Jazz for aficionados

WIKI:      

Do people actually like free jazz?

While it's true that free jazz can be both sonically and intellectually challenging, it can also be stimulating. And believe it or not, it's actually possible to enjoy it (rather than endure it).

What does SONICALLY AND INTELLECTUALLY CHALLENGING mean?  And why would anyone want to listen to that type of "music"?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Cheers

Much to say about the topic, when time allows. But, for starters:  “freer”, in the context of the music of the SGQ,  does not mean “free jazz”.  

Alex, you may have read my unedited post, but I edited since I did not want to be presumptuous.  I am not the least bit surprised that you like Coleman’s tone better than Shorter’s.  

Frogman, no need to explain yourself, I fully understand your point. (and I would dare to say, even perspective in which Miles headed in that period of time) I have not respond on your previous, longer, post about second quintet, because we have spoken about that subject in the past. I might add, jokingly, that I have expected more of myself, because, since than obviously I have not made much progress listening wise and I still prefer more 'accessible' music aldo I appreciate what the artist (Miles in this case) wanted 'to say'...but, it (still) seems that 'beauty' of the tone more affects my affinity towards some music... 

Interesting discussion. Although KOB is often referred to as the beginning of modal Jazz and held up as an example of improvisation that is less tied to chord changes; more "free floating", if you will, it still strikes me as more structured, less amorphous, than than the recordings by the Second Great Quintet -- especially those that feature their original compositions. As in visual art or poetry, there’s a spectrum that covers a graduated span between the explicit/representational to the implicit/abstract. Each of us will, given sufficient exposure, discover what feels most stimulating/natural along the spectrum. As I’ve aged, my tolerance for atonality, absence of evident structure and more abrasive timbres has noticeably diminished (no pun intended). ;o)

Good comment, @stuartk .

But, I think there may be some misunderstanding about modal Jazz. While it is true that the artistic impetus for modal Jazz was to allow Jazz players to “be less tied to chord changes”, as you point out, the players were “less tied to chord changes” as concerns the sheer number of different chord changes in a given composition. While a typical “standard” tune may have a different chord change in every measure of the tune, and sometimes even two or more in a single measure, in modal Jazz the chord changes happen much less frequently; typically every four or even eight (or more) measures. In some “modal” compositions there are no chord chord changes at all. The tune stays on one harmony for its entirety. Staying on one chord for an extended period of time the player is given the freedom to explore that harmony far longer than in a typical tune in which the frequent chord changes serves to “guide”, even force, the player to move in a certain harmonic direction while improvising. I think that this serves to give a feeling of “structure” due to its relative harmonic“simplicity”.