Albert Ayler website

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

Some interesting comments on Albert Ayler's 1966 European Tour, L.S.E. concert, TV recordings etc., and a link to a pdf download of an Eddie Prevost article 'Unholy Ghosts - conspiracy theories and Albert Ayler':

https://www.ayler.co.uk/html/what_s_new.html

JR

Excellent! Conspiracies abound, and not least with Evan Parker, who it seems swallows them whole like Coltrane did, but in Trane's case, it was big boiled sweets which he disliked sharing. Alas poor Evan.

Btw I remember somewhere, from Val Wilmer? that Donald Ayler was shouting out for drugs, coke in the fracas, and that Albert had already been paid for the band. One of the "sweet" things of the "My name" film was whenever they hustled Coltrane for money, he posted them whatever he had on him, down to the coins. My sympathies are torn

[Jazzrook]

Albert Ayler with Torbjorn Hultcrantz & Sune Spangberg playing a stark and powerful version of Bobby Timmons' 'Moanin'' in Stockholm, 1962:

https://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=Uu0TY34Tv2Y

JR

[Jazzrook]

A fascinating article on Albert Ayler's album 'La Cave Live Cleveland 1966 Revisited' and a new English translation of Peter Niklas Wilson's 1996 book on Ayler 'Spirits Rejoice! Albert Ayler and his message':

https://www.ayler.co.uk/html/what_s_new.html

JR

[Ian Thumwood]

Excellent! Conspiracies abound, and not least with Evan Parker, who it seems swallows them whole like Coltrane did, but in Trane's case, it was big boiled sweets which he disliked sharing. Alas poor Evan.

Btw I remember somewhere, from Val Wilmer? that Donald Ayler was shouting out for drugs, coke in the fracas, and that Albert had already been paid for the band. One of the "sweet" things of the "My name" film was whenever they hustled Coltrane for money, he posted them whatever he had on him, down to the coins. My sympathies are torn

It amazes me just how potent Albert Ayler's reputation remains to be. I always feel that he is perhaps more important for what he represented than what he actually created. In can recognise some of the arguments presented by Bluesnik as being salient. Donald Ayler always seems to be the Achilles heel in the argument for his brother's work as there is something very primitive and unschooled about his playing. I can see the connection with earlier players like Bunk Johnson or Freddie Keppard yet I still feel these vintage players were superior. I find Albert more convincing as a soloist but , whilst I think the extended techniques and "field holler" elements of his work give the music a visceral edge, when you strip this aside I am finding Ayler to seem less and less radical.

I have been listening to Wayne Shorter's 1960s Blue Note records this week in my car and have been blown away at what a great composer and soloist he was then. The music seemed to push Hard Bop towards something more sophisticated and players in the groups he used such as Herbie Hancock were right at the vanguard of using harmony and expanding their improvisations which strike me as being far more radical and "outside" than anything Ayler produced. Yes, Ayler had a shock element to his playing but Shorter as his associates just strike me as being far more savvy. It is just much more intelligently thought out and the understanding of musical theory to allow the doors to be pushed out is there in abundance as opposed to really lacking in Ayler. For my money, Ayler is far more traditional and whilst valid as a musician, his music seems very much of it's time whereas players like Shorter or indeed Eric Dolphy strike me as bieng genuinely more radical. I can totally appreciate players such as Jimmy Heath taking a dim view of the Ayler's performance a Coltrane's funeral since he was part of a generation which had pushed the techique in jazz forward. Looking back from 2022, i would also have to say that the musicians who took their cues from Ayler now seem better equipped to take Ayler's message further. Whenever I hear more "radical" jazz artists now, whether it is William Parker, David Murray, Steve Coleman or James Brandon Lewis, I have to concede that much of their music is far superior to what Ayler produced. I just wonder if he too could have sustained a careeer post-1970s. I am not convinced that there was sufficient musicality in his playing to allow him to continue playing as he did in the 1960s. An Albert Ayler of the 1980s/ 90s would probably be even more mainstream than someone like Archie Shepp. It begs the question as to just how "avant garde" Free jazz was. What followed in the wake of players like Shepp, Ayler and Sanders has generaly been far more interesting and radical - as you might expect fwith the passage of 50-0dd years.

