A Listener's Guide to Free Improvisation by John Corbett

[A Lark Ascending]

http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/L/bo22955331.html

Imagine this one would cause feathers to fly. Be interested to read what he has to say.

According to the review in 'Jazzwise' he recommends bringing a note pad when going to free improvisation concerts. Maybe he gives fashion advice too:

I'm intrigued by "and the counter-intuitive challenge of listening while asleep" mentioned in the blurb. 

Edited May 24, 2016 by A Lark Ascending

[JSngry]

Ah, the trick is not to listen while asleep, the trick is to listen in that state that comes just before sleep. Don't know how to describe it, but it's a state where you're  not really asleep, but you're definitely not in a "regular" state of consciousness either, nor are your eyes open. Sounds exist as full-bodied entities speaking quite clearly and independently of any other environmental stimulation and take on a very vivid characteristic of a living sound form, individually and collectively.

Problem is, you have to learn to put yourself into that state (probably some yoga thing, breathing is definitely slower than usual). I haven't, it's just something I find myself in when relaxing and/or trying to nap. Started noticing it when I was, like, 14 or so, so it's not a residual drug thing or whatever. It's probably some meditative state, but...I ain't gonna work that hard to get to have it at my disposal anytime I want it.

Also - it works for any music, not just free improv. Works for any music. Maybe more "revelatory" for music with dense textures and/or highly detailed timbral variances, things where conscious concentration can indeed be counter-productive. Some things work best when they come to you whole, and sometimes listening to hard fails that. Forrest for the trees, etc.

Not sure about the note pad thing...I've seen students bring fake books to othe5r people's gigs, and people bring scores to classical concerts...I men, ok, I get the need to study, but time, place, etc, it ain't ALL in the book, no matter what it is.

OTOH, you wanna sketch, or write down impressions to ponder later, or even make your own schematic of what you perceived you heard, no harm don, I guess.

[Larry Kart]

Jim -- I actually had such an experience while listening to "Peace" (I think it was) from "The Shape of Jazz To Come" right after the album came out. Up to that point much that Ornette played sounded intriguing but also fairly weird to me, but as I listened to his solo on "Peace" in my bedroom while I was close to drifting off, I had a waking dream in which I was listening to some of the most beautiful and perfectly lucid music I'd ever heard. Then I came fully awake and realized that what I'd been hearing in my waking dream was Ornette's actual and still ongoing solo. That broke the "weird" barrier for me once and for all.

[JSngry]

These "waking dream" states, they happen. Gotta be some science behind it.

[alankin]

I had that experience with Coltrane's LP "The Other Village Vanguard Tapes".  I remember I was very tired,  I closed my eyes and started drifting off while it was playing and the music finally sunk in.

I think I can hear music better at concerts sometimes if I close my eyes.  Keeps my from getting distracted by other people or stray thoughts.

[relyles]

I have the book and have read about half of it. It attempts to be a how to listen for beginners, with a basic explanation of the various things that are happening. I am not sure yet it will have any significant impact on my own listening, but it may be helpful to someone entirely new to the music.

[paul secor]

1 hour ago, Larry Kart said:

Jim -- I actually had such an experience while listening to "Peace" (I think it was) from "The Shape of Jazz To Come" right after the album came out. Up to that point much that Ornette played sounded intriguing but also fairly weird to me, but as I listened to his solo on "Peace" in my bedroom while I was close to drifting off, I had a waking dream in which I was listening to some of the most beautiful and perfectly lucid music I'd ever heard. Then I came fully awake and realized that what I'd been hearing in my waking dream was Ornette's actual and still ongoing solo. That broke the "weird" barrier for me once and for all.

Had the same experience listening to the Ornette! album - 52 years ago now.

[Gheorghe]

When I started to listen seriously to jazz, "free jazz" still was quite a lot en vogue and people who had more knowledge and more listening experience than me wouldn´t consider a new listener a "full member" if he would keep listening only to "straight ahead" stuff.

The mentioned early Ornette Coleman albums "The Shape of Jazz to Come" and "Ornette!" were those albums that made it easy for me to get into that, since they still had the "easy thing" for me, straight ahead walking bass , though the impros were not based on traditional chord patterns. In my first encounters with so called "New Thing" or "Free Jazz" I didn´t mind how far they go out if they did "swing"...

Maybe this was also Alfred Lion´s touch to the whole thing, he recorded Ornette, he recorded Don Cherry and you can listen to "Complete Communion" and don´t fall asleep, since it grooves, it bounces, you can follow it.

