Contemplazione

I totally agree on Free Jazz; the intention to be a manifesto and a pioneer of "new" music is too strong and ends up stifling expressiveness quite a bit. Ayler is indeed free, but he is always "human," and his almost onomatopoeic sound is fundamental to communication. The same goes for Anthony Braxton, whose phenomenal "For Alto" I reviewed. It goes beyond free jazz; it's pure (lucid) madness. But damn, how much it communicates! In Ayler and Braxton, I always see a common thread, even if they don't improvise over chords or metric structures. It’s as if their subconscious is speaking, and therefore, in a way, they still fall within the rules of musical communication theorized by Lévi-Strauss. Cecil Taylor is another who strictly adheres to his own incipit; that's why after a while of listening to him, you managed to get in sync... the thread was there but not immediately visible. What matters is that it was there! Some, however, sometimes completely lose that thread, like Ornette, in the horrifying "Chappaqua Suite," which is a double CD and the only item in my discography that I truly REGRET purchasing. Polillo was a conservative stickler, but his "theory" referred back to the other musicologist I mentioned, in a writing that was among other things slightly preceding the advent of free jazz and mainly related to non-improvised music. Theory obviously can't capture all aspects, but it embraces a significant slice in my opinion. Regarding sound, free is "guilty" of producing sounds that are sometimes too shrill, unpleasant, and in direct contrast to the norms of beautiful sound that normally "prevail." What great discussions we are having, ajeje... too bad we’re alone! I wonder what old Happypippo would have to say about it... I could also see input from Odradek or Hal. And Muffin too.

Well, the Oregon are essential. I would definitely recommend their magnificent "Music Of Another Present Era" and "Distant Hills," both from '73. I don't know this one, although the reliable Penguin Guide doesn’t give it a very flattering rating. The album is accused of being uninspired and formulaic, a bit like reheated soup, and of basing its success on the sentimentality linked to the end of Walcott. However, since you liked it, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt!

"Dazed And Confused" the pinnacle of the triple album! Fantastic solos by Page in many tracks, truly in a state of grace. Cimbarello, it’s not like that. Bonham was perfect for his role in the Zep, but BELIEVE ME, in the history of the instrument, there are dozens of names before him in terms of technique, improvisational skills, groove, and sound. I am a jazz drummer.

But who knows you! My beloved Reggina? I don’t even follow football, in fact, I would gladly clean house (metaphorically) of all those illiterate, arrogant, and violent parasites. Better yet, I would give them fixed-term contracts…actually, Co.Co.Co., 1000 euros a month, then you’ll see how they run and stay in line!

Miles's quintet made music that was exploratory, one could say avant-garde (if it weren't for the fact that the term itself has long lost its original meaning and is now associated with "extremists"), but they understood that freedom in music isn’t about doing whatever the hell one wants, but knowing the rules well enough to bend them to one’s own taste. SHAPING THE FORM (in short, this form has to exist; otherwise, it turns into a mess ;-) )

So, this is why "Change Of The Century," "The Shape Of Jazz To Come," and "This Is Our Music" by Ornette Coleman are BEAUTIFUL and ENJOYABLE masterpieces, while the subsequent "Free Jazz" is more HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT than beautiful, and it's not very enjoyable! The first ones have all the characteristics of free jazz, PLUS the use of cells and melodic phrases and sounds from "regular" jazz, PLUS a whole lot of INTERPLAY. In "Free Jazz," however, there is no interplay. Even in Coltrane's "Ascension," there isn't much interplay. To make a painterly comparison, I prefer abstraction as long as it remains a free (free) and imaginative interpretation of...SOMETHING, not of nothing. So, let there be a Picasso, let the cubists, dadaists, and so on come forth, and to hell with the fake artists splattering random paint on canvases.

The last paragraph is better explained by Claude Lévi-Strauss: "Musical emotion arises from the fact that, at every moment, the composer (or the soloist improvising) takes away or adds more or less than what the listener expects based on a project they believe they can guess, but which they are actually incapable of genuinely penetrating... It suffices for the musician to take away more, for us to experience a delightful feeling of falling; we feel torn from a stable point of the solfeggio and plunged into the void, but only because the support about to be offered to us was not in the expected place. When the musician takes away less, it is the opposite: we are forced into a more skillful gymnastics than our own. Now we are moved, now compelled to move, and always beyond what we would have believed ourselves capable of achieving alone. Aesthetic pleasure is made up of this multitude of jolts and pauses, disappointed or unexpectedly rewarded expectations." Not bad as an analysis, right?

Here I am again. Regarding your last post: it's true, there are some "free" moments in certain passages, but more than anything, they are "flavors," "hints," not the structural foundation. And if we really must label it, it's more funky-jazz-rock-primordial. Or "new music by Miles Davis." Back to the free, let me quote a fascinating excerpt from the famous essay "Jazz" by Arrigo Polillo. "The first reaction of many to the new thing was one of rejection, or at least disorientation. Even the listeners more open to daring experiments found themselves facing insurmountable reading difficulties: due to the independence or contradictions in the projects of the individual members of the orchestral groups; due to THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ANALYZING A SONIC CONTINUUM, NOT CONSTITUTED BY DISCRETE PARTS; and more generally due to the impossibility of referring to a clearly established syntactic code, known not only to the musician conveying the message but also to the listener receiving it, an essential presupposition for communication in the full sense of the word, which is not merely a transmission of physical stimuli. Lacking a reference code, there can be no system of expectations in the listener, nor can one develop in them through habituation, that allows for the uninterrupted succession of predictions of unfolding musical events, which is the CONDITION SINE QUA NON for the understanding and enjoyment of any music."

Poletti is a well-mannered person, often saying sensible things with passion. Stop bothering him all the time! He may be academic or a bit too "quotey" from time to time, but at least he does his research. I believe that his trust in criticism is not completely uncritical, if you'll forgive the pun.

Another piece of advice: don’t allow anonymous comments, otherwise the worst idiots show up. Anonimo, the truth is you don’t have muscles. What would your post mean, that those who have muscles act like fools and can't understand anything about music? Well, I’m muscular, and for work, I literally provide society with muscles and take away the belly. I imagine you don’t know that after hypertrophy training, neurons increase the number of synaptic connections in the long term; not to mention the increased oxygenation of the brain, due to the increased blood flow. Poor fool. You've got a little belly, huh? Nobody pays any attention to you, right? That bothers you, so you go on discrediting those with abs... (careful, there’s nothing wrong with having a little belly, you don’t need to suffer, accept yourself. Or get serious about building muscles, just don’t bother those who have a sound mind in a sound body!)