I usually end up liking the stuff on the line better. Stuff that's a little of this, little of that.

I have more trouble with the way out there stuff. I need an anchor somewhere in the song. A beat, a pulse, a groove, or whatever you want to call it. I guess that's why I like stuff on the line. There's a more user friendly foundation with Chaos over it.

I haven't given up on the out there stuff, I keep trying.

Interesting way of describing it, but from what you've stated, I suppose I'm more of an "outside" fan. I love Bebop, Swing, Dixie, etc, but nothing gets me going like Avant & Free-Jazz. It's probably my favorite form of music, period, which is saying a lot. Of course, this is probably just a phase; most of my purchases from the last year or so have been in this form and it has to subside eventually.

I am not sure i like these kinda labels in this particular context

how do you feel that they are labels? most cats in 50's-60's jazz rose to their greatness
within various banners, usually being on a split side...especially once forms of free improv
and freestyling came to fruition in the mid-late 50's. don't you see that there were camps
of thought, inside and outside is not addressed to experess labels, it's very open actually.

inside is the obvious one, and so is the outside...and there's tons of grey area. for instance,
what's the most outside (the box) that hank mobley went (not to dis him at all). this is not
a better or worse thread. What's the most inside that say...archie shepp went or albert ayler?
coltrane, dolphy, mingus, miles, monk, and several dozen others, existed on both sides of
the coin at various different sessions, and ultimately leaned each way many times, but each
artist was different from the other. coltrane started within the box and continually pushed
outside, while keeping his feet on the ground, it allowed his head to push towards the infathomable sky. mingus was totally himself, objectively in the grey area between the two.

"inside" is the honoring of traditional playing, licks, forms, feels. "outside" is the pushing
to other forms, feels, new licks, etc. Being that we have 80+ years to look back upon of
jazz music, it's birth, body, decay, and revival...up to present day, we have the advantage
of picking what we like within the entire genre history, and also able to see what really
happened, or rather what was happening.

not trying to limit in this, just looking for people's preference. Most of you, I bet, like a majority of jazz forms, BUT there are certainly strains that have more of your attention. That leaning is what i'm wondering. ts'all

~spiz

This is a pretty hard question to answer for me, because I like a bit of everything. I like mid- and late-period Coltrane but I don't like Ornette Coleman or Eric Dolphy even closely as much as Coltrane. I also like everything by Thelonious Monk whom I don't even know whether to classify as inside or outside. I like Miles' electric period but not as much as his other work. I think Mingus is good but I don't really love his work. I like everything by Duke Ellington, from all eras. I like Art Blakey but not as much as Bill Evans.

So I don't know, why don't you tell me if I like inside or outside?



**DISCLAIMER**
Zlatko Kreso has not heard all the output by any of the musicians mentioned in this post.

like i mentioned, it's not really an A or B issue. many people stand the line,
and that's fantastic as far as i'm concerned, why limit yourself. right!

what i'm wondering is what do you think about the out out stuff that's freeform
or very formless? brotzman, some vandermark, ayler, sharrock, shepp, etc?
the noisy stuff...
if you like some of that style too, I'd say that you're just a very selective ecclectic.

but who am i to say anything of the sort really! just wondering if the cats on this
site have a preference. I'm funny cuz I got into jazz cuz of freejazz, and then moved
around the genres (mainly focusing on experimental to the inside/outside cats of
the 60's---coleman, dolphy, mingus, coltrane, shepp, etc and NOW, years later,
have come back to buying more inside cd's, early duke to vocalists jazz and on.
guess my preference has changed, still enjoy the freejazz, but dont' have the same
passion for buying, listening to it, and seeing it live.

That's hilarious! is that the future of jazz thread posting?

Well like I said, I listen to coleman and dolphy every once in a while, but I don't really feel it ( I like it, but I just don't feel an emotional connection ). I haven't heard any other jazzers that are free-er than they are because I didn't feel the need to listen to any further out of the box after hearing them.
So no, I'm not really as passionate about free jazz as some other posters might be. And yes, I am selective even with the inside jazz.

The reason I actually own more than one coleman or dolphy CD is because, like you, I fell into jazz through the experimental side and worked my way backwards.