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

It amazes me just how potent Albert Ayler's reputation remains to be. I always feel that he is perhaps more important for what he represented than what he actually created. In can recognise some of the arguments presented by Bluesnik as being salient. Donald Ayler always seems to be the Achilles heel in the argument for his brother's work as there is something very primitive and unschooled about his playing. I can see the connection with earlier players like Bunk Johnson or Freddie Keppard yet I still feel these vintage players were superior. I find Albert more convincing as a soloist but , whilst I think the extended techniques and "field holler" elements of his work give the music a visceral edge, when you strip this aside I am finding Ayler to seem less and less radical.

I have been listening to Wayne Shorter's 1960s Blue Note records this week in my car and have been blown away at what a great composer and soloist he was then. The music seemed to push Hard Bop towards something more sophisticated and players in the groups he used such as Herbie Hancock were right at the vanguard of using harmony and expanding their improvisations which strike me as being far more radical and "outside" than anything Ayler produced. Yes, Ayler had a shock element to his playing but Shorter as his associates just strike me as being far more savvy. It is just much more intelligently thought out and the understanding of musical theory to allow the doors to be pushed out is there in abundance as opposed to really lacking in Ayler. For my money, Ayler is far more traditional and whilst valid as a musician, his music seems very much of it's time whereas players like Shorter or indeed Eric Dolphy strike me as bieng genuinely more radical. I can totally appreciate players such as Jimmy Heath taking a dim view of the Ayler's performance a Coltrane's funeral since he was part of a generation which had pushed the techique in jazz forward. Looking back from 2022, i would also have to say that the musicians who took their cues from Ayler now seem better equipped to take Ayler's message further. Whenever I hear more "radical" jazz artists now, whether it is William Parker, David Murray, Steve Coleman or James Brandon Lewis, I have to concede that much of their music is far superior to what Ayler produced. I just wonder if he too could have sustained a careeer post-1970s. I am not convinced that there was sufficient musicality in his playing to allow him to continue playing as he did in the 1960s. An Albert Ayler of the 1980s/ 90s would probably be even more mainstream than someone like Archie Shepp. It begs the question as to just how "avant garde" Free jazz was. What followed in the wake of players like Shepp, Ayler and Sanders has generaly been far more interesting and radical - as you might expect fwith the passage of 50-0dd years.

I always feel that Albert Ayler is a kind of "cleanser". He's good to listen to after a diet of the routine. Like you, I think he was at the end of the road, and the R&B stuff, like most of Shepp's fling with that area, is mediocre. David Ware is perhaps is perhaps someone who carried Ayler's core music on more interestingly. Agree about Shorter's Bluenotes, a remarkable body of work.

[Ian Thumwood]

