The Assination of Jazz Rock [Archive]

Lino

11-23-2012, 11:16 AM

The issue to me is: how far can fusion really progress? I mean I've dug the shit since I was a kid, but even more than prog rock, the limitations are totally evident. It's mostly instrumental, and regardless of what combinations of instruments you put together, it's pretty well always going to be the same thing. I think this may be the reason that it's one of the sub-genres I've lost the most interest in. I hear great pieces once in a while, don't get me wrong, but over all, it hasn't held my interest. Of course, I make a distiction between jazz rock and fusion. I tend to like jazz rock a lot better. :D

No Pride

11-23-2012, 11:51 AM

Not that it matters, but fusion survived the '80s better than prog did; there were some great groups with their own strong identities like The Dregs and Tribal Tech. I think there are fusion and prog artists that are still breaking new ground in this day and age, but they're more under the radar than ever, as our pop culture moves further and further away from the type of musical sensibilities that made that kind of stuff exciting to us when we were youngsters.

mogrooves

11-23-2012, 11:56 AM

I make a distiction between jazz rock and fusion. I tend to like jazz rock a lot better.

+1 on both counts....

dukecobman

11-23-2012, 12:15 PM

If you're a fan of jazz rock fusion of the mid 70's period (well, unless we're talking Miles, that IS the period) then I suggest you look to Japan. They may have got the message late, but they're very much taking the ball and running with it. IMHO the best jazz rock fusion records since the glorious heyday come from Japan. Probably the best I've heard since 1976 would be the 2 by Exhivision from the mid 2004 and 2008. And kudos to Lenny White for his "Anomaly" CD a couple of years ago, and Billy Cobham's "Palindrome" and Vertu (again, Lenny White).

I personally feel that there is also a big distinction between what used to be known as jazz rock fusion and what is now called shredding.... and as already mentioned in this thread, there is also a distinction nowadays between jazz rock and fusion.

Fusion jazz rock styles may be great for introducing new tricks for the old dog, but I have to tip my hat to those bands still playing jazz rock, more so for the passion and energy and musicianship, than for being innovative or bringing in new fusion styles to create something new. Hence the saying "Viva La Difference". A great example of jazz rock and fusion working together would be Jack DeJohnette's Third World CD.

I'm sure there are many many others - and judging by all the jazz rock fusion blogs and online stores like Audiophile Imports and what's going on in Japan I think we'll all be able to find jazz rock fusion to suite our tastes.

Planechant

11-23-2012, 02:57 PM

I completely agreed. I'm tired of novelty being passed off as innovation. Novelty becomes innovation when someone else follows the path of the inventor.

Crystal Plumage

11-23-2012, 03:21 PM

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=assination

Sorry.. Continue...

Hal...

11-23-2012, 03:51 PM

Of course, I make a distinction between jazz rock and fusion:huh

And that distinction would be?

moecurlythanu

11-23-2012, 04:21 PM

Here it is-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiqmEibSY0I

MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER

11-27-2012, 01:32 AM

I make a distiction between jazz rock and fusion. heh... I think many who are familiar with the 3 do as well...
Jazz = highly improvised, mostly acoustic music with the drummer keeping rhythm mainly on the cymbals with the kick and snare used as accents

Rock = mostly electric, highly amplified/overdriven instrumentation with clearly constructed songs and the drummer playing the songs rhythm using the bass and snare drums; i.e. "backbeat"

Fusion = Jazz musicians playing Rock music utilizing their Jazz improv skills within the Rock structured pieces taking Rock music to a higher level.

sonic

11-27-2012, 02:45 AM

Fusion = Jazz musicians playing Rock music utilizing their Jazz improv skills within the Rock structured pieces taking Rock music to a higher level.
A higher level of what?

Toothyspook

11-27-2012, 04:43 AM

The issue to me is: how far can fusion really progress?

Maybe Steven Wilson will be answering that one over the coming years.

Poisoned Youth

11-27-2012, 08:42 AM

Jazz = highly improvised, mostly acoustic music with the drummer keeping rhythm mainly on the cymbals with the kick and snare used as accents

Except that a great deal of jazz (from the last 50 years especially) really does not fall under this definition.

Trane

11-27-2012, 09:26 AM

UI've tried twice to read this article, but both times couldn't get to the second paragraph and even jumping ahead in the text... I think it's the style of writing that doesn't sit well with me... This is the type of text that should appeal to me, yet I seem to be impermeable to its prose

can anybody make a quick overview please?

Homburg

11-27-2012, 09:56 AM

"We went from Jerry Lee Lewis to Keith Emerson and Mike Ratledge in less than ten years; from "Louie Louie" to "King Kong" and "Sister Ray" in less time; from Chuck Berry to Jimi Hendrix and Jeff Beck in the same spread; from the Beatles to Can and Soft Machine in less than five years!"

Yes, that's what makes the late 60s and early 70s the greatest era of rock.

No Pride

11-27-2012, 10:43 AM

The issue to me is: how far can fusion really progress?
At least as far as rock (prog or otherwise) can, probably further. IMHO, of course!

Scott Bails

11-27-2012, 01:41 PM

heh... I think many who are familiar with the 3 do as well...
Jazz = highly improvised, mostly acoustic music with the drummer keeping rhythm mainly on the cymbals with the kick and snare used as accents

Rock = mostly electric, highly amplified/overdriven instrumentation with clearly constructed songs and the drummer playing the songs rhythm using the bass and snare drums; i.e. "backbeat"

Fusion = Jazz musicians playing Rock music utilizing their Jazz improv skills within the Rock structured pieces taking Rock music to a higher level.

I don't think the original point was about "3," but "2." It might have been better stated as jazz/rock vs. fusion.

At least, that's how I read it.

And I'm with Hal in that I'd be interested in hearing what the difference between the two is.

nosebone

11-27-2012, 02:07 PM

Jazz, jazz-rock or fusion, I don't care, just give me good tunes with strong melodies.
.

Scott Bails

11-27-2012, 03:05 PM

just give me good tunes with strong melodies.
.

No tunes, no nosebone. ;)

Lino

11-27-2012, 03:48 PM

I don't think the original point was about "3," but "2." It might have been better stated as jazz/rock vs. fusion.

At least, that's how I read it.

And I'm with Hal in that I'd be interested in hearing what the difference between the two is.

Oh good I don't have to figure out how to quote and respond to more than one quote. :D

Firstly, yes Scott, you read it correctly...my distinction is between jazz-rock and fusion.

