# Freedom in Music



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I came across this quote the other day by The Doors guitarist Robby Krieger:

_"In rock and roll, you can realize anything that you can in jazz... There's no limitation other than the beat. You have more freedom than you do in anything except jazz."_

I started thinking about this and at first thought, its ridiculous anyone should have as much freedom as they want in any genre, but the more I thought about it I realized that is not true. Ultimately I disagree with Robby. I think in rock music for example (and arguably classical) there is more freedom than in jazz.

To use just rock and jazz as examples - jazz is all about improvisation, if it is not improvised it is not true jazz where in rock the performer has the freedom to choose to improvise or not, therefore they have more freedom of choice. There are also more rules that are necessary to follow in jazz which equals less freedom. Jazz is heavily dependent on using extended harmonies where by contrast some rock music uses a lot of extended harmony and some doesn't. All jazz drummers tend to play with a 'swing' accent on the beat, where one specific type of rhythmic subtlety is not required in rock music - there are many different types of rhythmic approaches. I think clearly there is more freedom and diversity of expression in rock music compared to jazz.

I think the above partly explains why I generally prefer rock music and classical music to other genres, they seem to be the most 'free' and diverse genres.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^I agree about the very wide diversity of rhythms available in rock music over its history--not necessarily utilized within any given song, but the spectrum of rhythms across the spectrum of rock is quite large, and seems to me larger than that in jazz.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

There's a huge amount of modern jazz that isn't swing oriented, so jazz drummers don't have to be locked into that steady groove. And jazz doesn't need lots of chords either.

I don't know about classical music being free? If you're playing a written composition you have to follow the score.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

starthrower said:


> I don't know about classical music being free? If you're playing a written composition you have to follow the score.


Yes, I think classical music is a little different than these other genres because of how the composers have been separated from the performers to a larger extent. I think classical music is one of the most 'free' in terms of composition, but not necessarily in terms of the performers. This is especially the case with performers that specialize in older styles. I do not think these performers have more freedom than jazz musicians.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

starthrower said:


> There's a huge amount of modern jazz that isn't swing oriented, so jazz drummers don't have to be locked into that steady groove. And jazz doesn't need lots of chords either.


Interesting, I would like to hear some examples.

Another area I did not touch on in the OP is that it seems like classical and rock have been quick to diversify into eclecticism (the combination of different styles) and have been much more creative with the utilization of modern technology compared to jazz as well.


----------



## tortkis (Jul 13, 2013)

tdc said:


> Interesting, I would like to hear some examples.
> 
> Another area I did not touch on in the OP is that it seems like classical and rock have been quick to diversify into eclecticism (the combination of different styles) and have been much more creative with the utilization of modern technology compared to jazz as well.


Free jazz, avant-garde jazz, jazz rock/funk, fusion, electric jazz, free improvisation are all important part of jazz with significant number of musicians and recordings. Just a few examples:

Sun Ra





Derek Bailey





The Thing with Barry Guy





Abercrombie





One of the earliest adapters of the electric guitar were jazz guitarists.

I am not familiar with rock and roll. Is there any rock & roll without steady beat?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

tortkis said:


> Free jazz, avant-garde jazz, jazz rock/funk, fusion, electric jazz, free improvisation are all important part of jazz with significant number of musicians and recordings. Just a few examples:


Some interesting examples, thanks. However my point was that because improvisation is essentially forced in jazz it actually leads to less choice for the artist. On the other hand some rock contains a lot of improvisation, some does not (this is the same with classical music).



tortkis said:


> One of the earliest adapters of the electric guitar were jazz guitarists.


True, but I haven't heard jazz that really exploits the sonic potential of modern recording like say Sgt. Pepper by the Beatles, or some of the stuff by Zappa, Pink Floyd and Radiohead etc. Maybe it is out there, I would like to hear it. My goal with this thread is not to be right necessarily. I think I might be onto something, but I don't mind being wrong if I broaden my view and learn something in the process.



tortkis said:


> I am not familiar with rock and roll. Is there any rock & roll without steady beat?


How much jazz does not have a steady beat? How much music in general does not have a steady beat?

The majority of this track doesn't have a steady beat:

The Melvins - Magic Pig Detective 





A lot of rock features changing time signatures:
The Mars Volta - Eriatarka


----------



## tortkis (Jul 13, 2013)

Krieger was talking about "rock and roll", which I think has very specific style, and it is different from general "rock" music. Rock may includes wide varieties, from experiemntal to simple groove, but it is same for jazz, and here I mean "jazz" in general, not just swing jazz or bebop or any specific style.

