Avante Garde?? Free Jazz??

[Jazz]

What is it? I discovered jazz AFTER intensely studying tonal theory, so it was hard enough for me to get hip to modalism (strictly speaking, I consider straight ahead jazz to be modal). So, imagine my confusion at atonal jazz or jazz that aspires to be atonal. Also, I am very ANTI-chaos. MOMENTS of chaos can really add to the tension of a song, and I like that. But I really don't understand music that aspires to be completely chaotic.

So, what's my question? Well, what are the goals of Avante Garde, Free Jazz, or Improvised music? Is it different for every artist or is there an overal purpose/point of view within these movements? Is the purpose of these styles to be chaotic and structureless, or is it to try and comletely improvise a structure through unconventional means, instruments and pedagogue??? My head is just swimming with obscenely obtuse and pretentious theory jargon!!! AAAHH help me!!!

Chaotically Challenged,

Jazzaroni (The San Francisco Treat)

[Michael Fitzgerald]

Anything about chaos may well be your interpretation and projection, not the aspiration of any artist.

In my view, the goal of avant garde jazz, or avant garde classical music, or any jazz, or any music, or any art - is expression.

I also think your viewing straightahead jazz as modal is off the mark and limiting. Modal playing is but one of many approaches used in the style.

In your intense study of tonal theory did you somehow stop at some point in music's development? Because dissonance is a vital part of what has charged music going back for centuries. I would think that a study of tonal theory would show how dissonance has evolved. Same thing with rhythmic freedom.

Suggest you take a look at "Coltrane and Dolphy Answer the Critics" from Down Beat 4/12/62, reprinted in The John Coltrane Companion, edited by Carl Woideck. There are a number of other sources that might be worthwhile as well.

Mike

[Alexander Hawkins]

Jazzaroni,

I *think* I see what you're getting at; but (and apologies if I have misunderstood your question) I think you may have asked the wrong question.

Well, what are the goals of Avante Garde, Free Jazz, or Improvised music?

If you mean this question in apposition to 'tonal music', then I think it is flawed. Ask the correlative question: what are the goals of tonal music? It's not obvious then that the issues engage. The goals of tonal music are either a) emotional/aesthetic or B) technical - in the sense that tonal music generally involves harmonic centering and/or progression.

If you mean that you understand the emotional/aesthetic goals of tonal music, then the only answers I can offer to you as to the goals of A-G/free jazz are emotive: 'I like it because it makes me happy/sad', etc.

If, however, you do not understand the technical goals of free jazz, then I think this is because you listen to it from the tonal point of view. In other words, it is meaningless from the tonal point of view, because it lacks functional harmony as a conventional western tonal theorist would understand it. The 'idea' would then be to try to listen to the music without your 'tonal' analytical mind; in which case, the issue collapses back into an aesthetic one - i.e. the question would be 'now do you get free jazz?'

About your comments on modalism. Sure, you may well consider straight ahead jazz to be modal. For those whose jazz is conservatory taught, the same is true - they think in terms of ionian, dorian, locrian modes, etc. The classic exposition of this would be George Russell's 'Lydian Chromatic Concept.' I think the explanation can go two ways from here; and substantively, whichever you subscrive to doesn't make much difference, I don't think.

First is that modal jazz is what we all think of it in plain 'liner note' speak: extended passages of the same chords, used non-functionally (sorry; that bit is pretentious, but I think you know what I mean: harmony as in 'Footprints' or 'Impressions', etc.!) The 'Lydian Chromatic Theory' can then be thought of as an ex post rationalisation of 'straight ahead' harmony; i.e. a structure imposed on it from 'outside' to act as a way of facilitating our understanding of why we play the notes we play. This explains why one could analyse a Charlie Parker solo in these terms, for instance, even though Bird was dead by the time George Russell did his theorizing (I think; I forget when Russell published his work).

Either this, or as you say, straight ahead harmony is really all modal, and when we use the adjective 'modal' for a style of jazz, we use it very loosely.

