Guy Berger Posted June 4, 2007 Report Posted June 4, 2007 now give us a breat folks - neither Jackie McLean nor Andrew Hill ever did free jazz... maybe Jackie on occassion, but hell, what is free jazz anyway - no one here seems to know... must be one of the most stoopidest ever labels invented! Most labels are stoopid, and yet we find them useful nonetheless. Guy Quote
J.A.W. Posted June 4, 2007 Report Posted June 4, 2007 now give us a breat folks - neither Jackie McLean nor Andrew Hill ever did free jazz... maybe Jackie on occassion, but hell, what is free jazz anyway - no one here seems to know... must be one of the most stoopidest ever labels invented! Most labels are stoopid, and yet we find them useful nonetheless. Guy Quite. Quote
RDK Posted June 4, 2007 Report Posted June 4, 2007 now give us a breat folks - neither Jackie McLean nor Andrew Hill ever did free jazz... maybe Jackie on occassion, but hell, what is free jazz anyway - no one here seems to know... must be one of the most stoopidest ever labels invented! Most labels are stoopid, and yet we find them useful nonetheless. Guy Hence the need by some for a Classical Music forum? Quote
Kreilly Posted June 4, 2007 Report Posted June 4, 2007 now give us a breat folks - neither Jackie McLean nor Andrew Hill ever did free jazz... maybe Jackie on occassion, but hell, what is free jazz anyway - no one here seems to know... must be one of the most stoopidest ever labels invented! Ask mmilovan for instances of Prez going free... .... I don't know an answer, but I just find it weird that names like Jackie Mac's keep popping up here when the talk is about (what the f*ck ever it is) "free jazz". Just open your ears (and minds! AND souls!) wide and relax and listen! Jackie is most definitely stretching the boundaries of hard bop on several of the BN recordings, most notably Destination Out and the recording with Ornette, New and Old Gospel. This is the standard view of Jackie. As Steve Huey writes in his review of 1962's "Let Freedom Ring" "Jackie McLean had always been a highly emotional soloist, so it makes sense that he was one of the first hard bop veterans to find a new voice in the burning intensity of jazz's emerging avant-garde. McLean had previously experimented with Coltrane's angular modes and scales and Ornette's concept of chordal freedom...." So, whatever label it is called, several of Jackie's blue note recordings are good recommendations for someone who has expressed an interest in exploring music beyond hard bop. Quote
AndrewHill Posted June 5, 2007 Report Posted June 5, 2007 I had some Ornette playing some days ago, and I'll never forget what my wife said when she rounded the corner: " when is that orchestra going to stop warming up and play!" One of the funniest things she's ever said Sure, and you can see her point - at least I can. I mean, the whole point of Free music is that you throw away (many of) the rules previously governing Jazz and attempt to play within a new(ish) frame (make one up). If someone is used to these rules - and nothing else - well, then, it sounds like chaos. Because people aren't acclimatized to it. Of course, then you have all the games that people play around reception, perception and content - which delays that. My sense is that 50 years is about the time it takes to sort these games out. That is to say, Jazz gets acclimatized - over time. And I think the time is about now. But, if she's your wife... Simon Weil Oh yeah, I totally see where she's comning from. I mean luckily she does not give me a hard time when I have something on when she's around (she likes McLean's Swing Swang Swingin) so I really have no complaints. She does not understand how I can sit through a disc by Brotzmann or later Cecil Taylor though, so I just play those when she's not around. Simple solution and we both walk a away happy Quote
Kreilly Posted June 5, 2007 Report Posted June 5, 2007 Oh yeah, I totally see where she's comning from. I mean luckily she does not give me a hard time when I have something on when she's around (she likes McLean's Swing Swang Swingin) so I really have no complaints. She does not understand how I can sit through a disc by Brotzmann or later Cecil Taylor though, so I just play those when she's not around. Simple solution and we both walk a away happy My wife has been coming out to shows with me since we saw Henry Threadgill perform outdoors in the MoMA sculpture garden a few years ago. That experience helped her to see the music as an aural equivalent to abstract expressionism. We've seen dozens of shows since then, and some she really enjoyed. She had trouble with Cecil Taylor solo but really enjoyed Brotzmann's latest trio. However, she would never put it on at home. So I listen with the door closed. No complaints here either. Quote