I don't understand why improvisation leads to less choice. It is true that routine ad-lib tends to fall into cliche, but it is the same about mediocre compositions. And there are lots of jazz like big band or chamber jazz in which compositions / arrangements are important elements.

Except for the long intro(?) of the Melvins, the rhythm in the examples sounded like typical rock beats, but I may be missing the subtlety or complexity. Musics of unfamiliar genre tend to sound similar to each other.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

tdc said:


> Interesting, I would like to hear some examples.


I suggest listening to drummers such as Tony Williams with the Miles Davis Quintet, and Paul Motian with Keith Jarrett or any of his solo albums of original material. There is tons of non swing oriented stuff on the ECM label. And there's the 60s free jazz movement including late Coltrane, Archie Shepp, Cecil Taylor, Ornette Coleman, Sam Rivers, Sun Ra, Art Ensemble of Chicago, etc.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

These cats do it all, and Joey Baron is a very creative drummer.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

My dollars worth:
Jazz was improvisation around a melody it was off the cuff (small groups say up to 7-8 musicians), but now things have changed to playing off scores where mostly the only improvisation is during a solo and that seems to follow set ideas, in jazz clubs it was common to have fellow musicians in the audience and they would come on stage and join in a good old jam session so it had to be improvised. This was how it was in my day and was very enjoyable, I have listened to a bit of free jazz and it does nothing for me.
I know things change but not necessarily for the better. 
The only freedom in classical that I can think of is during a cadenza and that is rare as most musicians use written cadenzas or repeat their own time after time


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

starthrower said:


> I suggest listening to drummers such as Tony Williams with the Miles Davis Quintet, and Paul Motian with Keith Jarrett or any of his solo albums of original material. There is tons of non swing oriented stuff on the ECM label. And there's the 60s free jazz movement including late Coltrane, Archie Shepp, Cecil Taylor, Ornette Coleman, Sam Rivers, Sun Ra, Art Ensemble of Chicago, etc.


The term 'swing' can take on different meanings I think to people but I notice the usual jazz rhythmic accent in all of those examples except the Sun Ra - _Adventure Equation_ piece does have a very unique quality to it. I really enjoyed that piece, thanks for sharing.

I saw Bill Frisell at the Edmonton Folk Fest several years ago, he was a stand out performer and one of the better musical acts I remember from that day.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

I think you take a somewhat theoretical approach. You also limit the definition of jazz & improv and extend the definition of rock to something that doesn't really fit reality. Some rock is quite free but jazz and improv are on the whole much more inventive and free in the way music is expressed. At least that's my personal opinion.





















Also a 'no wave' band like DNA and the music of Arto Lindsay probably is placed in 'rock' but could to my mind be placed in jazz & improv just as well. In fact many free rock bands are (more) free because they were inspired by jazz & improv.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Casebearer said:


> I think you take a somewhat theoretical approach.


I'm not sure how adding elements of music theory to my argument weakens it.



Casebearer said:


> You also limit the definition of jazz & improv


I don't think I limited the definition of improvisation, I've never stated jazz was not inventive within that context.



Casebearer said:


> In fact many free rock bands are (more) free because they were inspired by jazz & improv.


I have not suggested that Jazz music has not been influential. I think many rock artists have learned and improved and had their conception of improvisation broadened as a result of jazz, but I'm not sure I agree it actually made them more free in the sense I've used the term in this thread - in terms of composition.



Casebearer said:


> and extend the definition of rock to something that doesn't really fit reality.


I'm not sure why you think I've extended the definition of rock when I've used examples like the Beatles, Pink Floyd and Radiohead - 3 bands you might typically see on a top ten rock band list. Frank Zappa is the only one I mentioned that is a grey area artist and falls into multiple categories, but I was thinking of an example like this track (which is rock music):

Frank Zappa - My Guitar Wants to Kill Your Mama:





I think it is inventive how Zappa spliced in a few different musical segments into the middle of this song, can you think if any examples of jazz artists doing something like that?