This is possible, although I incline towards the former explanation; simply because in classical parlance, when we think of 'modes', we think of scales. When in classical music we think of harmony, however, we think in intervallic terms: of 'stacking' intervals, etc.; of the significance of 3rds and 7ths - and so on.

I hope this helps. If I have understood you right, then, the issue is really 'I don't emotionally/aesthetically 'get' A-G/free jazz, in which case, all it leaves people here to do is to tell you whether or not they personally like it, and then why!

[Alexander Hawkins]

Oops. Mike beat me to it there.

I agree about the Coltrane/Dolphy article. I think it may actually be available online somewhere; perhaps in the archive at Downbear online?

Dolphy says brilliantly what I took too long to say (and probably said badly).

[Jazz]

Okay, some good points here.

Also Mike, I realize there may be an effort to put me in my place, because I always sound like a know-it-all when I talk. I really don't mean to do that, its just the way I learned to speak about music. Anyways, on to the specifics

Mike,

Anything about chaos may well be your interpretation and projection, not the aspiration of any artist.

Okay, if there IS structure to a majority of Avante Garde then it is beyond my ear. In that case my ear will obviously interpret the sounds as chaotic, much like any standard modern listener would interperet Dizzy Gillespie or Charlie Parker as chaotic. So, actually, this brings us back to my original question: is my ear not hearing the structure, or is it meant to be percieved as chaos?

I also think your viewing straightahead jazz as modal is off the mark and limiting. Modal playing is but one of many approaches used in the style.

I think you misunderstood my initial statement. I'm not referring to the style of "modal jazz" as the crux of straight ahead. What I am saying is that though straight ahead jazz progressions can be considered tonal, I view the use of modulating ii-V's and the practice of playing the changes to be a complex uxe of modalism. In other words, there is no difference between a mode and its correspondig chord (in jazz). Therefore, going chord to chord in any straight ahead jazz composition is like going from mode to mode. This position is debatable, but it is the way I prefer to think about it right now. Better?

In your intense study of tonal theory did you somehow stop at some point in music's development? Because dissonance is a vital part of what has charged music going back for centuries. I would think that a study of tonal theory would show how dissonance has evolved. Same thing with rhythmic freedom.

Okay, I realize that you have no idea who I am and what my idea of "intense" study is. For all you know I checked out a book in the library and spent a week on it. So let me clarify. I spent 3 solid years studying nothing but music theory. I took no other classes for 2 and 1/2 years other than music related courses,

and I never got bored or slacked off. I am not claiming to be an expert, there is a TON of theory that I literally barely know about and I understand this.

Needless to say, I understand dissonance and how it works. I am not talking primary triads with root and fifth basslines with melodies built on 3rds, nor am I talking Bach fugues or two part inventions. I am familiar with straight ahead jazz voicings (very dissonant in classical terms, but not as dissonant as say, Gyorgy Ligetti's use of semitones), common jazz voice leading, use of tone clusters, harmonic progression, the concept of the overtone series, and the basic functions of different instruments in various jazz arrangements. I understand what atonality is, what chaos is, and I understand the difference.

Yes along with all of this I *still* remember that the goal is expression, but I am one of those annoying guys that thinks that self-expression and art are not exactly the same thing. So, I assume that expression is just one of those unspoken goals of art. Therefore, when I bring up goals, I am referring to any goals that are beyond the basic idea of self expression.

Red, I'm still absorbing your post! Very informative, thank you! Will ask you more questions a little later.

[Michael Fitzgerald]

The world of "avant garde jazz" is a very wide one. What exactly are you listening to and what exactly are you hearing?

The musics of Sun Ra and Anthony Braxton, for example, are very different and both are highly concerned with structure.

I suspect that it is impossible to make a blanket statement about what the specific goals are of every single composition/performance by every single artist. In the article I mentioned, Dolphy says, "Music is a reflection of everything. And it's universal," and Coltrane echoes this, "It's a reflection of the universe. Like having life in miniature. You just take a situation in life or an emotion you know and put it into music. You take a scene you've seen, for instance, and put it into music." But certain of, say, Coltrane's pieces, have very strong structures - the final movement of A Love Supreme being a musical reading of a poem, for example.

