PA the only site to recognize J-R Fusion as Prog?

J R Fusion has obviously been an element in Prog for many years. Greenslade played that particular style often, but they also added in Classical. On all of their studio albums you'll find both styles arranged to fit in a song with lyrics..however if you dropped the tone arm on the Jazz Fusion section you might confuse them with a Fusion band.

Curved Air Phantasmagoria sets an example of Jazz Rock in 3/4 yet the band has mostly classical leanings.

Steve Howe was often jazzy being influenced by Jim Hall. But does it fit into Yes? Yes it does because Rick Wakeman, Chris Squire and Bill Bruford knowing better than to outplay Steve Howe and giving him some space. Certain skilled keyboardists will add in too many notes when a guitar player takes a solo and they wipe them out. They are limiting the guitarist in their soloing. Yes never did that. They granted each other space and it helped them to create beautiful music...The guitar player has 5 fingers to form notes where a pianist has 10 fingers and has a track record of playing over top of other people's solos and not willing to give that guitarist some space.

This occurs often in the Jazz Rock Fusion world of egocentric mechanical gymnastic players who don't care about creating music with melody and often perceive music as a bunch of stunt car racers on a track...literally...and when they hear a fantastic melody they laugh at it because they think it's below them. That's a sickness. It's not music. Improvisation has its place in music ...but if you continue to follow just that one path and always make music about competition then your closing off a love that is unconditional. Nature will not inspire you if your head is swimming in competition with other musicians. It's high school malarkey.







Edited by Jacob Schoolcraft - September 23 2024 at 18:13

Saperlipopette! wrote: ^ I do understand where you are coming from and generally agree with most of what you write here. You use the group dynamics in Yes and how they gave Steve Howe the space he needed while soloing as an example. Which is fine. I personally happen to think that in the world of Jazz Rock Fusion, the "egocentric mechanical gymnastic player" is the guitarist in nine out of ten times. What instrument you use as an example is really beside the point though. It's just that to me the guy with only five out of ten fingers is usually the greatest offender (which is probably why I tend to lean towards guitar-less fusion bands). -Maybe I'm less into beautiful melodies than you. Or perhaps we simply use the same words in different ways. I primarily feel that those who "perceive music as a bunch of stunt car racers on a track<" sabotage the almost telepathic sort of interplay you get when great musicians build something together - as a collective force*. It’s not really about not getting in the way of a beautiful melody to me. The egocentric musician gets in the way of… "the musicking musician" perhaps. *When I phrase it like that, it’s really no wonder most great musicians seem to belong to the political left:)

Interesting viewpoints here!!

verslibre wrote: Saperlipopette! wrote: I personally happen to think that in the world of Jazz Rock Fusion, the "egocentric mechanical gymnastic player" is the guitarist in nine out of ten times. What instrument you use as an example is really beside the point though. It's just that to me the guy with only five out of ten fingers is usually the greatest offender (which is probably why I tend to lean towards guitar-less fusion bands). It's safe to say John McLaughlin is the reason Jan Hammer bailed out of Mahavishnu, after which he and (violinist) Jerry Goodman recorded Like Children, which I think is better than anything M.O. did while Hammer was in the band.

Better? Really? Though Goodman and Hammer's approaches to the drums and guitars are entertaining, they are ultimately not McLaughlin and Cobham.

Starshiper wrote: verslibre wrote: Saperlipopette! wrote: I personally happen to think that in the world of Jazz Rock Fusion, the "egocentric mechanical gymnastic player" is the guitarist in nine out of ten times. What instrument you use as an example is really beside the point though. It's just that to me the guy with only five out of ten fingers is usually the greatest offender (which is probably why I tend to lean towards guitar-less fusion bands). It's safe to say John McLaughlin is the reason Jan Hammer bailed out of Mahavishnu, after which he and (violinist) Jerry Goodman recorded Like Children, which I think is better than anything M.O. did while Hammer was in the band. Better? Really? Though Goodman and Hammer's approaches to the drums and guitars are entertaining, they are ultimately not McLaughlin and Cobham.

Music is art, not a sport. "Better" or not depend on what you seek for in music/art. I much prefer Miroslav Virtuos over Jaco Pastorius (in Weather Report) as well. Although I suppose the latter would have won some kind of bass-battle between the two, I think the former is better at serving the groups music. Talking about sports, here's a quote from Caitlyn Schrepfer. A world champion freestyle soccer/football professional:

"Freestyle soccer is unique in that it really is the art of movement with the ball. To me, complexity is increasingly difficult techniques and fluidity of movement. There truly are an unlimited amount of tricks, but this is my personal interpretation of the challenge. Knee juggles, feet juggles, flick ups, blocks, crossovers, advanced blocks, clipper, sitdowns, thigh pops, no touch combos, ‘around the moon,’ and a handful of stalls and ‘around the world’ tricks" - The most complex of her levels include transitions, acrobatic tricks, and creative self expression.

-I have no doubt her technique is beyond excellent, but I wouldn't want her on my football team. I wouldn't want a peak-era self-indulgent John McLaughlin (ca. 71-73) in my band either. Not if I could have someone like Terje Rypdal instead. A "world champion" on a musical instrument is of very limited interest to me in itself.

Dapper~Blueberries wrote:   I am fine with jazz rock and fusion being on the archives, but I do agree with those who see them as seperate genres to the prog rock mythos.

Saperlipopette! wrote: Starshiper wrote: verslibre wrote: Saperlipopette! wrote: I personally happen to think that in the world of Jazz Rock Fusion, the "egocentric mechanical gymnastic player" is the guitarist in nine out of ten times. What instrument you use as an example is really beside the point though. It's just that to me the guy with only five out of ten fingers is usually the greatest offender (which is probably why I tend to lean towards guitar-less fusion bands). It's safe to say John McLaughlin is the reason Jan Hammer bailed out of Mahavishnu, after which he and (violinist) Jerry Goodman recorded Like Children, which I think is better than anything M.O. did while Hammer was in the band. Better? Really? Though Goodman and Hammer's approaches to the drums and guitars are entertaining, they are ultimately not McLaughlin and Cobham. I wouldn't want a peak-era self-indulgent John McLaughlin (ca. 71-73) in my band either. Not If I could have someone like Terje Rypdal instead. A "world champion" on a musical instrument is of very limited interest to me in itself.

"Apples and oranges, my dear Watson; while both may grace the fruit bowl, one hardly expects to find a crisp cider brewed from an orange."
ECM artist Rypdal's sound is more ethereal and experimental, whereas McLaughlin's approach actually symbolises the jazz-rock genre with its complexity and virtuosic playing style.

Saperlipopette! wrote: I personally happen to think that in the world of Jazz Rock Fusion, the "egocentric mechanical gymnastic player" is the guitarist in nine out of ten times.

Your cup of tea, but don't forget that nine out of ten times a fan of jazz-rock gets laid back and enjoys "egocentric mechanical gymnastics."

^ Skilful fast playing is certainly not a "juvenile" thing ... apart from thrash and death metal, it is a core element of Jazz and Classical music as well. 

^ Sure, I'm just saying that highly skilled virtuosic playing is not in itself something that is only appreciated by unsophisticated teenagers.

It's still no coincidence that the coloratura-soprano and Paganini is seen as vulgar. They are considered show-offy for the sake of showing off.

Sorry for chiming in. But you keep forgetting one thing. If those "vulgar" "show offy showoffs" sound good and fit the vibe of the song, I don't see why you should avoid them.

Also, WHO exactly considers this vulgar? Are those people privileged to set a verdict? If so, are those privileges verifiable? I'd say that since there are so many "schools" to how one can be a classical music expert, it's not so easy for the consumer to tell who is right.

I'm just rambling, so take this post with a tiny grain of salt.

Hrychu wrote: It's still no coincidence that the coloratura-soprano and Paganini is seen as vulgar. They are considered show-offy for the sake of showing off. Sorry for chiming in. But you keep forgetting one thing. If those "vulgar" "show offy showoffs" sound good and fit the vibe of the song, I don't see why you should avoid them. Also, WHO exactly considers this vulgar? Are those people privileged to set a verdict? If so, are those privileges verifiable? I'd say that since there are so many "schools" to how one can be a classical music expert, it's not so easy for the consumer to tell who is right. I'm just rambling, so take this post with a tiny grain of salt.

No worries:) "They" are privileged as "tastemakers" in the sense that over the decades or centuries, the once celebrated coloratura-sopranos has ended up an obscure interest kept alive by very few (within a field of music that's already for the few). Paganini is seen a little like the Malmsteen of classical music. I like a lot of music of lesser cultural value than both of them, and have no issues with either. This is not based on personal opinion but a kind of consensus powerful enough to have an impact on how these things are generally seen.