*edit* - My guess is you will not find any jazz pieces that use a technique like this because it is a pre-meditated compositional device - therefore not compatible with the strictly improvisational nature of jazz. This is an example of how the reliance on improvisation can limit compositional possibilities.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

tdc said:


> I have not suggested that Jazz music has not been influential. I think many rock artists have learned and improved and had their conception of improvisation broadened as a result of jazz, but I'm not sure I agree it actually made them more free in the sense I've used the term in this thread -* in terms of composition.*


I am a little confused by improvisation being composed if this is what you meant or, are you saying composition is more free to go where it likes?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Dan Ante said:


> I am a little confused by improvisation being composed if this is what you meant or, are you saying composition is more free to go where it likes?


Yes, in terms of performance jazz artists have a lot of freedom as you correctly pointed out in post #11. In terms of composition there is less freedom, because anything composed in a jazz piece has to be compatible with improvisation.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

tdc said:


> Yes, in terms of performance jazz artists have a lot of freedom as you correctly pointed out in post #11. In terms of composition there is less freedom, because anything composed in a jazz piece has to be compatible with improvisation.


But a lot of the old jazz standards were not composed as jazz pieces a lot were just 32 bar show songs, pop songs and of course the good old 12 bar tunes which were perfect for improvisation, what would make a jazz composition (not true jazz in my book) not suitable for improvisation.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Dan Ante said:


> But a lot of the old jazz standards were not composed as jazz pieces a lot were just 32 bar show songs, pop songs and of course the good old 12 bar tunes which were perfect for improvisation, what would make a jazz composition (not true jazz in my book) not suitable for improvisation.


But you are not addressing one of the fundamental aspects of my argument and that is in the era of recording what a composer/artist can do to a piece of music in the recording studio. This is an aspect of composition that is ignored by jazz composers because it has nothing to do with improvisation. There are also no jazz compositions that I know of that contain only major/minor chords, or only power chords (5ths) - virtually all the chords are extended harmonically. Jazz composition is heavily dependent on improvisation and extended harmony and this limits a composers expressive options.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

tdc said:


> But you are not addressing one of the fundamental aspects of my argument and that is in the era of recording what a composer/artist can do to a piece of music in the recording studio. This is an aspect of composition that is ignored by jazz composers because it has nothing to do with improvisation. There are also no jazz compositions that I know of that contain only major/minor chords, or only power chords (5ths) - virtually all the chords are extended harmonically. Jazz composition is heavily dependent on improvisation and extended harmony and this limits a composers expressive options.


You have lost me I'm afraid tdc, I see no difference in how a musician performs in a studio as to how he/she performs in a club etc, in jazz you have a choice to either follow the melody or improvise, you can change the key (this is often done) you can change the meter you can even change the tune you are playing, it is up to you, now you can't have much more freedom than that, I don't know if this applies in rock.
It is quite possible that we are talking about different things and if so I apologise for not understanding.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Dan Ante said:


> You have lost me I'm afraid tdc, I see no difference in how a musician performs in a studio as to how he/she performs in a club etc, in jazz you have a choice to either follow the melody or improvise, you can change the key (this is often done) you can change the meter you can even change the tune you are playing, it is up to you, now you can't have much more freedom than that, I don't know if this applies in rock.
> It is quite possible that we are talking about different things and if so I apologise for not understanding.


We are talking about different things. I don't dispute that jazz musicians have a lot of freedom. I'm looking at things from a compositional angle. To word one of my points a different way in classical music there are examples of very simple music (like harmonically simple etudes from the Baroque era) ranging up to complex symphonies. In rock you can make music that is very simple using only a couple of chords, or you can develop into much more complexity in terms of harmony and rhythm as in a lot of progressive rock. In jazz however you don't have as wide as a contrast between simple and complex, it tends to be more complex (harmonically). As I've stated I believe its tendency to create out of only very rich harmonic materials and an over emphasis on improvisation has limited its range of expression.

This does not mean I think jazz is bad music. I think it is sophisticated, highly creative and influential. My point is I feel that composers seem to have a wider range of things they can do working in rock and classical music.

My other point has to do with how recording technology can be used as a musical instrument. Once all the musicians have performed on a track there is more that can be done with it in the studio. I'm talking about adding sound effects to the music like backwards echo or using tape splicing. Again this has nothing to do with the musical performers - it is an art that takes place in the studio (sometimes by different individuals then are in the band).

Here is some more information copied from Wikipedia:

_Early reel-to-reel users realized that segments of tape could be spliced together and otherwise manipulated by adjusting playback speed or direction of a given recording. In the same way as modern keyboards allow sampling and playback at different speeds, a reel-to-reel could accomplish similar feats in the hands of a talented user.