David S Ware is a good shout too. I sometimes wonder just how the reputation of a lot of the Free Jazz of that era would have endured had both Coltrane and Ayler not died prematurely. In terms of the history of jazz, the "Second wave of Free jazz" or the "New Thing" was over in a flash being basically limited to the late 1960's. By 1970 Ayler was producing stuff like "New Grass" which was heavily tipped towards Motown. I think this is a fun record although I think it does show up Ayler's limitations. I have to admit that I am not a fan of Coltrane's "Ascension" even if I can appreciate that it was necessary. There are players like Ware who had embraced these ideas but had made something more of them and there is almost an aura of "authenticity" about these kinds of musicians who followed in the wake of Coltrane and Ayler that separates them from many of their contemporaries. It is not too much of a wild statement to argue that David S Ware produced a finer body of recorded work than Ayler without really acheiving the mythical status. The Free Jazz of the period from the 1980s onwards has been far more rewarding as a whole than what was recorded in the 1960s. It is as if the next generation of players really understood the significance of what was being pioneered and had the technique and ability to do something with it as opposed to the two chord vamps which seem to have served Pharoah Sanders so well over the years. (a player I like in small doses.) Musicians like Sanders and Shepp strike me as sounding far more "conservative" these days As far as Coltrane is concerned with reaching a "full stop," I feel that he would have continued to explore and expand musically but that he would ultimately have produced more contemplative music and maybe have been greater influenced by Indian music. I always imagine him rocking up on a label like a nascant ECM where his approach would have mixed Free Jazz with World Musics to produce something really profound. Ultimately, he would have had to move away from the New Thing stuff. I wonder how much he would have been nfluenced by wha was happening in Chicago too or perhaps produced music like Billy Bang's exceptional "Vietnam" records.

If you pick up SA's notion about jazz having to continually develop, it is pretty clear to my ears that the New Thing stuff was just a fad whereas the more interesting developments in the avant garde tend to involve composers with a broader concept such as Hentry Threadgill, Andrew Hill, Muhal Richard Abrams, etc. The compositional element of the avant garde has more to get your teeth into that the raw emotion of a player like Ayler whose visceral approach is of more immediate interest than those plaers that take a while to appreciate. I am not a fan but someone like Anthony Braxton strikes me as being far more "radical" than Ayler to whom I sometimes think it would be easier to draw comparisons a far earlier generation of saxophonists. From the point of view of his harmonic understanding, I think that Ayler was pretty traditional especially in comparison with players like Wayne Shorter who I personally find offered more challenging responses within his music.

[Serial_Apologist]

David S Ware is a good shout too. I sometimes wonder just how the reputation of a lot of the Free Jazz of that era would have endured had both Coltrane and Ayler not died prematurely. In terms of the history of jazz, the "Second wave of Free jazz" or the "New Thing" was over in a flash being basically limited to the late 1960's. By 1970 Ayler was producing stuff like "New Grass" which was heavily tipped towards Motown. I think this is a fun record although I think it does show up Ayler's limitations. I have to admit that I am not a fan of Coltrane's "Ascension" even if I can appreciate that it was necessary. There are players like Ware who had embraced these ideas but had made something more of them and there is almost an aura of "authenticity" about these kinds of musicians who followed in the wake of Coltrane and Ayler that separates them from many of their contemporaries. It is not too much of a wild statement to argue that David S Ware produced a finer body of recorded work than Ayler without really acheiving the mythical status. The Free Jazz of the period from the 1980s onwards has been far more rewarding as a whole than what was recorded in the 1960s. It is as if the next generation of players really understood the significance of what was being pioneered and had the technique and ability to do something with it as opposed to the two chord vamps which seem to have served Pharoah Sanders so well over the years. (a player I like in small doses.) Musicians like Sanders and Shepp strike me as sounding far more "conservative" these days As far as Coltrane is concerned with reaching a "full stop," I feel that he would have continued to explore and expand musically but that he would ultimately have produced more contemplative music and maybe have been greater influenced by Indian music. I always imagine him rocking up on a label like a nascant ECM where his approach would have mixed Free Jazz with World Musics to produce something really profound. Ultimately, he would have had to move away from the New Thing stuff. I wonder how much he would have been nfluenced by wha was happening in Chicago too or perhaps produced music like Billy Bang's exceptional "Vietnam" records.

If you pick up SA's notion about jazz having to continually develop, it is pretty clear to my ears that the New Thing stuff was just a fad whereas the more interesting developments in the avant garde tend to involve composers with a broader concept such as Hentry Threadgill, Andrew Hill, Muhal Richard Abrams, etc. The compositional element of the avant garde has more to get your teeth into that the raw emotion of a player like Ayler whose visceral approach is of more immediate interest than those plaers that take a while to appreciate. I am not a fan but someone like Anthony Braxton strikes me as being far more "radical" than Ayler to whom I sometimes think it would be easier to draw comparisons a far earlier generation of saxophonists. From the point of view of his harmonic understanding, I think that Ayler was pretty traditional especially in comparison with players like Wayne Shorter who I personally find offered more challenging responses within his music.