As to answer the question about that distinction??? I'm the wrong guy to do that :lol Other people find a dozen words to describe something better than I can in 100 words lol. It's a gut thing for me...nothing that I've ever thought of trying to define, and maybe some cases a little arbitrary. Fusion has always had a distinct sound to me... a real fusion of jazz and rock sensibilities to present an entirely seperate sound/style. Maybe jazz-rock is jazz and rock mixed in the same song, but not fused? LOL Typically I see jazz rock as being predominatly ROCK, generally with generous servings of jazz instrumentation and some jazz sensibilities. Conversely it can be predominantly jazz, with some servings of traditional rock instruments and sensibilities. Confused enough? :P
Simple example for simplicity sake: RTF - fusion ; early Chicago - jazz rock (??)

Yehuda Kotton

11-27-2012, 04:09 PM

Simple example for simplicity sake: RTF - fusion ; early Chicago - jazz rock (??)

That is the example I would also think of, but I mostly can't make the distinction and I think many people equate fusion to 80's jazzy instrumental pop such as Ritenour . Can somebody please further clarify with more examples?

Lino

11-27-2012, 04:51 PM

One of my fave jazz-rock songs ever. Though not to say that i think jazz-rock has to sound like this to be jazz rock. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x87tMqo1Ahw&feature=relmfu

Progmatic

11-27-2012, 04:54 PM

That is the example I would also think of, but I mostly can't make the distinction and I think many people equate fusion to 80's jazzy instrumental pop such as Ritenour . Can somebody please further clarify with more examples?

I consider early Chicago not necessary as jazz rock but horn rock band (together with BS&T).

To me Fusion is more jazzy style that rock elements are kind of supressed whereas Jazz Rock is more dominated by rock rhythm and rock instruments...therefore

Fusion bands: RTF, Billy Cobham, Alphonso Mouzon, Pharoah Sanders, Miles Davis, Weather Report, Jean-Luc Ponty, Mahavishnu Orchestra, Energit, Keith Jarret, Jan Garbarek

Jazz Rock: Weather Report (album dependent), Pekka Pohjola, Nucleus, Mahavishnu Orchestra (album dependent), Iceberg, Finch, Fermata, Aka Moon, Brand X

Poisoned Youth

11-27-2012, 06:49 PM

Jazz, jazz-rock or fusion, I don't care, just give me good tunes with strong melodies.
.

:up

Vic2012

11-27-2012, 09:00 PM

When I was listening to Chicago and BS&T in the early 70s it was called "Jazz/Rock." It was rock and pop music with horns and distorted guitar solos. It leaned more toward rock. Fusion came a little later for me, the usuals - Mahavishnu, RTF, etc. That was jazz. It was instrumental, but electric guitar and keyboards were the lead vocals (no horns usually).

No Pride

11-27-2012, 09:38 PM

Jazz, jazz-rock or fusion, I don't care, just give me good tunes with strong melodies.
.
I hear ya, Chris, but...

There's gotta be some blistering improvisation somewhere or it ain't jazz, jazz-rock or fusion.

mogrooves

11-27-2012, 10:00 PM

I'd be interested in hearing what the difference between the two is.

My short take.

I hear a both a sonic and conceptual difference between the two. Jazz-rock was predominately a '60s phenomenon, one marked by the experimental attitude and radical musical practices common to those years, the first steps toward "fusing" Rock rhythms, volume, electronics, and timbres with jazz's improvisative practices.

But, any period of creative efflorescence is followed by stylistic orthodoxy and conformity. In the '70s, "Fusion" codified the heterodox approaches of jazz-rock, diluting its more experimental practices into something approximating a recognizable style, one with strong commercial imperatives. Fusion, a kind of exploitation music, disciplined and tamed the deviance of jazz-rock, turning an experimental art form into a commodity form conforming to the commercial logic of the marketplace.

I consider early Chicago not necessary as jazz rock but horn rock band

My view as well, "horn rock" or "brass rock". Groups of that ilk were descended from the "concert jazz" band tradition....

nosebone

11-27-2012, 10:40 PM

I hear ya, Chris, but...

There's gotta be some blistering improvisation somewhere or it ain't jazz, jazz-rock or fusion.

We're talking fusion here , so that goes without saying!:lol

MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER

11-27-2012, 11:51 PM

that's what makes the late 60s and early 70s the greatest era of rock.From the Classically schooled kids in the UK to the Jazz musicians' experimentations with Rock, the 1969-1976 first gen of Prog music was indeed a wonderful trip and a spectacle to behold! I feel bad for the ones who were too young (or not born yet) who never saw a show with Symphonic Rock, Jazz Rock and African influenced Progressive Rock musicians all sharing the same bill and it was all just progressive/experimental Rock music. It was all new and had no segregations/sub-genre weenyness. What a time to be alive!

sonic

11-28-2012, 07:43 AM

horn rock
http://www.globosapiens.net/data/reportpix/thumb/arches-national-park-report-2746-4.jpg

sotdude

11-28-2012, 08:43 AM

Jazz, jazz-rock or fusion, I don't care, just give me good tunes with strong melodies.
.

Totally agree, along with some killer playing. Just picked up the recent CD reissue of 'Level One' from Larry Coryell's Eleventh House, and damn if that doesn't have everything I love about fusion/jazz-rock rolled up into one tight little package.

Anyone hear the recent Tribal Tech CD X? Has to be one of the best fusion releases I've heard in a while.

Lino

11-28-2012, 09:14 AM

I think fusion has it's own distinct sound withing the realm of jazz based rock, in the same way perhaps that "prog" has seperated itself from what was just plain old progressive rock back in the day. More often than not, traditional rock instrumentaion is used in fusion...you could have a perfectly fine fusion outfit using an electric guitar, electric bass, drums and keys/synths. All you have to do is look at the standard bearers for this type of music in the 70's...Mahavishnu and RTF.
other types of jazz rock don't fit in to the same mold and generally speaking, I enjoy those styles of jazz based rock better. Examples that i couldn't call fusion but are often jazz based rock - most Canterbury, brass rock (If, Walrus, Heaven, for example), Zappa, Carla Bley (and family), Nucleus, etc, etc, there's lots of examples. Most of these employ more traditional jazz instrumentation in a rock setting.

Trane

11-28-2012, 10:47 AM

I consider early Chicago not necessary as jazz rock but horn rock band (together with BS&T).