Consider:
The mellotron is an electro-mechanical, polyphonic tape replay keyboard that used a bank of parallel linear magnetic audio tape strips. Playback heads underneath each key enable the playing of pre-recorded sounds. Each of the tape strips has a playing time of approximately eight seconds, after which the tape comes to a dead stop and rewinds to the start position.

The title track of Jimi Hendrix's album Are You Experienced, on which the guitar solo and much of the drum track was recorded, then played backwards on a reel-to-reel.

The Beatles recorded many songs using reel to reel tape as a part of the creative process. Examples include "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite" and "Yellow Submarine" which used a technique where stock recordings were cut up and then randomly reassembled and overdubbed on to the songs (recordings of calliope organs on "Mr. Kite", and recordings of marching bands on "Yellow Submarine").[11] On "Tomorrow Never Knows" multiple tape machines were used all interconnected patching tape loops that had been prepared by the band. The loops were played in a variety of ways such as backwards, sped up and slowed down. To record the song, the machines, which were located in separate studio rooms, were all manned by individual technicians and played at once to record on the fly.[12] "Strawberry Fields Forever" combined two different taped versions of the song. The versions were independently altered in speed to end up together miraculously both on pitch and tempo.[13] "I Am the Walrus" used a radio tuner patched into the sound console to layer random live broadcast over an existing taped track.[14] "Revolution 9" also had many effects produced using a reel-to-reel and tape editing techniques.

Pink Floyd's cash register introduction to their track "Money" was made using a loop of "splices" which was looped around a mic stand and through a tape player.[15]

Frank Zappa's Lumpy Gravy , We're Only In It For the Money and Uncle Meat, each featured edits too numerous to mention, in addition to multiple instances of speed alteration and intricately layered samples upon samples._


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

tdc said:


> We are talking about different things. I don't dispute that jazz musicians have a lot of freedom. I'm looking at things from a compositional angle. To word one of my points a different way in classical music there are examples of very simple music (like harmonically simple etudes from the Baroque era) ranging up to complex symphonies. In rock you can make music that is very simple using only a couple of chords, or you can develop into much more complexity in terms of harmony and rhythm as in a lot of progressive rock. In jazz however you don't have as wide as a contrast between simple and complex, it tends to be more complex (harmonically). As I've stated I believe its tendency to create out of only very rich harmonic materials and an over emphasis on improvisation has limited its range of expression.


In jazz you can be as simple as you want to be in fact I always consider jazz to be basically quite simple music but, it can be made as complicated as the artist wishes and some of today's jazz is complicated IMO that does not make it better.


> This does not mean I think jazz is bad music. I think it is sophisticated, highly creative and influential. My point is I feel that composers seem to have a wider range of things they can do working in rock and classical music.


I can't comment on rock but yes classical can be very complicated and that is why it has to be written.


> My other point has to do with how recording technology can be used as a musical instrument. Once all the musicians have performed on a track there is more that can be done with it in the studio. I'm talking about adding sound effects to the music like backwards echo or using tape splicing. Again this has nothing to do with the musical performers - it is an art that takes place in the studio (sometimes by different individuals then are in the band).
> 
> Here is some more information copied from Wikipedia:
> 
> ...


OK I see what you mean and IMO the end result in these circumstances is more to do with clever technicians than great musicians, as you will deduce I am of the old school, I believe in acoustic instruments as opposed to electrically generated sound from Guitars or Violins etc.
These are just my feelings and are not meant to put down rock, electric guitars etc.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Dan Ante said:


> In jazz you can be as simple as you want to be in fact I always consider jazz to be basically quite simple music but, it can be made as complicated as the artist wishes and some of today's jazz is complicated IMO that does not make it better.
> I can't comment on rock but yes classical can be very complicated and that is why it has to be written.
> OK I see what you mean and IMO the end result in these circumstances is more to do with clever technicians than great musicians, as you will deduce I am of the old school, I believe in acoustic instruments as opposed to electrically generated sound from Guitars or Violins etc.
> These are just my feelings and are not meant to put down rock, electric guitars etc.