Ian, I disagree, of course!

First I don't agree that David S Ware was truly a radical carry-over of the spirit of Coltrane and Ayler. There is little that is genuinely challenging in his music that I have heard. It has always struck me as significant that Sonny Rollins championed Ware, given that Rollins's most radical era never took him as far into challenging received ideas as Trane or Ayler or they associates and acolytes. I think that Shepp's, Sanders' and Murray's turn to "the tradition" had more to do with the failure of the revolutionary spirit of the 60s to carry through politically - much as many Marxist intellectuals turned to academia in the 1980s: a way of re-grouping by tribute, acknowledgement, and re-assessing the relevance of roots and continuity beyond idiom per se.

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

I think that Shepp's "turn" had more, as he said, to do with playing "revolutionary black music" to a largely white club audience. Blacks looking elsewhere. And his own painful rediscovery of the black bebop tradition, which to his credit, he first fumbled badly, and then worked enormously hard to master. MUCH as I like his early Impulse dates.

And "Revolutionary" claims did a great deal to mask barely coherent playing and worth amongst the gullible. I give you Authur Doyle etc.

[Serial_Apologist]

I think that Shepp's "turn" had more, as he said, to do with playing "revolutionary black music" to a largely white club audience. Blacks looking elsewhere. And his own painful rediscovery of the black bebop tradition, which to his credit, he first fumbled badly, and then worked enormously hard to master. MUCH as I like his early Impulse dates.

And "Revolutionary" claims did a great deal to mask barely coherent playing and worth amongst the gullible. I give you Authur Doyle etc.

Hummm - potentially revolutionary situations always have their hangers-on - I well remember the SWP's crowing about successfully winning recruits from the National Front. There's difficulty separating the wheat from the chaff when it comes to judging new art that questions received wisdoms - especially in something like jazz which lives on immediacy in its making and reception. I'm still not convinced by people (not saying you) who diss Ayler as possessing no technique, on the grounds (a) that he was developing new techniques; (b) that these techniques (or something very like them) were being or were to be refined by successors Ian recognises - ie had it not been for Ayler (and goodness knows who else) these new techniques would never have come about; and (c) others, such as Gary Peacock, in other words people whose capability was beyond doubt, were willing to work with him, and in the process contribute to the re-shaping of themselves and the music more widely. That's my take, fwiw.

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

I still not sure what were the new techniques? A lot of what Ayler played came out of church tenor playing and the "distortions" of R&B/Jump tenor. His attempts to play straight bebop, the Copenhagen session with Remember April etc, are frankly embarrassing. I'm not saying he "couldn't play", but he certainly couldn't play *that*, despite the claims he was once "home town" capable of Parker emulation. As for Donald, it's play in a day stuff. Or, to be fair, a year.

The Ayler marching band clarion compositions are fine but ultimately limiting. As the "heads" of Coltrane's "Ascension" became, much as they work there specifically. If I never hear another 60/70s "free jazz" date with a lame horn fanfare, and then "off we go", I'll happy (ish).

Btw I DO like Ayler, I think now mostly for the disruptive value, and it's hugely refreshing if I've been listening to so many current players.

[Ian Thumwood]

I still not sure what were the new techniques? A lot of what Ayler played came out of church tenor playing and the "distortions" of R&B/Jump tenor. His attempts to play straight bebop, the Copenhagen session with Remember April etc, are frankly embarrassing. I'm not saying he "couldn't play", but he certainly couldn't play *that*, despite the claims he was once "home town" capable of Parker emulation. As for Donald, it's play in a day stuff. Or, to be fair, a year.