Guy Berger Posted June 5, 2007 Report Posted June 5, 2007 (edited) Sure, and you can see her point - at least I can. I mean, the whole point of Free music is that you throw away (many of) the rules previously governing Jazz and attempt to play within a new(ish) frame (make one up). If someone is used to these rules - and nothing else - well, then, it sounds like chaos. Because people aren't acclimatized to it. Of course, then you have all the games that people play around reception, perception and content - which delays that. My sense is that 50 years is about the time it takes to sort these games out. That is to say, Jazz gets acclimatized - over time. And I think the time is about now. I don't agree with this. Much of the jazz music that was considered "avant-garde" 35-40 years ago is still considered "avant-garde" today. (Obviously it isn't literally avant-garde at this point.) Guy Edited June 5, 2007 by Guy Quote
king ubu Posted June 5, 2007 Report Posted June 5, 2007 now give us a breat folks - neither Jackie McLean nor Andrew Hill ever did free jazz... maybe Jackie on occassion, but hell, what is free jazz anyway - no one here seems to know... must be one of the most stoopidest ever labels invented! Ask mmilovan for instances of Prez going free... .... I don't know an answer, but I just find it weird that names like Jackie Mac's keep popping up here when the talk is about (what the f*ck ever it is) "free jazz". Just open your ears (and minds! AND souls!) wide and relax and listen! Jackie is most definitely stretching the boundaries of hard bop on several of the BN recordings, most notably Destination Out and the recording with Ornette, New and Old Gospel. This is the standard view of Jackie. As Steve Huey writes in his review of 1962's "Let Freedom Ring" "Jackie McLean had always been a highly emotional soloist, so it makes sense that he was one of the first hard bop veterans to find a new voice in the burning intensity of jazz's emerging avant-garde. McLean had previously experimented with Coltrane's angular modes and scales and Ornette's concept of chordal freedom...." So, whatever label it is called, several of Jackie's blue note recordings are good recommendations for someone who has expressed an interest in exploring music beyond hard bop. Yeah, sure he's stretching boundaries of hardbop, nothing I ever would deny! (And mind me, I love Jackie's BN output, have all or most of it!) But Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue" had stretched hardbop limits, too, so did "Milestones" already. And how about Lennie Tristano's stuff? Nothing new under the sun in stretching the boundaries of hardbop - even more so as hardbop is very formulaic music that can be very tiring to listen if you're in for a slightly more adventurous and open-minded ride (that's my opinion, of course)! Mingus was stretching boundaries of hardbop as early as the late 40s I guess, but we can also agree on "Pithecantropus Erectus" (1956 - of course McLean is there again). Also, that's something else I find interesting: much of this boundary-stretching music I find much more "soulful" than stuff subsumed under the label "soul jazz" (Mingus prime example, but also things on Archie Shepp's early Impulse albums have that quality - nothing against "soul jazz", although I find the label about as stupid as "free jazz", this here being one of the main reasons). Quote
king ubu Posted June 5, 2007 Report Posted June 5, 2007 Guy I'm not sure there... avantgarde is not avantgarde any longer if it's 30 or 40 years old. It may be historically considered as avantgarde still, but hey, just if the public didn't catch up doesn't mean Brötzmann is still avantgarde - he's doing his schtick for too long now... Quote
Simon Weil Posted June 5, 2007 Report Posted June 5, 2007 Sure, and you can see her point - at least I can. I mean, the whole point of Free music is that you throw away (many of) the rules previously governing Jazz and attempt to play within a new(ish) frame (make one up). If someone is used to these rules - and nothing else - well, then, it sounds like chaos. Because people aren't acclimatized to it. Of course, then you have all the games that people play around reception, perception and content - which delays that. My sense is that 50 years is about the time it takes to sort these games out. That is to say, Jazz gets acclimatized - over time. And I think the time is about now. I don't agree with this. Much of the jazz music that was considered "avant-garde" 35-40 years ago is still considered "avant-garde" today. (Obviously it isn't literally avant-garde at this point.) Guy Well, yes - it's still considered avant-garde for most people. But the sense of threat, the edge, of it has gone of it in a lot of cases. I mean, if we're talking of people getting acclimatized, that's how it works in a lot of respects. People no longer feel threatened by this music (often). Mind you, I thought KReilly's post was great - the one where he said Post 9/11 he got the music. I have always felt that that should be the case, that with the oppressive/repressive Bush-ite regimes across the world and people blowing themselves up in the middle of us, that this music should really begin to speak to the wider audience. In the sense that's where all of us are living now, on the edge, with threat. They took a chance, those guys, going out there. Simon Weil Quote