If something is beyond your ear, then perhaps the solution is to listen more. Or listen differently. But I don't know how much you have listened to. Though perhaps you have already implied that you are relatively new to jazz.

BTW, your anonymity and assumption of the title of "Jazz" don't encourage open discussion. Sad to say, but there is a history of "trolls" on the Internet, particularly those who would banish avant garde jazz to some other universe.

Mike

[Jazz]

Red,

Thanks for your reply, I think I'm making slow but sure progress here!

If you mean that you understand the emotional/aesthetic goals of tonal music, then the only answers I can offer to you as to the goals of A-G/free jazz are emotive: 'I like it because it makes me happy/sad', etc.

I guess I get that. I mean you like something if you like it. I guess my problem with understanding it comes when I try to put it in a broader social perspective. I guess what I mean is that AG is obviously different from tonal music. I understand the basic concept of being creative tonally. You play with the rules, break them when necessary, and give everyone a WHOLE new perspective on 400 year old established tendencies. But with AV I'm not sure what they're trying to do. In fact right now you are probably noticing that I understand it so little, that I'm having a real problem even coming up with a concise question.

In other words, it is meaningless from the tonal point of view, because it lacks functional harmony as a conventional western tonal theorist would understand it.

I think we're getting closer to my unformed question here. Even if a piece of music lacks functional harmony, it can still have FORM. Like twelve tone, or other modern/postmodern styles of composition. It doesn't even have to be any SPECIFIC kind of form, it could be melodic, rhythmic, dynamic, semiotic, intervalic, or any combination of all kinds of degrees of those, and maybe a bunch I'm totally missing.

The classic exposition of this would be George Russell's 'Lydian Chromatic Concept.' I think the explanation can go two ways from here; and substantively, whichever you subscrive to doesn't make much difference, I don't think.

First off, George Russell's wha? eh? That sounds really interesting, could you expound on the Lydian Chromatic Concept, I've never even heard of it!

I totally agree with you on it not making much difference HOW you think, as long as your ear and your instincts as a musician are the most important things leading you.

The 'Lydian Chromatic Theory' can then be thought of as an ex post rationalisation of 'straight ahead' harmony; i.e. a structure imposed on it from 'outside' to act as a way of facilitating our understanding of why we play the notes we play.

If I'm getting this correctly, you are saying that this would be strictly an applied system of UNDERSTANDING the construction of straight ahead, but not an imposed rule set for COMPOSITION? Kind of a way to get the gist of it without being restrictive?

Either this, or as you say, straight ahead harmony is really all modal, and when we use the adjective 'modal' for a style of jazz, we use it very loosely.

That's pretty much how I am thinking about it currently. "Modal Jazz" (Impressions, etc.) IS an accurate term, but I feel that the term "Modal" applies to many jazz styles, especially straight ahead. One style I wouldn't call modal would be hot jazz. Its all about personal interpretation, like most theory.

This is possible, although I incline towards the former explanation; simply because in classical parlance, when we think of 'modes', we think of scales. When in classical music we think of harmony, however, we think in intervallic terms: of 'stacking' intervals, etc.; of the significance of 3rds and 7ths - and so on.

Interesting, I will ask my old prof about this. I remember studying modalism as applied to harmonic progression as well!

I hope this helps. If I have understood you right, then, the issue is really 'I don't emotionally/aesthetically 'get' A-G/free jazz, in which case, all it leaves people here to do is to tell you whether or not they personally like it, and then why!

I think it really has helped me. I hope my intellectualist slant on things hasn't soured anyone on this thread. I would really appreciate ANY opinions on this style, and why someone likes it or dislikes it!