The Ayler marching band clarion compositions are fine but ultimately limiting. As the "heads" of Coltrane's "Ascension" became, much as they work there specifically. If I never hear another 60/70s "free jazz" date with a lame horn fanfare, and then "off we go", I'll happy (ish).

Btw I DO like Ayler, I think now mostly for the disruptive value, and it's hugely refreshing if I've been listening to so many current players.

I totally agree with your post, Bluesnik. This is exactly where I am coming from.

To pick up the point I made earlier, the thing that I find disconcerting about Ayler is with regard to what aspect it actually is about his playing that is radical. The "innovation" is effectively with timbre or to use SA's description "new techniques." At the end of the day, it is simply a question of the notes being played. If the music is not capable of demonstrating it' worth outside of extra-musical contexts, the question is how successful is the artist as a musician? The harmonic language used by Ayler can still be notated on the page and it is not especially "modern" in a way that musicians a diverse as Hancock, Shorter, Dolpgy, Roscoe Mitchell or Cecil Taylor could be described as "modern." From a rhythmic perspective, I don't hear Ayler as being that innovative either. There is still an element of R n.B honker meets Sonny Rollins about his playing for me. As a composer, by his own admission, ayler was reaching back to something primitive which had it's antecedents from a time before jazz or jass existed. If he has been an influence, I think it is because his vocabulary has been incorporated so deeply within the mainstream regardless of whether we are talking abo9ut David S Ware, David Murray, Joe Lovano , Branford Marsalis or even James Carter. The "techniques" Ayler employed have been taken on board by all of these players albeit I think they have become tools or devices as to slavishly impersonate Ayler would nowadays be totally pointless. To take fully on board the Ayler concept in 2022 would seem ridiculous. If you look at musical form, again Ayler is pretty basic and not on the same level as someone like Cecil Taylor or even Keith Jarrett. I like the cleansing element of his playing but as sceptical if a case can still be made for Ayler as being "avant garde." Even if you look at the "basics" of free improvisation, his improvisations lack both the logic and lyricism of Ornette Coleman . As Bluesnik argued, he was very much a musical "full stop."

The issue of technique keeps cropping up on this board I am not necessarily opposed to the notion of tehcnically gifted players from any generation being a cold and detached experience to listen to. It is like Ayler is the polar opposite to someone like Oscar Peterson who I admire as a pianist yet who totally lacks the emotional clout of Ayler. HOwever, I think that the problem with Ayler is that once you have sussed him, he is not quite so interesting. The same goes for a lot of the "new Thing"players of that generation and where they lacked the technique of musicians ploughing the same territory today, there music does not really stand up in comparison with what has followed in the intervening fifty years. You could add players like Donald Ayler and Guiseppe Logan to Arthur Doyle in the list of players who lacked technique. If the logic applies to the New Thing, by rights SA should be arguing for the validity of players like New Orleans clarinetist George Lewis. I think the same logic applies . The desire to be into something that can be deemed as "authentic" often masks the fact that a player mught be considered to be untutored or unsophisticated. The New Thing masked a lot of BS and I think this has often had a negative effect in preventing peoplee coming the music of genuinely brilliant musicians such as Roscoe Mitchell or Richar Muhal Abrams insofar that it has put a bridge between the music and certain kinds of jazz fans.

[Serial_Apologist]

Wouldn't the same charges apply against Ornette Coleman too? After all, a lot of what he played could not be "accounted for" in terms of actual pitches played or what underlying structure they were following.

[Ian Thumwood]

Wouldn't the same charges apply against Ornette Coleman too? After all, a lot of what he played could not be "accounted for" in terms of actual pitches played or what underlying structure they were following.

