Fusion.... rock, or jazz?

What do you think? Although the subgenre has a presence in the archvies, there seems to be some controversy over whether it belongs there, as many people argue its a subgenre of jazz, and not rock. What do you think?

Fusion is a kind of music played by people who learned music with the jazz standards, so it is a subgenre of jazz. But as you know progressive rock shares a lot with jazz, rock and classical music, so fusion is also a subdivision of progressive rock.

Too many generalities being spouted here, with which specific examples can make some non-sense of.

Fusion is a sloppy term - fusion of what: folk and blues/folk and rock/rock and eastern/rock and arabic/rock and jazz/rock and minimalism/rock and 20th century serious/rock and classical music/ rock and etc. etc etc etc.

Lets write it once more before I go completely bored by repeatedly putting the historical viewpoint here.

Progressive music, later called progressive rock was to us freaks/hippies/ early rock fans of the late sixties, a fusion/merge/hybridise/joining together of pop-rock with any other form of music (JAZZ was no exception!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). That music was played normally by skilled musicians knopwing more than basic musical theory. Jazz was there at the beginning, many future rock stars/prog rock stars etc, listened to jazz records, played along to jazz records in practice. (Dave Brubeck Quartet was favourite - Castillian Drums was a favoured rehearsal backing track for drummers - Joe Morella held drum clinics, attended by mainly rock musicians - Emerson raided Dave Brubeck's Blue Rondo A La Turk, while using jazz musicians like John Surman to augment Nice on record). Wilde Flowers (subsequently splitting in Soft Machine and Caravan) were huge jazz fans - Daevid Allen introduced those guys (at Robert Wyatts parents open house)  to a huge eclectic range of modern jazz musicians. But those guys then played R'N'B and pop at gigs before developing they more distinct jazz infused styles. Bill Bruford has always siad he was playing jazz in Yes - and more evidently so in King Crimson. And Soft Machine were not the only group using young British jazz musicians in their line-ups or sessioning on record.

When Soft Machine Volume 2 and Third arrived on the scene  it was to us progressive music with some jazz (which meant  some prog fans didn't like it), then we heard Tony Williams Lifetime's second album Turn It over (with the freshly added Jack Bruce) and  it was progressive music. We heard of Tony Williams encouraging Miles Davis to listen more to rock artists, and then the great (and the first above ground) black jazz rock/funk album Bitches Brew appeared . That was shortly followed by Mahavishnu Orchestra (John McLAughlin had already released the rock jazz classic devotion - somewhat inspired by Hendrix and with Hendrix support musicians playing), RTF  and belatedly 11th Houise were discovered, then Weather Report turned to jazz rock with Alphonso Johnson and Jaco Pastorius joining the band.

At the end of the 60's the brass rock, aka rock jazz, of  BST, Chicago were added to the roster of progressive music, that broaden and deepened  progressive rock's horizons.

Europeans like Tasavallan Presidentii hybridised jazz and rock. etc etc

Early prog fans had no problem with jazz based rock or rock based jazz being part of the genre. So why the problem now? Probably it's getting knickers twisted over the broader term jazz fusion: at one end of the scale takes in fuzak (lift musak) but the spectrum includes jazz rock and  also world jazz (check out 30% of Jan Garabrek albums), etc. etc.. Jazz rock did and still does meet the original rules of progressive rock definition - far better than  doTangerine Dream, Jean Michelle Jarre and various other electronica.

Edited by Dick Heath

Sean Trane wrote:   I Agree 100 % with Dick and would like to see everyone of those groups he mentioned in his post included in the Archives. But I will not make a big deal if they are not here. I would see the line drawn for inclusion around Weather Report but definitely including early Tippet and Nucleus.

 

Thanks - but urge you not to go too far promoting KT as jazz rock. The one time I saw Tippett live was with that Canterbury band and Soft Machine Machine spin-off Elton Dean's Just Us (about 1974 or 5), very free, improv  and avante jazz - not jazzrock fusion to speak of. And Keith T spent most of the show under the lid of the grande piano coaxing strange chord sequences directly by pluckng the instrument's strings.

It's a subgenre of both rock AND jazz. But I believe it differs!

IMHO, Some bands are more on the jazz-side of fusion, others are more on the (progressive) rock-side.

Example: Zappa, Beefheart, Mr Bungle, Area, Supersister. Everything I've heard from them is more on the rock-side. But BILLY COBHAM is more on the jazz-side. I think that's why he is NOT ON THIS WEBSITE. I think Mahavishnu is in between, but I would say that band is rockier than it is jazzy .

What do you think?

(by the way: you said it very clearly mister Heath )

Edited by Joren

Round and round we go what is prog/what isn`t prog?  Where is Babara Streistand? Where is Tom Jones? Where is Yanni? Where is Mantovani? Where is Peter, Paul & Mary? Where is Alvin & The Chipmunks? C`mon all these artists have prog elements. Let`s also include Oscar from Sesame Street I remember hearing him sing a song which included prog elements. Ghandi! how can I forget Ghandi! Slap slap slap in my face. Wiliam shantner? I can`t even imagine a prog web-site without Bill. My mother knew his mother. I met this Outremount boy once before the Shatners moved to Florida. My dogs are also prog. My wife is classical, she`s not prog even though she wrote a wonderful review on this site on Gentle Giant. Gentle Giant, they`re not prog. No way. I don`t know what this pop band is doing on this site. They have no business here. Go to page one of my web-site and you will see how much I hate these guys. The squriels who inhabit my back yard have even informed me that even they are prog. I feel compelled at this point to imlpore Max & maani to change the name of this site to www.whatisprog/whatisn`t progvelvetclown.com.

Dick Heath wrote: Sean Trane wrote:   I Agree 100 % with Dick and would like to see everyone of those groups he mentioned in his post included in the Archives. But I will not make a big deal if they are not here. I would see the line drawn for inclusion around Weather Report but definitely including early Tippet and Nucleus.   Thanks - but urge you not to go too far promoting KT as jazz rock. The one time I saw Tippett live was with that Canterbury band and Soft Machine Machine spin-off Elton Dean's Just Us (about 1974 or 5), very free, improv  and avante jazz - not jazzrock fusion to speak of. And Keith T spent most of the show under the lid of the grande piano coaxing strange chord sequences directly by pluckng the instrument's strings.

I meant Tippet's early work : up to Centipede. That is the Keith Tippet Group that did two albums: I Am Here and Youy Are There & Dedicated To You But....

Now this, this is why I joined this forum.To fill in the gaps in my knowledge (there are many).Too young to be in it at the beginning and understand the rules of definition and getting too old to take in a lot of the new bands without being prompted.
I myself do not give a flying fig what they include here, as long as it is good.

[QUOTE=Reed Lover]Now this, this is why I joined this forum.To fill in the gaps in my knowledge (there are many).Too young to be in it at the beginning and understand the rules of definition and getting too old to take in a lot of the new bands without being prompted.
I myself do not give a flying fig what they include here, as long as it is good.[/QUOTE]

Good man!

Now, define "good," if you please....

i personally dont think it matters ....at all. Music is music, genres just confuse the matter. They've gotten so ridiculous lately anyway ...im so f**king crust/punk/progressive/jazz/rock/alien/space/experimental/po st-hardcore/math rock/indie....