Jazz for aficionados

Who are you talking to Rok? Me or Acman3? And what question are you talking about? You may not like it but we are talking about more than fusion. If thats too much to handle , you know where you can go. Both Liebman and Brecker have been posted; more to come. Nothing unique about Woody Shaw' s style? Or 70s Henderson? And much of what Acman3 has posted? Get out of your shell.

Acman3:

I give up. No Mas ! I didn't realize there was that much noise in the world. Lets go back to Tibetan Funk. Anything!!!

Cheers

That's ok, I hear my mother calling anyway, I was fun playing with y'all today.

Time to grab the bull by the horns here. Acman3 did a heroic job of posting music of a wide range of styles. Personally, I think that's the best direction. My idea is to outline the music's evolution from flirtation with fusion to full-fledged fusion as well as other styles of the decade combined with explanations and descriptions (by all contributors). I would defer to O-10 as to what direction, exactly, should be followed. Until we hear from him that is the direction I plan on taking. Rok, why don't you enlighten us with specifics ("in detail") as to what it is about the music of this era that is so lacking. Not just "it's better or worse" "body of work", "noise" etc; but specifics. You are the only contributor so far that has shot down practically everything posted, so what is it "in detail" that is superior about other eras, and so lacking in some of what has been posted so far . Also, what is fusion TO YOU? Enlighten us, please.

The Frogman:

**** so what is it "in detail" that is superior about other eras, and so lacking in some of what has been posted so far . ****

As does Acman3, I will let my clips do my talking. If you can't hear a real difference, then I will accept that there is something wrong with me.

Charlie Parker -- Donna Lee
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02apSoxB7B4

Jaco Pastorius -- Donna Lee
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4rfe5xHCIg

Your comments are welcomed.

Cheers

Cheers

https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=cw8wu3lmxq8

More to follow.

hahahhah guess that's a big, "I can't bring myself to tell the truth".

Cheers

Need input from Aficionados.

John Coltrane -- Giant Steps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30FTr6G53VU

Michael Brecker -- Giant Steps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhkb-_SEtxQ

Cheers

These guys try to copy Coltrane note for note. All in vain.

John Coltrane -- Impressions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03juO5oS2gg

Liebman, Brecker & Lovano -- Impressions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2trXF_ba0k

Cheers

Rok, do you even know what it means to "copy note for note"? Obviously not. You have no idea what you are talking about because they clearly are not. I dont enjoy calling you out on on this stuff, but frankly you come across as a jerk with comments pretending to be substantive. I know, I know, but comes a time when things need to be said. What is the point of your ridiculous comparisons? Look, are you interested in learning about this stuff, this decade and its music and players or not? Did you listen to the McCoy/Brecker, or to the recordings in the article that you yourself posted? You are so predisposed to believing that nothing besides what you like is of value that you lose sight of what the thrust of the discussion is. Notice that no one else is, likewise, saying that their favorite music is the only one of value. It's simply too difficult to deal with your idiotic an sophomoric stances. So, tell you what, you're right, we are all idiots. There. If you change your mind and decide that you want to move beyond your very narrow sphere of understanding, let me know. As I pointed out before and to paraphrase Acman3, it's those that pretend to want to save it that end up destroying it.

Cheers (I think)

The point of my 'ridiculous' comparisons is to highlight and demonstrate the differences between Traditional Jazz Players, and the so-called 'Fusion' crowd. Playing the same music, so as to easier ID the differences, if any.

I noticed you didn't comment of any of them. Which is your modus operandi, when your position is untendable. Then of course, comes the name calling. But you still didn't comment.

This has nothing to do with my favorite music. It has to do with the insistent effort on this thread to equate all this "Fusion" nonsense, with Jazz.

I was giving everyone an easy oppourtunity to hear for themselves. To make their own judgements. If you think the Parker and Pastorious performances were about equal, or Pastorious' was better, then say so.

*****So, tell you what, you're right, we are all idiots.*****

Well, I would not say ALL, are idiots.. Because Acman3 and the OP have not weighed in yet.