[Jazz]

Mike,

I guess the assumption I am working under is this: for something to be art, it must have SOME kind of system, SOME kind of form, and also that enough people in a society need to view it as art. Of course these aren't easily quantifiable questions (how many people need to view it as art? 2? 5? 5000?) In this case, I think enough people view it as art to justify that aspect, now I'm looking for the form. Tell me more about Anthony Braxton, does he prefer atonality? How does he impose structure (dynamically, rhythmically, etc.)?

As far as my listening experience, it only goes as far as what other people have played me here and there. I spend ALL my time on straight ahead right now, because I want a good foundation in it before I study other things. So, all I can tell you is that what I've heard always sounded atonal and chaotic. It was something that until recently I didn't think had much merit. But, I am in the habit of re-examining my ideas often and thoroughly and I thought this would be a good place to get a heads up.

P.S. - Jazz is my "real life" nickname

[Michael Fitzgerald]

What is so bad about being atonal, anyway? If all avant garde jazz were atonal would that be OK?

If you are interested in Braxton's music, I strongly recommend "Forces In Motion," a book by Graham Lock. Plenty of discussion there by Braxton that addresses a whole ton of things in his music and the music of others with whom he has worked.

The Lydian Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organization is a landmark work in theory that has been around for half a century. Composer George Russell has been professor at New England Conservatory since 1969. If you've never heard of him, it seems something is definitely lacking in your theory education. The new edition of the book was published last year. www.georgerussell.com

I'm sorry, but if you can't tell me even a single piece that is giving you this overwhelming impression of chaos, I can't really help you. Right now, it sounds to me like you haven't got enough experience with this kind of music and need to do some listening. If I'm wrong, please correct me by naming names. You did that well enough with Bach and Ligeti. How do you expect to discuss something that you haven't experienced?

Mike

Edited April 14, 2003 by Michael Fitzgerald

[Jazz]

Mike,

I have to say I'm very surprised. I may be misreading your post but you are coming off rather aggressively. I would understand it if I was making a value statement on the music (avant garde sucks, free jazz is great etc.), but all I'm doing is asking questions! The very reason I posted this was to get a better perspective on a style of music that I have very little experience with.

As far as insulting my theory education, I don't think you have a right to do that. I saw something I had never heard of and I asked about it. Isn't that how I am supposed to learn? Should I have pretended to be hip to George Russell so that I wouldn't look the fool? I would be very surprised if you knew everything there was to know about everything.

If you don't feel like you can help me without naming specific names then that is fine as I am unable to name specific songs/artists. If you do not like the tone of my posts, however, there is no need to even respond at all. I would consider this preferable on both of our parts rather than getting into a pissing contest.

[Michael Fitzgerald]

I said if you didn't know of George Russell and his work that something was lacking in your theory education. It seems obvious that what is lacking is awareness of the only theoretical concept that jazz has produced. No more, no less. If you take that as an insult to your education, so be it. As far as I can tell, it's just a fact.

As for value statements, you were the one to say that up until recently you felt that avant garde jazz didn't have much merit. If you NOW have as little experience as you claim, I can't possibly imagine how much experience you had back then when you were making this value statement.

I guess you are misreading my post. I'm not sure why you feel it is aggressive to point out that your lack of experience (listening at the very least, to say nothing of performing) is a fundamental hindrance. I have no issue with the tone of your posts. It's the content and approach. I've pointed out several resources that might be of relevance, but you seem to want to jump in and talk in some detail about something you haven't heard. To my way of thinking, one first listens and reads and then discusses, analyzes, evaluates. You seem to have started from the other end and are working your way backwards.

I am very willing to share information and discuss things. Education is my profession. But I'm not about to get into things on the subject of the abstract expressionist school of art without having everyone *SEE* the paintings and know which ones we're talking about.

If you are interested in doing the (in my view) required listening, here's another resource that might help.

http://users.bestweb.net/~msnyder/avantgarde/avant.htm

Mike

[Jazz]

Well, geez.

As for value statements, you were the one to say that up until recently you felt that avant garde jazz didn't have much merit.

