Ornette's theory

[Soul Stream]

I love Ornette's music. However, as a musician myself, I have absolutely no idea what the underlying theory is behind what he does. I've heard Haden and others describe a very specific way things are to be done.

Can anybody explain this in a nutshell to me? Is there a book on such things?

thanks...

[Joe G]

Here's what Pat Metheny had to say on the subject (and remember that he collaborated with Ornette on Song X with spectacular results):

Question:

Can you give a succinct definition of harmolodics? If you use it in your playing or composing, how do you apply it?

Pat's Answer:

the only person i know who could give you a definition of what "harmolodics" means would be ornette coleman and i guarantee it would be fascinating but not succinct. if you ever get the chance to ask him, be sure to bring your best thinking cap to decipher the answer. i also recommend that you view any critic or musician who uses this term as if they know what they're talking about with extreme suspicion. (only exceptions: don cherry and charlie haden)

Sorry, I can't help you any more than that.

[Joe G]

Here's another quote from Pat that might be a closer hint of something. This response is about finding one's own voice:

there was a young trumpet player that i used to play with all through high school named dave scott. dave has continued to grow and play his ass off over the years and is around new york again after living in los angeles for a number of years. i remember that dave and i used to have long talks about the idea of the "conception" of the music being removed from the notes that you actually played and working specifically on that - especially when it came to sound itself. this idea i think parallels a lot of what ornette talks about in his writings about harmolodics - the ability to forge ones intentions on a sort of base level - what i think he would call harmolodic unison - that is almost unrelated to the piece in question or the "style" of music. for me, the idea is to find oneself through losing oneself in the matrix of all of the elements that each playing situation seems to invoke. that is what i try to do - and you always hope for the best, certainly sometimes (often) it doens't work out at all. but your note offers some consolation and encouragement - thank you!

So perhaps it encompasses more than just a theory of the organization of musical elements. It doesn't seem to have been codified into a teachable form as far as I know, so I think we are on our own.

[Joe G]

Found this link:

http://www.harmolodic.com/ornette/

There's a list of further resourses. Let us know if you find anything of note.

[Rooster_Ties]

Funny thing is that there is a "conceptual continuity" to most of Ornette's output. He has a language all his own, and it seems that 80% or even 90% of his tunes (compositionally speaking) fit with each other in a way that's difficult to describe, but easy to hear.

And, quite a few tunes by Don Cherry seem to fit well with most of Ornette's output as well -- in particular, the entire "Complete Communion" album. Haden has also written a number of tunes that seem to fit very well too, I might add.

I think part of Ornette's great gift was as a composer. Say what you like about his playing (I love it, I know many hate it), but so many of Ornette's tunes are as beautiful and engaging as anything written in the 50's and 60's.

The closest artist I can think of to Ornette, compositionally speaking, who developed a sort of language all their own - was Monk. Both wrote tunes that are deceptively simple (almost nursery-rhyme like), and yet incredibly sophisticated, on so many levels.

I wish I understood music theory better (jazz, modern classical too), to be able to approach Ornette's music with a better technical understanding.

BUT, I've known a few 'jazz theory' guys who completely were stuck in the notion of "chord changes", who couldn't even begin get their ears around Ornette. And in some ways, I think I 'understand' Ornette's music better than they ever will. (One guy I'm thinking of in particular was the adjunct jazz-piano instructor I had back in College, who was totally dismissive of Sun Ra, Carla Bley, even Andrew Hill somewhat - cuz they wouldn't "stick to the form", and were "sloppy, sloppy, sloppy".)

Edited April 29, 2003 by Rooster_Ties

[Soul Stream]

thanks for all the help and suggestions. it's funny, i've heard many of his sideman defend ornette by saying there is an underlying theory to all he is doing. something that can actually be taught...yet, nobody seems to be able to teach it or explain what it is besides ornette.

i wonder if after ornette and his "students" pass away, if this entire brand of playing will virtually disappear. since the theory is that it is not truely "free" music but a real concept (that no one knows)

[Rooster_Ties]

My guess is that with all the Ornette on record, that it won't totally die away, never completely. There will be a few students who are captivated by Ornette's music and concepts, who will embrace his language, if only by using all of his recorded output as examples of what the language is.

In that respect, I guess I'm glad there's so damn much Ornette on record. He's one who could have easily not taken the world by storm, and it's not too hard to imagine a world with only a handful of Ornette albums, not unlike Jimmy Woods, or Tyrone Washington, or probably plenty of other somewhat visionary jazz players who (for whatever reasons) just didn't get to record as much.

Same thing goes with Sun Ra...