No offense taken, thanks for your input on this thread. I'm interested in hearing different opinions.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

I had a hard time understanding your point as well but as I understand it know what you're saying is that the method of jazz & improv generally limits it's compositional freedom in comparison to rock.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Casebearer said:


> I had a hard time understanding your point as well but as I understand it know what you're saying is that the method of jazz & improv generally limits it's compositional freedom in comparison to rock.


In what way. .............


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

tdc said:


> But you are not addressing one of the fundamental aspects of my argument and that is in the era of recording what a composer/artist can do to a piece of music in the recording studio. This is an aspect of composition that is ignored by jazz composers because it has nothing to do with improvisation. There are also no jazz compositions that I know of that contain only major/minor chords, or only power chords (5ths) - virtually all the chords are extended harmonically. Jazz composition is heavily dependent on improvisation and extended harmony and this limits a composers expressive options.


Do you think this is harmonically complex?





Or have you ever heard early jazz, like Louis Armstrong and similar artists? They often were playing very simple stuff (not always obviously).


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Anyway while I love jazz I get the sense of what you're saying, and to a degree I think you're right saying that considering the composition rock and classical music have more freedom. But I think that this has to do with certain limitations due to the nature of improvisation more than to the fact that jazz has to follow certain rules (even if there are obviously also the traditionalists like Wynton Marsalis). If you're improvising with a band, there are things that are extremely hard to do. Like improvising harmonically without following a predetermined chorus. If you're alone (like Keith Jarrett in his concerts) you can do that more easily because the right hand knows what the left hand is going to do, if I can put it this way. 

Said that, there's also a lot of jazz without improvisation (even Duke Ellington), there's jazz that does not swing (especially in fusion and jazz rock) and a lot of colorful arrangements. The variety in jazz is huge actually.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

tdc said:


> The term 'swing' can take on different meanings I think to people but I notice the usual jazz rhythmic accent in all of those examples except the Sun Ra - _Adventure Equation_ piece does have a very unique quality to it. I really enjoyed that piece, thanks for sharing.


Yes, there are elements of swing in most of those pieces, but it's not a constant. And drummers like Paul Motian, Joey Baron, and Tony Williams bring so much more to the table than just a swing feel. But what draws me to jazz are the unique personalities creating a personal sound through their chosen instruments. And I realize this special quality exists in musicians of all genres, but there are many others that sound generic to my ears despite the fact that they are accomplished musicians.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Two things that confuse me in this thread are the words ‘freedom’ and ‘composition’
So classical has more freedom??? this is where I struggle as I think freedom in jazz is for the performer, whereas freedom in classical means more scope to compose complicated and/or long works, two very different concepts for different genres.
As Norman has pointed out and I have mentioned previously, early jazz was very basic and simple but what the musicians did with it was amazing. Bands such as Ellington, Basie, Kenton and the English band Ted Heath were large ens and had to play from written music so were not really true jazz in my books, they were great bands all the same.


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

The odd thing is of course that jazz is almost by definition 'free' music par excellence: coming from former slaves jazz is all about freedom and feeling free. And so it was inevitable that jazz culminated in 'free jazz' which was nothing else but the expression of total freedom. So in that sense nothing can beat jazz when it comes to the expression of freedom. But pop music has far more genres than jazz so in that sense a pop artist has more freedom than a jazz musician. Perhaps you could say that the pop artist has endless many types of prisons he can chose to dwell in as the jazz artist knows only one place which is the exit to freedom.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

Dan Ante said:


> In what way. .............


Don't ask me, I'm just rephrasing.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Casebearer said:


> Don't ask me, I'm just rephrasing.


Very good, you are on to it.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

To me, rock and jazz are similarly free in composition. Comparing the Beatles, some prog rock and psychedelic artists with Mingus, Ellington, and others. But Krieger mentioned rock and roll, which is more narrow, and doesn't include pop rock. In terms of improvisation, I think rock and jazz are similar as well in freedom, but jazz is more complex generally in the improvisations. I still have yet to hear a complex rock jam.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

norman bates said:


> Do you think this is harmonically complex?


Relative to most jazz I agree it is not that complex, but it still has a certain harmonic richness I find unavoidable in the style. There is a certain clarity that can be achieved sometimes by using less notes within chords for example just tonics, thirds and fifths, or even just fifths.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

tdc said:


> Relative to most jazz I agree it is not that complex, but it still has a certain harmonic richness I find unavoidable in the style. There is a certain clarity that can be achieved sometimes by using less notes within chords for example just tonics, thirds and fifths, or even just fifths.


