authority on what YOUR voice is. I’m still looking for mine…
Last edited:
Chad Fowler is great. I love the recording with Matthew Shipp. He seems to have another life as a software/tech/management icon which he puts to good ends with his record label and projects.
An old bass student of mine played there yesterday, funny enough. Not playing free jazz of course...
I don't know what Bach was trying to do any more than I know what Cecil Taylor was trying to do. I just listen and pay attention to how it makes me feel...happy, sad, calm, angry, floor the accelerator while driving, etc. At live performances I often laugh out loud when I hear something really audacious.