[Soul Stream]

Here's an interesting story from Jimmy Garrison relating to the subect.....

"He (Ornette) said 'Well, James, just play, and listen, of course, and if there's anything you want to know, just ask.'...You can only go so far in his music without KNOWING about it, and one night I just exploded."

Here's what happened. One night in front of a packed house at the Five Spot, Garrison stopped the band and according to Ornette, said, "Stop this god-dam music, ain't a fucking thing happening, what do you Negroes think you're doing? You're going crazy, I mean it's nothing, you know, nothing's happening, what are you doing? I mean let me have it, I know what's happening." Reflecting on the incident later, Ornette could respect the intensity of Garrison's musical beliefs, and in October when Garrison left him to join John Coltrane, he did so with Ornette's blessing.

...seems like even a great musician like Jimmy Garrison couldn't "get it." Although on the same page of the book I excerpted from they also said ..."jimmy garrison had played some of the best music of his career in "Ornette On Tenor", yet playing in Ornette's quartet always made him uncomfortable."

[Green Dolphin]

Adding to Rooster's spot on points above-I've always been of the opinion that you either get Ornette or not(there's also the indifferent but they're not hearing much!).First and foremost Coleman is a musician who plays what he hears and,at the risk of barstool psychology,angled toward synastheasia(the "harmolodic" suits!)-the theory bit is so complicated because it is a smokescreen hence technique based musicians problem with it...it just is.Rooster's point re. Haden and Cherry's music(to those I would add Metheny's aswell! )is down to the fact that these are all musicians,rather than merely players,whom by playing with or been smitten by,have opened up this most pluralistic style.I often find Ornette tunes emerging when I'm in whistling mood,Dancing In Your Head really does dance...so simply.Higgins and Blackwell were very "musical" drummers also.

And yes,Monk's world is similarly arranged to me,and I'm forever grateful for exposure to such spheres.

[JSngry]

Limited time here, so here's what I've glommed from Ornette's music from a theoretic standpoint:

Take a note, say a "C". That C can be the root of a C chord, the 3rd of an Ab Major chord, the 5th of an F chord, the 7th of a D chord, etc. This mutability of any note's harmonic function opens up the door for the spontaneous creation of non-predictable harmonic movement throughout the course of improvisation rather than a cyclical, recurrent form. THAT part of Ornette's music has been around since the early (earliest?) days. The rest of the Harmolodic Theory, I suspect, is a philosphical extension of that basic precept - that any note can "mean" any thing at any given time.

Two more things - there was a Down Beat Workshop column or two in the late 70s where Ornette expounded on the Harmolodic Theory. It's nothing if not"theoretical", if you get my drift... Also, if you can find the old Artists House TALES OF CAPTAIN BLACK LP, the booklet includes "James Blood's Harmolodic Guitar Clef", which seems to show 3 distinct ("Natural", "Flat", & "Sharp") juxtapositions of Harmolodic scales over Concert scales. There's no READILY apparent logic to it, and I've had neither the time nor the inclination to pick this thing apart over the years, but it does suggest that Ulmer, at least, has come up with something a bit more "formal", "fixed", "specific", "rigid", take your pick, than Ornette's original notions of absolute harmonic equanimity.

[John L]

Take a note, say a "C". That C can be the root of a C chord, the 3rd of an Ab Major chord, the 5th of an F chord, the 7th of a D chord, etc. This mutability of any note's harmonic function opens up the door for the spontaneous creation of non-predictable harmonic movement throughout the course of improvisation rather than a cyclical, recurrent form. THAT part of Ornette's music has been around since the early (earliest?) days. The rest of the Harmolodic Theory, I suspect, is a philosphical extension of that basic precept - that any note can "mean" any thing at any given time.

Is that to say: "just invent melody, any melody, and the harmony will follow in step?"

While any musician can *try* to forget about harmonic constraints on what they are doing, their ears often confine them to the familiar, to what they have been hearing their whole lives. Steps away from that are usually very conscious and deliberate. But it is like Ornette grew up part time on another planet. He combines the blues from this planet with a sense of melodic development from somewhere else entirely. He doesn't take deliberate steps outwards. He lives and breathes out there.

[Soul Stream]

Whatever the system, Ornette's music seems more "melodic" that other free players. His playing seems to have some certain system whatever that is.

Thanks for the help Jim, that sheds more light than any other explaination I've ever heard.

Jim, as a "free" player yourself, have you ever considered immersing yourself into Ornette's music to find the underlying effect?

[Rooster_Ties]

But it is like Ornette grew up part time on another planet.  He combines the blues from this planet with a sense of melodic development from somewhere else entirely.  He doesn't take deliberate steps outwards.  He lives and breathes out there.

