Jazz for aficionados
Great post, Chazro; I agree with every word that you wrote. I especially like your last sentence; that is precisely the reason why I make a point of striving for clarity in the discussions. I also agree that describing fusion as simply a combination of jazz and rock is an oversimplification; unfortunately, for the sake being able to have any kind of reasonable discussion on this thread, simplification is precisely what is needed. My comment re what fusion is, and in the context of the discussion that was taking place at the time, was something like: "let's define it as a combination of jazz and rock, which is AS MOST PEOPLE KNOW IT". I believe that is an accurate, if unfortunate, fact. Michael Brecker was a giant as the various clips posted show, while not even scratching the surface of his greatness. A great loss when he passed recently. Please continue to post. |
****Until Cannonball takes the third solo on that album, it was, in my opinion, just another studio recording by guys who came to work that day to make a buck. Adderley showed them the way....**** Wow! That's the kind of bold comment that makes for an interesting thread. Welcome to the thread Oregonpapa. But, disagree with your comment; or, at least, in degree. I love Cannonball and that third solo is a great solo. But, Miles and Trane sounding like they are just there to make a buck? Yikes! First of all, Miles undoubtedly picked Trane and Cannonball because of their contrasting styles; so, from that standpoint, it's a bit of an apples and oranges situation. Moreover, I think a case can be made for Cannonball's style being somewhat ill suited for that record. To my ears, Cannonball's more traditional bebop style and overall exuberant and almost "perky" style is less suited to the very introspective and laid back vibe of that modal tune. But a great solo nonetheless. Again, welcome. |
"There was a time, 40 yrs ago or more, when the music had an edge. It was possessed by a renegade spirit. There was an element of danger in it. It was taking risks, crossing boundaries, making discoveries. The musicians themselves didn't have a name for this hybrid sound. They just played with the prevailing attitude of "let's do something different". It was Cream meets Coltrane. It was Jimi jamming with Miles, jazzers discovering the power of Rock, rockers capturing spirit of jazz. It was called Fusion." - Bill Milkowski, from the liner notes of a record called 'Chroma - Music On The Edge' (an amazing Fusion recording from the 90's featuring R Brecker, D Chambers, B Berg, M Egan, M Stern, and others). It's an oversimplification to define Fusion simply as the combining of Jazz & Rock. Let's look at the 4 greatest Fusion bands; Mahavishnu Orchestra, Weather Report, Return To Forever, & The Headhunters. The one thing they have in common is Jazz chops mixed with Rock volume/dynamics. Mahavishnu and RTF both brought a heavy dose of Classical structure and voicings. RTF also brought a Spain/Spanish/Brazilian influence (the 1st RTF band practically invented the electro/Brazilian/Jazz genre!). Zawinul and Weather Report had this European/other worldly international sound, and of course, Hancock's Headhunters brought the Funk! I've always felt that a prerequisite for a successful Fusion band is that there be at least a few virtuoso gun-slingers in the band! If I were to add the bio's of the musicians in these bands you'd see an amazing degree of variety in their overall experiences and skillsets. When you FUSE all the info and influences together you start to have a rudimentary understanding in the roots of true Fusion. In great Fusion you can hear Jazz, Rock, Classical, Funk, Latin, Brazilian, European, virtuosity, spirituality, and very importantly, a sense of fun! You guys remember having fun listening to music? The visceral joy you'd feel at a Hendrixian power chord? Rockin' out!? I'm 61 yrs old and I still enjoy rockin' out. It never ceases to amaze me when I meet with friends from my youth who USED to be avid music-lovers who have somehow lost it as they got older, or their musical tastes have softened to the point that they think 'rockin' out' is somehow immature or childish. Not this old timer! Anyhow, just thought I'd throw this Fusion tidbit out there, there's SO much more I could add. Lastly, any attempt to categorize Michael Brecker as just a 'Fusion' player couldn't be more incorrect. Anyone that thinks this is simply revealing how little they truly know. My concern is that perhaps someone that ISN"T familiar with the subject matter will read some things on this thread and believe them to be fact when they couldn't be more wrong! |
