"Return to forever" is the super group formed by Chick Corea. Originally released in 1976, "romantic warriors" is a true landmark of fusion jazz. A bunch of very talented musicians (the genial Stanley clark on bass guitar, Aldi Meola...) created a phenomenal & amazing album, only instrumental and technically highest. The fusion is produced to perfection between jazz and prog rock. A MUST. I think that this group deserves a page on this site. 

Where are you MAX???

RTF belongs to the jazz-rock section, not jazz-fusion, therefore not prog.  

Here is what I wrote in Hammar's thread on RTF : "Sorry guys, but all the bands you are talking about (T. W. Lifetime, Weather Report, Lenny White) belong to the jazz-rock subgenre, a subgenre of jazz that has to be distinguished from the jazz-fusion subgenre (a sub-genre involving people that played in prog-rock bands, at least concerning Bruford, Brand X, [Colosseum II ?], the other representatives of this sub-genre being Zappa, Kenso, Cartoone but also current artists steming from the prog-metal sub-genre : Planet X (Virgil Donati + Derek Sherinian), LTE (Mike Portnoy + Jordan Rudess + Tony Levin + John Petrucci), Bozzio Levin Stevens, RAMA (led by Dixie Dregs' bassist Andy West), Spastic Ink [with the incomparable Ron Jarzombek on guitar]). So if you are considering the following artists/bands : Jean-Luc Ponty, Allan Holdsworth, Al di Meola, Uzeb, Stanley Clarke, Weather Report, Miles Davis, Tony Williams Lifetime, The Crusaders, Lenny White, Return to Forever, Mahavishnu Orchestra, Billy Cobham, The Brecker Brothers, Herbie Hancock, Pat Metheny, Dave Weckl, Chick Corea's Elektric band... they are all classified under the jazz-rock label. The very thin line between jazz-rock and jazz-fusion !"

lucas wrote: RTF belongs to the jazz-rock section, not jazz-fusion, therefore not prog.

...you can't say that is jazz-rock. It's the ultimate jazz fusion trip, with discreet prog accents. Nothing else.

philippe wrote: lucas wrote: RTF belongs to the jazz-rock section, not jazz-fusion, therefore not prog.   ...you can't say that is jazz-rock. It's the ultimate jazz fusion trip, with discreet prog accents. Nothing else.

If it's not jazz-rock, so which band played jazz-rock  as this supergroup involves people who actually are considered as jazz-rock artists : Al di Meola, Chick Corea, Lenny White and Stanley Clarke ?

It is fusion buddy. Return To Forever is FUSION!!!

lucas wrote: BTW, Soft Machine featuring John Marshall, Hatfield, National Health are all jazz-fusion bands and not canterbury.

Okay, I'll allow you to slide on the John Marshall era of Soft Machine, but Hatfield & The North & National Health are DEFINITE Canterbury bands. If you need an enlightenment on my statment please visit these sites: http://www.macgraphic.co.jp/ich/ - http://www.macgraphic.co.jp/ich/  & http://perso.club-internet.fr/calyx/ - http://perso.club-internet.fr/calyx/

You can still be in all denial, but you'll just be incorrect.

lucas wrote: jazz-rock (a subgenre of jazz) of jazz-fusion (a subgenre of prog).

It is acually the other way around.