To me Fusion is more jazzy style that rock elements are kind of supressed whereas Jazz Rock is more dominated by rock rhythm and rock instruments...therefore

Fusion bands: RTF, Billy Cobham, Alphonso Mouzon, Pharoah Sanders, Miles Davis, Weather Report, Jean-Luc Ponty, Mahavishnu Orchestra, Energit, Keith Jarret, Jan Garbarek

Jazz Rock: Weather Report (album dependent), Pekka Pohjola, Nucleus, Mahavishnu Orchestra (album dependent), Iceberg, Finch, Fermata, Aka Moon, Brand X

Interesting take...

I also definitely eliminate bands that can fit in Brass Rock, like Chicago or If from the debate as well...

- One of my takes between jazz-rock (or jazz-funk) and fusion is more of a time frame... occuring around 74... (more or less around the appearance of Head Hunters or Black Market.... Before 74, jazz rock... and afterwards fusion... partly due to more world music intervening in the jazz-rock realm
(Maybe someone can enlighten me, but prior to 73, the only time the word fusion was used in either jazz or rock was about Indo-Jazz Fusion, right??)

- My other possible take is that jazz-rock emanates from rock musicians that veered towards jazz (Soft Machine) and fusion would come from jazz musos veering "rock" (selling out, would say purists ;) )

Jymbot

11-28-2012, 11:05 AM

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s145/baggra/Bitco/psych/worzelpigeon2.jpg

Scott Bails

11-28-2012, 01:23 PM

- My other possible take is that jazz-rock emanates from rock musicians that veered towards jazz (Soft Machine) and fusion would come from jazz musos veering "rock" (selling out, would say purists ;) )

This was actually what I was thinking before the question was asked.

aplodon

11-28-2012, 01:53 PM

To me it has always been Jazz-Rock Fusion.
Some choose to call it Jazz-Rock for short, others choose to call it Fusion.
So I just see it as different names for the same thing.

mogrooves

11-28-2012, 02:38 PM

jazz-rock emanates from rock musicians that veered towards jazz

Just the opposite in my experience, jazz players veering toward rock: Gary Burton, Larry Coryell, Steve Marcus, Mike Nock, Jeremy Steig, etc......

MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER

11-28-2012, 04:10 PM

To me it has always been Jazz-Rock Fusion.
Some choose to call it Jazz-Rock for short, others choose to call it Fusion.
So I just see it as different names for the same thing.That's pretty much the way I've always heard the terms used as well. I've never (until the internet) in my life heard anyone say that Jazz/Rock and Fusion are different things. Now FUZAK is a different thing that I first heard spoken of in the late 80s

Shadow

11-28-2012, 07:56 PM

Didn't know what this thread was about until I realized you spelled Assassination wrong.

moecurlythanu

11-28-2012, 08:40 PM

Didn't know what this thread was about until I realized you spelled Assassination wrong.

Actually, he spelled assignation wrong, but his spelling works better anyway.

Vic2012

11-28-2012, 08:52 PM

:lol

I swear I didn't notice it was misspelled. Ass-i-nation ;).

Hal...

11-29-2012, 07:54 AM

- My other possible take is that jazz-rock emanates from rock musicians that veered towards jazz (Soft Machine) and fusion would come from jazz musos veering [toward] "rock" (selling out, would say purists ;) )

This was actually what I was thinking before the question was asked.
As was I. I just wasn't sure where Lino was coming from.

As I've always understood it, the term "jazz-rock" originated to define groups like Chicago, BS&T, and maybe Sly & the Family Stone. When Tony Williams started Lifetime and Miles released Bitches Brew (and then his protegés started their bands), it was all labelled jazz-rock as well. The distinction came when either music snobs or someone in the press decided it was necessary to distinguish between the two styles/camps: I first heard the term "jazz-fusion" sometime in the mid-70s. I came to learn that it was reserved for the jazzers who incorporated rock into their music (Miles, Williams, MO, RTF, WR, etc), while the term "jazz-rock" was then reserved for the rockers using elements of jazz in theirs (Chicago, BS&T, etc). The term "fusion" was simply a shortening of "jazz-fusion" and the first I heard it used was in reference to Jean-Luc Ponty. Ultimately, however, I think the intended point was that fusion was superior to jazz-rock because all of the fusion musicians were serious jazzers. I'm not offering my opinion, mind you; just the prevailing attitude of the times. And, of course, it was applied retroactively so Miles and his alumni became fusion and the rest jazz-rock.

Progmatic

11-29-2012, 08:14 AM

As was I. I just wasn't sure where Lino was coming from.

As I've always understood it, the term "jazz-rock" originated to define groups like Chicago, BS&T, and maybe Sly & the Family Stone. When Tony Williams started Lifetime and Miles released Bitches Brew (and then his protegés started their bands), it was all labelled jazz-rock as well. The distinction came when either music snobs or someone in the press decided it was necessary to distinguish between the two styles/camps: I first heard the term "jazz-fusion" sometime in the mid-70s. I came to learn that it was reserved for the jazzers who incorporated rock into their music (Miles, Williams, MO, RTF, WR, etc), while the term "jazz-rock" was then reserved for the rockers using elements of jazz in theirs (Chicago, BS&T, etc). The term "fusion" was simply a shortening of "jazz-fusion" and the first I heard it used was in reference to Jean-Luc Ponty. Ultimately, however, I think the intended point was that fusion was superior to jazz-rock because all of the fusion musicians were serious jazzers. I'm not offering my opinion, mind you; just the prevailing attitude of the times. And, of course, it was applied retroactively so Miles and his alumni became fusion and the rest jazz-rock.

From the Progarchives article:

1.Jazz Fusion is jazz that is strongly influenced by other styles of music. Jazz fusion is an ambiguous term that provides the first level sub-set down from Jazz. Jazz rock is a sub-sub set from jazz via jazz fusion. The ambiguity comes from an American tendency through the 90's and until now, to freely interchange jazz rock and jazz fusion, when in fact the latter term covers most hybrids of jazz fused with other forms of music. The roots of jazz rock can be traced back to RnB influenced soul-jazz artists such as Les McCann, Grant Green and Jimmy Smith, and young British jazzers such as Graham Bond, Ginger Baker, John McLaughlin, Jack Bruce, Georgie Fame, who were forced to use electronic instruments because the local club's acoustic instruments were reserved for the older established jazz musicians. Probably the first jazz artists that released recordings that mixed modern rock (circa 60s) with jazz were Larry Coryell, Jeremy Steig, Charles Lloyd, The Soft Machine, and The (Jazz) Crusaders. Meanwhile rock artists such as Cream, Grateful Dead and The Jimi Hendrix Experience were getting a lot of publicity and fame with their lengthy improvisations based on blues, rock, psychedelia and some jazz. These rock artists had an impact on Miles Davis who generated a lot of media attention to this new jazz-rock genre with his Bitches Brew album. From there the genre grew and exploded into numerous different directions. One of these directions was brass rock as exemplified by bands like Dreams, Chicago, BS&T and If. These bands combined elements of jazz, rock and classical music with arrangements for brass and woodwinds.

btw you have the fusion part right...it is more jazz artists incorporated rock elements ...on other hand jazz rock is more rock artists incorporating jazz elements..you can call me snob !

sonic

11-29-2012, 08:58 AM

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s145/baggra/Bitco/psych/worzelpigeon2.jpg
Finally, a post that makes sense. :lol

Trane

11-29-2012, 10:52 AM

The distinction came when either music snobs or someone in the press decided it was necessary to distinguish between the two styles/camps: I first heard the term "jazz-fusion" sometime in the mid-70s.

