Talk:Free jazz
|
|
| Contents |
Coltrane
I would want to check my memory of the dates here, but I've got a strong feeling that there's something funny about putting "John Coltrane" in that list. He's well known as a free player -- and justly so, arguably he was the best, and has never been equaled despite many attempts -- but he wasn't really in the first wave of innovation like the other three names in that list (Cecil Taylor, Ornette Coleman, Albert Ayler). I'm pretty sure Coltrane was still doing Bop when they started stepping outside the lines. And in fact, Coltrane was strongly influenced by John Gilmore's playing (Gilmore was one of the main guys in the Sun Ra Arkestra). So if you do include Coltrane in the list, then why not Gilmore? But then things start getting unwieldly if the list gets that long, and it could be you're going to get still more people coming by adding their favorites.
Anyway, I'm contemplating a re-write of the introduction there... if anyone cares, let me know if you think this reasoning sounds stupid. -- Doom
Styles, names, labels, lofts
Sure, rewrite it a bit: I think the description of the music itself is pretty good (though it conflates too many different styles, I think: for instance, it's important to distinguish between Ornette Coleman's quite regularly pulsed music of the 1950s & 1960s, with drummers like Blackwell & Higgins, & the more "wavelike" rhythms invented by Sunny Murray with Cecil Taylor's band). But there's no historical depth here. Coltrane, yes, was a slightly older player who came to free jazz under the influence of younger musicians like Ayler & Coleman.
Yeah, I think there should be more names mentioned here, perhaps: Don Cherry, the many important drummers & bassists, Pharoah Sanders, Sun Ra, Paul Bley, Archie Shepp, Sam Rivers, for starters. Something on Tristano's early experiments with freedom, maybe. Something on the Jimmy Giuffre Trio, too (as the main branch-line for a "cool", more abstract free-jazz, in its way just as influential). & then maybe something on the two key 1960s labels--ESP & Impulse!. & then there's the loft scene of the 1970s, leading into the current scene--surely players like Charles Gayle, William Parker, Mat Maneri, Matt Shipp, David S Ware, &c deserve a reference. I like thick description, as long as the entry doesn't just become a flabby list. --Ndorward
Eric Dolphy
Finally got around to moving John Coltrane out of the list of "pioneers", calling him the best known example instead. Simple enough change, I don't know why it didn't occur to me before.
Since I brought up the possible problem of people padding out that list with their favorites, someone has come by and added Eric Dolphy's name... and unless I'm missing some chapters of the Eric Dolphy story, I suspect he should be regarded as a member of the second wave, rather than a pioneer.
It probably would be good to try and do a more detailed historical time-line... And I agree that it's best to provide descriptions of an artists music rather than just a list of names. For example, the New Wave music entry seems a little too light weight with it's long, alphabetic list of band names. -- Doom 19:14, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
- I agree that Dolphy is not the best choice for a list of pioneers of free jazz, and probably shouldn't stand as a representative of the genre at all. He played over chord changes for almost all of his recorded career. While he did aspire to play with Cecil Taylor, and participated in free pieces by Coleman and Coltrane, Mingus would never have hired him if he was known for playing "free." So, while he's worthy of mention, maybe since the article is so short right now, leave him out.
Racial/social aspect
Would a section on the racial politics of free jazz be welcome? It seems right now that the entry is pretty well-established in the directions of theory and personnel, but is lacking any mention of what bassist Richard Davis calls the "kiss my black ass" factor. Many of the important early free jazz collectives were explicitly afro-centric (AACM, for example) and while Coleman's quartet was multi-racial, titles like "This Is Our Music" make certain things clear. The 60's were, of course, the decade of the most heightened racial tension in the US, and many free jazz musicians found that they were treated better, and their music more appreciated, in Europe. This could be a lead-in point to discuss the differences (musical and social/historical) between American and European free jazz (not to mention Japanese, etc). I'll start working on this, comment here if you object or wish to redirect the section.
Could it be worth putting more on the social-collective aspects into this section? I'm thinking here of Jazz Composers Guild, AACM and 70s Loft movt in the US? This collective creation of the settings for playing seem important in their correspondence with the collective creation of the music itself? And it is a further factor in the European music: FMP, Spontaneous Music Ensemble, London Musicians Collective, etc. --AllyD 19:07, 30 May 2005