I hear just two chords without any fancy scale...


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

norman bates said:


> I hear just two chords without any fancy scale...


Two chords that sound like they have b7's (or something outside of just 1,3 and 5) in them to me, plus the solo creates further harmonies.

*edit - *the two chords are Gmin9 (which contains these notes 1,b3,5,b7,9)
and Cmin7 = 1,b3,5,b7

So in other words the piece contains zero harmonically simple chords in the way I defined it (just 1,3s/flat 3s and 5s or just 5ths).


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

tdc said:


> Two chords that sound like they have b7's (or something outside of just 1,3 and 5) in them to me, plus the solo creates further harmonies.
> 
> *edit - *the two chords are Gmin9 (which contains these notes 1,b3,5,b7,9)
> and Cmin7 = 1,b3,5,b7
> ...


even a simple blues has 7th chords, and even punk rock songs has often a lot more than two chords... I'm wondering what's the point of the extreme simplicity you're looking for, since it seems that even punk rock at its simplest is more complex than what you're asking for.
If you take songs of Nirvana, those are usually A LOT more harmonically complex than the piece I've mentioned.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

norman bates said:


> even a simple blues has 7th chords, and even punk rock songs has often a lot more than two chords... I'm wondering what's the point of the extreme simplicity you're looking for, since it seems that even punk rock at its simplest is more complex than what you're asking for.
> If you take songs of Nirvana, those are usually A LOT more harmonically complex than the piece I've mentioned.


Not at all, I can think of countless punk and rock songs that would fit my criteria for harmonic simplicity because I never stated that the total number of chords that are in a song was the fundamental thing I was looking at, I was looking at harmonic richness and extended harmony.

Think about how many songs just have these chords Em - G - A - D, or just G-C-D, or Just E-A-D. Some songs just use E and A, or Em and D. etc etc, no 7's all chords simple harmonically.

A lot of songs use just power chords, too many to mention.

Even if you look at some early music like the Greensleeves theme, it is made up of only major and minor chords, there is really nothing in that piece extended past the 1,3,5. This is the concept I'm trying to communicate in regards to harmony.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

tdc said:


> Not at all, I can think of countless punk and rock songs that would fit my criteria for harmonic simplicity because I never stated that the total number of chords that are in a song was the fundamental thing I was looking at, I was looking at harmonic richness and extended harmony.
> 
> Think about how many songs just have these chords Em - G - A - D, or just G-C-D, or Just E-A-D. Some songs just use E and A, or Em and D. etc etc, no 7's all chords simple harmonically.
> 
> ...


in any case I don't understand the relation in the composition between simple power chords and freedom.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

norman bates said:


> in any case I don't understand the relation in the composition between simple power chords and freedom.


If you read the opening post I make the claim that jazz is heavily dependent on extended harmony (the way I'm using this term is I am referring to notes past the 5th, where technically the term is used to describe notes past the 7th). Anyway I was just looking for a term that could describe this harmonic phenomena in jazz I've noticed - of always using harmonically richer chords.

Having the freedom to use simple harmonies in a piece instead of always rich harmonies gives a composer more expressive range in my opinion. It is not just about power chords. Even in blues you will have songs that are just E-A-B, or E-A-B7. In the latter case over half the chords in the song have the simple harmonic structure I've described. Can you find any jazz pieces where over half the chords in the song have a simpler harmonic structure?

The observation I've made is that chords are virtually always harmonically 'thick' in jazz, if one wants to escape this harmonic 'thickness' there is not much one can do within the style.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

tdc said:


> If you read the opening post I make the claim that jazz is heavily dependent on extended harmony (the way I'm using this term is I am referring to notes past the 5th, where technically the term is used to describe notes past the 7th). Anyway I was just looking for a term that could describe this harmonic phenomena in jazz I've noticed - of always using harmonically richer chords.
> 
> Having the freedom to use simple harmonies in a piece instead of always rich harmonies gives a composer more expressive range in my opinion. It is not just about power chords. Even in blues you will have songs that are just E-A-B, or E-A-B7. In the latter case over half the chords in the song have the simple harmonic structure I've described. Can you find any jazz pieces where over half the chords in the song have a simpler harmonic structure?
> 
> The observation I've made is that chords are virtually always harmonically 'thick' in jazz, if one wants to escape this harmonic 'thickness' there is not much one can do within the style.