True, but I think that Ornette's improvised lines are why he was a genius. His improvised lines come in great, extruded lengths. You can still hear be-bop within his phrases and, perhaps more importantly, his lines always swung. The appeal for me of his playing is how be broke down form. His music was rooted in the blues and it was still possible to discern the Be-bop antecedents in his playing. I have always imagined Ornette's music as being like a Charlie Parker record that has melted so that the pitch is different and the length of phrases become eccentric. Again, I think Ornette has been totally absorbed in to the maintream albeit it has taken a while for this to happen. I would also suggest that if you can "get" traditional blues players like Charley Patton, it is not too great a leap to understand just how much the blues informed his playing. You could argue that Ornette was not always successful if you wanted to be curmudgeonly yet his ideas always struck me as having logic. It is interesting how many players from the 1950s as diverse as John Lewis and Art Pepper could appreciate that Ornette was essentially the key the opened the door to the full possibilities of be-bop. You can still sing an Ornette line just as you can a Parker one.

It is really strange to consider that Ornette Coleman's music was often seen as a precursor to the musicians who followed on in his wake in the 1960s but I think the New Thing in the second half of the sixties did open the way for a few charlatans. As I said previously, it was effectively a passing fad but it left some new tools to allow the next generation of players to express themselves. I struggle to see much connection between players like Ornette and Shepp / Sanders/Ayler and the former's concept was totally different. In fact, I would even go as far as saying that I think there is probably more in common between someone like Lee Konitz and Ornette in the way that the construction of the improvised line is so paramount to their music. It is totally different from Ayler's sound and fury.

I will lay the gauntlet down and suggest that the musicians who have been truly "progressive" since the generation of Albert Ayler have either had a compositional grounding or were technically advanced / better schooled to understand what made music "radical." I am not sure that a musician like Donald Ayler , for example, could have existed in any other period of jazz other than the 1960s. The same maybe true with Ornette's trumpet playing although there are records such as Jackie McLean's "New Gospel" where this concept ultimately does work. As I said previously, I see Ayler's music as a full stop in the development of jazz. I can appreciate it whilst always recognising it as a kind of musical cul-de-sac. In almost every instance, if you go through the while gamut of Free Jazz from the likes of AEoC, John Carter / Bobby Bradford, Arthur Blythe, Henry Threadgill, David S Ware, William Parker, Hamiet Blueitt, Cecil Taylor, John Berman, etc (just to rattle off the names of some of the musicians in my record collection), in every instance I think these musicians were working at far higher levels than a lot of the "big" names of the late 1960s. You could also add players like Joe McPhee to that list. As I have often said in here, the best jazz currently being produced to my ears either seems to be by more outside players or jazz composers. The "big ideas" in jazz in the 2020's seem to be more associated with composition as opposed to the heart on the sleeve stuff typified by Albert Ayler.

[Joseph K]

Wouldn't the same charges apply against Ornette Coleman too? After all, a lot of what he played could not be "accounted for" in terms of actual pitches played or what underlying structure they were following.

Indeed - but you'd be forgiven for thinking that this is what Ian meant, since while verbose his posts seem to lack semantic coherence - take these sentences for example -

To pick up the point I made earlier, the thing that I find disconcerting about Ayler is with regard to what aspect it actually is about his playing that is radical. The "innovation" is effectively with timbre or to use SA's description "new techniques." At the end of the day, it is simply a question of the notes being played. If the music is not capable of demonstrating it' worth outside of extra-musical contexts, the question is how successful is the artist as a musician? The harmonic language used by Ayler can still be notated on the page and it is not especially "modern" in a way that musicians a diverse as Hancock, Shorter, Dolpgy, Roscoe Mitchell or Cecil Taylor could be described as "modern." From a rhythmic perspective, I don't hear Ayler as being that innovative either.

