Free jazz for rock fans who really want to like free jazz.

is this album good I keep seeing it posted

>>71948041
pretty accurate desu. Actually maybe more like

Free jazz for rock fans who really want to like free jazz and were too young to get into Fire! Orchestra when they were big.

>>71948041
that's all free jazz tbdesu

>>71948102
I think it's being viral marketed

>>71948041

>Free Jazz

You can't make me like that shit. Why would I want something completely (key word: completely) improvised and unplanned?

It's the opposite of composition and I'll not sit around and listen to your fucking elevator music.

Jazz is fine.

>>71948985
In what elevators do they play free jazz

File: life is sweet 1.png (727KB, 713x666px) Image search: [Google]

727KB, 713x666px

>>71948041
>NOT REAAL JAZZ!

Whenever there is a new "jazz" album that takes major influences from non-jazz music and is very direct about it comes out, people like to express their hypocritical opinion about why they can disregard the project all together.

>>71949061
>hypocritical opinion
what makes it hypocritical?

>>71948985
>completely (key word: completely) improvised and unplanned
that isn't free jazz tho

Free jazz is for rock fans anyway

>>71949095
I am saying that jazz and experimental jazz don't have to be these sacred genres of music that have to remain pure of outside influence and accessibility. When albums from newer veins of music, relative to jazz, heavily mix styles there isn't nearly as much snark or backlash as there is that comes from "true jazz fans" when an album like this is released.

>>71949061
Where did anybody say it's not real jazz. As far as I can see the general consensus just seems to be that it's shitty jazz obviously geared toward rock listeners.

>>71948041
And here I thought it was a post-rock album, sure looks like one.

>>71949187
But what about artists like Vijay Iyer or Steve Lehman who mix jazz with electronic music and hip hop influences and are generally well-received on /mu/?

>>71949222
It's marketed to the same demographic

>>71948985
You've clearly never listened to the Machine Gun Sessions

>>71948985
Because there is a lot of amazing free jazz regardless of its lack of planning, you bitch

>>71948041
I kinda get what you're saying

>>71948110
Would anybody ever really consider Fire! Orchestra 'big', though?

>>71948985
>Why would I want something completely (key word: completely) improvised and unplanned?
This is bait, right?

>>71949320
>Would anybody ever really consider Fire! Orchestra 'big', though?
For being jazz, yeah they were pretty popular in like 2013-14

>>71948998
Take me to said elevators

>jazz show at community radio station i do a show at asks for more presenters
>i apply, say i mostly enjoy free jazz/fusion stuff
>"we dont normally play free jazz"

why do people hate free jazz?

>>71949320
>>71949384
/jazz/ when Exit and Enter dropped caused a huge stir here

>>71948041
Somebody posted this album last week and I asked if he could tell me some things he liked about it or what made it better than other free jazz and he just called me names so I didn't bother listening to it.

>>71949425
>why do people hate free jazz?
The people perceive it as random-ass noise (which isn't a bad thing in and of itself, but it scares normies) and the players feel its popularity undermines their talent/hard earned technique/hours of practice etc

Really Free Jazz by Coleman and Ascension by Coltrane are pretty much all the free jazz you need. Add Spontaneous Music Ensemble and related artists if you're into free-range timbric explorations within a jazz context.