This is where functional harmony was completely abandoned - and pointed toward the Free Jazz movement. An established 20th Century Fine Art technique, it offered another system of organization outside of the Functional Harmonic boundaries. There were not a lot of compositions based upon this system but it did point toward the ‘general’ dissatisfaction with the inherited harmonic practice. It became part of the technical language for constructing atonal backgrounds for ‘free’ improvisation and for organizing large ensembles without the previous harmonic foundations. It was used especially by the Third Stream Movement (Gunther Schuller - ‘Conversation’) but presented problems as an improvisational technique: just as restrictive as traditional harmony in its rules and procedures, required the improviser to memorize the tone row, and any exceptions to its rules to facilitate improvisation caused confusion when employing the tone-row.
To my mind, the state of Jazz in the 60’s was a period of searching. Many paths were taken and explored - some to a dead end. More so, this period was the end of 60 yrs or so of linear development harmonically and melodically - it was struggling to develop a vocabulary to meet the expressive demands of the contemporary culture. Unfortunately it was losing more and more of its listeners - leaving many behind as it grappled with so much change.
For the first fifty years or so of Jazz History, time was organized in a straight forward duple meter. Its function as a dance music demanded that this be so. But, by the end of the ‘50’s, many became convinced that this need not be - why restrict meter and rhythm to provide dance rhythms when it was no longer a requirement. This realization produced Jazz which was organized according to new rhythmic patterns and organizations. What occurred was again a duality within the music: Time organizations based upon the previous practice of a ‘steady reoccurring pulse’ and one not confined to that particular time element.
Meter in the 50’s began to stretch the previous confines of dupal time organization. The Jazz Waltz was soon incorporated within the Jazz Genre and manipulated so as not to invalidate the concept of ‘swing’.
Soon other experiments - with irregular meter began to appear. Dave Brubeck’s Take Five, Time Further Out, and Time Changes albums incorporated many of the ‘odd’ time signatures and sparked further experimentation. This irregular meter use was soon incorporated into the contemporary large group ensembles - Don Ellis was a notable example.
The irregular or odd meters employed [5/4, 9/8, etc] can be reduced to groupings of stress patterns
[accented and unaccented beats] of two or three beats. They can be thought of as a composite of two or more time signatures: 5/4 = 3+2 or 2+3, 7/8 = 4+3 or 3+4 or 2+2+3. The Harmonic rhythm usually reinforces the metric scheme and the rhythm section as always defines this organization.
Don Ellis [whose early big ensemble experiments resulted in the aptly named ‘Live in 3 2/3 /4 Time in 1967] published ‘The New Rhythm Book’ in 1972. It offered a methodology for acquiring improvisational and performance skills in odd signatures. His contention was that the Fine Art Music in the Western Tradition suffers in comparison to the vitality of most of the worlds cultures - including European Folk Music [especially that of Eastern Europe]. In fact, Fine Art Music itself had already experienced a period of metric and rhythmic reevaluation after 1910. Under the leadership of Bartok, Stravinsky, and Schoenberg; the metric features of European folk music and other world cultures were incorporated into that tradition - not without controversy.
More radical was the movement which sought to work without a regular reoccurring pulse present - it was not without precedent. The late ‘50’s practice of ‘breaking the time’ - usually a short section superimposing a ‘3 against 2’ feel - effectively obscured the time structure for short passages. This rhythmic tension was resolved by the return to the original duple stress pattern - it was also usually combined with an ‘out’ section which again, was resolved by the return to the original tonal center.
This new attitude toward time can be summarized by Ornette Coleman: “…my music doesn’t have any real time, no metric time. It has time, but not in the sense that you can time it. It’s more like breathing, a natural, freer time….I like spread rhythm, rhythm that has a lot of freedom in it, rather than the more conventional, netted rhythm. With spread rhythm, you might tap your feet awhile, then stop, then later start taping again. That’s what I like.
Otherwise, you tap your feet so much, you forget what you hear.
You just hear the rhythm.”
This is called ‘Tempo Rubato’ which distorted the time by accelerando and decelerando - Coleman’s ‘The Shape of Jazz to Come’ and ‘Change of the Century’ albums are prime examples.
This concept of time structure - obscuring the meter and abstract time composites - became quite important in the collective improvisation of the ‘Free Jazz’ movement. Here, the very function of the rhythm section was preempted. Rhythmic energy became a characteristic of each voice in the overall texture - the stereotypical metric formulas were avoided and the bar line existed only as an abstract.
These practices effectively destroyed the foundations essential for the ‘concept of swing’ - which relies upon the tension created between a syncopated melodic line and a regular, reoccurring, and accented pulse.
Another aspect of Jazz, prior to this decade, was improvising upon a fixed form and harmonic structure.
Here, the original composition provided the form and chord changes that the subsequent improvisations must adhere to - the exceptions to this usually appeared in formal arrangements and were incorporated to extend the form. Reaction to this fixed structure, again, have precedence in the ‘50’s.
The preoccupation with form in the Jazz of the ‘50’s resulted in a review of Western Art Music practices - it led to experiments with extended forms such as the Fugue and Rondo. This general dissatisfaction led [again] to two contradictory trends - one stressed the formality of structure which was carefully determined and composed; and one allowed the structure to ‘happen’ according to a small number of fixed elements.
Third Stream music sought to deliver Jazz in the shape of European forms and compositional techniques. It benefited from a generation of musicians who could perform in both idioms as well as the emergence of a common ground between the two musical traditions - so that composition and performance practice could accommodate both. The most conspicuous employed an alteration of the idioms - composed and improvised sections either utilizing Fine Art Techniques within a Jazz setting or a Jazz ensemble combined with typical Fine Art ensembles.
One of the longest [1952-1974] enduring Jazz groups - The Modern Jazz Quartet - played a prominent role in this music. Under the musical direction of pianist John Lewis and with close association with Gunther Schuller, a successful method of incorporating the Symphonic orchestra in the performance of Jazz was established. They were not the only proponents - Stan Kenton, Oliver Nelson, and most notably Miles Davis worked within or utilized the Third Stream framework.
This music saw the rise of extended works easily classified as ‘Program’ music - the ‘Maiden Voyage’ album of Herbie Hancock depicting the Sea, ‘Afro-American Sketches’ by Oliver Nelson chronicling Afro-American history with music, and ‘New Orleans Suite’ by Duke Ellington as a remembrance of the city [as well as the First and Second Sacred Concerts]. These all borrowed from the Fine Art forms - such as Rondo, Suite, and Cantata.
The other major structural design - which allowed the performer maximum control in shaping form through ‘open ended’ procedures - was an attempt to achieve maximum emotional intensity by relaxing and simplifying the strictures of form. It allowed the performer to concentrate on the communication of emotion unconstrained by traditional musical elements. It is best described by Cecil Taylor: “This is not a question of ‘freedom’ as opposed to ‘non-freedom’, but rather a question of recognizing different ideas and expressions of order”.