I came to learn that it was reserved for the jazzers who incorporated rock into their music (Miles, Williams, MO, RTF, WR, etc), while the term "jazz-rock" was then reserved for the rockers using elements of jazz in theirs (Chicago, BS&T, etc). The term "fusion" was simply a shortening of "jazz-fusion" and the first I heard it used was in reference to Jean-Luc Ponty. Ultimately, however, I think the intended point was that fusion was superior to jazz-rock because all of the fusion musicians were serious jazzers. I'm not offering my opinion, mind you; just the prevailing attitude of the times. And, of course, it was applied retroactively so Miles and his alumni became fusion and the rest jazz-rock.

well although I don't like nitpuicking, i think it's useful to distinguish between Chicago Transit Authority and Bitches Brew or Elastic Rock... there is a million miles between them...

I was too young in 69 (i was 6) to know of either three albums or what they were called, but from 73 onwards (when I started buying my own vinyls) in Toronto, it seems that I was always aware of the term of Brass Rock for Chicago or BS&T...

Mind you, the sonic difference between Brass and Jazz is not that great... The same thing happened with Art Rock (Genesis Supertramp, Floyd ) and Hard Rock (Purple, Zep, Sabbath)

You learned quickly to differientate and correct those buddies that got confused...

Lino

11-29-2012, 11:56 AM

Putting "brass rock" aside...there are still jazz-rock hybrids that I wouldn't call fusion. To me, fusion came to have it's own distinct sound in the 70's. It was typified by the absence of traditional jazz instruments, and more often than not resembles a rock band in that way. I don't like nit-picking either, but fusion has a distinct sound spotted a mile away. My guess is that people who really love fusion, might not even like some of the things I would to be more in a jazz-rock vein. In the same way that some "prog" fans dont like other forms of progressive rock.

Mikhael

11-29-2012, 12:15 PM

Nobody I've known has ever called stuff like Chicago or BS&T "jazz-rock", not ever. I see no distinction between that term and Fusion; after all, that's the definition of Fusion. This is no put-down of bands like Chicago or Chase; just that I've never heard them referred to in those terms. It was rock, just with horns added/featured.

mogrooves

11-29-2012, 12:36 PM

The term "fusion" is to jazz what "progressive" is to rock, in that both lack any real explanatory power in characterizing the actual music; they refer to a process and an ideology, respectively, rather than to the sounds themselves.

Jazz has always been a fusion of disparate musical streams, so reserving the term only for developments in the late 60s/70s is merely arbitrary rather than definitive. The term "Jazz rock" at least designates the two predominant musical styles that underwent a process of "fusion" in its development. "Fusion" in this context seems to me to be more appropriate where the rock element is largely absent or otherwise de-emphasized....

sonic

11-29-2012, 12:46 PM

Well I have heard such groups referred to as jazz rock ... since the 80s when I started listening to such music anyway. 'jazz rock' tends to have tight horn arrangements and structured songs in a rock context...and has soul influenced vocals. When there is improv, it tends to be rock improv rather than jazz improv. Early Chicago and If are the main contenders. The style pretty much disappeared after the early '70s. One group I really liked was Gasmask featuring Enrico Rava on trumpet.
The term 'fusion' covers a lot more ground, being established with Miles and Bitches Brew and then being identified with the kind of music RTF were making starting with Hymn of the Seventh Galaxy. But fusion has come along was since then. Music big name 'fusion' artists like Al di Meola, Mclaughlin, Scofield and Methney etc have been making from the mid 70s to the present covers a lot of ground yet it would still be found in the fusion category at your record store. So fusion is more or less an umbrella term for modern post '60s jazz that does not come direct from bop/modal traditions. It doesn't necessarily have to be electric.

MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER

11-29-2012, 02:31 PM

all this nitpicking about what to call which artist is *one* of the many reasons why Progressive Rock music is no longer popular

it was different back in the 70s

the Prog fans I knew werent focused on pidgeonholing each artist... anything that had Rock drumming and Rock style electric Keys and/or Guitar was all in the same fantastic new approach to the Rock sound... it didnt matter if the band was all black musicians from Africa (Osibisa) or all white musicians from England (ELP) or even musicians who also played Jazz (Return To Forever) or urban multi-racial musicians (Mandrill) ... as long as they were mixing various elements with Rock in progressive ways we loved it and didnt have any neurotic need to put artists in boxes. This is evidenced by the number of shows which often contained a mix of bands playing various progressive Rock sounds. The scene is pretty much dead now because of many things; segregation being one of those many things.

Progmatic

11-29-2012, 03:31 PM

simon moon

11-29-2012, 06:14 PM

:lol

I swear I didn't notice it was misspelled. Ass-i-nation ;).

I am suitably embarrassed. :oops

Some interesting comments so far.

Poisoned Youth

11-29-2012, 09:31 PM

The term "fusion" is to jazz what "progressive" is to Prog, in that both lack any real explanatory power in characterizing the actual music; they refer to a process and an ideology, respectively, rather than to the sounds themselves.

Jazz has always been a fusion of disparate musical streams, so reserving the term only for developments in the late 60s/70s is merely arbitrary rather than definitive.

Well said. :up

trurl

11-29-2012, 09:33 PM

Nobody I've known has ever called stuff like Chicago or BS&T "jazz-rock", not ever. Yes, they did. When I was a kid hearing that stuff (early 70's) that's exactly what they called it. In Pittsburgh, anyway.

Poisoned Youth

11-29-2012, 09:40 PM

well although I don't like nitpuicking, i think it's useful to distinguish between Chicago Transit Authority and Bitches Brew or Elastic Rock... there is a million miles between them...

Agreed.