Guy Berger Posted June 5, 2007 Report Posted June 5, 2007 Guy I'm not sure there... avantgarde is not avantgarde any longer if it's 30 or 40 years old. It may be historically considered as avantgarde still, but hey, just if the public didn't catch up doesn't mean Brötzmann is still avantgarde - he's doing his schtick for too long now... Well, yeah. But he fits the other, non-literal meaning of "avant-garde". Guy Quote
clifford_thornton Posted June 5, 2007 Report Posted June 5, 2007 Well, yes - it's still considered avant-garde for most people. But the sense of threat, the edge, of it has gone of it in a lot of cases. I mean, if we're talking of people getting acclimatized, that's how it works in a lot of respects. People no longer feel threatened by this music (often). I'd rather people enjoy the music than be threatened by it. Quote
Simon Weil Posted June 5, 2007 Report Posted June 5, 2007 (edited) Well, yes - it's still considered avant-garde for most people. But the sense of threat, the edge, of it has gone of it in a lot of cases. I mean, if we're talking of people getting acclimatized, that's how it works in a lot of respects. People no longer feel threatened by this music (often). I'd rather people enjoy the music than be threatened by it. It's inevitable, if you go to the edge, that some people are going to be threatened by it. Not that you intend it, but just that's how it's going to be. And when people feel threatened they come back at you in all sorts of unpleasant ways. That's the price of taking people into the unknown. They don't enjoy it. They're freaked out by it. Unless the whole world is like that. Then the unknown in music can bring catharsis. And the avant-garde gets to have its cake and eat it. In my theory. Simon Weil Edited June 5, 2007 by Simon Weil Quote
clifford_thornton Posted June 5, 2007 Report Posted June 5, 2007 I mean, I KNOW that is/was the case. But whether it's the purpose of the music is, sometimes, another issue. Quote
Chuck Nessa Posted June 5, 2007 Report Posted June 5, 2007 I mean, I KNOW that is/was the case. But whether it's the purpose of the music is, sometimes, another issue. Please explain the "purpose of music". That should be an interesting book read by 20. "Threat" usually means "unknown" and that certainly got my juices going decades ago. YMMV. Quote
clifford_thornton Posted June 5, 2007 Report Posted June 5, 2007 Threat is a valid byproduct of new art, as food also has its byproducts (often, shit, but there are others). Whether shit is the "purpose" of eating a taco, I'm not entirely convinced. Quote
clifford_thornton Posted June 5, 2007 Report Posted June 5, 2007 And, FWIW, it's not my goddamn fault - or anybody's - if we weren't born in 1938. That line of ball-busting certainly is getting rather dreary. Quote
Chuck Nessa Posted June 5, 2007 Report Posted June 5, 2007 Threat is a valid byproduct of new art, as food also has its byproducts (often, shit, but there are others). Whether shit is the "purpose" of eating a taco, I'm not entirely convinced. You must be eating bad tacos. Quote
Chuck Nessa Posted June 5, 2007 Report Posted June 5, 2007 And, FWIW, it's not my goddamn fault - or anybody's - if we weren't born in 1938. That line of ball-busting certainly is getting rather dreary. Not what I'm saying at all. FWIW, I was born in 1944. The point I was trying to make is "perspective" is EVERYTHING and is defined by intelligence, curosity, perception, environment and time. I forgot to say "AND MONEY". Quote
Kreilly Posted June 5, 2007 Report Posted June 5, 2007 Guy I'm not sure there... avantgarde is not avantgarde any longer if it's 30 or 40 years old. It may be historically considered as avantgarde still, but hey, just if the public didn't catch up doesn't mean Brötzmann is still avantgarde - he's doing his schtick for too long now... Well, yeah. But he fits the other, non-literal meaning of "avant-garde". Guy Literally speaking, music is only avant-garde historically if it eventually becomes garde. So bebop was avant-garde but late Coltrane and Ayler were not. Right? Quote
J.A.W. Posted June 6, 2007 Report Posted June 6, 2007 Guy I'm not sure there... avantgarde is not avantgarde any longer if it's 30 or 40 years old. It may be historically considered as avantgarde still, but hey, just if the public didn't catch up doesn't mean Brötzmann is still avantgarde - he's doing his schtick for too long now... Well, yeah. But he fits the other, non-literal meaning of "avant-garde". Guy Literally speaking, music is only avant-garde historically if it eventually becomes garde. So bebop was avant-garde but late Coltrane and Ayler were not. Right? Some turned left, some right. Quote
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.