It took more time and more close listening for me to get into Cecil Taylor´s albums. Coltrane´s "At Village Vanguard Again" (the stuff with Sanders, with Rashied Ali). If I would listen to that I might say I got to have time to really listen to every aspect of it just to know what it is about....

What I want to say, I got to get me that kind of "education", not to become lazy and say "I only listen to Blakey´s "Moanin" and "Blue March" or to Horace Silver´s "Song to My Father" and say I only listen to what "I like" and where I can keep tappin my foot. I first started to hear Bird and advanced Bird fans told me "if you dig the music, move on, open your ears, listen to the next steps, and then come back and then talk to  us, maybe...."

[A Lark Ascending]

I've ordered the book. Whereas with classical music there are innumerable 'guides' that can help a non-musician understand what is going on in a piece of music, these are rarer in jazz. 

'Free Jazz' is something I've become more interested in over the last 15 years (without it ever becoming my prime focus of listening) yet I still find the listening experience far more fragmentary than with structured music. I think we're hard-wired to break down the passage of time into sections - it's much less easy to keep your mind on the music without the clear guidelines that are provided by the chorus structure of a conventional jazz tune or a sonata or variation structure in a classical piece (I understand exactly why free musicians [and others] decide NOT to use such structures but that makes it harder on the listener). I find myself responding to 'excitement' and strange and beautiful sounds and timbres but I rarely have that sense of 'narrative' that you get in most music [again, in some cases that's probably because it is not there; in others because the traditional flags are not there to make it obvious].

The reviews I've read suggest this is quite a down to earth account, focussed largely on live performance. That sort of book generally helps me increase my enjoyment of music (as opposed to the excessively technical book which goes over my head or, god forbid, the sort of book which rhapsodises about 'spirituality' and music as as some sort of mystic communion [and again I know some musicians make the music driven by a belief in the latter]).

Looking forward to it.  

Edited May 25, 2016 by A Lark Ascending

[OliverM]

I read this book in one evening. The format is really nice, the quality of the display and cover also. I enjoyed some remarks on Cecil Taylor's "wave-like" music and a few anecdotes - but there are not many. But I kept wondering who is the targeted reader for this. Initially I had bought the book as a gift in order to "initiate" a relative but I don't see how you can enjoy reading it without having experienced some of it yourself and knowing Brötzmann, Vandermark, Joe McPhee and a few others as the author talks about them. On the other hand, for those who are already gripped by the music, there might not be much new here. I was also interpelled by the listening while you fall asleep title, only to find that the thought wasn't pushed that far, not much further than what I had already experienced on my own (also starting as a teen, listening to Coltrane). The chapters are all very short and the argument cannot be pushed very far. Also, among the recommendation lists there are many out of print books and records which doesn't make it a "beginner's guide" for me.
 I really shoudn't be bringing the only relatively negative opinion here, since I support the initial idea and the personal project of writing such a book. Maybe it's my french contradiction side...

[A Lark Ascending]

46 minutes ago, OliverM said:

I read this book in one evening. The format is really nice, the quality of the display and cover also. I enjoyed some remarks on Cecil Taylor's "wave-like" music and a few anecdotes - but there are not many. But I kept wondering who is the targeted reader for this. Initially I had bought the book as a gift in order to "initiate" a relative but I don't see how you can enjoy reading it without having experienced some of it yourself and knowing Brötzmann, Vandermark, Joe McPhee and a few others as the author talks about them. On the other hand, for those who are already gripped by the music, there might not be much new here. I was also interpelled by the listening while you fall asleep title, only to find that the thought wasn't pushed that far, not much further than what I had already experienced on my own (also starting as a teen, listening to Coltrane). The chapters are all very short and the argument cannot be pushed very far. Also, among the recommendation lists there are many out of print books and records which doesn't make it a "beginner's guide" for me.
 I really shoudn't be bringing the only relatively negative opinion here, since I support the initial idea and the personal project of writing such a book. Maybe it's my french contradiction side...

Thanks for that - not negative at all. It's how I imagine the book might be. 

Perhaps the target audience lies in between the extremes you mention - someone like myself who is far from a 'newbie' yet not totally immersed with large areas that still remain obscure (I've yet to really click with Cecil Taylor...though I've had a few experiences when I've been grabbed; Brotzmann lies way outside may area of sympathy...I think I prefer the quieter end of things!). I'm not anticipating any life changing revelations....but hoping for a few pointers to focus listening in this area of music. 

As for French contradiction side, you're nothing compared with us Brits (as the news should be making perfectly clear!!!!). 

[David Ayers]

I hope he explains what swing is, while he's at it.