Sentence 2 would appear to suggest it was the timbre of Ayler's playing that was innovative, which is then flat-out contradicted by sentence 3 asserting that it is simply a question of the notes being played, when, as everyone knows in relation to a particular instrument, timbre isn't what notes are played, but rather how they're played. Sentence 4 appears to suggest Ayler's music appeals to extra-musical sources for its justification - which is news to me. Sentence 5 is bizarre, as though a jazz musician's music should be judged by its purported notation! when, as everyone knows (again) many or most of jazz's most salient, most valuable qualities are not notate-able - I mean, whose harmonic language can't be notated? Talk about missing the point.

BN talks caustically about Ayler not being genuinely 'new'. I don't know enough to comment about that - but I do know that Ayler was quite an influence on Coltrane's late-era playing which is quite something... I'm currently listening to 'Spiritual Unity' and it does remind me of 'Interstellar Space' - maybe that's why Ian doesn't get it?

[Ian Thumwood]

joseph

I will clarify. The point I made is that is you take away the abrasive, extended techniques of Ayler's playing, the choice of notes is not as "sphisticated" as those chosen by a contemporary as Wayne Shorter who had a far greater command of musical theory than Ayler. If you are unaware of the politcal climate of the 1960s and listened to Ayler's music outside of that context, I feel the argument presented by SA is somewhat lost. There is a visceral element in the music which appeals but, by the same token, I am not convinced that Ayler had either the technique or the concept to be a truly great improvisor. Like John Cage, you could argue he was an inventor of genius. I would also clarify that I don't think that you need to be technically assured to be a great improvisor.

Personally, I find it is hard to argue for Ayler to be a great improvisor in the mould of Coltrane, Konitz, Coleman, Shorter, Hawkins, etc. (Take your pick.) Your comment about timbre corroborates my own statement, My point was that Ayler's use of timbre masked the issue with the actual notes he chose to play. As someone who is keen enough to transcribe the works of particular soloists, perhaps you could transcribe some of Ayler's work and see how his solos relate to the harmony of the music he is basing his solos on. The little Ayler I have in my collection is enjoyable enough but I always feel he bypassed the question of needing a solid grounding in and understanding of harmony which would have made his approach more interesting. As has been pointed out by SA, savvy players like Gary Peacock (and indeed Cecil Taylor) were quick to seek Ayler out to work with. Bluesnik does make the good point as to just how quickly this music became cliched.

The point about being an infliuence of Coltrane is true and not difficult to appreciate and understand. I would add that, even coming as someone who appreciates much of Coltrane's later work, Ayler had a fraction of the former's technique or indeed application. In some of his most "outside moments" (thinking of things like "Sunship") , Ayler is clearly not on the same plain as Coltrane. The comment in the article by Sonny Simmons ( another Free jazz musician I admire) suggests that Ayler was the only musician other than Eric Dolphy who really shook Coltrane up. It is an interesting observation as Dolphy is so different to Ayler and, I would argue, far more radical. If you like, Dolphy was simply a better musician. Listen to the live stuff with Booker Little and you can appreciate how original Dolphy was not only with his note choice but how he diced up the rhythm.

I would reiterate Ayler's value is that he added a new set of tools to the box. What he did needed to happen to the music at the time and was a logical conclusion to where things were going. My point is that there is much better Free Jazz and / or avant garde music elsewhere - this includes going beyond John Coltrane.

I just wonder if you ever got beyond listening to the broader spectrum in jazz and listened to some of the music by the names I had listed to understand that the last works of Coltrane and the better repertoire of Albert Ayler. There is a really good book by Graham Lock that was based on a lengthy interview with Lee Konitz that gets to the nub of what improvisation is about better than most other books I have read. It really opened my ears to improvisation and it is when you start to look at the mechanics of the music and how it actually works, you can discern what is BS. As I said previously, I just feel we have been at a point for a good number of years where other musicians have taken up the baton with what happened in the late 1960s and taken the music to a fuller potential. If all you listen to is Coltrane, Davis and Allan Holdsworth, it probably makes it diffiullt for you to comment sensibly. Check out Ayler and some of the other musicians mentioned on this thread and then post something that has credibility.