During the 80's I just collected good sounding music, that was classified as jazz although it didn't fit the classical definition of jazz; meaning to sound similar to the jazz of the 50's and 60's, but it was original. After that, the latest music out called "jazz" took on a similarity that was too much for me to take; it forsook all originality in order to be "jazz". It wasn't till quite recently, meaning since I started this thread that I began going back in time. Unlike Frogman and Acman, I absolutely do not like current music that sounds like 50's and 60's jazz; it sounds like someone trying to imitate the music of that era. Now, thanks to "you tube", I can go back in time and still get music that I've never heard before; that's because the giants of that era recorded so much more music besides what was most popular at that time. Although soon I will have all of the music recorded by the giants of that era, I won't run out because jazz is popular all around the globe; consequently it will be Burmese jazz, or Japanese jazz, but it'll still be new. Frogman, and some others seem to think or feel that musicians who go to the best schools, and progress to the point where they have developed the highest skill level on their chosen instrument, can exceed the jazz made by the giants of the 50's and 60's; but I don't believe they can. While that seems illogical, music is not a science with a mathematical preciseness, it's a lot more subjective than objective; for example, I say no one communicated abstract emotions through their music better than "Bobby Timmons", and this is what jazz is about; "communicating abstract emotions". Of course it's about a lot more than that, but that's at the top. Frogman says there is such a thing as "objective reality" involved in jazz, and I disagree, but if he and others that think like him could give an example of "objective reality" in regard to jazz, I could be persuaded to change. Enjoy the music. |
Lighthouse Allstars. Back in 1955 & 1956 when I was in high school, a buddy of mine and I used to go to the Lighthouse jazz club in Hermosa Beach (California) a couple of nights a week to hear Howard Rumsey's Lighthouse Allstars. Rumsey on bass, Conti Candoli on trumpet, Bob Cooper on tenor, Bud Shank on alto, Claude Williamson on piano and Stan Levy on drums. I have all of their album and they are among my favorites. West Coast jazz at its very best. Cal Tjader is another favorite of mine. Personally, I think he was the best of the vibes players. I have a lot of Tjader's albums. Cannonball Adderley. Adderley always played with such inspiration. He literally makes the Miles Davis "Kind of Blue" album come alive. Until Cannonball takes the third solo on that album, it was, in my opinion, just another studio recording by guys who came to work that day to make a buck. Adderley showed them the way ... and as a result, this has become one of the best selling jazz album of all time, right up there with Bruebeck's "Time Out." Any Harold Land fans in here?? |
Billy Bang was a "Nam vet" who never freed himself of the demons left by that war. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVJMOpIHBgc |
Acman3, great stuff! You're right, Mike Stern kills on that clip. I love his playing. One of the few fusion players who doesn't sanitize his tone too much and keeps some rock&roll rawness and attitude; combined with the improvisational sophistication of a jazz player. Had never heard Michael Urbaniak playing electronic wind instrument; didn't even know he did and knew him only as an electric violinist. Thanks. Michael Brecker on electronic wind instrument with Mike Stern (1987): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=opOUa1KcvBw |
O-10, I remember the 80's well; a lot of great music from that decade. I have always liked the Yellowjackets. I particularly like their work since the great Bob Mintzer replaced Mark Russo. Bob is one of the most talented individuals on the scene today; fantastic saxophone/multi reed player and composer/arranger who leads his own big band. I am still curious as to what you consider the music of Steps Ahead to be, if not fusion? What would you call the music of the Yellowjackets; also considered a fusion group? Here's an interesting comparison which points to the great influence that Steps Ahead had on the fusion scene. Here's your clip of the Yellow Jackets (with Mintzer) and recorded in 1987: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aiVk-SDy8cA 2 1/2 years earlier (1984) Steps Ahead had recorded this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sF9kW-8NPqs A little influence; maybe? :-) |
We missed Charlie Haden and Carla Bley during the earlier periods so here is a Great 80's album. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHEAXcfddfg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkaB48XoA6c |