With that said, I find "jazz-rock" to be broadest of all the terms - on a descriptive plane only. When I was doing my radio show, I regularly had shows I referred to as jazz-rock. The idea was to compare and contrast different artists that could be referred to in that matter. So Nucleus would get mixed with Donald Byrd or the Swiss band OM.

The idea was to look at jazz------------------------rock like a continuum. Sort of like the flavor profile for Scotch we have had if you get my drift.

I've personally thought that jazz-rock, in its broadest sense should have always been considered its own musical genre. It covers a broad spectrum of music and has certainly been around long enough.

moecurlythanu

11-29-2012, 10:34 PM

Yes, they did. When I was a kid hearing that stuff (early 70's) that's exactly what they called it. In Pittsburgh, anyway.

Not in Cleveland or the national publications. "Horn Rock" or "Brass Rock" were (& are) the terms, and are far more accurate than Jazz-Rock for those bands.

MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER

11-29-2012, 10:50 PM

surely not...I (and people around me) was well aware of ... Sex Pistols, ... disco punkdidn't exist in the early 70s, the era I was referring to

Trane

11-30-2012, 04:27 AM

it was different back in the 70s

the Prog fans I knew werent focused on pidgeonholing each artist... anything that had Rock drumming and Rock style electric Keys and/or Guitar was all in the same fantastic new approach to the Rock sound... it didnt matter if the band was all black musicians from Africa (Osibisa) or all white musicians from England (ELP) or even musicians who also played Jazz (Return To Forever) or urban multi-racial musicians (Mandrill) .

While this was true for most North Am radios in the 70's (except The ones patronizing mainly "ethnic" markets) throwing it all in a mixed bag, but many kids (yours truly included) made differiations... but it wasn't what I'd call pigoen holing

Yes, they did. When I was a kid hearing that stuff (early 70's) that's exactly what they called it. In Pittsburgh, anyway.

Wll what to expect from kids that lived in the armPittsburgh of America ?? (JK, we all know this is Buffalo ;))

Well, it just show that nothibng was cast in stone... Cleveland and Toronto were saying Brass Rock and Pittsburgh were saying jazz-rock

That's what I was saying earlier, not only close phontetically Brass and Jazz, the brass instruments were the emblem of jazz back then

Vic2012

11-30-2012, 04:49 AM

Yes, they did. .... that's exactly what they called it. In Pittsburgh, anyway.

In California too. I distinctly remember reading and hearing that term applied to Chicago and BS&T (the two biggies). BTW, I don't remember ever hearing of a group called "If." I've seen the name mentioned several times here, and I don't remember that name at all. Where were they from?

I might've heard the term "brass/rock" back then, but never "horn/rock." I think we hear different terms applied as genre labels in different parts of the world, states, regions, whatever, and a lot of those terms are applied retro-actively. I don't ever remember hearing the term "prog/rock" ever in the early-mid 70s, ever. It was always called "art/rock."

Trane

11-30-2012, 05:02 AM

In California too. I distinctly remember reading and hearing that term applied to Chicago and BS&T (the two biggies). BTW, I don't remember ever hearing of a group called "If." I've seen the name mentioned several times here, and I don't remember that name at all. Where were they from?

They're England's answer to Chicago (but not nearing the excellence of the first three Chicago albums), though there is a BS&T twist to their music as well... You can safely enjoy their first three albums... The fourth is a confusing affair sometimes being a live thing or some weird astudio mixbag depending in which country it was released...
They're not the only British band in that niche either

I might've heard the term "brass/rock" back then, but never "horn/rock." I think we hear different terms applied as genre labels in different parts of the world, states, regions, whatever, and a lot of those terms are applied retro-actively. I don't ever remember hearing the term "prog/rock" ever in the early-mid 70s, ever. It was always called "art/rock."

I've also never heard the term "horn-rock" before a thread on 2.0 two or three years back

And Indeed, as I said above, Art Rock was the nalme of prog rock in the 70's (but this debate's been done before ;) )

aplodon

11-30-2012, 05:53 AM

I've also never heard the term "horn-rock" before a thread on 2.0 two or three years back

And Indeed, as I said above, Art Rock was the nalme of prog rock in the 70's

I've never heard brass-rock or horn-rock before this thread.

And I never heard the term "art rock" in the 70s, it was all progressive rock in my part og the world (which was Sweden at that time).

mogrooves

11-30-2012, 10:39 AM

Nobody I've known has ever called stuff like Chicago or BS&T "jazz-rock"...

Only, perhaps, retrospectively, but the common operative term at the time was "horn rock", with "brass rock" used somewhat less so.

Jerjo

11-30-2012, 11:48 AM

I always heard the term "jazz rock" for bands like Chicago and BST. Not so much for Mahavishnu Orchestra, where I usually saw the "fusion" term far more often. But we can argue about pigeon holes for days on end, can't we? It's what we're best at.

No Pride

11-30-2012, 01:53 PM

fictionmusic

11-30-2012, 05:01 PM

Jazz has always been a fusion of disparate musical streams, so reserving the term only for developments in the late 60s/70s is merely arbitrary rather than definitive. The term "Jazz rock" at least designates the two predominant musical styles that underwent a process of "fusion" in its development. "Fusion" in this context seems to me to be more appropriate where the rock element is largely absent or otherwise de-emphasized....

I totally agree.
Even given the sonics and urgency of rock, it's hard to think of "Emergency" (for example) as belonging to any other genre than jazz from a strictly compositional and improvisiational angle. The term jazz-rock covers that music nicely then as it both acknowledges the lineage and typical practices of the music itself mixed with the sonic treatment of rock and burgeoning bag of tricks associated with it. I remember hearing people calling Larry Coryell "jazz-rock fusion", but the term Fusion itself seems more to do with Fuzack than Rock.

As an aside, I have never met anyone, with the exceptions of some people on this board, who ever called Blood Sweat and Tears, Chicago or even Lighthouse jazz-rock. It was just another form of Rock. Even with the inclusion of instruments usually associated with Jazz (and players thereof), there was little of the harmonic element which, to my ears at least, is the chief distinguishing feature of jazz.

mogrooves

11-30-2012, 05:08 PM

I totally agree.
Even given the sonics and urgency of rock, it's hard to think of "Emergency" (for example) as belonging to any other genre than jazz from a strictly compositional and improvisiational angle. The term jazz-rock covers that music nicely then as it both acknowledges the lineage and typical practices of the music itself mixed with the sonic treatment of rock and burgeoning bag of tricks associated with it. I remember hearing people calling Larry Coryell "jazz-rock fusion", but the term Fusion itself seems more to do with Fuzack than Rock.

