Talk:Free jazz

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


 * Agreed: the racial thing is what led free jazz to be created... Has anyone read Carles and Comolli's "Free Jazz/Black Power"? The 'Philosophies' section could be much bigger... Ciacchi 00:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I only partially agree, and I cite John Szwed's "Space is the Place" biography of Sun Ra where he quotes Ra explaining that the Arkestra was (nearly) exclusively for black musicians because white musicians were already playing this modern music; Sonny was reputed to have played Messaen and other modern piano works from memory, Coltrane spent hours working through Slonimsky's Thesaurus of Scales, and iirc Cecil Taylor has also mentioned the influence of post-Schoenberg European composers as a major influence in his music. Not surprising that in a modern era of global communications, Stravinsky and Ravel should be interested in Gershwin's Jazz and Coltrane and Braxton interested in Stockhausen and Messaen!


 * In a way the comments from the Jazz camp echo those comments from the Scott Joplin era where 'serious' musicians found themselves excluded from serious consideration if their skin was the wrong colour. While it is true these pioneers of Free Jazz were carrying the European modern tradition into the bop idiom and making it their own, arguably carrying that tradition on when Europeans themselves had largely stagnated with them, there is still an undeniable influence of modern twentieth century compositional theory (cf "Tristan Chord" vs Coltrane's quaternary harmonies)


 * Another 'racial' angle can be found on YouTube in a segment where George Russell talks to Ornette Coleman and gets agreement with his observation that their 'New Thing' is not new American technology, but is in fact a repackaging of old Third World technology.
 * Teledyn (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ornette & "Free Jazz"
Didn't I read that the album "Free Jazz" was given its title by someone at Atlantic without Ornette knowing about it, and that Ornette himself didn't even like the name? It's a small point but if others concur then I think it's worth correcting it. Ornette 15:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Opening sentence
Is anyone else bothered by the nebulous & rather misleading opening sentence: "Free jazz is a movement of jazz music characterized by diminished dependence on formal constraints." It seems to me neither accurate nor helpful. Free jazz replaced many of the traditional features of jazz (especially those established by bebop and hard bop) with new ones. (In some cases these "new" features were actually a resurrection of earlier jazz values in a new context--for instance, the collective polyphony of early jazz bands.) ND 14:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a very good point!Gingermint (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Meter
How free is meter in free jazz. does it resemble Metis folk music in having a steady rythm rather then a meter?--User: Knoss


 * I doubt it sounds much like Metis folk music, but get yourself a copy of Ascension & see what you think.... --ND 19:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, the term pulse is frequently used to describe the time structures in free jazz. ---Sluzzelin 23:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What I wanted to know was if free jazz generaly has bars or an irregular beat.--User: Knoss


 * Most of what you hear in free jazz isn't notated, yet composed themes or transcriptions of solos in free jazz are sometimes written with bar intersections, because partition makes it easier to read. But the bars don't necessarily represesent a fixed meter or time segment. Free jazz can make use of regular beats, irregular beats and no beat at all, which is when the pulse can become relevant. ---Sluzzelin talk  01:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but I feel that pulse is a bit too strong in a lot of free cases - look at the work of some of the recent New Orleans guys, for example, or the Euro scene, or some of Masada's works. Free Jazz is all about destroying existing modes of music and then moving beyond them through collective improvisation, so even overall pulse may be a bit strong. 129.81.180.29 (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * guess thats why it's free... lol --User: Knoss

Samples
Hey could someone get audio samples of some standard free jazz music? Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • O)))) 18:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, it's recent enough as a movement that it's still under copyright. Though there are sites like Church Number Nine that post copyrighted free jazz recordings. --ND 12:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * However, there are samples of copyrighted material on Wikipedia, and it wouldn't hurt to have a minute or two of Cecil Taylor vs Ornette Coleman vs Sonny Sharrock, or something, just to show the progression. 129.81.180.29 (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Instruments
Previously, the instrument list listed only sax, trombone, guitar and drums. i'm no free jazz expert but what free jazz i've heard has definitley had piano (Cecil Taylor, Paul Bley) and double bass. If anyone has any objection to this addition, change it but at least give a reason. Glassbreaker5791 21:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"Out Jazz"
I've also heard free jazz called out jazz, and there's some mention of that here. Can someone make an out jazz redirect to here? 66.71.70.134 (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This article and Avant-garde jazz article - same territory?
I'm seeking opinions on the roles of these articles at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Jazz. Views welcome there. AllyD (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a note that the discussion has since been archived, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Jazz/Archives/2009_1. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Soul music?
I removed the following sentence from the definition section because, in context, it made no sense:


 * This eventually led to the concept of “soul” in the 1960s.

At the end of a long discussion of how free jazz developed, this sentence is, at best, a non sequitur, but it is also factually incorrect. Can anyone offer an explanation for how it got there? ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 15:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The only thing I can think of along these lines is an "Eddieism" that Eddie Harris wrote. His definition was something like, playing with maximum regard to feelings and minimum regard to technique. But this wasn't in regards to free jazz, which he defined as (something like) everyone playing independently but connecting via ESP. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My thought was that an editor who expanded the section left in a stray sentence from an earlier version, perhaps? In context, as I said, I can make no sense of it.  Free jazz and soul jazz are rather different creatures, so I do not think that is what is being referred to. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  16:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Harmony and Musical Examples
It would be great to see some musical examples and a little more technical stuff about the harmony and, in general, the theory found (or intended) in the music. Something that a musician interested in this subject could find useful. Gingermint (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Not possible. I would point you first of all to Ekkehard Jost's eminent study Free Jazz (1974). It takes a whole book merely to describe the different approaches, so there is really nothing to be gained from generalizing about harmony and other theoretical aspects, because they varied so widely from musician to musician. 82.176.209.52 (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Bill Dixon
It was brought up on the Reference desk/Entertainment that this article's brief mention of Bill Dixon is inadequate in comparison to his role in the movement. Although I am not very knowledgeable on the subject, it seems the New York Times might agree:,. However, I do not feel confident enough to edit this myself and decided to post this here instead. — 71.20.250.51 (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I linked the single mention of Dixon in the current article, which is the least that can be done. As an article, it should probably extend to have more on the movement as well as prominent individuals, hence taking in the Jazz Composers Guild (organised by Dixon ), AACM, Globe Unity Orchestra, etc. AllyD (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The 'History' section is quite large; it should be broken down into subsections (by somebody more familiar with the subject than me). — 71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Free jazz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151021131326/http://www.jazz.com to http://www.jazz.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

AACM, etc.
There is nothing at all in this article about the work and influence of Chicago's Association for the Advancement of Creative Musicians (AACM), and of other similarly-minded musicians, except for a single mention of Anthony Braxton. To me, this seems to omit a major thread of free jazz, but I myself am not knowledgeable enough to address this. (AllyD has mentioned this same issue several times, above.) Acwilson9 (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * @Acwilson9 I agree entirely. The AACM is no doubt one of the most important and influential institutions in all of jazz. At the very least Muhal Richard Abrams should be mentioned for his contributions to the genre, along with his great influence(often times a direct and personal influence) to most free jazz practitioners post-early 60s. Tylerpob (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Earlier free jazz than Lennie Tristano
Apparently the 1945 record "The Atomic Era" by Bud Freeman and Ray McKinley (Majestic Records #1031) is the earliest free jazz, even earlier than that recorded by Lennie Tristano later in the 1940s. Source 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @173.88.246.138
 * Frankly, that piece sounds absolutely nothing like free jazz; whereas Lennie Tristano's Intuition absolutely does. Tylerpob (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)