OK, I could tell that Hatfield and NH have one foot in fusion (very rhythmic music) and the other in Canterbury (occasional vocals and some fun). About Gong : "Camembert électrique" is really canterbury, but the trilogy that followed (especially "You") is more space-rock oriented. And the Moerlen's Gong is typical fusion, more serious and less original than the Allen-era. I think some bands (Camel, Bruford, Gong) are considered as Canterbury only because they involve people that actually played in canterbury bands : Holdsworth played in Nucleus, Bruford made some sessions for NH, Dave Stewart (not the same who played with Annie Lennox) played with Egg, that's why Bruford is considered canterbury. That's the same for Camel : Richard Sinclair provided a jazzy side to Camel's music (Breathless) but Camel's interest for jazz was already initiated with Moonmadness, a change in direction that bassist Ferguson couldn't accept (which is why he left the band and Sinclair was contacted to replace him). But overall I would place Camel in the symph-prog category, as I would with Happy The Man. BTW, if Happy The Man is canterbury, then it is probably the only one non-british canterbury band and arguably the best of all. Talking about Greenslade or Colosseum II, I think these bands could easily be classified canterbury. Don't you think ? And today's metal-jazz bands such as Planet X, Liquid Tension Expeiment or Spastic Ink could also be considered canterbury or maybe metal-canterbury. ...the very thin line between jazz-fusion and canterbury. Did you hear about Pip Pyle's Equipe Out, sort of jazz-fusion with Elton Dean on saxophone ?

I understand your point. BUT consider this: After National Health disband...everything else would be consider: Canterbury-related only. There is not thin line or in-between(though the obvious crossover is any sort of jazz influence in later projects) . Bruford would be considered Canterbury related due to his contributions to early incarnations of National Health & Dave Stewart's contibutions to Bruford's albums. Happy The Man would be considered, along with The Muffins: Canterbury-influnced due to quirky song structures & strong jazz influnce.

Talking about Greenslade or Colosseum II, I think these bands could easily be classified canterbury

Nope, I would not even consider then Canterbury-Influenced either. If you want more Canterbury influence check out Supersister.

Sorry for the ramble, I am just a huge fan of the Canterbury Scene & I believe it  is necessary to attempt to justifiy it.

lucas wrote: No, it's jazz-rock. No one will convince me it's fusion.

You are hopeless!!!

Philippe and Alex, do you think there is a difference between what is commonly termed jazz-rock and jazz-fusion ?

Sometimes I purchase discs in a shop called "Crocodisc". They have a shop for each type of music : jazz, classical, rock in general, jazz-rock. When I go in the jazz-rock one, I find Chick Corea, Stanley Clarke, Dave Weckl, Simon Phillips, RTF, Al di Meola, Lenny White... but no Brandx, Bruford, Kenso, Zappa etc. When I go in the 'rock in general' one, I find Bruford, BrandX, Earthworks, Kenso... all filed under PROGRESSIVE ROCK. So, guys, that is in accordance with what I said previously : jazz-rock is a subgenre of jazz that includes guys like Al di Meola, Chick and all his friends, whereas jazz-fusion is a subgenre of prog that includes guys who were previously playing in prog bands. OK ?

lucas wrote: Philippe and Alex, do you think there is a difference between what is commonly termed jazz-rock and jazz-fusion ?

Please answer the question if you don't agree when I say that jazz-rock and jazz-fusion are two different genres. [don't say just 'yes' or 'no', or 'I don't agree with you' but try to explain your answer]. BTW, maybe we're too young to talk about such an item ?

lucas wrote: Philippe and Alex, do you think there is a difference between what is commonly termed jazz-rock and jazz-fusion ?

There are slight differences:

Jazz-Rock could be very vocal orientated such as: later Joni Michell, later Van Morrison, Tim Buckley, Ginger Baker's Air Force, Frank Zappa, & Traffic. Jazz-Rock even falls in the camp of pop bands such as: Blood, Sweat, & Tears & Stealy Dan. Keep in mind: Vocal orientated

Fusion is mostly instrumental based & could consist of previous musicans from the bop era jazz school. bands & musicans such as: Weather Report, Tony Williams Lifetime, Return To Forever, Al Di Meola, Mahvishnu Orchestra, & Stanley Clakre. Another thing that they have in a common is that most of the memebers of the bands I listed have performed with Miles Davis in his bop & Fusion expirments.

So therefore Jazz-Rock is a sub genre of Rock & fusion is a subgenre of Jazz.