 

[OliverM]

In that case, I also think you will find it a good read! The fun part is that it recalled many concert experiences and those will be different for each reader. I will not reveal more about it for now, except that I wish Evan Parker would write on this music more, his words that are cited in the book were the most profound to me. Maybe I should look into a biography also. Brötzmann's interviews with Gérard Rouy were great, but Evan Parker from what I have seen really seems to know how to coin the right words.

[A Lark Ascending]

Read this very quickly yesterday and enjoyed it thoroughly. 

As others have said, there won't be much there that long term listeners won't have picked up on; but I suspect it will be very useful to new listeners and I,  as an occasional church goer, found lots to get me thinking. 

I like its practicality - a straightforward, plain speaking guide - no arty-farty wishful-thinking or up in the clouds mysticism (except for a brief section when he talks about the point when your enjoyment defies rational explanation....and despite being a hard-core materialist I know what he means there). 

He's very good at identifying the barriers to listening to freely improvised music. Though one of those barriers - the lack of a regular beat - is actually one of the things that has always attracted me to the music. I think I got drawn to rock in the early 70s in spite of the beat rather than because of it!. The one I really recognise is the problem of length - most extended pieces in other genres follow some sort of standard pattern that you unconsciously use as a grid to guide you over the 30 mins or whatever. Without that free music can sound like one incident after another. I tried out some of his suggestions there on three pieces yesterday at 30 mins, 15 mins and 15 mins and got so much more out of the experience. 

I also like his ending where he dismisses the idea that improvised music is somehow superior to other types of music; it's just a different and distinct way of making music with its own riches if you choose to explore them.

A wise little book.    

[Big Beat Steve]

On 24.5.2016 at 3:56 PM, JSngry said:

Ah, the trick is not to listen while asleep, the trick is to listen in that state that comes just before sleep. Don't know how to describe it, but it's a state where you're  not really asleep, but you're definitely not in a "regular" state of consciousness either, nor are your eyes open. Sounds exist as full-bodied entities speaking quite clearly and independently of any other environmental stimulation and take on a very vivid characteristic of a living sound form, individually and collectively.

Problem is, you have to learn to put yourself into that state (probably some yoga thing, breathing is definitely slower than usual). I haven't, it's just something I find myself in when relaxing and/or trying to nap.

Also - it works for any music, not just free improv. Works for any music. Maybe more "revelatory" for music with dense textures and/or highly detailed timbral variances, things where conscious concentration can indeed be counter-productive.

Funny .. I've had exactly this experience time and again (with music that was far from being "free") while relaxing in my lounge chair late at night and listening to a CD (which need not be meditative or "lounge-ish" or "after hours" at all). While sort of dozing off but still being awake enough to realize there was music being played I found myself ever so often thinking to myself "Wow, never realized this sounded so good/uplifting/had so much punch/drive/energy ... (whatever ...) .. I'll have to listen to that closer again later on .." But when I played the track again later (or the next day) while fully awake I rarely managed to find the same excitement in it. Sure the track was good but compared to my previous "uplifting" experiene it just sounded sort of "flat" ... Maybe the music that comes through to you is "filtered" in a way that makes it much more "intense" (don't know how else to describe it) when you are in a state somewhere between still being awake and only subconsciouly realizing what is going on..

[A Lark Ascending]

2 hours ago, Big Beat Steve said:

Funny .. I've had exactly this experience time and again (with music that was far from being "free") while relaxing in my lounge chair late at night and listening to a CD (which need not be meditative or "lounge-ish" or "after hours" at all). While sort of dozing off but still being awake enough to realize there was music being played I found myself ever so often thinking to myself "Wow, never realized this sounded so good/uplifting/had so much punch/drive/energy ... (whatever ...) .. I'll have to listen to that closer again later on .." But when I played the track again later (or the next day) while fully awake I rarely managed to find the same excitement in it. Sure the track was good but compared to my previous "uplifting" experiene it just sounded sort of "flat" ... Maybe the music that comes through to you is "filtered" in a way that makes it much more "intense" (don't know how else to describe it) when you are in a state somewhere between still being awake and only subconsciouly realizing what is going on..

I think peripheral listening is often greatly undervalued. 'Serious' listeners [sarcasm intended] are expected to pay close attention, not be distracted etc, etc. Yet I suspect most of us indulge in many different types of listening. I tend to think of my three types as:

a) Peripheral - I'm reading, working etc and the music seeps in. I'm missing most of it but a residue remains that can be built on when listening again.

b) Half-attention - when doing activities where a lot of your brain is unoccupied so you are more focused on the music - driving, walking, gardening, cleaning the house.

c) Focused listening - where you sit down and intentionally focus on the music. Actually quite a hard thing to do as your ears and part of your brain might be engaged but your other senses get itchy because they are inactive (it's quite interesting reading some interviews with performing musicians where they say they only do the focused listening as part of their professional preparation; otherwise they prefer not to listen at all or listen off a phone or whilst driving). I can see why music readers like to follow a score when listening to classical music; I find I get my greatest rewards there when using a non-specialist friendly guide for signposts to help guide me through newer music (or to hear new things in music I thought I knew).

