I'd say it's as much jazz as the others. It's a well-organized group playing off each other, taking turns trading licks and soloing, all within an agreed-upon written framework.... just like Kind of Blue.Originally Posted by Jay.Dee
I'd say it's as much jazz as the others. It's a well-organized group playing off each other, taking turns trading licks and soloing, all within an agreed-upon written framework.... just like Kind of Blue.
1972-1974 King Crimson were capable of collectively improvising rock music.
It was not "jamming." That was the point. It attempted to take rock into directions typically considered the territory of jazz ensembles, yet it was not jazz. And they often attempted to create instant rock compositions. Remarkable.
Love it, hate it ... there was nothing remotely "mindless" about it. It was risky, adventurous and sometimes yielded results which were other-worldly brilliant.
If this approach had a downside, it was that it required a fairly deep understanding of music to appreciate. Thus its widespread appeal has probably not aged as well as Crimson's more structured material.
Nah, I'm pretty much musically illiterate and it's just about my favorite music of any period.
Love the 7274 band over the projects. Did not care for tthrakattack.
What was particularly unique of the 7274 band in comparison to most Rock bands of that period was the sensitive ability of each player to seriously listen to what everyone else was playing. That is the first rule of Collective improvisation. Which was almost never adhered to by most Rock bands. By way of a comparison, most other rock bands during that time had a very lazy approach to improvisation---modal vamps, very static rhythm section or even rhythm section laying out. Led Zeppelin's live 888 minute or whatever it was version of dazed and confused was typical for that kind of lazy, imbecilic crap.
You have made a few blanket statements, including that you regard Crimson's (or rock in general) improvisations weak because you prefer jazz improvisations. I only asked you to provide an example of comparable jazz group improvisation that you considered good. The jazz albums you brought up are hardly comparable to Crimson improvs from 1973-74, because the only improvised parts on those records are solos played over pre-designed compositions and arrangements.
It is also quite telling that Coltrane did not include the Love Supreme suite into his regular concert program and Davis very rarely played the numbers from his landmark album (mainly "So What" in a revamped form that might not appeal to you). They apparently did not consider them good live improvisation vehicles.
Collective group improvisation with no predefined structure to fill, based on progressively worked out cues, patterns and rapport, is a different thing and to evaluate KC's ability or lack of thereof, you would need to juxtapose their improvs with similar undertakings in jazz (or rock). You did not do that, because as you have admitted you do not know or care for this kind of improvisation at all, hence you are not able to pass any educated judgement.
And most probably, if confronted with a typical jazz free-improv fare you might even want to reconsider your stance and come to think that Crimson live improvs were actually ones of the most accessible and structured proposals in this music idiom.
Last edited by Jay.Dee; 01-29-2015 at 05:47 PM.
Ummm. I just don't really like it!
I stopped reading at "mistakes" --- that has no place in improvs in my opinion. Everything is sound and it all makes something a whole or part... if it's not in key - so what. That is what makes it all even more interesting and unplanned.
I suppose one person's clam is another person's chowder! Fair enough! I guess that's really all that needs to be said on this subject. Some love it, some don't. Or some of us just don't have a superior enough understanding to appreciate it!
Last edited by Guitarplyrjvb; 01-29-2015 at 05:13 PM.
Push, push, push - wooooo-yeaaah!
http://grantland.com/features/the-wi...-led-zeppelin/Led Zeppelin, like every other band in The Winners' History of Rock and Roll, was ultimately defined by its popularity in the eyes of fans and detractors alike. If you hated Zeppelin, you hated that this was selling millions of records. If you loved them, you were drawn in by the reflected image of your own desires.
I'll bet my comment rings true in most cases.
I certainly don't mean it to sound condescending or to suggest all of even the most studied musicians would care for it, but Crimson during this period were in fairly uncharted territory with specific goals as a group. One was clearly to be able to create what could be called "instant, uniquely identifiable rock compositions." Even the Henry Cows and Soft Machines of the world were in different territory; more linked to free-jazz and the improvisational avant-garde.
These are quintessential points and arguments. And this is why for instance birdsong is considered music - it all comes down not to "taste" or even "understanding" but to human perception of the inner mechanics, logics, dynamics and dispositions in sound, whether pre-organized/structured or not.
I agree KC's improvs weren't always succesfull, and neither were every one of those by Gong, Soft Machine, Henry Cow, Can, AreA, Zamla Mammaz Manna or other prominent improvising units in 70s progressive rock music. But these were still - and are greatly acknowledged as such - among the musically seminal (as opposed to commercially so) contributors of this whole idiomatic phenomenon.
Further on, "free improvisation" was firmly established as a significant autonomous music genre more or less separated from jazz already with the endeavours of acts like AMM, The Spontaneous Music Ensemble and the legendary label Incus, whose most important release would become regarded as a landmark piece of the process. One could try this for "mindless noodling" too, of course...
"Improvisation is not an excuse for musical laziness" - Fred Frith
"[...] things that we never dreamed of doing in Crimson or in any band that I've been in," - Tony Levin speaking of SGM
Yes it is, here is a better image
R-2093652-1263718386.jpeg.jpg
It's actually from the Stanley Theater 74, which of course appeared on the Deceiver box, and then as CC complete show
BG
"When Yes appeared on stage, it was like, the gods appearing from the heavens, deigning to play in front of the people."
