could someone explain to me what the deal is with free jazz/free improv?

Most of the really good free improv shows I've seen (Gerry Hemingway/John Butcher, Jeb Bishop/Michael Zerang, for a few) have gotten the spastic typical sounding free jazz stuff out of the way early, almost as a head clearing exercise, then get into some really interesting territory as far as mixing sounds and interplay. And when they hit something traditionally tonal or rhythm, it had a massive impact because of the context.

I think extended techniques are part of the fun as well, trying not to be limited by your instrument in terms of available sounds (goes for electronics as well).

First free improv is quite different from free jazz (but its a minor point).

''Free noise I can understand: it's kind of like creating the same spaces ambient music creates, only doing it live.''

hmm...there are certain 'ambient' passages in some free noise recordings i have (are we talking abt the dead c here?) but not just that surely.

damian- I don't think free improv is just abt creating 'space'. You are correct that, in the end, you might experience different types of emotion or not much emotion at all. I think that creating music which doesn't have any obvious emotions attached to it is a fantastic thing.

Surely the 'point' is to basically trade musical stimuli off each other's playing, and the sucess depends on how well the players do this. And it is difficult to get good improvised music. I go often to see this live and a really great improv show is kinda rare.

have you got any recordings?

nope. started with free jazz first, and while i still have some jazz recordings from before '58 they were only bought after 2-3 years of listening to free jazz first.

to understand it musically then you do need to work backwards but you can enjoy it.

the thing with free improv is that there doesn't seem to be too much theory behind it.

exactly!!!

Where I differ from Julio is that I don't think free jazz requires a whole lot of understanding. I think you can really get off on it without worrying about the musical-theoretical underpinnings. If you want to play free jazz, be prepared to do some mental heavy lifting, but listening to it is just raw pleasure, for me anyhow.

''Where I differ from Julio is that I don't think free jazz requires a whole lot of understanding''

yeah I hadn't heard too much jazz before i started listening to 'free' stuff (captain beefheart was the closest thing to it). I just read abt some of it and gave it a go.

I guess it doesn't require too much to enjoy or get pleasure from it but I think to work backwards and understand how 'free' does fit in the jazz history you do need a bit more knowledge i guess.

As for my chronological approach to free jazz, that's just sort of how it worked for me. I'd heard Free Jazz long before I heard Fletcher Henderson and I couldn't stand it, I thought I was being had! But my love of jazz came pretty much chronologically so that when I got to Ornette my mind was blown, I loved it. It is different for everyone though. But I can fully agree with Phil, on a visceral level free jazz will move you one way or another.

Just to agree with what Julio said about this - For me initially I was sort of like "what's the point, sounds like nonsense" (I think this is a common first impression) but after I learned more about the music and where it was coming from I could really appreciate it more.

free improv isn't written abt as much as pop or rock or rap: books on free improv have been written by eddie prevost and derek bailey to try to explain and it is their obligation to do so. To try and communicate the ideas of a music they passionately believe in.

This stuff isn't familiar to most ppl out there so again it is the obligation of ppl who regurlarly listen to it to help and explain it if asked.

and if you don't get it at the end of the day its ok. its only music.

(people in unable to distinguish between 'understand' and 'like' shockah!)

It certainly isn't their obligation to do so, it's their choice - and it's a choice I'm glad they make. Musicians are under no obligation whatsoever to explain what they do and explanantions are not necessary to appreciate music. Not too many musicians (not even "free" musicians) are as well equipped as Prevost and Bailey to explain what they actually do - no, qualify that, to explain the "the ideas of a music they passionately believe in" with an equivalent intellectual and analytical rigour to that of EP and DB. Errrrrrrrr, I've lost my train of thought....

Musicians that carry out 'avant-garde' work are required to otherwise you end up like some of those indutrial musiciand who play some noise, then tell you to fuck off or that they don't give a shit.

You have to let ppl in.

Explanations are useful and when something like improv or lots avant-garde stuff is conceptualised then sometimes context is necessary.

However, it should be said that I find improv musicians to be among the friendliest and most open musicians I've ever met, with a minimum of "attitude" - now why that should be the case is perhaps an interesting discussion point.

Well, it can be pretty humbling to lead a lifestyle where five people coming to your show, listening, and not leaving is a success and you're generally dismissed as a pretentious weirdo.

The existence of coltrane itself disproves this idea...he played free jazz, but to suggest that there was no theoretical knowledge behind his playing is ridiculous.

from my first post here:

''First free improv is quite different from free jazz (but its a minor point).''

please learn to read bcz I didn't suggest what you're saying. And there is 'theoretical knowledge' to any playing in any context surely. But I am talking abt the record or the listener at a gig and like i said, to get more of an appreciation of the music then knowing a bit of theory must help but you don't really need much or any.

''How is Eddie Prevost's book? I've read Bailey's and quite liked it.''

I haven't read bailey's yet damn it.

Eddie's book is really good but i need to re-read to offer more here. It was edited by a chap called mark sinker (you might know him). its available from matchless. they have a webpage.