If you NOW have as little experience as you claim, I can't possibly imagine how much experience you had back then when you were making this value statement.

I said this:

It was something that until recently I didn't think had much merit. But, I am in the habit of re-examining my ideas often and thoroughly and I thought this would be a good place to get a heads up.

As in that is no longer my opinion, I am willing to try and understand more about it, and I thought this would be a good place to ask about it. I can't possibly see what relevance my PAST opinion, no matter how uninformed, has to do with this current conversation.

I've pointed out several resources that might be of relevance, but you seem to want to jump in and talk in some detail about something you haven't heard.

I'm sorry that I failed to acknowledge your contribution, but there was so much to type I guess I just left it out. Rest assured I have not ignored the material both you and Red have recommended to me.

To my way of thinking, one first listens and reads and then discusses, analyzes, evaluates. You seem to have started from the other end and are working your way backwards.

My thinking processes are different from most people's. I don't know, it seems to work for me, except on jazz discussion boards.

Lastly,

It seems obvious that what is lacking is awareness of the only theoretical concept that jazz has produced. No more, no less. If you take that as an insult to your education, so be it. As far as I can tell, it's just a fact.

To tell me that "it seems something is definitely lacking in your theory education" is rude to say the least. There are many ways to express surprise without being rude, or better yet, you could have kept that to yourself. I don't believe that I have claimed to know everything about theory. In fact I explicitly said that I didn't consider myself an expert in theory, just a serious student. For you to make a snide comment at a student asking a legitimate question is inappropriate for a jazz educator. Especially if the question is about something so important as "the only theoretical concept that jazz has produced." In fact, the only mention you made of the Lydian Chromatic Concept was to tell me I didn't know about it! AFTER I said that myself!

Point is this: I am unfamiliar with atonalism and I don't understand it. I am unfamiliar with avante garde, free jazz, and improvised music; and I don't understand them. I thought I could get a little perspective from people who know more than me BEFORE I start beating my head against the wall trying to figure it out.

Anyways, all that aside, I re-read your post, and besides the comment about my lacking education, I can take your word for it that you were not trying to be aggressive. I think I just read that comment on my education and interpreted the rest in a defensive way. Anyways, I will be sure to examine the "required listening" list and other materials you have recommended.

Jazz

[Alexander Hawkins]

Jazz,

Don't worry, I'm certainly not soured. In fact, I know exactly how it feels to wander into technical language - being 'classically trained' (if that doesn't sound too pretentious!) as well! (Incidentally, I sympathise in being caught out by one's nickname being unhelpful: one of my nicknames is 'Red', but only the other day did it occur to me that it might seem obtuse to put a colour as a moniker..!)

I take your point about modalism having an applicability to harmony in classical music. I did overlook that, but take your point. You're absolutely right here; there is the odd modal cadence at the end of Bach chorales, for instance (not to mention earlier music). I think I would still argue that classical harmony is probably only unusually called modal though? I don't know; I think this is an issue of labelling.

As to the issue of George Russell's system being for understanding rather than composition...I think the answer would be yes and no. It is true that it does 'explain' note choices for improvisations which pre-date it; but as such, of course, it can be used as a prescription for future improvisation. It is both presecriptive and descriptive, in that sense.

I also take the point about non-tonal music having form; I wouldn't argue with that at all (one would be hard pressed to call Webern or Boulez tonal, for instance, but equally hard pressed to deny that their works are awesomely structured). When you hear the form in straight ahead jazz, however, I wonder why this is? Is it because you hear the improvisations against standard ii-V-I progressions, etc.? If this is the case, then I think my point still stands that you are listening with preconceptions; and that listening might be easier if you were able to set these to one side.

However, I think one answer would be that the form is 'internal' as opposed to 'external'. At the risk of sounding pretentious (again), then it may be that the structuring of the freest jazz is the structure of the personal expressive story that the soloist is trying to tell. If this is the case, then the analytical determination of form blurs into the emotional interpretation of the music. In other words, if one 'gets' the music's emotional message, then one will be able to make some sense of it; whereas if one cannot engage with the music emotionally, then one will of course not see its structure, which would remain that of the 'internal' story.