I spent time with several improvisational groups myself, and the creative process itself was never about either "fun" or "trying to find licks for compositions" - the latter as if pre-arranged works are somehow more "worthy" than the expression of impulse. It's often magic to be able to play a pre-arranged piece with fellow musicians, but it's just as rewarding to generate successful energy and chemistry in a spontaneous setting.
It's actually a LOT like a sexual venture. Intercoursing with the planned objective of creating a child doesn't necessarily diminish the physical pleasure of the undertaking (although it's a bit sad if such actions result in a bad baby/person/Pol Pot/Ted Bundy) - albeit often under somewhat clinical and practically repressed circumstances. If you engage in intercourse for the pure excitement of the act itself, however - which is what we USUALLY would want - then the pleasure mostly emannates from the intensity of moments.
"Improvisation is not an excuse for musical laziness" - Fred Frith
"[...] things that we never dreamed of doing in Crimson or in any band that I've been in," - Tony Levin speaking of SGM
Comparison to enjoying sex = fun. I get all the rest of what you are saying tho.
Still alive and well...
That's a really cynical view of it. In the jazz world, Oregon used to open every set with a free improv, one of which I was witness to at a show that was one of three used for their 1980 In Performance album, "Buzzbox." I got shivers at the show...i still do. It was the perfect example of improvisation as spontaneous composition. I think it was Bill Evans who said that improvisation was composition...it just happened in real time.
The best improvisors, imo, are the ones who do just that: pull form from the ether. No, they don't have conventional song form necessarily..but form they absolutely so have, and Oregon's In Performance is a great place to hear it. You can read a recent Rediscovery review here.
This is not about aimless noodling or self-satisfyinfg masturbatory exercises. This is about making music. Formal composition is one method; improv is another. You may not like them both, but they both have merit nevertheless.
I think its pretty easy to understand why many people don't like King Crimsons improvs. Most people like orderly things. Not jagged, sharp, or angular and abstract. Like the difference between a Vermeer and a Picasso. Matter of taste, nothing more. You insult "us" with your last sentence. You are not in a room with neurosurgeons. Shit, I'm a housepainter.I suppose one person's clam is another person's chowder! Fair enough! I guess that's really all that needs to be said on this subject. Some love it, some don't. Or some of us just don't have a superior enough understanding to appreciate it!
Still alive and well...
I guess my point was that sometimes improv (no matter ones goal) works, and sometimes it doesn't. Still fun... How am I being cynical? I don't understand. Maybe you read more into my comment than was really there? And I do like them both!!
Last edited by Nijinsky Hind; 01-29-2015 at 07:48 PM.
Still alive and well...
King Crimson is one of my favourite bands, but, in general, I agree with Guitarplyrjvb in his disliking the Red-era improvs. I like the original line-up (e.g. Epitaph box set) and the Islands-era improvs (e.g. Live At Summit Studios) very much though. Surprising to many, I guess! I'll explain it to you: the improvs of the early KC line-ups had riffs, melody, structure, beautiful solos (check out The Creator Has A Master Plan); on the contrary, the Red-era improvs don't have melody nor structure nor riffs; all solos are atonal. I'm not suggesting that Ian McDonald, Michael Giles, Mel Collins, etc. were better musicians or improvisers than John Wetton, Bill Bruford & David Cross (that could be discussed in another thread if you want). It's just that the results were more pleasing to my ears. It's a matter of taste. I prefer improvisations that sound beautiful and coherent than completely abstract improvisation that goes nowhere. The latter doesn't touch my feelings. And, to me, that's what music's all about... I think the early improvs by the Jamie Muir-era are somewhere in the middle, kind of a transtion (e.g. Zoom Club); there were still traces of melody and structure. What do you think?
I see that Henry Kaiser is doing a guitar-sax-drums trio set at one of his shows at the Stone, and calling it Topography of the Spleen.the legendary label Incus, whose most important release would become regarded as a landmark piece of the process. One could try this for "mindless noodling" too, of course...
See heres an instance where opinions differ and theres nothing wrong with that... assuming this thread is about King Crimson improvs, I personally like most if not all of the eras you mention... Great stuff to me. But where I have a hard time is with some projects and most of all Thrakattack... It made no sense to me... lots of great sounds... but to MY ears it was a complete mess... and I tried hard to find some connection and could not. I could almost bet that lots of KC Improvs (when not on stage) end up on the cutting room floor so to speak.
No worries I loved the Thrak album proper. And I am sure that there is someone out there that plays Thrakkattack every day on his way to work... I have a copy... covered in dust. Hated it. but its one of the coolest digipak cases I have ever seen.
Last edited by Nijinsky Hind; 01-29-2015 at 08:20 PM.
Still alive and well...
I like the noodling, don't find it mindless in that KC are great at putting mood into their music, even the improvs. Plus I like Fripp's playing. I DO prefer structured composed music however, which is why earlier pieces like "Bolero-The Peacocks Tale" and "Islands" are my favorites. And on "Power To Believe", "Level Five" is more my thing.
I wasn't referring to you. Please see post #52.
Sorry, thought it was a blanket statement.
Still alive and well...
I'm sure improvisational jamming is essential to the creation of a lot of my favorite music. I wouldn't think Fripp or any other serious musicians did anything mindlessly. However, I prefer the fleshed out, fully realized finished product rather than the most well thought-out noodling or adventurous exploration or whatever anyone wants to call it. Save the "improvisational genius" tracks for the special 4-disc edition of the original 44 minute album.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks