Free Jazz Versus Free Improvisation

By DOM MINASI,
Published: October 17, 2014
Free jazz versus free improvisation. Are they the same? I submit they are not. 

Let's take a look at what makes up music. I was taught from the very beginning that music is composed of three parts: 1. Melody; 2. Harmony; 3. Rhythm. 

Now add improvisation to the mix, and call it melody, and we have what is known as jazz. The main components of jazz are the improvisations and the rhythms. Without improvised solos it can't be called jazz. From the earliest days of blues to ragtime to swing to bebop to modern jazz, there was always time, chord changes and various rhythms. So what is free jazz? Some purport that free jazz should not have rhythm, a recognizable melody, whether tonal or atonal, and absolutely no harmony. Well is it jazz? I don't think so. 

I have been playing free-form jazz for a long time, and when I hear players who call themselves avant-garde jazz players, I sometimes have to laugh. Music is music and free jazz should sound like music; not 2-15 musicians playing anything they want without relating to one another. Jazz players have a distinct way of phrasing. Just listen to John Coltrane or Albert Ayler. Whether they are playing free or free on chord changes, they swing. Although free jazz it is not your typical two and four swing, it has its own tempo. And guess what happens when free jazz musicians relate to one another? It becomes harmonic, fugal, contrapuntal, polytonic, and bluesy; and inside all of that, there is a beauty that can't be denied and it all makes sense—and it is listenable. 

Every free-jazz musician I have ever worked with has studied. They understand harmony and theory, they can read and compose and they can play in time and on chord changes. Ask any one of them about the history of jazz and they can speak at length about their experiences and who their main influences were. And they all grew up listening to Charlie Parker and all the greats just as I have. What may be missing with the young free players is they start with late John Coltrane instead of studying the past, and their music reflects the missing history in their playing. You can't move forward without reflection of the past. 


Free-form jazz musicians choose to play that way as I have. It was a natural progression for me. Do I strictly play free? No! I enjoy playing on tunes and changes. I especially enjoy playing on tunes and taking the tunes out while playing in time. Does that make me a free-form jazz musician-no, but I do play free-form jazz i.e., without form, melody, harmony and rhythm, but when I play free with other musicians, inevitability we play and combine all those ingredients that music allows and it sounds like music, not a mishmash of nothing relatable. Cellist, Tomas Ulrich says "the main difference between free jazz and free improvisation is that free jazz is blues oriented," and I agree with him.
read more: http://www.allaboutjazz.com/free-jazz-versus-free-improvisation-dom-minasi-by-dom-minasi.php#.VEHyy744R3g