Originally Posted by Sheriff Rhys Chatham
I still wonder why freejazz isn't considered noise.
Free Jazz as a genre spans the post-bop experimentation of early Ornette Coleman, through to the post "A Love Supreme"-era John Coltrane, past Albert Ayler and finally to Cecil Taylor, where "freeness" is given a coherent if ever-changing form. I think the "noise" thing relates to people's ears clocking on to one or two aspects of a performer (e.g. Ayler high-register honks and squeals), without taking into context how that "noise" fits in (Ayler was a highly-disciplined improvisor, as is C Taylor today) to a piece or performance.
The European wing of free-jazz/improv tends more towards aesthetic/artistic abstraction (in contrast to the "blues" groundings of the aforementioned artists), and used/uses "noise" more self-consciously. However, again, this can detract from the form, content and (gasp!) melody of a particular performance.
Where "jazz" converts into "noise" is a moot point - after all, aren't Borbetomagus a highly charged and energetic improvising
group? - but I've heard recent examples where a "rock" musician attempting to play jazz simply ends up playing sounds that may sound engaging on the surface, but zero fucking aesthetic or emotional power (hello David Keenan).
Nowadays (and please don't take this as a insult to you, Sheriff Rhys C, it's not meant that way
), I would consider it an insult to conflate free jazz with "noise". Indeed, I would say that the current crop of noise musicians have little to no real interest in jazz, free or otherwise...