Customer Discussions > jazz discussion forum

free jazz-totally worthless or am i missing something

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 231 posts in this discussion
Posted on 21 Dec 2011 15:42:43 GMT
Huck Flynn says:
there are degrees of freeness and those of us who enjoy creative improvisation (noodling, or whatever) know that it can be quite liberating. it's personal how much you can take but probably worth pushing a bit. if there's some sort of reference point, restated theme or rhythm it's a bit easier. i'm a great Wayne Shorter fan but find All Seeing Eye pretty impenetrable for the most part and i really don't get discordant, except for effect (zappa is good at this)

Posted on 22 Dec 2011 12:21:24 GMT
WT Mitchell says:
are we still surrounded by closed minds ?

Posted on 22 Dec 2011 12:23:40 GMT
WT Mitchell says:
are we still surrounded by closed minds ?

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Dec 2011 20:07:34 GMT
Last edited by the author on 22 Dec 2011 20:07:51 GMT
Too much repetition there, to be free jazz, WTM, sorry :-(

Free jazz never repeats itself.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Dec 2011 13:41:29 GMT
Last edited by the author on 23 Dec 2011 13:41:56 GMT
Indeed we are and don't they just love sounding off about it?

Posted on 25 Dec 2011 01:17:49 GMT
Mondo Ray says:
Now EXPENSIVE jazz is a different story. By definition, not worthless.

Posted on 25 Dec 2011 21:27:57 GMT
Penguin Egg says:
I suppose free jazz should be called hard-core jazz, as that is what it is. It is in-your-face relentless and sustained improvistion. As there is no melody to hang on to, it is up to the musician to take it someplace interesting. In the hands of a good musician, such as Albert Ayler or Derek Bailey, it always goes somewhere interesting. The raw, blistering, sustained intensity I find compelling, but it is a music that you either get or don't.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Dec 2011 23:28:13 GMT
Last edited by the author on 26 Dec 2011 18:11:47 GMT
Ajarn Col says:
I have difficulty in supposing free jazz as hard core when it was in essence a move away from the limitations imposed by bebop, hard bop, and modal jazz. That is ,hard core jazz. It's more than just a question of definition because free jazz has always taken on board influences from other genres. If anything free (or avant-gard) jazz was only hard core insomuch that it identified politically with the Black Power movement of the 1960's. c,f Archie Shepp, Albert Ayler, McCoy Tyner, Don Cherry, Pharaoh Sanders, and Alice Coltrane's music of the time. A decade later the like of Ayler, Shepp, and Ornette Coleman were experimenting with rock and funk. Hardly hard core jazz.

Don't get me wrong ,I'm a fan of all those musicians mentioned above. Well, perhaps not so much Albert Alyler. But if anything should be called hard core, it's certainly not the jazz sub-genre under discussion .

Jazz is something , not so much that you either get or don't, imo. That could be thought of a sounding pretentious It's for me like cricket - not something that I felt a natural affinity with (like football or the blues) but the more I understood it - and am still learning to understand - the more I appreciate it for all its subtle nuances.

The raw intensity that you speak of is there - as is improvisation - in all modern jazz as ultimately it stems from its roots in raw emotion. That also applies to latter European jazz also , as it too seeks to connect with something what Carl Jung called the 'archetype' found in all human experience. It may have different cultural emphasis, but in essence is interconnected with the raw emotion found in all humans - the universally psychological need to connect with our roots.

Free jazz can be profoundly moving, or can seem like a dissonant noise. In the latter case it's less of what you either get or don't. More what can be understood and that which only makes your ears bleed.

Posted on 26 Dec 2011 00:25:24 GMT
Mondo Ray says:
"Jazz - you either get it or you don't."
"Cricket - you either get it or you don't."
"Modern sub-charts pop - you either get it or you don't."
"The offside rule - you either get it or you don't."
The bus you're running for in all your pomposity...

The person you're chatting to and hoping to have sex with - you don't get it.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Dec 2011 01:37:26 GMT
Ajarn Col says:
Mondo Ray. As you seem to spectacularly miss the point, then I'd stick to The Rocky Horror Picture Show if I were you ;-)

Posted on 26 Dec 2011 13:21:49 GMT
When all is said and done, music is art, and any form of art should be enjoyed by the observer. If an individual does not enjoy free jazz, after giving it a fair listen, then that's the end of it.

It's a little like trying to persuade a person that dislikes abstract painting that it is beautiful or that there is merit in it. If they dislike it - end of story.

I would put one final question:
If you had a guest(s) at your home and you played music which they said they did not enjoy, would you insist that they had to stick with it to the end, or play something to their taste.
I know what I would do.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Dec 2011 16:15:53 GMT
WT Mitchell says:
I only wish that everyone had a friend such as mine who insisted that I listen properly to certain musicians whom I had at first rejected as being of no interest to me.
Ornette is very good example of one such Jazz player who at first I just could not understand or enjoy,now he is among my favourites
I will not bore you with a list of others difficult at first,now grown to love

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Dec 2011 16:16:20 GMT
Last edited by the author on 27 Dec 2011 16:21:00 GMT
WT Mitchell says:
A great deal of music ,not just Jazz that I would never impose upon friends or family or expect them to enjoy
A lot of music is best listened to in private

Posted on 27 Dec 2011 17:08:33 GMT
Ajarn Col says:
WT Mithchell. For sure you're definitely not one of those oafs who have their car stereos' up full blast with the BOOOM BOOOMs imposed upon the rest of us.

