Double Bass Help me understand "free jazz"

[Cricket55]

Greetings All -

Fascinating thread. I've been debating whether or not to weigh in... I think I will put a couple of thoughts out there that I don't really see so far.

To me, free improvisation is the point where music and philosophy intersect. When I play free, or try to, the question is: if everything is on the table, what do I choose to do? One major influence on my thinking is the book Sounding The Full Circle, by Malcolm Goldstein, which I stumbled on in a Boston area bookstore in 1988. It has been bedside ever since, and the kind of book I have come back to over the years and continue to get more out of. The book is always the same. I am different.

One funny thing, I had read the book over and over for many years before I ever heard Malcolm Goldstein's music. Pre-internet, he was just a mysterious author to me. I never seemed to come across anything else about him. One day, at least 20 years later, I was idly searching Youtube and it occurred to me that I could probably find some videos, which I did. I think that's interesting because it's usually the reverse: we hear an artist and then want to find out more about them. In this case, I had been thinking about his approach for many years before I ever heard a note.

Anyway, one point he makes about free improvisation, not unique to him but where I first encountered the idea, is a central question: freedom from what? freedom to do what? I don't think there is any single answer to that beyond the choices that the improvisor makes in the moment. Once again, if everything is on the table, what will you choose to do?

Ultimately, this comes down to another central question: what is music? It seems logical that ALL music began as free improvisation: human beings all over the world, responding to the rhythms inside and around us, the melodies and harmonies of nature, the rhythms and melodies of spoken language, etc. Some of these experiments were so successful they evolved and developed into traditions but, whether we are thinking of raga and tala, maqamat, tertial harmony, or whatever... someone had to be the first (likely in parallel with others). Someone had to be the first person ever to play G7 going to C.

So, to me, free improvisation gets back to this idea: what is music? Ok, lots of different traditions have been established and codified. What else is there? In some ways, music involves being open. Are we open to perceiving a set of sounds as music?

As far as understanding music like this goes, well, that's another open question. Sometimes a piece of music just grabs you. That's an awesome experience no matter what the music is. Some posters have talked about preferring to play free rather than to listen to the music. I'm not convinced that, at least for a musician, the two can or should be separated. Some people may relate to free improvisation right away. If that's not you, and you want to understand the music better, I would first suggest trying to play that way, at least a little, then following that with some listening and/or study. Lather, rinse, repeat. I will paraphrase Rakalam Bob Moses, another huge influence on my musical thinking: Studying is good if you're living the music. If you aren't living the music, studying won't help you. So, if you want to understand this music better, try living the music, then studying it.

It can't hurt to check out not just recordings, but what people like Goldstein, or Coltrane, or Cecil Taylor, or Anthony Braxton, or ??? have had to say over the years. You will see that these are indeed serious cats, who have deep and intelligent ideas. Free improvisation of any kind can be challenging listening: challenging in every sense of the word. Still, OP, since you asked the original question... maybe this is a sort of answer. Play. Listen. Study. Maybe leave it all aside for a while. Ruminate. Then come back to it when you are ready. Try again?

Another central question free improvisation gets at: who are you? Who are you right now, at this moment? This is true whether you are playing or listening. If you really want to understand, I suggest the above: play, listen, study. If it all comes together for you someday, you might find the reward was well worth the effort.

I will stop here since I've already gone on far longer than I intended. I guess this is at least my $.03.

Peace,

Cricket

 

[User3743463]

The best post on this subject that I’ve read by a long long way (above from Cricket55) I fully agree with everything he says.

 

[notabene]

"the predictability/novelty balance" is a factorv that makes me so in awe of Bach, particularly The Goldberg and two and three part inventions.

 

[JBarz]

One major influence on my thinking is the book Sounding The Full Circle, by Malcolm Goldstein,

This is great. I've been feeling musically stagnant lately and have been really questioning the nature of my relationship with the stuff. I printed this out and started thumbing through it and am very grateful for the ruminations that are right in line with some of the questions I've been struggling with. High five, my guy. Super appreciated.

 

[Lee Moses]

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.

Yep. I addressed this in the rest of my post. You're still grasping something, whether or not it is the composer's/performer's intention.