On that reasoning, however, there are as many structures as there are stories; and there will only be un-usefully broad generalisations to be made about the structure: analogous to saying of a story that 'something happens'. Perhaps a useful analogy with this analysis of structure would be that of 'stream of consciousness' writing, however. Maybe it's just that free music is harder to get than free writing, because the respective language in music is that much more oblique.

Perhaps I can leave a better explanation of George Russell's concept for later - I've got to leave my computer for a while now..? Or alternatively, I think there are some good explanations of it on the web.

One other point - whilst I understand Mike's desire for concrete examples, I don't think they're necessarily vital for the discussion of this issue. For instance, you and I might agree on what is a focal instance of 'modern art' or a 'fast car' or a 'madrigal' without being able to specify more precisely what is at stake...So I think that as a matter for argumentation, logically we don't absolutely need examples!

Certainly though, I haven't taken anything you've said the wrong way; on the contrary, I enjoy having to think analytically about the music, which is, after all, so neglected in these terms compared with its more 'respected' (in establishment circles) classical counterpart!

Anyway, Jazz, would be interested to hear what you thought!

Red

[Jazz]

Thanks guys!

I am starting to get the picture that I did something akin to walking into a room full of mathematicians and asking a question like "what is calculus", and expecting really specific answers. Seriously though, this how little I actually know about the subject.

Red,

Your responses are very thoughtful and I don't find them even a bit pretentious!!

I think I would still argue that classical harmony is probably only unusually called modal though? I don't know; I think this is an issue of labelling.

Hey, technically Ionian and Aeolian are modes! Ha ha I win!! Just kidding of course.

As to the issue of George Russell's system being for understanding rather than composition...I think the answer would be yes and no. It is true that it does 'explain' note choices for improvisations which pre-date it; but as such, of course, it can be used as a prescription for future improvisation. It is both presecriptive and descriptive, in that sense.

Sounds like something I really need to look into. I will definitely do so.

Is it because you hear the improvisations against standard ii-V-I progressions, etc.? If this is the case, then I think my point still stands that you are listening with preconceptions; and that listening might be easier if you were able to set these to one side.

So, I guess that would be why avante garde is so hard to listen to for some people? You kind of have to take it on its own terms? In your own opinion, do you think this may be why many jazz enthusiasts get ruffled when a fellow jazz enthusiast doesn't like ANY ag at all? I mean, straight ahead, as tonal as it is, sounds way different than today's popular music. There is a fair amount of taking straight ahead "on its own terms" because of this, so its a bit hypocritical to not give ag a chance... I hope any of that made a lick of sense....

In other words, if one 'gets' the music's emotional message, then one will be able to make some sense of it; whereas if one cannot engage with the music emotionally, then one will of course not see its structure, which would remain that of the 'internal' story.

I think this may be my main problem (some of those preconceptions you mentioned). The way my mind works right now, I usually don't emotionally connect with music until I can at least get a glimpse of its inner workings.

Perhaps I can leave a better explanation of George Russell's concept for later - I've got to leave my computer for a while now..? Or alternatively, I think there are some good explanations of it on the web.

Haha, don't worry. I won't ask you for a treatise! I have the prof's name, and the name of the theory, I should be able to find out about it. Would you mind if I asked you any questions about it in the future?

I enjoy having to think analytically about the music,

Me too. I end up sounding like such a jerk, though. I liked the analytical side of music so much I almost decided to become a theory major!

Anyways Red, thanks so much for your post. You said alot of things that I was reaching for in my head. I also realized a couple of things about the way I think while I was being challenged by your words, so I definitely feel that I have been enriched by this experience.