In case you don't remember the 80's, I'll give you a few names to get things started. George Adams was a passionate voice in Charles Mingus last band 1973 - 76. He can be heard on "Live At The Village Vanguard", tenor sax and flute. Some of the names from the 80's are: Steve Coleman, alto sax; Paquito D' Rivera, sax and clarinet; Stanley Jordan, guitar; Bobby McFerrin, vocalist; David Sanborn, alto sax; John Scofield, guitar, and the Yellowjackets, an instrumental group. Here's one that caught my ear by the "Yellowjackets". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiVk-SDy8cA These are just some names to help you get started, I'm sure you have favorites that you wish to add. Enjoy the music |
O-10, no need for con-fusion; while a marriage of any two styles can be called a fusion, its probably wise to keep the term to mean jazz-rock fusion which is as most understand it. Frogman, I'm now confused more than ever? We can skip what Rok said, nothing I heard fits your definition of fusion. Enjoy the music. |
Huh? Why not? Please explain. My post was meant to highlight the band not just Brecker, and Steps Ahead was most certainly a fusion band. While I don't consider Wiki to be be definitive, look at their description of the band. More importantly, their music most definitely has strong rock, as well as jazz, elements. What, then, do you consider their music to be? Brecker, as well as being a fantastic straight ahead jazz player is considered the greatest of the fusion tenor players. Most importantly, I am very interested in why you don't consider Brecker a fusion player; after all Rok said he was and nothing more :-) |
1980: (if this doesn't "fit the definition", then I don't know what does) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CGRQ6LtbBZk 1983: (why "fusion" doesn't have to be a dirty word) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PN8SAAMG8_o |
O-10, it's really much simpler than that and it doesn't have to be personalized at all. It's not about WHO'S reality wins; it's not a contest. There may be some disagreement in some quarters, but when the vast majority of astute (or, at least, experienced) listeners agree on something, then I would say that constitues a "reality". At that point, the dissenting voice has two choices: 1. Disregard the consensus, or 2. Consider the possibility that there might be something to learn; that one is not seeing (hearing) all that there is to see. Personally, I think that 2. is an infinitely better option. Anyway, we will simply have to agree to disagree on this. Great clips. I have always liked Metheny's music. He is a wonderful musician. |
I think fusion is where jazz lost it's definition. Before the 70's, when someone said "jazz", you knew what they were talking about, but after then, it could mean almost anything. Presently, the music that fits the jazz definition sounds like an imitation of the jazz of the 50's and 60's; something I'm not especially turned on by. Pat Metheney caught my ear after the 70's; his music was new, fresh, and kind of abstract, I liked it. Whether or not it was jazz, I couldn't care less; others can argue that point. "As Falls Wichita, So Falls Wichita Falls" was probably the first album I bought, this is quite abstract; in spots it's flat and dull, like the Missouri plains but for the most part it's interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwfVarzG1js "Offramp" was another album that caught my attention. "Are You Going With Me" and "Au lait" were two of my favorite cuts on this album. I don't know what you would call the dreamy and abstract "Au Lait", but I like it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh8bpl5KCPg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b0CHysDsjw Enjoy the music. |
Frogman, even when you say "objective reality", whose objective reality are we referring to, and who is to be the final judge in regard to this reality. It's only in mathematics can we have one objective reality. There is no stranger reality than the one in which we live every day. I prefer the total unreality of the 60's when we didn't have to face reality. Unfortunately time is a reality that's totally inescapable, and it's finally caught up to many people including yours truly; but I'll still savor these final moments by enjoying good music, speaking of which, I think it's time to go into the 80's. Enjoy the music. |
Check out the boogie babys, they can get down; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgXPl3XM_NA Enjoy the music. |