BTW, the 'thrust' of this discussion is 'Fusion', and the people who play it. And how it is not real Jazz. And since the 70's was full of this stuff, it's right on topic. I also noticed you declined to give your definition of 'Fusion'.

Cheers

Acman, I enjoyed all of your posts, even the ones I didn't understand; like Cecil Taylor.

Maybe I'm wrong, but Rok seemed to want to know what artists made the 70's so different, and that would include all artists associated with fusion and there was every kind of Fusion under the sun.

Frogman, since Acman is doing such a good job "instinctively", I suggest he continue on the same way. I'm going to go through that decade the same way I went through it in life at that time; since I was bored with "classic jazz", I welcomed fusion, and I went all over the place, that's the way I'm going to proceed.

Frogman, the direction you're going to take according to your last post sounds good to me.

Enjoy the music.

Frogman, your view to music is academic, the things you think, others (Rok) just might not FEEL. Its quite simple actually. I dont know why do you continue arguing. Regarding the subject of your discussion, personally I have not acquired the taste for music of that (70's) era, but that is a matter of my personal estethics on music, like it is with any other art form. It is completely understandable that we all have a different perspective on such things.

My hit of the day, Bobby Jaspar, Herbie Mann, Tommy Flanagan and Joe Puma on 'Flute Souffle' album.

http://youtu.be/otengS4cE3Q

O-10, thanks for weighing in and for bringing some calm to the proceedings.

Alexatpos, my view of music is far from academic; I beg to differ with your assessment. Much is said and done about keeping music in the realm of "can I FEEL it?" If that is as far as the listener's sensibilities go, that is a very simplistic and musically immature attitude and criterion for judging music; if judging must be done (Rok). Some music challenges the listener with sounds and "feelings" that he has never experienced before, and if the listener is willing to not be quick to dismiss it because he does not understand it, then the listener has an opportunity to grow; it's that simple. You are new to this thread and may not be aware of the fact that this "argument" has been a recurring theme on this thread. Question: I suggest there is good music of every decade and style, yes, including fusion. Now, Rok comes along, as he often does, and insists that it is simply noise, they are noise makers etc, that there is nothing good about the genre "fusion". Multiple attempts are made, with examples of worthy music, to show the other side of the coin. He insists it is noise (There was even a time when Rok insisted, probably still would, that Igor Stravinsky composed nothing but noise !?) So, tell me, just who is it that "continues to argue"?

As I said before, if I am going to participate here, I need clarity. As far as I am concerned there is no room for personal agendas. If it is also a personal agenda to insist on pointing out the obvious, that jazz is an ever evolving art form and that there is ALWAYS (every era) good music, different perhaps, and that all art is like a living thing: it reflects the human spirit in whatever era that spirit exists, then I suppose I am guilty of having a personal agenda as well. Additionally, it is not the responsibility of the art and artist only to make sure that the listener can understand or appreciate it (to like it is an entirely different matter), the listener has an opportunity (some would say responsibility) to grow during the process of learning to understand it IF HE SO CHOOSES; an important "if". But if the listener doesn't want to, or finds it too difficult, that does not give him the credibility to call it noise.

I hope that wasn't too "academic" for you.

Regards.

There is no truth on the human level without a marriage of emotion and intellect.

Alex and O-10, Thanks for the input:

Well, I'll go first: Got this from Wiki. They mention "Jazz Approach" and "Jazz Elements". They never call it Jazz.

Jazz fusion is a musical fusion genre that developed from "mixing funk and rhythm and blues rhythms and the amplification and electronic effects of rock music, complex time signatures derived from non-Western music and extended, typically instrumental compositions with a jazz approach to lengthy group improvisations, often using wind and brass and displaying a high level of instrumental technique. It was created around the late 1960s. The term "jazz-rock" is often used as a synonym for "jazz fusion" as well as for music performed by late 1960s and 1970s-era rock bands that added jazz elements to their music". -- wiki

My personal opinion is, it was just an invention to give the "hip" folks of the 70's something to embrace. Those that considered themselves too "Hip" for Rock and their unwashed moronic fans. Then some of the Jazz guys followed the money. It is what it is. I listened to it, bought it, thought it was Jazz. All before I knew better.