It could become confusing, you just have to analyize & listen for yourself.

RETURN TO FOREVER - "Romantic Warrior"

Truly outstanding album.  And Lucas is entirely correct, it's jazz.  It was considered jazz when it was released and it's still considered jazz.

If you archive this album then you have to archive MILES DAVIS' "Bitches Brew" album and then pretty soon you are archiving "Live at Birdland" and "Glenn Miller Orchestra's Greatest Hits".

Where do you want to stop?

lucas wrote: And as I said previously, if this album has to be included in the archives, so all of the post-Davis bands : Weather Report, Tony Williams'Lifetime, Herbie Hancock's Headhunters and many others have to be included.

Exactly correct. 

Sorry but the Mahavishnu Orchestra is mentionned, why not Return to forever, both are jazz fusion!!

Well,
good thread here -- about jazz and fusion and their importance in the PROG era !

Here is an answer to the Stormcrow question: "

If you archive this album then you have to archive MILES DAVIS' "Bitches Brew" album and then pretty soon you are archiving "Live at Birdland" and "Glenn Miller Orchestra's Greatest Hits".

Where do you want to stop?

- Stormcrow

We will stop when we feel it's too far (any genre related). Band's that does not influence prog music  will not be added. To be more precise, I know that Miles Davis is important and will probably be the deeper we will go on this sub-genre.

Now, I know it is a subject of endless discussions ..
Let's hear it from the boys ..

AH HA!

So you want to include INFLUENCES as well as actual prog bands.  Well that is an entirely different kettle of fish!

I will be advised accordingly, MAX. 

So add DEEP PURPLE and LED ZEPPELIN!  

I'll offer to write those band bios myself.

philippe wrote: YOU ARE HOPELESS!!!

Can you find another expression Phil, it tends to be always the same.

lucas wrote: And as I said previously, if this album has to be included in the archives, so all of the post-Davis bands : Weather Report, Tony Williams'Lifetime, Herbie Hancock's Headhunters and many others have to be included.

That is what I said!!!!

Stormcrow wrote: AH HA! So you want to include INFLUENCES as well as actual prog bands.  Well that is an entirely different kettle of fish! I will be advised accordingly, MAX.  So add DEEP PURPLE and LED ZEPPELIN!   I'll offer to write those band bios myself.

Well ... maybe my message was not so clear after all ...
After I re-read my post I ask myself , WOW were would I stop now ...

So basically we want to create the most complete PROG ROCK (MUSIC) DISCOGRAPHY, we will add the most band we can and try to create the best INFORMATION SITE about all thoses bands. If some bands are judged to be important in the history and the evolution of PROG, then they will be added ... of course they need to play any of the sub-genre we will cover, and no HARD ROCK à la LED ZEP or DEEP PURPLE are not planned to be added, for now ...

If a musician is considered as a jazz-musician, it doesn't mean that he/she only plays jazz-music. Chick Corea is considered as a jazz-musician, but I can't believe that you call Romantic Warrior a pure jazz-album. It has more similarities to Mahavishnu's "inner mounting flame" (fusion!) than Duke Ellington or Count Basie (as an example). Would you consider Genesis as a purely pop-band because they have produced more pop-albums???? Fusion has more in common with prog than both jazz and hard-rock.

National health, Hatfield & the north and Egg are defenitely Canterbury bands, not only because the majority of the musicians have their origin there, but also because you clearly can hear elements from the distinctive Canterbury sound (Caravan as the best example). As mentioned, Happy the Man, can be called a Canterbury band because of the similarities in the music (!). Picchio Dal Pozzo with their self-titled album as well. They made the third Hatfield & the North album in my opinion and the album is also dedicated to Robert Wyatt.

and...

I see the problem, who should be included or not, where's the border? Lucas mentions a lot of artists. To be included on this site, they should be essential to the progressive rock or you should be able to HEAR clear elements from progrock. Return to Forever and Mahavishnu made more than a couple of great fusion albums and should be included (and they are essential bands of fusion). The elements of prog are there!! Jean-Luc Ponty, Allan Holdsworth, Al di Meola, Uzeb, Stanley Clarke, Miles Davis, Pat Metheny, Tony Williams Lifet,  Dave Weckl, Lenny White and Herbie Hancock are not essential to prog alone. Of course, prog has many of these as influencers, and Miles Davis' Bitches Brew and Metheny's American Garage are fusion (as examples), but it's not enough! Even if it's jazz-rock (which is great music), it's too much jazz and should be left out. I hope there are disagreements out there. This is just my opinions..

The two artists I have troubles with (mentioned by Lucas) are Weather Report and Billy Cobham. I think WR is almost as essential as Mahavishnu and Return, but maybe it's too much jazz. Maybe the same with Cobham. I would probably leave them out because the majority of jazz on the majority of their records...

I have no experience with the rest on Lucas' (brilliant) list.

"RTF belongs to the jazz-rock section, not jazz-fusion, therefore not prog." 

You are joking, aren't you? Especially in reference to RTF's "Romantic Warrior", often said to be RTF album  influenced by Yes? But of course we are back to debating the meaning of progressive rock. The definitions posted here are most useful in sub-categorising the genre, however, they post date by some decades, the original 'progressive music' (the original term used), musical movement in the UK (and elsewhere). Without the benefits of hindsight in the late 60's progressive music, we saw various music genres as somewhat isolated islands; so you had classical, jazz,  folk, world, pop, rock, etc. some what isolated from each other. Therefore you could say that when Dylan went electric there was a hybridisation of folk with rock, then you have the west coast movement rock with folk (e.g. Jefferon Airplane) or Indian/Arabic (e.g. Great Society). Vanilla Fudge talked about symphonic rock in the mid 60's but how much of that was a tease, with their loose marriage of pop with classical - which also appears have influenced the development heavy rock according to Jeff Beck? There was the British marriage of rock with blues.  And then there was the marriage of rock with jazz in the UK - especially through Soft Machine and to a less extent Caravan. In the States it was the other way round as jazz picking up rock.  [As point of information: possibly the first jazz fusion album was by the Indo-Jazz Fusion group in 1965, which was the then modern jazz married to  classical Indian music - alas its founder John Mayer was killed in a car crash this February]. All these forms were originally accepted as progressing popular music, and so "progressive music". And jazz rock (as opposed to much else in the jazz fusion world) was accepted as a sub-variant of progressive rock - (BTW why can I find reference to Mahavishnu Orchestra here? )

Eventually those islands of musical genre had the spaces filled in between and as a result it became increasingly difficult to produce progressive music that didn't owe something to a previous prog band (hence for instance the emergence of the  neo-prog movement).

Finally, what is your evidence for saying Soft Machine isn't Canterbury - you are really challenging most other people's definitions here?

Quote: Ok, guys, I really don't know if there is a difference between jazz-rock and jazz-fusion.

The guys on the Fusenet web discussion group have got this cracked. Jazz Fusion is jazz hybridised with any other muscial form. One of the earliest references is on the 1965 album Joe Harriott/John Mayer's Indo jazz Fusion Group - a merging jazz and Indian raga. So clearly on the same basis jazz rock can be normally be sub-sectioned under Jazz Fusion (not vice versa), e.g.  the best selling saxophonist Jan Garbarek who has never obvious taken on board rock but is at home with Indian, Pakistani, Arabic, medieval folk and plain chant musics variously fused with his jazz. And there hasn't been a  disagreement that jazz rock can also be sub-classified under progressive rock.

One thing the bugs me is that Mahavishnu Orchestra is here included under RIO and Canterbury. Some considerable elasticity in terminology  when RTF isn't, and Soft Machine are deemed not to be Canterbury. Confusing what!?