Jazz fusion vs Jazz rock

Isn`t jazz rock a fusion of sorts ?

Been explained on a historical basis on this site many times before. Also check the only reference on the subject Stuart Nicholson's Jazz Rock:A History. Jazz rock is a sub division of jazz fusion, as is Indo-jazz fusion, jazz funk, nu.jazz, nu.fusion, folk jazz, Arabo-jazz, etc. etc. The term jazz fusion may stem from one of the early band Joe Harriot-John Mayer Double Quintet and their two albums Indo Jazz Fusion (1966-7) - although I've read somewhere that the use of the word fusion can be found on an earlier jazz album.  Somewhat forgotten when rock jazz appeared 1967-8  - rock with jazzy solos, e.g. Chicago, Timebox, BST, Satisfaction,  early Soft Machine and even Nice when they did their Brubeck. When the jazz men started to attack from the other end we had jazz rock (jazz with either strong rock rhythms and/or rock group amplification/instrumentation)- even so we now acknowledge some obscure US jazz men were experimenting 1964/5 although not recorded until later (e.g. Spirits Flown). Jazz Britannia series on BBC TV two years ago, claimed that the roots of jazz rock in the UK were in bands such Graham Bonds Organisation. The obvious rock element in jazz rock disappeared, to some extent 1975-8, whilst the electric, amplified elements remained, and then the term jazz fusion was resurrected. Shakti appeared almost 10 years after the first Indo-jazz fusion group. BTW the term jazz rock fusion has also been used.

Jshutt64 wrote: Here's how I understand it. Might not be right, but, I'm going to try.   Jazz rock is, like the name implies, a mix of jazz and rock. However, it tends to not have so much of the incredible musicianship and diversity as fusion. It's almost mainstream, in a way. Bands like Steely Dan and Chicago.   Jazz fusion is much more progressive. It frequently showcases individual ability and fusion compositions are much more elaborate and complex than those of jazz rock. When I think fusion, I think of Mahavishnu Orchestra and Return To Forever.

Exactly.

BaldFriede wrote: Aeternus wrote: Jshutt64 wrote: Here's how I understand it. Might not be right, but, I'm going to try.   Jazz rock is, like the name implies, a mix of jazz and rock. However, it tends to not have so much of the incredible musicianship and diversity as fusion. It's almost mainstream, in a way. Bands like Steely Dan and Chicago.   Jazz fusion is much more progressive. It frequently showcases individual ability and fusion compositions are much more elaborate and complex than those of jazz rock. When I think fusion, I think of Mahavishnu Orchestra and Return To Forever. Exactly. Definitely not! I think that jazz-rock is just one kind of fusion. Though I remember there was a time when both terms were used as synonyms in Germany.

I know that everywhere is stated that jazz fusion is a fusion between jazz and other types of music and jazz rock is one of them; however, "fusion" is mentioned, everybody thinks of Mahavishnu Orchestra or Weather report. but not Steely Dan, or Chicago. This approves Jshut64' oppinon I think. Steely Dan's is a jazz sounding rock band. Mahavishnu is vice cersa - and that's the difference. But still, I may be wrong - that's why I created this thread.


Edited by Aeternus - January 15 2008 at 13:46

Dick Heath wrote: Been explained on a historical basis on this site many times before.

Completely true. This question however could be a trigger for action on this: the Jazz Rock/Fusion definition is the shortest and least explanatory on this site, maybe it's time for an update.

As a I see it, it ranges from the general to a more specific sub genre

victor77 wrote: As a I see it, it ranges from the general to a more specific sub genre Jazz fusion: blend of jazz with other different styles   Jazz rock: music on the boundaries between jazz and rock (Brand X, Alan Holdsworth, Headhunters, Chick Corea, some Miles Davis, Machine and the Synergic Sluts, etc)   Progressive Jazz Rock: most innovative and risky music on the basis of jazz rock (Mahavishnu Orchestra, Magma, some King Crimson, Soft Machine, French TV, and so on)

Jazz Fusion defenatly, although it misses some of rock's charismatic power, I would defenatly go for fusion....my fav is Weather Report...Jacob is a great bassist,;) .

Edited by Real Paradox - January 20 2008 at 10:53

yes, sry if I didn't give the opinion about the two...

A lot of it has to do with time period too. As a young musician trying to learn this stuff along with other young musicians, we refered to this music as jazz-rock up to about the mid-70s and then fusion after that. I don't know why the term changed, probably something we picked up in music magazines

Although now that we have had time to reflect, I would say it makes sense to say jazz-rock is a mix of jazz and rock, and jazz fusion is jazz plus whatever.

It all started with what used to be called soul-jazz ie Les McCann, Eddie Harris, Adderly Brothers etc.

Edited by Easy Money - February 21 2008 at 19:48