 

[damonsmith]

Amazing post! I am on board with all of it. What I would say is that the thread is about Free Jazz which is inherently different than free improvisation - though many, like myself do both. Getting a sense of both will help you with either discipline. Goldstein is fantastic!
Also, and this cannot be said enough, the reason to listen to historical recordings is not to copy but to avoid unintentionally re-tracing their steps. It is about starting points, not influence.

Greetings All -

Fascinating thread. I've been debating whether or not to weigh in... I think I will put a couple of thoughts out there that I don't really see so far.

To me, free improvisation is the point where music and philosophy intersect. When I play free, or try to, the question is: if everything is on the table, what do I choose to do? One major influence on my thinking is the book Sounding The Full Circle, by Malcolm Goldstein, which I stumbled on in a Boston area bookstore in 1988. It has been bedside ever since, and the kind of book I have come back to over the years and continue to get more out of. The book is always the same. I am different.

One funny thing, I had read the book over and over for many years before I ever heard Malcolm Goldstein's music. Pre-internet, he was just a mysterious author to me. I never seemed to come across anything else about him. One day, at least 20 years later, I was idly searching Youtube and it occurred to me that I could probably find some videos, which I did. I think that's interesting because it's usually the reverse: we hear an artist and then want to find out more about them. In this case, I had been thinking about his approach for many years before I ever heard a note.

Anyway, one point he makes about free improvisation, not unique to him but where I first encountered the idea, is a central question: freedom from what? freedom to do what? I don't think there is any single answer to that beyond the choices that the improvisor makes in the moment. Once again, if everything is on the table, what will you choose to do?

Ultimately, this comes down to another central question: what is music? It seems logical that ALL music began as free improvisation: human beings all over the world, responding to the rhythms inside and around us, the melodies and harmonies of nature, the rhythms and melodies of spoken language, etc. Some of these experiments were so successful they evolved and developed into traditions but, whether we are thinking of raga and tala, maqamat, tertial harmony, or whatever... someone had to be the first (likely in parallel with others). Someone had to be the first person ever to play G7 going to C.

So, to me, free improvisation gets back to this idea: what is music? Ok, lots of different traditions have been established and codified. What else is there? In some ways, music involves being open. Are we open to perceiving a set of sounds as music?

As far as understanding music like this goes, well, that's another open question. Sometimes a piece of music just grabs you. That's an awesome experience no matter what the music is. Some posters have talked about preferring to play free rather than to listen to the music. I'm not convinced that, at least for a musician, the two can or should be separated. Some people may relate to free improvisation right away. If that's not you, and you want to understand the music better, I would first suggest trying to play that way, at least a little, then following that with some listening and/or study. Lather, rinse, repeat. I will paraphrase Rakalam Bob Moses, another huge influence on my musical thinking: Studying is good if you're living the music. If you aren't living the music, studying won't help you. So, if you want to understand this music better, try living the music, then studying it.

It can't hurt to check out not just recordings, but what people like Goldstein, or Coltrane, or Cecil Taylor, or Anthony Braxton, or ??? have had to say over the years. You will see that these are indeed serious cats, who have deep and intelligent ideas. Free improvisation of any kind can be challenging listening: challenging in every sense of the word. Still, OP, since you asked the original question... maybe this is a sort of answer. Play. Listen. Study. Maybe leave it all aside for a while. Ruminate. Then come back to it when you are ready. Try again?

Another central question free improvisation gets at: who are you? Who are you right now, at this moment? This is true whether you are playing or listening. If you really want to understand, I suggest the above: play, listen, study. If it all comes together for you someday, you might find the reward was well worth the effort.

I will stop here since I've already gone on far longer than I intended. I guess this is at least my $.03.

Peace,

Cricket

 

[walksupright]

It was explained to me that listening to free jazz is like listening to a conversation. It can be thought provoking, uplifting, unrestrained, dull, insulting, pretentious, funny, tiresome, awkward, inviting, elitist, offensive and enjoyable all at the same time.

 

[damonsmith]

One thing that can make it difficult to understand as listener or a player is that each player is actually trying to make sure you can't listen with a preexisting system or respond with a preexisting system. Each individual makes their own system, so they are contained within a player or an ensemble.
I've heard more than the usual thinly veiled digs about intonation in free music from bitter old musicians, some from online, some from washed up players in town.
One of squarest things you can do is play all tempered tuning on free jazz gig. Even and especially when playing with piano, those other notes are your job!