Cheers

Alex, I liked your clip of Herbie Mann. I saw him in Chicago in 69, he was dressed immaculately; had on a tan continental suit, light brown highly polished boots, and his performance matched his appearance.

Nina Simone and Miles were on that same billing. Herbie was first, followed by Nina Simone, and Miles was last. Nina was everything and more than you could imagine her to be. Miles was last and late. Every body was talking about Miles new music, when at last "Here they come".

Miles was dressed in a buckskin suede vest with the long fringes hanging down, I don't remember what else he had on; he could have been naked, and I still would not have seen anything but the buckskin vest; "Jokes over, funny Ha Ha, now somebody go and fetch the real Miles".

Enjoy the music.

"my view of music is far from academic;"

I would say it is more than that but has a larger than average academic portion that is quite "sound" in of itself.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.... :^)

All the Jazz Greats did not drop dead on December 31st 1969.

We should not forget that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJaD09M5Iko&index=8&list=PLAC85D311E5B23FE6

cheers

Rok, now that O-10 has weighed in and, as you like to say, restored order, I feel better about moving forward. So, the discussion will be (wether you like it or not) about more than just "fusion"; whatever that is. Further, it should be pointed out that by "whatever that is" I simply mean to suggest the futility and pointlessness of trying to put a strict label on music of this era (any era really). That is something that I truly do hope you learn to appreciate as you grow as a listener; that labels are, more than anything, a hindrance. Your rigid definition of the music is certainly a hindrance to having a dialogue. The other aspect of the difficulty of having a dialogue with you is of a more personal nature and has been discussed before: you refuse to understand that there is no difference between telling someone who is saying: "hey, check this out, this is interesting music" that the music is just noise or by noise makers, and calling him a jerk. But, hey, as I have said before, shrink is above my paygrade.

So, more than fusion will be discussed, and since that has been settled I feel free to humor you and address your questions and comments re "fusion".

What is "fusion"? Well, to my way of thinking the answer could not be more obvious; but, hey, let's state the obvious anyway, for Rok's sake. "Fusion" is a fusion, a marriage, of two or more styles of music. As I said, that should be obvious; and, as O-10 correctly pointed out, that fusion can be of a wide variety of styles. However, part of the con-fusion is due to the fact that while "fusion" is a generic term, it has come to mean, in the mind of most listeners and because of industry labeling, a fusion of jazz and rock. Sticking point: as with any art, music and the fusion of various styles can, and usually does, happen slowly. A jazz artist might release an album that has subtle elements of rock that may not be obvious, and this is simply an indication of the evolving nature of his music. The before-mentioned Joe Henderson is a good example of this. So, what are the obvious signs that a jazz artist is fusing rock into his jazz background, or that a rock artist is bringing jazz into his "recipe":

The most obvious almost doesn't need to be mentioned. Jazz-rock fusion almost always uses electric instruments in the rhythm section; as rock does. A key aspect of the playing style has to do with with rhythm; rock "swings" in a different way than jazz does. Tap your foot to a rhythm, any tempo; those are downbeats, usually (but not always) four to a measure. Now, think about the obvious relationship between music and math. Each one of those "beats" can be, and is, divided in time into portions of the amount of time that it takes to go from one beat to the next; subdivisions. The most important and obvious subdivision is what is generally called the "upbeat". The upbeat in rock is often the subdivision exactly halfway between any two downbeats. Again, tap your foot: 1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4 etc. Now think about a high-hat cymbal on the upbeat exactly half way between the beats; that's your most basic rock beat. In jazz that upbeat is not placed half way between; instead it is placed closer to the following beat. This is what gives jazz that "swing" feel. Think: TAT...taTA, TAT...taTA, TAT...taTA. Difficult to put into words, but hopefully you get the point. That's some of the "academic" stuff, I hope it's of some value to someone, and I assure all its just scratching the surface.

Now, there is a truism in art that says that what most determines what is good and not so good is how well the art reflects the time of its birth; wether we like what it says about the time is a different matter. That is at the core of the pointlessness of a comparison between Bird playing Donna Lee and a bunch of "fusion guys" playing Donna Lee; proves nothing of value and is an absurd comparison. Would it not be of infinitely more value to accept the fact that there is creativity taking place in any decade and any style? I don't think Rok has any idea how ridiculous Bird would sound playing something like this (and not for lack of trying):

https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=qM-gSeBjKk8

Or Trane playing something like this:

https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=ZPoT0thwduo

Oh yeah, a small detail, that same "fusion guy" could also play like this:

https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=UQx96DsZXxA

The point? One listener's musical universe does not define everyone else's. And an attempt to do so, because of our need to justify our own likes, biases and narrowmindedness by denigrating someone else's wider scope is, well...everyone has to decide for themselves just what that is.

As the OP generously likes to say, enjoy the music.

****There is no truth on the human level without a marriage of emotion and intellect.****

Talk about "restoring order"! Succinct and entirely correct.

Mapman, thanks; per Schubert's comment.

Frogman, I hope you would not mind me saying this, but perhaps you are the one that simply refuse to comprehend the fact that someone can actually understand what are you talking about, but still not like it. Music wise, I mean, of course. I cant speak in Rok's name, but there is no difference in any other type of art form. I dont belleive that any art lover appreciate equally all styles that emerged through time. In fact, knowledge works both ways, it can help you to like something, but can also confirm someones dislaking about certain subject. Rok is very unique in his expressing, but I dont think that you should take that as offensive or proof of his ignorance. As far as litlle I have read his posts, he had much worst thing to say about some other much more serious stuff than it is art, but still there is lot of self irony in his words, so it should not be held against him. I dont want that anyone gets the impression that I am holding any sides here (not do I think that there are here) but like I said, the music that we spoke recently is not my favourite, and not because I do not understand it or appreciate the creative forces behind its creation, but because it does not correspond with my inner being,no matter if revives and readapts time and space, if it fails to emarge me in its world than I choose to listen something else that it does.

"Would it not be of infinitely more value to accept the fact that there is creativity taking place in any decade and any style?"

Infinitely.

That's why there are those things called "standards". It gives you a "standard" by which to compare contrast and most likely judge how two different artists perhaps from two totally different musical eras interpret and go about doing their thing differently in whatever way. All they have in common is most likely a popular song that remains popular to some extent because people continue to respond to it for whatever reason.

In case anyone cares. Each generation of listeners will appreciate the artists of their era on their own terms or they will not appreciate them. But playing standards howver one might artistically chose to do it provides the only concrete way to compare diverse talents over the years.

FWIW. It may not be worth anything to many, which is fine, but it is worth something to those who do care.

There are so many ways to enjoy music. that's why so many people take the time to imbibe.

'If you cant fight them, join them'...Buster Williams, from year 1979. Played with Miles, Hancock,etc. Considered as one of the great 'sideman's. On this record 'Heartbeat' he is joined with Kenny Barron on piano...

http://youtu.be/oxLO5OQdhow

Mapman, no need to qualify your comments, they are well thought out and mostly true. But, it must be remembered that at some point the Standards of an era are supplanted by those of a new era; a new era with a new crop of players with different sensibilities, many of who are carving out new styles and establishing new "standards"; not of specific songs , but standards of the WAY to play the new style. IOW, there are many jazz aficionados who feel that Coltrane playing "In A Sentimental Mood" (one of the greatest "standards") doesn't hold a candle to Paul Gonsalves (Ellington) playing it. Does that make Coltrane "less" of a player? A noise maker?

Alexatpos, I don't mind at all, and I appreciate your comments; I always appreciate honest and well thought out discourse. However, in my opinion there is a world of difference between saying what you said about liking and not liking some art (which I mostly agree with) and the reasons why, and calling it noise and by noise makers. As far as Rok' s style goes, well we all have a style, no?