As an aside, I have never met anyone, with the exceptions of some people on this board, who ever called Blood Sweat and Tears, Chicago or even Lighthouse jazz-rock. It was just another form of Rock. Even with the inclusion of instruments usually associated with Jazz (and players thereof), there was little of the harmonic element which, to my ears at least, is the chief distinguishing feature of jazz.

Agreed.

(I await with exhilarating anticipation the blowback on the "fuzak" meme) ;)

Mikhael

11-30-2012, 06:59 PM

Fuzack? FUZACK?!? AAARRRGGHHH!!!!!!

Actually, both Holdsworth and McLaughlin made mention of this in an article I read. They both said "fusion" was an accurate description of their music, but unfortunately the term had recently been co-opted to include things like Kenny G, which both of them weren't too happy about. In the 70s and into the 80s, "fusion" pointed directly at people like them, Weather Report, RtF, DiMeola, 7th House, etc. But like all experimental music, it got dumbed down into the "fuzak" mentioned above, and thus artists began distancing themselves from that term.

We've discussed things like this before, and the metaphor "Dancing about Architecture" really does apply. We have to use words to communicate, but in these cases, no matter how hard you try, the terms can be limiting or misleading in spite of efforts to the contrary. I used to get miffed about some of the off-the-wall characterizations I see here, but it really doesn't bother me much anymore; call it what you wish. The only peculiar thing in this arena that makes me wonder now is some people's interest in trying to rewrite/revise history to suit their objectives (though that happens in all disciplines, it seems).

Was that "blowback"? I never can tell...

mogrooves

11-30-2012, 11:09 PM

Was that "blowback"?

Close enough for jazz.....

moecurlythanu

11-30-2012, 11:35 PM

The only peculiar thing in this arena that makes me wonder now is some people's interest in trying to rewrite/revise history to suit their objectives (though that happens in all disciplines, it seems).

As they say in the British Parliament, "Hear, hear!!"

Trane

12-01-2012, 03:26 AM

I used to get miffed about some of the off-the-wall characterizations I see here, but it really doesn't bother me much anymore; call it what you wish. The only peculiar thing in this arena that makes me wonder now is some people's interest in trying to rewrite/revise history to suit their objectives (though that happens in all disciplines, it seems).

You know, it's worse on other prog sites...

I had a dispute on PA a few years back, because this weird uptight dude refused to acknowledge that drugs were also an issue into appreciating prog (as if prog fans were above that) or even an issue within the bands themselves. Like because, he wasn't a toker, tthe music he liked couldn't have possibly written by "drug fiends"... It simply coudn't be possible that Floyd's thoughtful lyrics was born from people who used mind-altering substance on the process of composition.
He's probably not into prog anymore (because he lost the debate big time), because of this uptightness, he's probably going to dislike Mozart, Beethoven or Trane-Davis-Mingus, etc... his problem really

But yeah, rewriting history (that's a form of revisionism) to fit personal agendas is fairly regular, but this pertains to allareas of life. Most of it is done in good faith, simply because the person lived their experience and think it's the standard for everyone

Sooo, I wouldn't worry about these Jazz/Brass or Art/Prog name differentiations, it's only a question of denomination (or nomenclature if you wish) rather than revisionism

Hal...

12-02-2012, 02:15 PM

From the Progarchives article:I read that but it means nothing to me because I couldn't find a source or bibliography. But then, I didn't look too hard, either.

Putting "brass rock" aside...there are still jazz-rock hybrids that I wouldn't call fusion. Yeah, and according to an earlier post of yours, Nucleus was one of them. The first time I ever heard them, I immediately thought "fusion", because they have "a distinct sound spotted a mile away", to use your words.

The only peculiar thing in this arena that makes me wonder now is some people's interest in trying to rewrite/revise history to suit their objectives (though that happens in all disciplines, it seems).
Like Trane, I too was quite young when these movements began. But, I've had both the experience of much older siblings, siblings-in-law, and friends (8-15 years older... almost as old as Mo) to influence my musical predilections. And then I read in both books and magazines things that corroborated what I'd already learned. My current understanding is based on experience and what people like McLaughlin have said (I read the same interview, I think).

fictionmusic

12-02-2012, 02:46 PM

Fuzack? FUZACK?!? AAARRRGGHHH!!!!!!

We've discussed things like this before, and the metaphor "Dancing about Architecture" really does apply. We have to use words to communicate, but in these cases, no matter how hard you try, the terms can be limiting or misleading in spite of efforts to the contrary. I used to get miffed about some of the off-the-wall characterizations I see here, but it really doesn't bother me much anymore; call it what you wish. The only peculiar thing in this arena that makes me wonder now is some people's interest in trying to rewrite/revise history to suit their objectives (though that happens in all disciplines, it seems).

...

Well said. I totally agree, but one thing I have never understood is the negative connotation with Dancing about architecture. I can't see why someone couldn't. Similarly I can't see any issue about painting about music or playing about dance etc. etc. All of these disciplines have more in common with each other than differences. They all rely on form and symmetry, craft and skill and of course the emotional gravity of inspiration and personal meaning. I understand the difficulties in communicating anything, but typically when words fail us, it isn't really a problem with words.

No matter, just a niggling point. This discussion has been very entertaining so far.

sonic

12-03-2012, 01:31 AM

painting about music
Kandinsky

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H62BRsqEruE

Trane

12-03-2012, 05:49 AM

^^^
Love Kadinsky... maybe my fave with Paul Klee

Well said. I totally agree, but one thing I have never understood is the negative connotation with Dancing about architecture. I can't see why someone couldn't. Similarly I can't see any issue about painting about music or playing about dance etc. etc. All of these disciplines have more in common with each other than differences. They all rely on form and symmetry, craft and skill and of course the emotional gravity of inspiration and personal meaning. I understand the difficulties in communicating anything, but typically when words fail us, it isn't really a problem with words.

I get your point well, and indeed you're right... and yet if you can paint about music or dance to architecture, it's obviously an interpretation that can't be taken for reference... I think that's what's meant by the expression...

Dancing about music and painting about architecture seem morec apropriate, though ;)

Lino

12-03-2012, 03:47 PM

Yeah, and according to an earlier post of yours, Nucleus was one of them. The first time I ever heard them, I immediately thought "fusion", because they have "a distinct sound spotted a mile away", to use your words.

Depends which album. So it's a bad example, shoot me. ;) I'll try to come up with good examples, and then you can tell me why they are fusion and not something else. lol

MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER

12-17-2012, 11:38 PM

I've never heard brass-rock or horn-rock before this thread.