Beautifully stated.

I'm not much into really "out there" free-jazz (for instance, much as I love Sun Ra, the Sun Ra I love most is the 'middle-ground', where he's neither as 'out' as he can go, not as 'in' as he sometimes is either). Most Ornette doesn't seem nearly as structureless (and/or systemless) to my ears, as some other 'free' players, and therefore - he seems to fit right in with that same 'middle-ground' I like so much. (Most Andrew Hill is in that area for me too.)

[Alexander]

BUT, I've known a few 'jazz theory' guys who completely were stuck in the notion of "chord changes", who couldn't even begin get their ears around Ornette. And in some ways, I think I 'understand' Ornette's music better than they ever will. (One guy I'm thinking of in particular was the adjunct jazz-piano instructor I had back in College, who was totally dismissive of Sun Ra, Carla Bley, even Andrew Hill somewhat - cuz they wouldn't "stick to the form", and were "sloppy, sloppy, sloppy".)

I once asked a music theorist friend of mine about George Russell (back when I was first learning about him), and his only reply to me was: "Crackpot music theory."

[JSngry]

Jim, as a "free" player yourself, have you ever considered immersing yourself into Ornette's music to find the underlying effect?

I've learned some of his tunes, played and studied a few of his solos, enough to get a feel for what he's up to, but I'd never immerse myself in anybody's music too much past that point. I've always aspired to play like ornette the same way I've aspired to play like Prez or any body else - as honestly and spontaneously as possible, to tell a story and convey expression, not just "follow the rules" - ANYBODY'S rules! The best jazz (hell, the best MUSIC, period) is "free" in that it follows its own logic and rules and does not aspire to fit into a mold. Louis Armstrong is just as free as Albert Ayler in my book!

What Ornette's major contribution was/is, in my opinion, is to show that jazz musicians didn't HAVE to be limited to a cyclical, recurring form in order to create. Think about this - in the developement section of a symphony, does the composer limit his writing to the exact harmonic progressions of his opening themes? Of course not - he develops them by taking them on an imaginative "journey" through various keys, major/minor "games", motivic malleabilities, and any number of devices that suit his needs. Ornette seems to have intuited that jazz could be played the same way - that after you played the theme, you could variate it any way you wanted to. The guy's always "playing changes" in his solos, they're just not following a predictable pattern of repetition.

What John L says/asks, Is that to say: "just invent melody, any melody, and the harmony will follow in step?" is inevitably true - harmony is inherent in melody. The question is, WHAT harmony are you going to put to your melody? The most advanced boppers (Bird in paarticular) came up with such elaborate substitutions that it was inevitable that somebody would eventually say, "Why not just make it up as we go along?" Tristano's two Capitol free improvisations from the late 40s do this, even if their "perspective" is coming from someplace entirely outside the "jazz mainstream". But they show that the idea of 100% improvisation as a true life philosophy was already in the air, which follows perfectly with the spiritual/scientific teachings/discoveries that what we can immediately see/experience is but a fraction of what actually "is". Opening oneself to the myriad possibilites and implications of simultaneous/parallell "realities" (or, if you like, "dimensions") could only lead to a broadening of options for concieving of form.

The fact that the person who crystallized all of this perfectly in the jazz realm was a self-taught, semi-rural African-American from Fort Worth, Texas makes perfect sense for any number of reasons, too. The deepest blues have NEVER been about succumbing to the demands of rigidly impost linearity, musically or lyrically, and definitely not philosophically in any regard, social or otherwise. It's that intuitiveness, that so-called "naivete" that give Ornette's correct (in my opinion) assumptions about the fluidity of time and harmony (and life) such true power - his was no intellectual theory that created the music as a demonstration of it. His was a music that created the need for a theory, one that, if you ask me, is a LOT more philosophical than it is musical, after its creation. In other words, his music explains his theory rather than the other way around.

That's pretty much the way its always worked in music - the visionaries create, "just because", and the theorists come along afterwards to explain the "hows" and "whys" in "technical" terms, to codify the products of the imagination. Anytime the theory comes before the music, I need convincing of the music's actual "truth". Well, almost anytime - George Russell gets a pass, a BIG pass. But honestly, I think that his theory was formulated on an intuitive basis also, at least in its earliest phases, and the end results, in practice, are not TOO terribly removed from Ornette's less "academic" concepts. Different roads to adjoining cities, you might say, with more than ample transportation between them to provide ample opportunity for crosstown copulation, even if producing mixed offspring on a regular basis might prove genetically impossible, or at least highly difficult.

Edited May 4, 2003 by JSngry