Decided not to go to the gym today. Will get my daily exercise while doing my Victory Dance!! hahahahahahahaha

Cheers

Very interested in what you think of the Buster Williams clip, Rok. Thanks.

Ghosthouse, do you still want to discuss those names you mentioned?

The Frogman:

Buster Williams Clip:

Sobresaliente!!! So nice to hear what is possible to do with Violin in Jazz. Different from the usual French / Gypsy stuff.

And Williams played REAL notes on Bass. Sort of reminded me of my recent CD of Dave Holland and Kenny Barron,. "The Art Of Conversation". Holland played real notes also. I would think that would be very difficult to do.

The music was engaging and they played so well together. None of that everyone off doing his own thing. And you could tell the bass was the leader even if you didn't know Williams. And his playing was so subtle and delicate.

I wish I could have played it on my main rig. My computer speakers did not do it justice. Out of print also.:(

I really enjoyed it. I played it twice.

Alex: Thanks for the Clip

Cheers

Aficionados:

Since I was not familiar with Buster Williams, I checked him out on Amazon. Only one entry. "Something More". Not the clip Alex submitted. The one CD listed had two reviews. This one caught my eye.

"Much of this album is sheer pain. Wayne Shorter has apparently gone into the never-never land of pop rock and spends much of his time screeching. The last cut is at least bearable. It makes one weep to see what the current culture has done to jazz giants of the past. The Japanese trumpet player is copying early Miles. The others are all too often making noise.

As an antidote, check out Buster Williams, Herbie Hancock, and Al Foster at Montreaux on YouTube. They could still play beautifully and powerfully in 1987." -- Amazon Reviewer

See, I am not alone. Notice the last word of the first paragraph. Many people agree with this atitude.

Cheers

Not so bad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4hZTg-iqAQ

Alex, Nice clip! 70's were not so bad.

Today's Listen from the 1970:

Freddie Hubbard -- RED CLAY

A little funky tinge, but surely within the bop camp.
Hubbard / Henderson / Hancock / Carter / Lenny White. I guess no one totally escaped the prevaling winds of the times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OjuCA-SsJM

Cheers

And just how are we suppose to know which Jazz was recorded in the 70's. Look at the fine print on each CD?

Cheers

Rok, the best way for me is allmusic. You can look at the titles of the artist recordings as they put them out. There is a short review on some and may have customer reviews, if your into that sort of thing. If not, don't read it.

Btw, I was looking at the gentleman's reviews on Amazon. If that is not you, you should get together.

*****Btw, I was looking at the gentleman's reviews on Amazon. If that is not you, you should get together. ******

I have never reviewed anything online. Don't have the talent.

Cheers

Rok, how about a little hip 70's violin?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_s7P11NHRk

Enjoy the music.

With the addition of "Fusion", musical genres had gotten so blurred, that I left it to others for definition; is it rock fused with jazz, or jazz fused with rock; at the end of the day, what do you call it?

I quit trying to define the music, and simplified everything with one of two categories,
"Like, and don't like". These cuts sounded all right to me.

I wonder if "Learsfool" can boogie to this one;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MFbn8EbB4k

I kind of like the beat on this one;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgiS0Pr3BX8

I just might catch this train;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2It6_FGJXw

Enjoy the music.

Sunao Wada, japanese selfthought guitar player, I guess you will not find many info about him, but never the less, you should take a listen. The album is from 1977.and aldo the title says 'Blues, blues, blues' its jazz, jazz. No fusion, no noise makers, if there is any concerne...

http://youtu.be/PjpWi3WdPto

http://youtu.be/myoGF3QYElE

O-10:
Don't get me started on Disco. They could have been the only folks in the 70's that knew what they were doing. It was as big or bigger in Europe as anywhere, and I was right there. Oh, the memories!!

I'll call your 5th of Beethoven, and raise you this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7EfnYwpmOE

Cheers

O-10:

Jean Luc Ponty:
I think most Jazz musicians try to play what they feel inside of them. Like in Nica's book, many just wished they could play what was in their head. That makes for good Jazz. Original and creative Jazz.