Good story O-10, and I particularly like your last sentence. As I have said before, for me to participate in a discussion there has to be clarity. I believe it was I that used the term "the reality", so I will respond to your comment about that. I believe that there is something that is closer to an objective reality than your comments suggest. Of course, this is highly influenced by our subjective reality, as your comments point out. This is the point at which intellect comes in and has to deal and exist with emotion as Schubert correctly pointed out. Case in point: sure, each blind man describes the elephant differently, but even the blind man should never lose sight of the reality that a sighted man may know what the elephant looks like and not be so quick to dismiss that viewpoint. But that is not really the issue here. You are correct, there has to be room for others' reality and that's where respect comes in. The real problem is when either the blind or sighted man describes the elephant with the tenor and attitude of: "you stupid fool, THIS is what it looks like and any other idea is bs. Moreover, I will go away until you silly people understand the TRUTH". To have to deal with that is not reasonable, IMO. |
Frogman, I'm quite familiar with the "Mahavishnu Orchestra" containing the dynamic duo of John McLaughlin and Jean Luc Ponty. "Emerald Green Beyond" is one of my favorites by them. Here's "Lila's Dance"; https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=lila%27s+dance How about "Can't Stand Your Funk"; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VsyW7ywXaU Billy Cobham, was an ideal drummer for fusion, as displayed on these albums. This is the kind of fusion people think of when you mention the 70's. Enjoy the music. |
We began to form our musical tastes from the time when we were jumping up and down in our baby crib after hearing our favorite music; some of us even did the "Baby Boogie". Later on in high school and college our musical tastes became more defined. What years we went are very important. My musical foundation in jazz was laid in the summer of 56 at my cousin's apartment in Chicago. I'm sure everyone has heard the story about the blind men and the elephant; the one who felt the legs said the elephant was like a pillar, the one who felt the tail said the elephant was like a rope, the one who felt the trunk said the elephant was like a tree trunk. When it comes to music we are similar to those blind men, and we believe our perception of reality is "The Reality", when it's only our perception of reality. Once you realize all of this, you understand how we all can be so different; the problem lies in not allowing room for the other man's perception. Enjoy the music. |
O-10, no discussion of 70s fusion would be complete without a look (listen) at two of the fusion bands which leaned more to the rock side of things (although I would imagine not to the side of Rok): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XU4yAk6qYUs https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=32QDL63rmgw The great jazz drummer, and Mahavishnu Orch. member, Billy Cobham would go on to record this fusion record which was the first time I heard the incredible Michael Brecker; perhaps the greatest saxophone virtuouso to ever live (really!) and who would become the voice of fusion saxophone. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l-b_h8i9eWU |
O-10, I always appreciate your attempts to bring calm to the proceedings here. You are correct, we do know that Rok's gotta be Rok; same as everyone. I would say that Rok insists on being Rok with little interest in filtering his comments; comments which are, at worst, sarcastic, provocative and disrespectful of those he addresses or their message; and sometimes completely out of touch with the reality of the subject we try to discuss. Case in point, and I use a personal example only because it's recent: To suggest that Michael Brecker, a player that just about every current significant musician and critic considers to have been if not the, then certainly one of the most influential jazz saxophonists since John Coltrane, has contributed no more to jazz than a classical trumpet player is so ridiculous that it transcends being an expression of personal taste and should be considered nothing more than provocative rabble rousing. We all post on the thread because we feel passionate about this music . There is clearly room for different opinions and viewpoints, but I don't think that anyone should have to endure the kind of sniping that he routinely does without reacting. The net effect of Rok "being Rok" is the derailment of the discussion into "the mud" and the inevitable return to the Blue Note, Wynton, or Proms clips. As one of our contributors pointed out a while back it ends up feeling like a kind of bullying and return to "the Rok show". It's really a shame because of Rok's obvious and undeniable passion for ONE slice of the total pie. The pattern is as obvious as it is in the audio side of things: why participate in an audio forum if one is going to be so anti-audiophile and derisive towards the interests of others? The same can be said here. Although I certainly would prefer not to, I can deal with occasional rolling in the mud with Rok; it doesn't change the facts. But obviously not everyone can or is willing to deal with the mud and its a shame that the thread loses interesting participants as a result. As I have done many times before, I would encourage Rok to reconsider his stance and his attitude. I know you're out there, Rok. |