I have to say the music that makes the least impression with approach a) for me is free music (presumably because lacking the standard structures and harmonic patterns of most music, the half-listening ear has little to pick up on as a starting point). I've being trying Corbett's idea of the notebook (yes, I know I mocked it earlier) over the last few days with some recorded free music and it really does seem to work. Just a straight line on a page with a minute for each line. As the music progresses I just scribble down quickly what catches my ear. I'm finding my mind does not wander in the way it often does when just listening. I intend to try it out with some contemporary classical music that does not conform with standard patterns. 

**********************

Related to this, there was an interesting article on 'serious' listening (approach c) in the BBC Music Magazine a few months back. It made the point that far from being the 'correct' way to listening it was, like so much else (e.g. maestro idolatry), a creation of the Romantic era. It dated the hectoring of a certain type of musical commentator to 'listen properly' to the mid-late 19thC. Previously music was either subsidiary to something else (worshipping god, court ceremonial, dancing and celebration, adding a dimension to story-telling [the folk ballad] etc), primarily meant for enjoyment by performance (thereby engaging other senses besides the ear and brain) or a backdrop to other activities (the famed opera performances when people chattered until the celebrity diva's number). 

The rehabilitation of the idea of peripheral listening* as something worthwhile (as one of many ways of listening) strikes me as a welcome corrective to that late-19thC puritanism that I've encountered far too often.      

(*Only rehabilitated in 'art' circles....most people world wide have been quite comfortable with the idea for centuries).

Edited June 22, 2016 by A Lark Ascending

[Big Beat Steve]

I am not sure the type of "listening in a state that comes just before sleep" that Jim Sangrey and me try to describe fits into any of your categories a) to c) but I agree with your statement nonetheless.

FWIW I am not sure this "subconscious listening" really is comparable to what you refer to as "peripheral listening" (which I'd call "background music", granting that some situations that you describe under b) also fall into this category) but your "peripheral listening" is indeed underrated in its importance. When the music that you listen subconsciously to already "strikes a chord" with you at this stage (even though you did not listen that closely) this opens the door to more focused listening (and therefore is the key to appreciating the music). And I'd consider dancing to the music, for example, as one way of "focused listening" too (OK, OK, this is not a criterion with "free improvisation" but no doubt that "free" music can be enjoyed on levels below academic scrutinizing too).

As for your final statement ...
(*Only rehabilitated in 'art' circles....most people world wide have been quite comfortable with the idea for centuries)
... yes - this cannot be stated often enough. Focused listening is fine when it is called for but you don't necessarily have to dissect a piece of music to death to really grasp it.

 

Edited June 22, 2016 by Big Beat Steve

[A Lark Ascending]

I'd be a little cautious about sleep listening. I tend to leave the radio on overnight and back in the days when the BBC World Service had some good music programmes I'd frequently emerge into a semi-conscious state and hear this amazing music. I few times I checked on the website the following morning, bought the record and....found it rather ordinary! 

But I can see that it gives another way of listening - catching music at an unexpected angle, all the rational parts of the brain relaxed so you are not listening with your usual preconceptions (I think something similar can happen in my a) peripheral). 

Edited June 22, 2016 by A Lark Ascending

[JSngry]

It's kinda like listening while high, only with the benefits of non-drug stuff.

And really, there is a conversation to be had about listening while high/stoned/whatever. I'm not gonna have it right now, but hey.

Never mind high and headphones. Or headphones while not high. There are a lot of different ways to put your brain into a place where it hears things different thanit does when you're doing basic reflex-listening.

[A Lark Ascending]

I'm much too well-behaved to have ever indulged. Though in my younger days had plenty of listening while under the influence of alcohol...gave me that same sort of feeling of bonhomie to the music that I'd also feel to all around. I'm not convinced I was taking much in...the whole world just looked and sounded nicer.  

[JSngry]

Yeah, alcohol is different, at least for me. It's a blocker/negater rather than an opener. Different body chemistries' mileages vary, no doubt.

Hell, I had a glass of wine the other night and felt like crap for 24+ hours. I'm old and/or wore out for all of that stuff now.

[A Lark Ascending]

I gave alcohol up last November. More to cut back on sugar than anything. Missed it for a month but not since. I don't notice any lesser enjoyment of music.