&


That and the bow are probably the biggest reason why only a few bass guitarists have made a mark on the music.

If you play a 440 A, then both a listener and a fellow musician can and will respond with learned systems. Even when sounds become part of the lexicon, they still don't have 400 years of western theory behind them.
As I've said before, intonation in free jazz and free improvisation is not about dividing octaves but about a mix of tempered notes, the overtones and the resulting pitches of extended techniques and pitches that harmonize with them.
Also, in high energy free jazz the percussive thump of a pizzicato note is going to get you the most propulsion, and even if your left hand is in perfect order, right is going to distort the pitch anyway.

Most of us start with extended techniques & harmonics as a way to get beyond the 12 tones, after a while a clearer set of pitches arise based on who you are often playing with.
My collaborator Sandy Ewen talks about real vs. imagined sounds. When Bach wrote D-F-A as the opening notes to suite #2, they were an imaginary ideal. When Ewen puts a railroad spike on her guitar, the resulting sound is a concrete reality:

When you line that set of ideas up with Scodanibbio's quote:
"An expression of the idea to allow the contrabass to finally find its own voice after having only heard the stammering of voices inappropriate and the sadistic violations of the so called avant garde"
Then we can move toward understand that much of the what is going on is finding out what is really in the instruments without the constraints of imaginary ideals.
Tempered pitches certainly have a place in the music, but more in the context of a pianist finding the right chords for bassist playing a glissando in two directions rather than the other way around.

I had two formative experiences around this. The first was showing up to a duo with Oluyemi Thomas, a great Oakland reed player.

I had practiced a ton of Simandl beforehand but had to pretty much let it go in the first 30 seconds and start pulling on the strings like Alan Silva.
The second was starting weekly rehearsals with a great modern dancer and realizing an A meant nothing to her but gestures meant everything.

Monitoring for "correct" pitch in free music is every bit as dumb and uninformed as trying to find a face in an abstract painting. The music isn't for everyone, but criticizing it with ideals that don't apply is unhelpful for everyone.

 

[Keith Rawlings]

PLEASE, don't miss out on Eric Dolphy's 'Out to Lunch'! Recorded very shortly before his passing (in 1964), it features Eric as leader, Freddie Hubbard, Bobby Hutcherson, Richard Davis, and Tony Williams. If nothing else, with such intensely talented players, it puts to rest the complaint that "my kid could do that". I also love this album because it's not 100% free - there are some beautiful melodies that frame the very free blowing.

This one has really been growing on me lately after many more listens, with the latest being this evening. Initially when I first tried to hear this album I didn’t care for it at all. I do think (now) I was going about it all the wrong way.

Putting it into perspective, I have instead tried to imagine myself in the same room with Dolphy and Co. as they were creating this masterpiece and to just take it all in at once and enjoy how each musician is doing his own thing — yet it is all somehow working beautiful together to make something special.

I seriously need to give free music another chance.

 

[damonsmith]

This could be another way in:

People often take Mingus' criticisms of free music to mean he wasn't into it, he just thought what he was doing was better!
Where's Brooklyn is also strong:

This one has really been growing on me lately after many more listens, with the latest being this evening. Initially when I first tried to hear this album I didn’t care for it at all. I do think (now) I was going about it all the wrong way.

Putting it into perspective, I have instead tried to imagine myself in the same room with Dolphy and Co. as they were creating this masterpiece and to just take it all in at once and enjoy how each musician is doing his own thing — yet it is all somehow working beautiful together to make something special.

I seriously need to give free music another chance.

 

[Cricket55]

The first was showing up to a duo with Oluyemi Thomas, a great Oakland reed player.

That was awesome.

 

[Cricket55]

Greetings Again -

Selected short subjects. Some further reflections on free improvisation in no particular order:

I paraphrased Malcolm Goldstein, from his book Sounding The Full Circle, in my initial post. Here is the full quotation:

“When an improviser is said to be free what does that mean? Free from what? Free to do what? Can you listen this way also? Free from the images and expectations? Free to receive and participate?” (Goldstein, p. 33)

A related quotation:

“When you go to a concert, do you hear the piece of music as an object (Symphony No. 5) or as the sounding of people, for people of the moment? How much do we think of a label, which identifies an object, which conjures up a sound image of a recorded rendition… while we sit and listen to a live performance? Can improvisation ever be heard this way?” (p. 35)

It would seem that music exists along a spectrum, ranging from pure sound to fully through-composed. When does sound become music? Why?