If one could give numeric values to the "outsidedness" of jazz with 10 being the most outside and 1 being the least, I think my preference would be exactly 6,519543.

well, what i was trying to say is that i am not sure i like the question, cause to me it´s not really about outside and inside, although i do understand what you mean. To me, the question sounds alittle like, "what do you like the most, fast jazz or slow jazz? (no offence, ok, lol, but it sounds like that in my ears). The answer could not be easy, it all depends on the situation. And besides, it also creates an illusion of that all "outside" music is really outside, yeah i know you pointed out that there is a grey area between out and in, but anyways, it´s so gray and complex, the term outside doesnt really make any fair sense to me in this context. Just do examine what the term "out" implies from a tonal point of view, and this is ONLY from a tonal point of view, ok, Dolphy, Ornette late Coltrane, Steve Coleman and such guys all sounded "out" at different phases, but their approach were so extremely different to each other that it could´t possibly be viewed as something simply as "outside" without being too one dimensional. to label Coltrane and Coleman (Ornette) under the same genre would be like comparing Schoenberg to Bartok or let´s say Scriabin, it is theoretically possible, but it doesnt make any real sense at all. Oh Bird, he is "in" but how should we deal with the raised fourth? and isn´t the diminished/wholetone scale somewhat "out"? Yes, but only if it´s used in a non-dominant sense, but theoretically it´s "out", is polytonality, bitonality "out"? what about upper extension triads? But i see your point, but i don´t listen to music from that perspective, i like music that sounds attractive in one way or another, may it be ugly, slow, fast, hard, soft, evil, cheesy, or even "in".



yeah i know, just don´t like the "in" "out" thinking in this context, peace

hehe!

what about them, aber? You and i know that throughout the evolution of jazz harmonic chord use and movement, that things were considered "out" and then pulled in with the general canon, as part of the program. Such as the use of blue notes, becoming more radical with flat 5ths, flat 7ths, and various forms of dimished scales and chords, that at SOME TIME were "out", but now they're not. I know what you were feeling when you wrote this, but you're feeling really technically defensive to me, and i don't know why. I wrote in the beginning thread that I wanted to throwout a thread that didn't have to be taken seriously, a vague thread, one that opens up conversation more than anything else...unites us because no one is into A and the other in to solely B. artists and people cannot be categorized like filing cabinets.
the media would like us to be this way more than we are, and thats saying something because people are more like cabinets than people these days.

however, little off subject there sorry...aber, I know where you're coming from. but the thread's all about personal leanings. Some people might equally like 80's davis music and then puton Brotzman latest noise collaboration with Vandermark and Parker, and then to the Hot 5 from back in the day, to diana krall. The thing is...(much much like the threads that everyone loves, what are you listening to...) people's preferences change with time, go through periods, grow.
my taste hasn't always been open to all forms of jazz. like i said, I got into it for the chaos and ferocious passion of freejazz cats, and then started to garner a taste for hardbop, bebop and on and on. now i like everything, BUT much 80's jazz (mbase, corny 70's commercial fusion, and 80's miles davis...no haters please, just my preference). you see aber. i'm not trying to categorize, just using more vague definitions so people will feel comfortable in nailing down ther leanings.

and so do i. but jazz is such a streamlined music with camps on other sides of the tracks. it always has been. I listen to music for the same things you do to...intuitively to b more exact.
you would never put somthing on and keep it on for any length of time if you weren't already feeling an emotion, or wanted to feel inspired to feel an emotion. thus, i never put on the mariah carey cd my girl bought (for that one horid song on the radio) with all due respect that i can muster, god save my soul!


i guess i don't mind it to a degree. I don't buy something cuz someone's like, dude---it's
totally the best in/out cd of all time. no one speaks this way in real life. however, 5 years ago, I searched for music that was taking place at the beginnings of freejazz, that still had solid roots to traditional bebop, and that's what i mainly liked. probably why eric dolphy is so heralded and loved by many in the jazz world. much of his recorded music has changes, and he uses so many parker licks, and his music swings. OF COURSE, then there's other albums, such as out to lunch and side studio dates, point of departure, etc. Much of his music however never got that "out", and you know that. that's how he liked it. mingus has some much more "technically out" music than dolphy.

anyway, my thoughts are spiraling away man. peace