Chazro, I Went back over the postings to see if you ever posted anything unrelated to your love affair with Rok, and I was pleasantly surprised to see that you made some worth while contributions. "Birds got to fly, fish got to swim"; by now, everyone should know that Rok's got be Rok's. I'm not saying that is good or bad; I'm saying this is the "jazz show", and not the "Rok show", but it's being turned into "The Rok Show". When two guys are rolling in the mud, it's hard to tell the good guy from the bad guy. Enjoy the music. |
The brilliance of Michael Brecker: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m5l1OTkNGFk https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_3zJftxoSnk and yes, fusion; with one of the greatest fusion bands ever: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PN8SAAMG8_o This one's for O-10: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xm5rvlmEskI |
Chico Hamilton has long been one of my favorite musicians; always changing and forever creative. I was curious to see how fusion affected him. "Perigrinations" is an album he did in 75; as usual, his music soothed this savage beast. It was good to see that another one of my old standby musicians stayed in the groove while other trollys jumped the tracks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWB9ZN1lFLU&index=1&list=PLLC1ieH9IXOIXriuKjaPY_AI8v99Qfg5g Here's "Abdullah And Abraham", can't you just see em riding them camels across the dunes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL5wW5gqceE&list=PLLC1ieH9IXOIXriuKjaPY_AI8v99Qfg5g&index=6 Enjoy the music. |
**** we can stay in this decade as long as you like, or leave anytime you get ready.***** Wow!! You Folks ready to move on so soon? I thought we would be talking about this wonderful and interesting music for months!! I'll see you guys when you complete the loop. I'm brushing up on Jelly Roll as we speak. Cheers |
*****I heard the incredible Michael Brecker; perhaps the greatest saxophone virtuouso to ever live (really!) and who would become the voice of fusion saxophone.***** He could have been. I would go so far as to say, he is Fusion!! His contributions to Jazz, are exceeded only by those of the Trumpet Virtuouso, Maurice Andre. Cheers |
O-10, no discussion of 70s fusion would be complete without a look (listen) at two of the fusion bands which leaned more to the rock side of things (although I would imagine not to the side of Rok): https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=XU4yAk6qYUs https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=32QDL63rmgw The great jazz drummer, and Mahavishnu Orch. member, Billy Cobham would go on to record this fusion record which was the first time I heard the incredible Michael Brecker; perhaps the greatest saxophone virtuouso to ever live (really!) and who would become the voice of fusion saxophone. https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=l-b_h8i9eWU |
Yeah, very weird. New IPad arrives in a day or so; don't like the Kindle at all, it does strange things. I did find (think) that if one copy/paste the URL link into a new search it usually works. "Have you gone digital?" Horrors!!! No. Well, only when I have no choice for a recording I really want or need. I am using either a Shelter 901 or Acutex 420 STR, or Empire 4000D III, or Vandenhul, or.....what are you using? |
From one of my very favorite fusion records of the 70s: https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=rbynfCYDfuI&list=PL6uybVkHc-ES46u4tFtERWZKa9E_LZbv5 |
Acman3, you are still on a roll; some great stuff posted; thanks. The Gary Burton clip is as much of a contrast with the Elvin Jones clip as is possible. One very intellectual and, as you said, more out there; the other (Jones) earthy and visceral. BTW, as I am sure you know, that was the same band as on the "Live At The Lighthouse" clip I posted a couple of days ago. Keep em coming. |
O-10, no need for con-fusion; while a marriage of any two styles can be called a fusion, its probably wise to keep the term to mean jazz-rock fusion which is as most understand it. There is little by Horace Silver that I don't like. BTW, the tenor player on that cut is the "some guy" that some guy said some of us "went gaga over" a few posts ago. Loved the Hutcherson clip, thanks. |
