More like this? The meanies in the /jazz/ general just

>>69764439
well, they were right

>meanies

kek. you got off pretty easy. if you post the wrong shit in /classical/ someone is likely to dox you, steal your identity, ruin your credit, date your sister and then break her heart after taking her virginity

>>69764439
meanie from /jazz/ general here, kill yourself

>>69764526
>>69764455

seriously why do you guys hate this album?

most critics consider it a masterpiece

>free improvisation
>jazz

pick one retard

Roscoe Mitchell's Art Ensemble (precursor to the Art Ensemble of Chicago) had a record where three of the four tracks are solo instrumentals, you might dig that?

>>69764556
>most critics consider it a masterpiece
So is that the only reason you can come up with for why it's good?

>>69764607

no, I listened to it and enjoyed it as well

the only thing I've found that's similar is Ken Vandermark's Site Specific.

I've listened to a lot of free jazz but there's nothing quite like For Alto.

>>69764556
theyre just fucking with you senpai

>>69764607

>answering a question with a question and not answering the original question

baka

>>69764439
Jazz fans don't like improvisation, you should be posting in avant general, it's a great album, one of my favorites

If it's the solo improvisation you like, I recommend DIVerso series of albums, it's all albums like that by a variety of artists just improvising on their instruments

From Derek Bailey on guitar to Demetrio Stratos on vocals or Steve Lacy on saxophone, my personal favorite from that series is probably Fernando Grillo on bass

There's lots of fantastic free improv if you want, stuff like Han Bennink (Nerve Beats is one of favorite albums ever) and Tony Oxley

>>69765452

thank you

File: dd3f3a4541ae6d56d3c7b351adf7265c.png (14KB, 368x78px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 368x78px

he's right tho

>>69764439

I think you're getting trolled, lad. I'm a sax player with indisputably patrician sax tastes and that album is a landmark.