Music?

Here is an improvisation by Cecil Taylor. What if this same piece of music had been laboriously through-composed by (insert name of modern composer here), diligently practiced by (insert name of pianist here), and given a premiere at Symphony Hall? The music would be the same. What would be different? The audience? The reaction? Would this music suddenly be taken much more seriously?

There are pieces of free improvisation that I don’t enjoy listening to. I might listen to them anyway, sometimes repeatedly. Sometimes there is just something about them. I may not even be clear on why I want to hear it again or what it is I might be looking for. Enjoyment is not the only thing we might get out of music. I have read books, for example, that were not enjoyable, but I learned something from them.

I am not sure that free improvisation, free jazz, or most music is “elitist” or “music for musicians.” Some individuals may have an elitist attitude about it, but this is common to all areas, really. On the other hand, at least in America, if music does not have a vocalist singing lyrics, you have probably alienated about 80% of your potential audience from the start. I believe that free improvisation is the point where music and philosophy intersect. I think that musicians might be more interested in the questions free improvisation raises than the general audience. I don’t think this makes the music, or the musicians who play it, elitist, though.

I studied for a while with Randy Roos. He used to say that he felt the only reviews that were worthwhile were positive ones. Why should someone miss out on a potentially life changing experience because they heard from someone else it was garbage?

This relates to “You just don’t get it, man.” I think we all need to allow for the possibility that we just don’t get “it,” whatever “it” is.

It is probably a mistake to underestimate people’s artistry. An example: My wife likes watching The Voice. I remember, on separate occasions, seeing Miley Cyrus and Ariana Grande coaching a singer. They both made what I thought were intelligent, musical, suggestions that were going to improve the delivery, the arrangement, the music. Now I don’t listen to either one of them except for whatever may come up by chance. Even so, I think the general impression might be that they are just pretty girls hired by a producer of some kind to sing and shake it. From what I could see, they are actually serious, knowledgeable musicians.

“Just because something is popular doesn’t mean it’s bad.” - Miles Davis

What I get out of free improvisation, personally, is a renewed sense of possibility. I find myself responding differently in more structured situations from the experience. Why do I think every improvising musician should try free improvisation? Because you will learn things you can’t learn any other way.

Another poster talked about playing “100% free.” I’m not sure that’s actually possible. To me, that’s like “counting to infinity.” It makes sense in the abstract. I don’t think we ever play 100% free. That possibility only exists before you begin. Once you start to play, your choices have implications and consequences. Unless you are in the realm of pure sound, presumably you are trying to make music. To me, this always involves theme and variation, which implies an element of repetition. This could be quite abstract, but I think it needs to be present. If making music is your goal, and I think it should be your goal, you may well be less free as the improvisation progresses, your choices accumulate, and you develop, however you choose to do this, your theme.

Damon Smith pointed out, in his response to my initial post, that this thread is about free jazz. This is important to note. An improvisation needs to have some connection to jazz to be free jazz (instrumentation, swing, etc.). I think it is interesting that free improvisation in the more general sense arose from free jazz: a rare example of the general coming from the specific. I think there is a lot of overlap in the approaches, though, and the lines can be a bit blurry. In the Cecil Taylor solo I linked, is it free jazz? To my ear, it doesn’t sound particularly jazzy. Is the man himself enough of a connection? I don’t have an answer to that question.

One thing that caught my attention in this thread was Rakalam. In my brief but very important studies with him, he used to talk about the importance of “getting free on a form.” I’ve been wrestling with that concept ever since. He also used to talk about giving up freedom in order to groove, in order to sound good. Theme and variation… really what I think makes the difference between sound and music. To bring this back to where I began: freedom from what? freedom to do what?

Maybe some of this will resonate.

I will shut up now.

Peace,

Cricket

 

[Bob_Ross]

This relates to “You just don’t get it, man.” I think we all need to allow for the possibility that we just don’t get “it,” whatever “it” is.

I think we also need to allow for the very real possibility that lots of listeners -- and musicians -- can't even express what "getting" is.

 

[damonsmith]

Another great post! When I met Ra Kalam, it was with the great AACM drummer Alvin Fielder and I was surprised at how committed he was to free playing and was involved from the start. I would consider him my current "music teacher".
As far as 100% free, I think that is a great point. What I think it means in both free improvisation & free jazz is free from instruction from the other musicians & outside composers. It is mainly about the freedom to integrate your music with another person's music to make a new music.
To make that work, we each find ways to make our ideas clear but flexible. If I played a note or two with Cecil Taylor, he would sort of engulf it in his music from all sides. It was an amazing experience - he was listening (and playing) intently at all times.
Anthony Braxton got to a real peak with his last great quartet. Marilyn Crispell, Mark Dresser & Gerry Hemmingway were so familiar with his work that they were able to "improvise" out of his entire body of work. Braxton & Crispell could be playing a written duo, Dresser might be sight reading a flute part from an opera by Braxton, Hemmingway on one of Braxton's "pulse tracks" & so on. It was collage music at a very high level.

In many ways that is how the music currently works, but each person is playing out of their own body of work at each meeting.

Greetings Again -

Selected short subjects. Some further reflections on free improvisation in no particular order:

I paraphrased Malcolm Goldstein, from his book Sounding The Full Circle, in my initial post. Here is the full quotation:

“When an improviser is said to be free what does that mean? Free from what? Free to do what? Can you listen this way also? Free from the images and expectations? Free to receive and participate?” (Goldstein, p. 33)

A related quotation:

“When you go to a concert, do you hear the piece of music as an object (Symphony No. 5) or as the sounding of people, for people of the moment? How much do we think of a label, which identifies an object, which conjures up a sound image of a recorded rendition… while we sit and listen to a live performance? Can improvisation ever be heard this way?” (p. 35)

It would seem that music exists along a spectrum, ranging from pure sound to fully through-composed. When does sound become music? Why?

Music?

Here is an improvisation by Cecil Taylor. What if this same piece of music had been laboriously through-composed by (insert name of modern composer here), diligently practiced by (insert name of pianist here), and given a premiere at Symphony Hall? The music would be the same. What would be different? The audience? The reaction? Would this music suddenly be taken much more seriously?

There are pieces of free improvisation that I don’t enjoy listening to. I might listen to them anyway, sometimes repeatedly. Sometimes there is just something about them. I may not even be clear on why I want to hear it again or what it is I might be looking for. Enjoyment is not the only thing we might get out of music. I have read books, for example, that were not enjoyable, but I learned something from them.

I am not sure that free improvisation, free jazz, or most music is “elitist” or “music for musicians.” Some individuals may have an elitist attitude about it, but this is common to all areas, really. On the other hand, at least in America, if music does not have a vocalist singing lyrics, you have probably alienated about 80% of your potential audience from the start. I believe that free improvisation is the point where music and philosophy intersect. I think that musicians might be more interested in the questions free improvisation raises than the general audience. I don’t think this makes the music, or the musicians who play it, elitist, though.

I studied for a while with Randy Roos. He used to say that he felt the only reviews that were worthwhile were positive ones. Why should someone miss out on a potentially life changing experience because they heard from someone else it was garbage?

This relates to “You just don’t get it, man.” I think we all need to allow for the possibility that we just don’t get “it,” whatever “it” is.

It is probably a mistake to underestimate people’s artistry. An example: My wife likes watching The Voice. I remember, on separate occasions, seeing Miley Cyrus and Ariana Grande coaching a singer. They both made what I thought were intelligent, musical, suggestions that were going to improve the delivery, the arrangement, the music. Now I don’t listen to either one of them except for whatever may come up by chance. Even so, I think the general impression might be that they are just pretty girls hired by a producer of some kind to sing and shake it. From what I could see, they are actually serious, knowledgeable musicians.

“Just because something is popular doesn’t mean it’s bad.” - Miles Davis

What I get out of free improvisation, personally, is a renewed sense of possibility. I find myself responding differently in more structured situations from the experience. Why do I think every improvising musician should try free improvisation? Because you will learn things you can’t learn any other way.

Another poster talked about playing “100% free.” I’m not sure that’s actually possible. To me, that’s like “counting to infinity.” It makes sense in the abstract. I don’t think we ever play 100% free. That possibility only exists before you begin. Once you start to play, your choices have implications and consequences. Unless you are in the realm of pure sound, presumably you are trying to make music. To me, this always involves theme and variation, which implies an element of repetition. This could be quite abstract, but I think it needs to be present. If making music is your goal, and I think it should be your goal, you may well be less free as the improvisation progresses, your choices accumulate, and you develop, however you choose to do this, your theme.

Damon Smith pointed out, in his response to my initial post, that this thread is about free jazz. This is important to note. An improvisation needs to have some connection to jazz to be free jazz (instrumentation, swing, etc.). I think it is interesting that free improvisation in the more general sense arose from free jazz: a rare example of the general coming from the specific. I think there is a lot of overlap in the approaches, though, and the lines can be a bit blurry. In the Cecil Taylor solo I linked, is it free jazz? To my ear, it doesn’t sound particularly jazzy. Is the man himself enough of a connection? I don’t have an answer to that question.

One thing that caught my attention in this thread was Rakalam. In my brief but very important studies with him, he used to talk about the importance of “getting free on a form.” I’ve been wrestling with that concept ever since. He also used to talk about giving up freedom in order to groove, in order to sound good. Theme and variation… really what I think makes the difference between sound and music. To bring this back to where I began: freedom from what? freedom to do what?

Maybe some of this will resonate.

I will shut up now.

Peace,

Cricket

 

[Cricket55]

Good Morning All -

A couple of experiences I was thinking about over my morning coffee that, for me, relate to improvisation and, perhaps, some of the things Ornette Coleman had to say. Whenever these things happen, I find myself... looking for something. Haven't found it yet.

You're out and about. There's some music off in the distance, close enough to hear, but far enough away that you don't hear it clearly. Something about the melody is really intriguing. You keep listening, wondering what it could be you're listening to. At some point, it becomes clear: it's actually some really well-known pop song. You misheard where 1 was. Once it comes into focus, you can't bring that "other melody" back. Weird.

You're out and about, maybe walking down a city street, maybe relaxing on the beach. Again, you hear some really intriguing music and stop to listen, wondering what it could be that you're listening to. At some point, it becomes clear: it's actually two different songs playing at the same time. Again, probably well-known pop songs. For a while, they combined to make one piece of music in a weird and wonderful way.

A strange, related experiment if you are so inclined. For context, I teach special ed, and meet with various groups of students in my office. I always have a little background piano jazz on, just to make the atmosphere a little more pleasant. As an aside, I have, on occasion, had students tell me the music is boring. I tell them that they're right, but it's boring because they're actually listening to it, which is not its purpose. Every now and then, the conversation continues and I suggest we could put on some piano jazz that was meant to be listened to, and I put on some Bill Evans or Ahmad Jamal. Sometimes they like it, sometimes not, but they always seem to notice the difference.

Anyway, I usually have two or three computers going for work. One sounds better than the others, so normally I have the music playing on that one. Sometimes there are computer issues and I use another. One day, when the issues were resolved, I wanted to switch the music back from one to the other. I had the same loop playing for a few minutes on both at once, and everything went from banal to profound. I've tried that again on purpose a few times to similar effect. I think its interesting listening. If you have two computers, the time, and the inclination, give it a try: start the linked video on one, then start it again on another. See what you think.

Peace,

Cricket

 

[WG Plum]

You can do the same thing by having more than one youtube tab open playing the same or different pieces. Quite fun.

 

[Cricket55]

You can do the same thing by having more than one youtube tab open playing the same or different pieces. Quite fun.

Ah, yes... my low-tech mind. Duh. Two tabs....

 

[5StringBlues]

Do more than 2 tabs and everything will sound like free jazz.

 

[WG Plum]

Do more than 2 tabs and everything will sound like free jazz.

I certainly have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[JBarz]

I certainly have no idea what you're talking about.

lol, I certainly do. I remember one time listening to some very “inside” Art Blakey on repeat - something clicked and I finally transcended Stitt’s (et all) bebop lines and language and was just hearing everything as glorious guttural “barnyard sounds,” but in time. There is a much thinner line separating inside/outside than we often ascribe…