The fact is that jazz (and the pop music of the first half of the twentieth century, the songs of the great american songbook) are way richer harmonically because it was music composed by people with a great knowledge of harmony, while pop and rock music is often composed by people who doesn't know anything about that, so I think that considering that aspect there's more freedom for someone who can choose something simple or more complex (and often less banal) and those who can't reach that level of sophistication (obviously often they aren't even interested in that).
Anyway early jazz was often a lot simpler, and there's also modern jazz that is simple, sometimes in a successful way, many times it's not. The reason of this is: to make an improvisation interesting, interesting changes are helpful. Otherwise if changes are banal it's simple to be boring and uninteresting as Kenny G. and a lot of smooth jazz. There's a lot of that stuff.
Obviously there are also guys like Ornette Coleman, who didn't even consider harmony in that sense, he wanted total freedom and he didn't even follow changes.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

tdc said:


> If you read the opening post I make the claim that jazz is heavily dependent on extended harmony (the way I'm using this term is I am referring to notes past the 5th, where technically the term is used to describe notes past the 7th). Anyway I was just looking for a term that could describe this harmonic phenomena in jazz I've noticed - of always using harmonically richer chords.
> 
> Having the freedom to use simple harmonies in a piece instead of always rich harmonies gives a composer more expressive range in my opinion. It is not just about power chords. Even in blues you will have songs that are just E-A-B, or E-A-B7. In the latter case over half the chords in the song have the simple harmonic structure I've described. Can you find any jazz pieces where over half the chords in the song have a simpler harmonic structure?
> 
> The observation I've made is that chords are virtually always harmonically 'thick' in jazz, if one wants to escape this harmonic 'thickness' there is not much one can do within the style.


The fact is that jazz (and the pop music of the first half of the twentieth century, the songs of the great american songbook) are way richer harmonically because it was music composed by people with a great knowledge of harmony, while pop and rock music is often composed by people who doesn't know anything about that, so I think that considering that aspect there's more freedom for someone who can choose something simple or more complex (and often less banal) and those who can't reach that level of sophistication (obviously often they aren't even interested in that).
Anyway early jazz was often a lot simpler, and there's also modern jazz that is simple, sometimes in a successful way, many times it's not. The reason of this is: to make an improvisation interesting, interesting changes are helpful. Otherwise if changes are banal it's simple to be boring and uninteresting as Kenny G. and a lot of smooth jazz. There's a lot of that stuff.
So it's not jazz that is dependent of extended harmony: it's a choice, to find interesting combinations of notes. It's rock music that is dependent on simple harmony, because (with obvious exceptions) many musicians can't go beyond the power chords or the major minor triads.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

norman bates said:


> It's rock music that is dependent on simple harmony, because (with obvious exceptions) many musicians can't go beyond the power chords or the major minor triads.


So here you are saying that rock music as a genre is limited because of what certain artists do, while ignoring the many examples to the contrary. Lets not forget that I've pointed out harmonic simplicity is apparent in much classical music too. This is not just about rock and jazz.

I will also point out you still have failed to present one example of a harmonically simple piece in jazz (by the definition I've explained). So it seems your argument has just turned into a distraction saying 'but look at all this crappy simple music'.

I think this ignores the range of a band like Led zeppelin that could compose an extremely harmonically simple hit song with 'Whole Lotta Love', and then create a harmonically intricate work like 'The Rain Song', Zeppelin had a lot of range but are still not considered an especially complex rock band.

I find artists that know how to use harmony more sparingly at times can create more effective contrasts within a piece when those harmonically rich chords do occur (think of the track 'Stairway to Heaven' for example, mostly simple chords but when the richer harmonic chords occur it creates a striking contrast).


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

tdc said:


> So here you are saying that rock music as a genre is limited because of what certain artists do, while ignoring the many examples to the contrary.