Clinton,

Well, according to the article that Mike kindly provided for me, I'm thinking of "expressionism". Some of the artists/albums that he lists as expressionism are: Albert Ayler - Spiritual Unity; Charles Gayle - Touchin on Trane; Archie Shepp - Fire Music. Definitely these are albums I will be trying to get a hold of. Also, if you have any recommendations of recordings you consider important, I would like to hear your opinions.

Thanks to Mike for the resources he posted for me!

[Alexander Hawkins]

Would you mind if I asked you any questions about it in the future?

Of course not; I'll answer whatever I can to help. Others will probably do better - there are some VERY knowledgeable people around here - but I'd be more than glad to have a go!

I end up sounding like such a jerk, though.

Not in the slightest. I guess there's a point where you've got to break into technical chat to make headway in a discussion!

I don't think you need think of yourself as hypocritical for not giving the stuff a fair chance. In all honesty, you can comfort yourself by realising that you're probably only being tested by this type of music because you have a well developed ear for classical harmony and form. I think this is why even some relatively 'outside' classical musicians can have some trouble coming to freer forms of jazz - classical music (in all but a few incarnations - the really far out stuff! - can bring itself to dispose of harmony, but - and this may be inherent in its nature as a largely a written music - finds it very difficult to shirk some sense of form or structure.

p.s. I have a correction to make! When I said how perceptive Dolphy was in the article Mike mentioned, I think I was mistaken as to the article he cited: I think I was thinking of a separate piece, where Dolphy is interviewed by Leonard Feather. I think...I'm not sure now, in fact!

I had a thought earlier. One piece of free jazz which has a very prominent melodic streak - and the melody is thoroughly diatonic - is the album length 'People in Sorrow' by the Art Ensemble of Chicago. Being very long, without some kind of structure, it has the potential really to ramble...Not a bit of it; it is truly one of the most wonderful (and simply beautiful) pieces of music I can think of. If you could find a copy of this to listen to, it might really help. A very long piece, where the structure (as far as I can tell) is little more than an emotional one - but where there are a couple of 'classical' devices that might help your ear through it (namely, the diatonic melody and a sustained inverted pedal note towards the end).

Good luck!

Red

[.:.impossible]

Jazz,

I am not a trained musician, just a listener, so I can't offer too much explanation on the more technical aspects of the music. I will try to describe some of what I get out of it however.

What I respect most about free jazz, avant-garde, what have you, is the actual shift of focus from the more traditional elements of popular music (harmony, meter) to the more emotional and visceral aspects of the communication form.

I have been listening a lot to a couple of Nessa discs lately, so I will try to apply my thoughts to these recordings.

I don't know how familiar you are with the Chicago musicans of the last quarter century, but they have definitely been an epiphany to me. These musicians have taken and extended a music/art form by embracing the entire tradition of jazz, rhythm and blues, you name it, to create what they have labeled "Great Black Music." I am gradually introducing myself to the world they have shaped over the past 40 years. Gradually. I am no expert or historian, for sure.

AACM Website: Click here for more information

You can find a discussion on Roscoe Mitchell's "Snurdy McGurdy's Dancin' Shoes" here on organissimo. I think this is as good a place as any to introduce yourself to Chicago and the "avant garde", even though it was recorded in 1980. A quintet utilizes a wide range of instrumentation with utmost facility to cover an equally wide range of musical styles. I am sure you will find merit in this recording.

This recording would "fit" more into the avant-garde vein due to a more obvious approach to composition. Embedded in composition is brilliant improvisation, each turn complimenting the last. I don't know how this music ranks with professional musicians, but I have really enjoyed its diversity over the past two weeks.

AIR Air Time has really made itself comfortable in my home. This is my kind of music. It sounds innate. It sounds natural. The music makes itself comfortable in my surroundings. The focus is on interaction and indefinite musical composition. This is a trio recording with an emphasis on rhythm, but not meter. It feels free and is one of the most inspiring recordings I have heard in quite some time. Air Time was recorded in 1978.