Very much share you sentiments about Ornette as for years I just assumed that everything that he recorded was going to be like Ascension. Anecdotally, I was listening to a recording of Desert Island Discs (1995 I think) with Ian Dury. his choicest one out of his 8 discs was Coleman's, Ramblin'. He related how he met Charlie Haden and apologised for nicking the bass line on the track for Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll .Haden replied that it was ok as he too had stolen it... off a cajun song.

Posted on 27 Dec 2011 17:59:27 GMT
Doing some xatch up on threads and had a damn good chortle at the unseen irony of folking describing those of us who dislike free jazz as having closed minds, not that i was needing a laugh, merriment has abounded but I'll always take it when it comes

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Dec 2011 15:30:51 GMT
Hi WT Mitchell, I did say in my post "fair listen", but as for insisting on making someone listen to music they find unpleasant, well, that's just not in my nature. I am saying this as someone who has a reasonable amount of Ornette including Beauty Is A Rare Thing- The Complete Atlantic Recordings.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Dec 2011 15:34:33 GMT
"A lot of music is best listened to in private" is a puzzling expression to me as whilst I am sure we all listen to music alone (either through speakers or with phones), music is a performance art and therefore by definition is public and as such is to be enjoyed by many simultaneously.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Dec 2011 16:06:13 GMT
Last edited by the author on 29 Dec 2011 16:09:45 GMT
Ajarn Col says:
Jazz is always best heard live as you are being part of the creativity rather than being just a passive recipient - at best it's something like the audience being an added instrument which the players, in turn, are responding to. In some instances dancing to the music has it's place too. Most recently in my experiece was at last years London Jazz Festival when Herbie Hancock had them on their feet and dancing in the aisles.

Not that there's nothing to be said for totally self-absorbed listening , only that it's more a collective , participatory affirmation when taking part. The best that I've known was the revolutionary act when Roland Kirk (as he was known then) gave out penny whistles to the front rows audience to play along with him - unfortunately I was way too far back to claim that I once played with a legend.

Posted on 29 Dec 2011 18:12:58 GMT
J. Greatorex says:
Somebody said that Free Jazz is music no-one would pay to listen to I`m afraid I agree.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Dec 2011 19:06:03 GMT
Ajarn Col says:
J.Greatorex Am I right in thinking that you may have missed the pun there ?

Posted on 30 Dec 2011 06:32:50 GMT
Last edited by the author on 4 Jan 2012 08:06:16 GMT
2cool says:
The ONLY reason why anybody claims to like "free jazz" is that they desperately want to show that they are smarter than you. How many times have you heard "free jazz" fans say, "some people don't get it"? Let me educate you weirdos who pretend to like this "art form": Improvising implies that there is a melody; therefore, "free jazz" is not improvisation - it is NOODLING. It should be called "free OF jazz" because it contains no improvisations. My free advice to "free jazz" fans: GET SOME SELF ESTEEM and stop torturing yourself in vain. You remind me of a young kid who smokes in order to look "cool".

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Dec 2011 14:15:08 GMT
You're too cool for me 2cool : )

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Dec 2011 14:24:40 GMT
Ajarn Col says:
Reckon that Mr 2cool must be very cool indeed (not sure about his actual age though ;-)

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Jan 2012 15:49:43 GMT
zargb5 says:
You just shoot yourself in your own foot. if you think the jazz mentioned is disparate noise then you obviously don't get it on just about every level. People like you then denigrate it and legitimise to themselves and like minded ignoramuses - dismiss it. The view is psychological in origin - what i don't understand or get is foreign, alien, outside. if you don't like it stay within your safety zone. I stick to what i said in my original post - if you don't 'get ' it why describe it as rubbish? Are you the absolute arbiter of what is music or art? Just because some people agree with you doesn't make it right either, that's just ignorance on a larger scale. Just 'keep banging the rocks together guys' you never know you might invent fire by accident. I remember on first hearing Monk - it sounded out of tune. I didn't get it then but didn't feel the need to belittle it, i had just found another sound world outside of my experience. After several years of listening to all sorts Monk now sounds pretty ordinary. Of course there are pieces that challenge us and are difficult and often become apparent to our ears over time and experience. Understand and enjoy are 2 sides of the same coin. I am not a musician but often some insight into what a composer is doing on a more technical level can make a piece more understandable on not only an intellectual level but access enjoyment of it too. Saying you don'tget something is honest - saying it is rubbish just ignorance.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Jan 2012 16:50:03 GMT
Ajarn Col says:
Some of your points have been made before. But the likes of Mr 2cool would, I'm sure, know about all that anyway.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the jazz discussion forum (177 discussions)


This discussion

Discussion in:  jazz discussion forum
Participants:  41
Total posts:  231
Initial post:  18 Dec 2011
Latest post:  9 Dec 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 11 customers

Search Customer Discussions