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

Red, Thanks for your reply, I think I'm making slow but sure progress here! 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. Interesting, I will ask my old prof about this. I remember studying modalism as applied to harmonic progression as well! 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!

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, 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 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? 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.

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)

Ed, sir, you are correctamundo! Not only that, but the whole phrase "internet community of jazz lovers out in cyberspace land" reiterates the same idea 2 times! In 9 words! Thats an only an efficiency rate of 9:1, words per ideas.

Jazz. Wazzup. Been lurking on this site for a while and thought it was time to letcha all know what the hizzy iz. fo rizzle. Sorry, I don't really talk like that, I think I'm just really tired. Anyways, I caught wind of this site from lurking on AAJ, and I was pretty happy that there was an internet community of jazz lovers out in cyberspace land. I guess I was hesitant about trying to post because I failed pretty miserably trying to fit in at AAJ. Anyways, enough about little ol me! Just thought I'd introduce myself so you guys wouldn't be all "who's this joker tryin ta be all up in our space" and I'd be all "chill out, yo". Um, anyways. Yeah.