And I never heard the term "art rock" in the 70s, it was all progressive rock in my part og the world (which was Sweden at that time).I know that many of the northern Euro countries differentiated between what they termed Symphonic Rock and Jazz Rock in the 70s... but then, it was all part of the same expansion/progression of Rock music back then even if there were distinctions between what the Classic trained musician and the Jazz trained musician were doing with Rock music. It was a very cool zeitgeist that wasnt as marginalized or pidgeonholed as it sadly has become.

Progmatic

12-18-2012, 10:06 AM

I know that many of the northern Euro countries differentiated between what they termed Symphonic Rock and Jazz Rock in the 70s... but then, it was all part of the same expansion/progression of Rock music back then even if there were distinctions between what the Classic trained musician and the Jazz trained musician were doing with Rock music. It was a very cool zeitgeist that wasnt as marginalized or pidgeonholed as it sadly has become.

As I agree with you that the pigeon holes were more wider back then, it does not mean that there is no value in categorizing music.

The word "marginalized" means like, by the fact that people place the music under some category, we add some negative value to it. In fact nobody can impact anything with the placing it in the category. The whole purpose of category is to express the general description of the music style verbally. E.g. instead of saying that music uses horns, rock rhythm and jazz improvisations I say it is jazz rock. What is marginalized in that?

yoyiceu

12-18-2012, 02:38 PM

Besides jazz-rock, I've also sometimes heard of rock-jazz... A band I would include under this banner, besides Chicago, BS& T and the like, would be Thirsty Moon, for example. I would guess the main difference would be that rock-jazz employs mostly a rock based rhythm section, over which soloists may improvise all they want, sometimes in a jazzy mode.
Most jazz rock would do the opposite. An example, Jeff Beck's mid seventies's albums.

MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER

12-19-2012, 03:27 AM

By "marginalized" I mean that when the revisionists in the 80s created the 4-letter-word "prog", they effectually destroyed the beauty of the multi-cultural Progressive Rock musical zeitgeist that existed in the early 70s when Fusion, Symph, Afro Prog, Avant Prog bands would all sometimes share the same stage at a show. The 80s/revisionist idea that "prog" = only Symph Rock, no Jazz musicians or others allowed is what has served to marginalize and make the term prog a joke in the world at large. It used to be a cool musical movement with Classically trained musicians and Jazz musicians and African musicians all experimenting with the progression of Rock music. Now when the term "prog" is mentioned it seems people immediately think about some excessive/twee crap involving trolls and wizards and elves made by nerdy white boys. It was definitely NOT that in the 70s, though that was certainly a portion of the style, it was NOT the majority of the style.

Trane

12-19-2012, 05:20 AM

moecurlythanu

12-19-2012, 09:09 AM

The 80s/revisionist idea that "prog" = only Symph Rock, no Jazz musicians or others allowed is what has served to marginalize and make the term prog a joke in the world at large.

This didn't happen. Japanese Jazzy Prog bands like Black Page, Kenso, and others were widely accepted as Prog bands at the time. In fact, the Made In Japan label made a couple of compilation albums, one featuring Symphonic Prog bands entitled 'Symphonic Rock Collection,' and a compilation of Jazzy Prog bands called 'Jazz Rock Collection.' Both were issued by a Prog label, marketed to Prog fans, carried by Prog sellers, and accepted as Prog by the fanbase at the time. This idea that Prog came to mean only Symphonic based Progressive in the 80s is a complete and utter myth. However, since you're the only one I've heard pushing this, it's a small myth.

Jymbot

12-19-2012, 09:22 AM

However, since you're the only one I've heard pushing this, it's a small myth.

Jab delivered direct to the heart.

Mysterious Traveller: no opportunity for riposte.
You are dead ...and Moe has departed the fencing area.

Trane

12-19-2012, 07:18 PM

This didn't happen. Japanese Jazzy Prog bands like Black Page, Kenso, and others were widely accepted as Prog bands at the time. In fact, the Made In Japan label made a couple of compilation albums, one featuring Symphonic Prog bands entitled 'Symphonic Rock Collection,' and a compilation of Jazzy Prog bands called 'Jazz Rock Collection.' Both were issued by a Prog label, marketed to Prog fans, carried by Prog sellers, and accepted as Prog by the fanbase at the time. This idea that Prog came to mean only Symphonic based Progressive in the 80s is a complete and utter myth. However, since you're the only one I've heard pushing this, it's a small myth.

I can tell you that I got a few letter/PMs of insults when I and a few others were introducing (with the Admins & owners' consents) all these jazz-rock bands to ProgArchives, saying we were defacing the meaning of "prog"

moecurlythanu

12-19-2012, 07:45 PM

East New York

12-19-2012, 08:27 PM

Hal...

12-19-2012, 09:01 PM

...I consider PA to be Newbieville, and wouldn't take much of the opinions of it's membership as all that knowledgeable. Still, I do think there is a line, and I think we probably don't agree on where it is. For instance, I don't think "straight" or "regular" Jazz-Rock is Prog. It's the Prog compositional style that makes it so.

Just felt that needed to be reiterated.

Digital_Man

12-19-2012, 10:16 PM

I didn't really read it but I kind of reject the idea that jazz rock or fusion and prog are dead or were ever assassinated. That's pure crap to me. Off the radar yes but not dead. The funny thing that has seemed to have happened is that prog has seemed to have adopted jazz and fusion. I see Miles Davis, Soft Machine, RTF, MO, WR and many other fusion and jazz bands mentioned on prog sites including this one. A lot of prog fans like stuff like that sure but it seems that most if not all modern fusion has found a home under the big prog umbrella(not that I'm complaining since fusion is one of my favorite subgenres(if you can call it that).

sonic

12-19-2012, 10:22 PM

These guys are to blame!
https://lh3.ggpht.com/-Hc9EjIFYh5g/TksQrlG2E0I/AAAAAAAAA_o/fZFPzJWvYNM/s1600/Live.jpg

Trane

12-20-2012, 03:09 AM

No offense to you personally, Hughes, but I consider PA to be Newbieville, and wouldn't take much of the opinions of it's membership as all that knowledgeable. Still, I do think there is a line, and I think we probably don't agree on where it is. For instance, I don't think "straight" or "regular" Jazz-Rock is Prog. It's the Prog compositional style that makes it so.