I'm saying that I find confusing that you think that to use advanced harmony for a composer means less freedom, when actually those who have more knowledge (and therefore can choose between simpler or more complex harmonies) means actually more freedom, from the point of view of someone who wants to compose. I have less freedom if I'd like to use certain harmonic ideas but I can't because I haven't the necessary knowledge to do it.



tdc said:


> I will also point out you still have failed to present one example of a harmonically simple piece in jazz (by the definition I've explained). So it seems your argument has just turned into a distraction saying 'but look at all this crappy simple music'.


no, it's just that I haven't read a lot of scores, but having listened jazz and rock for a lot of time I know that there's also jazz that is quite simple (even if my preference goes to the other side) but I'm not sure exactly what to mention, since you say that even a super simple dominant seven chord is "complex". And to me harmonic complexity has to do also with context: two chords repeated over and over, like in a lot of modal jazz, is very simple (and in fact modal jazz was "invented" to allow the musicians to play very melodically without having a lot of problems with complex changes). Even James Brown, who tried to make things harmonically as simple as possible, used a lot of ninth chords. That does not mean that his music is harmonically complex.
Anyway yes, a lot of jazz is more harmonically sophisticated, but exactly because musicians wants to make things interesting, not for a lack of freedom. 
And there's not a lot of use of power chords. But the reason is that in rock the power chord has to do more with the effect of the distortion than anything else.
And, if you took out the vocal interpretation, the lyrics and the arrangement, the songs built over the same three chords played without any creativity will not appear as a sign of freedom, but simply as something extremely limited, as it is. The greatness of rock music is all the things outside the songwriting at its most basic in my opinion. I mean I love extremely simple songs but for everything but the chord progression.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

anyway:














this is crap to me, but since you wanted only minor and major chords (for arbitrary reasons imho as I've said) but it's an example. It's also an example of why usually jazz musician avoid to play this kind of harmony: the risk to sound extremely bland when there aren't interesting lyrics/voices is high


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

norman bates said:


> I'm saying that I find confusing that you think that to use advanced harmony for a composer means less freedom, when actually those who have more knowledge (and therefore can choose between simpler or more complex harmonies) means actually more freedom, from the point of view of someone who wants to compose. I have less freedom if I'd like to use certain harmonic ideas but I can't because I haven't the necessary knowledge to do it.


Yes, I agree that having more knowledge can lead to the ability to do more things in music, so in a sense one could look at this as more freedom, but I am looking at the raw potential to do things within either genre regardless of musical ability.

If we use an example of someone with a high degree of musical knowledge I think there is a wider range of things they could do in rock or classical compared to jazz. This does not make jazz worthless, it is arguably the ultimate improvisational form. Another thing to remember is that there is nothing to hold anyone back from composing in multiple different styles.



norman bates said:


> anyway:
> this is crap to me, but since you wanted only minor and major chords (for arbitrary reasons imho as I've said) but it's an example. It's also an example of why usually jazz musician avoid to play this kind of harmony: the risk to sound extremely bland when there aren't interesting lyrics/voices is high


My reasons are not arbitrary and I think you are refusing to see the great difference between the harmonic qualities of the chords I'm talking about (or refusing to acknowledge it) because you don't want to agree with my point. I think the example you posted here pretty much reinforces my point because it proves it is difficult to do anything effective within the jazz style using just those kinds of chords, that is why it is so rarely done and the result is something that pushes the musical form outside of the boundaries most are comfortable with and some would argue is not even jazz.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

is this simple enough?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

tdc said:


> My reasons are not arbitrary and I think you are refusing to see the great difference between the harmonic qualities of the chords I'm talking about (or refusing to acknowledge it) because you don't want to agree with my point.


no, I really think that jazz musicians have all the freedom they want to use simple chords. They simply often choose to not to use it. As rock musicians choose not to play complex chords with a heavy distortion because it sounds like a mess. Even a major third with a distortion doesn't sound good. Those are more choices than limitations.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

norman bates said:


> is this simple enough?


Sure, actually I see what you are saying with the harmony thing. I've realized there actually is more simple jazz stuff out there than I was initially aware of.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Excuse my intrusion but why this obsession with harmony? the melody is where the freedom (Improvisation) happens and as for thick harmony you don’t get much of that in a trio or small ens.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Dan Ante said:


> Excuse my intrusion but why this obsession with harmony? the melody is where the freedom (Improvisation) happens and as for thick harmony you don't get much of that in a trio or small ens.


Well harmony is just one of the areas I was referencing but Norman and I got kind of into it in more depth in this thread. But actually I've done some more research on it and I've realized there is more simple jazz out there than I was initially aware of, so norman bates has had some good points on that subject.

When I'm referring to thick harmony I'm referring to the notes used in chords, not the amount of players in the ensemble. But in general I often like rich harmony anyway. I really enjoy the thick harmony in much late Romantic and impressionist classical music, so I don't think it is a bad thing in itself, it is how it is used.


----------