Both of these musics are very different from each other, but somehow related. They are both bringing to light other elements of music and interaction. Elements that I feel have been neglected by a large portion of the musical community. The same goes for the surge of free music that came about in the 1960s. As much as we analyze the music and break it down into a common science, there is something about jazz music that cannot be explained. Much of the free music, avant-garde jazz, "great black music", etc. amplifies just that. Spirit.

I hope that, over time, you become more comfortable with the "chaos." In that chaos, I have discovered and empathized with a great range of emotion.

I have enjoyed reading your thoughts on this subject. Much of what you type is outside of my range of knowledge and fun to learn.

[Jazz]

Red,

Thanks for all your suggestions and thoughts, I feel they've been a real help!

Impossible,

Thank you for your recommendations and the link to the website! In all honesty, I'm not sure if I'm really ready to understand ag, but I think its time to get my feet wet. I think for a long time, my ear just wasn't ready to even try, but now my ear is finally starting to catch up with my analytical studies.

As far as stuff being outside of your range of knowledge, nah not really. Its kind of just jargon for those things that anyone is capable of hearing. The reason I latched on to theory so hard was because I was a really weak musician, and I needed the boost. On the other hand, I think theory studies can only add to someone's knowledge, and that's always a good thing. Anyways, enough of my ramblin.

Thanks to everyone who responded!

[Chuck Nessa]

Knowledge is good, if it does not interfere with feeling. All art is about expressing feelings. Technique and "tools" are the way the artist expresses feelings, but the "audience" is already lost if they look for the "tools" to justify the emotion. If you search for the tools before "experiencing" the work, you are lost.

Webern and Albert Ayler are primarily about MELODY. They have different ways of arriving there, and they deliver different melodies. That is the magic.

It is really that simple. Forget what you learned. It may be of use later.

[James]

I seem to recall that Jim Sangrey had a wonderfully articulate general description of avant-garde which involved viewing an AG piece as a group of "cells" or movements.

Hey Jim - we know you're damn busy lately, but care to weigh in?

(Edited for spelling)

Edited April 16, 2003 by James

[Chuck Nessa]

Mechanical engineers are not the best drivers of Porsches. The limits are discovered by other souls.

[Jazz]

While I have my own views on what art is, I don't feel nearly educated enough to go into detail without getting reamed! My basic views, though, stem from the idea that art is not solely self expression, that there should be some minimal amount of form present. I don't know, maybe that opinion will change with the more I learn...

I totally do agree that analytical thought should never take precedent over expression and emotion.

Um, what else... I don't consider myself nearly trained enough to be "classically trained" as is evident by my lack of knowledge of such an important theory as the Lydian Chromatic Concept. I do feel that I have devoted an enormous amount of time and sincere effort to understanding the foundations of theory.

Liked the racecar analogy!

I also know that almost everyone I meet, whether on the net or in real life, REALLY disagree with the way I go about music. All I can say is that I follow my instincts, and try not to second guess my methods. I guess that comes from not having a whole lot of people to help me. Its been especially hard in jazz, because ANYTHING I've learned about jazz was 99% me beating my head against the wall. Which is why I really appreciate having a cool place like this to ask questions!!

Anyways, thanks everyone for not ignoring me, every new opinion and suggestion is another challenge to the way I look at things, and I really appreciate that.

[Chuck Nessa]

My basic views, though, stem from the idea that art is not solely self expression, that there should be some minimal amount of form present. I don't know, maybe that opinion will change with the more I learn...

I totally do agree that analytical thought should never take precedent over expression and emotion.

Form will become obvious as you listen.

Thanks for not rejecting me out of hand.

[Jazz]

Thanks for not rejecting me out of hand.

Ha! I would have to be an idiot to do that, Mr. Nessa! It's just hard sorting things out you know? For a while I took everything my teachers said as gospel. Then I realized that was a dumb thing to do and then rebelled against everything anyone ever told me. Also dumb. Now I'm trying to find that line where I think for myself, but leave alot of room for learning and change.

[Chuck Nessa]

Please call me Chuck. You seem to be a bright guy - keep posting.