MY IMPRESSION is that music like this, is made up as they play it. It's not inside anyone's head. It's like they are saying, "let's try this and see how it sounds".

One critic once said about Sergei Rachmaninoff, "All his music sounds like Movie Theme Music". I stopped buying his stuff after I read that. :) Some things just stick

The Ponty music comes across to my ear as Mood music. It's meant to put a person in a certain modd, or to sound interesting and unique, but you cannot remember it after the performance is over. You can't walk around with this stuff in your head, or sing/hum it. It's for the moment only.

But, it was not bad. I just couldn't get into it. And that could be MY problem, and not Ponty's music.

Cheers

O-10:

Detroit Guitars Band:
Some things are best left in the 70's

BT Express:
5th of Beethoven:

I just sent by bell bottoms out to the cleaners. And I got my dancing shoes on. Let's boogie!

Cheers

Alex:

Blues Blues Blues

Nothing but the Tonic:
Enjoyed it. The guitar player was good, but the Piano player was the class of this group. They stayed true to the genre.

Blues in the Closet:
To my ear, not as good as the first clip. The organ, combined with the bass, sort of overpowered the tune. Things got sort of jumbled. Should have stayed with the piano. Is that a standard? If not, the whole thing sounded derivative.

Thanks for the clips.

Cheers

Rok, I never could dance, but I like to go to a "juke joint", put some quarters in the box and watch em git down, There was a guy that could do some moves to this one you would not believe;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO91BtMIciU&list=PL5364D1FBFE077590

Enjoy the music.

Frogman, I'm glad you wanted to go through this decade in detail; while I wasn't satisfied with the music at that time, since then I've had a change of heart, I'll give you an example; I was so in the habit of buying "Donald Byrd" that I just picked up any new album he had out. After I bought "Places and Spaces", I wanted my money back; not because the music was so bad, but because it was so different from what I expected. Can you imagine turning up a bottle of wine and tasting whisky, or vice versa; WTF would be your reaction in either case. Now I find that same music interesting because I accept it for what it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Vr-E7asw2c

Donald Byrd can most certainly go into the category of one of the most creative musicians when you examine his whole body of works. Here's another one he did when he was in that mood;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbToIgl6dnU

Enjoy the music.

Rok, in order to understand that music, you have to first go to the "Misty mid region of wier", then it will all come clear; that's where the picture on the album cover is. Since the jazz as in Nica's book is right down here on the ground, there is no way the two can connect.

You couldn't get into his music because you didn't have an adequate mode of transportation to get to the "Misty mid region of Wier"; if you understand what I just said, you might be able to understand Jean Luc ponty's music.

Enjoy the music.

O-10, liked the Jean Luc clip. I have always liked some of his stuff. It's always well crafted from a compositional standpoint and very good playing WITHIN THAT FUSION STYLE. I disagree with Rok's take on the improvisation. Very atmospheric and pleasant. The disco clips? Well, I'm tempted to say you're joking, and I won't bother commenting on the bane of 70s music.

Leads me to something that I think happens often. There is some blurring between liking something because one likes the style, regardless of the level of the execution, and liking something, even if it's not ones favorite style, because the level of execution is extremely high. If the playing is on an extremely high level, I always find much to like; regardless of style. If the playing is poor or average, I don't care if it's my favorite style; no thanks.

Alex, I really liked the Buster Williams clip. Beautiful play ing on a very high level all the way around from pedigreed jazz players; and a wonderful composition. Thanks for that. The Sudao Wada clips may be blues which is, style wise, as we all like it, but the playing is simply not very good by the standards of the great jazz players. There is usually (not always) a reason that one can't find much info on certain players. The playing simply doesn't swing on the level that the music demands and the improvisation is no better than is heard in many a practice room in jazz schools. The interaction between the bass player and drummer is almost a mess at times. I guess I didn't like it; and I like the blues.

Rok, Blues In The Closet has been recorded by many jazz greats; I guess one could say it's a "standard", although the term is usually reserved for a more developed composition not simply a jazz "head".