You're right that it was (and still is) some kind of newbieville, though there are/were all kinds of knowledgeable members there ...
But there is one thing I'm rather sure about, if you're a non-Anglophone newbie (with limited Anglo skills), PA is a much safer and more welcoming place than PE... >> so PA iis an entry level site maybe, but it plays a somewhat important role in attracting new fans of th gebnre

:lol You have GOT to be kidding me.

nence the symph weenie syndrome MT is on about

Fifth Element

12-20-2012, 08:32 AM

Jazz fusion = smooth jazz = fuzak

No Pride

12-20-2012, 12:21 PM

Jazz fusion = smooth jazz = fuzak
Not in my universe!

Mikhael

12-20-2012, 01:34 PM

Not in my universe!

Mine either. Fusion /= smooth jazz. For me, Fusion still refers to adventurous jazzers that went into the rock realm, and combined aspects of the two. Smooth jazz? Ew. Kind of what Al DiMeola called "happy sax music"; not something he was fond of either.

Progmatic

12-20-2012, 01:38 PM

Also not all music related to smooth jazz is bad...for instance some of the best of Jan Garbarek's work is very close to smooth jazz

No Pride

12-20-2012, 01:53 PM

For me, Fusion still refers to adventurous jazzers that went into the rock realm, and combined aspects of the two.
Exactly!

One of my favorite fusion bands, Tribal Tech got their little dig in about fuzak in their tune, "The Big Wave." It starts out with about 20 seconds of smooth jazz, then goes into this manic, high energy fusion tune, as if to say, "smooth THIS!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CjUnO14kuk

Guitarplyrjvb

12-20-2012, 02:13 PM

I have a fair amount of fusion in my collection and greatly respect the players. I think where the music fails a bit is on the composition side. Most jazz, to me, is a repetitive chord progression which serves as a base for the players to improvise over. At times, the music just doesn't seem to have enough meat to it. The improvising itself has to be thought of as a composition, I suppose, and it's certainly impressive. There are, of course, exceptions to this. Holdsworth and Bruford come to mind. Chick Corea and maybe Mahavishnu. I guess, though, that most popular music, whether it be jazz or otherwise, isn't compositionally very dense, so I suppose it's not fair to malign it on that score!

Digital_Man

12-20-2012, 03:25 PM

I had a Tribal Tech album back in the nineties that was really great called "reality check." I'd say they are probably one of the best fusion bands of the past twenty years or so.

Regarding the youtube track posted, I love it when bands throw you off balance like that and the music does a 180. I've heard that in music by King Crimson, Ozric Tentacles and Camel also.

mogrooves

12-20-2012, 04:25 PM

Progmatic

12-20-2012, 04:42 PM

As I said smooth jazz is not always that terrible

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mjgr9UJuODM

No Pride

12-20-2012, 05:30 PM

I had a Tribal Tech album back in the nineties that was really great called "reality check." I'd say they are probably one of the best fusion bands of the past twenty years or so.
"Reality Check" is a good one, one of my favorites out of their ten albums.

They went through a couple of phases in their development. On their first two albums (which are sadly oop now), they were a 6 piece band with a percussionist who played mallet instruments and a sax player.Their music was more composition intensive in those days. This tune is from their first album and imho, it has some things in common with prog:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXVz6Ac1KRE

They lost the sax player on the third album and the percussionist on the fourth, becoming a fusion band with the more common instrumentation: guitar, bass, keyboards and drums. I missed the sound of the larger ensemble, but they were still putting out great stuff, like this tune from their fourth s/t album (you can hear the Weather Report influence that was prominent in much of their material):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4Oea7L1kPo

By their 8th and 9th album, they became more of a spontaneous composition group, ala Miles in the early '70s. Their 10th album which came out this year after a long hiatus combines "vintage" TT with "modern" TT.

No Pride

12-20-2012, 06:02 PM

That Tribal Tech track is really impressive. It does, however, exemplify pretty much everything I came to dislike when fusion "assassinated" jazz-rock. Given the general nature of my musical preferences I probably should dig this stuff but, alas, 'tis--evidently--not to be......
Well Mo, if I'm correctly assuming that you consider "jazz-rock" to basically be rock with some jazz influence, I can understand you not liking a band like Tribal Tech. But knowing that you're a jazz enthusiast, I have trouble understanding your dislike of this kind of music, which has much roots in jazz tradition, but rocks at the same time. Co-leader (guitar player) Scott Henderson can play blues-rock as good as anybody, which he has demonstrated in his solo albums, but he's also a world class jazz player.

MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER

12-20-2012, 08:13 PM

I can tell you that I got a few letter/PMs of insults when I and a few others were introducing (with the Admins & owners' consents) all these jazz-rock bands to ProgArchives, saying we were defacing the meaning of "prog"SHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Moe says I'm the only person on earth who noticed this trend and bot says I'm dead so your opinion doesn't count.

and anyone else who noticed that the Neo movement in the 80s took the term "progressive rock" hostage as "Symph only" is just a fake profile created by me :roll

MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER

12-20-2012, 08:16 PM

Prog fans are born navel gazers, it seems.that's the first accurate statement I think I've seen from you Moe ;)

Digital_Man

12-20-2012, 09:12 PM

Jan Garbarek is really good but I'm not sure I would classify him as smooth jazz over all. He was on the ECM label after all if I'm not mistaken. But even if he is smooth jazz I agree that not all of it is horrible. Pat Metheny had some smooth jazz stuff that wasn't bad either.

mogrooves

12-20-2012, 09:47 PM

Well Mo, if I'm correctly assuming that you consider "jazz-rock" to basically be rock with some jazz influence, I can understand you not liking a band like Tribal Tech. But knowing that you're a jazz enthusiast, I have trouble understanding your dislike of this kind of music, which has much roots in jazz tradition, but rocks at the same time.

Ernie, for me "jazz-rock" was a 60s/early 70s thing defined by jazz players, e.g., Coryell, Steve Marcus, Tony Williams Lifetime, Nucleus, McLaughlin/MO, RTF (w/Connors) etc.. I never considered, say, Patto, If, or Blodwyn Pig--"rock with some jazz influence"--to be "jazz-rock."

But with "fusion" ascendant by the mid-70s, what had seemed exploratory and radical in the late 60s/70s sounded increasingly formulaic and pat to me, notwithstanding the chops and expertise of its players, monsters all. As I said, it's a music I should've dug but didn't. Not to be discounted was my move at the time to straight-ahead bebop, when the jazz wars between swing and bop in the 40s were being recapitulated between straight-ahead (acoustic) and fusion (electric) in the 70s, which no doubt colored my perspective.

moecurlythanu

12-20-2012, 10:01 PM

SHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Moe says I'm the only person on earth who noticed this trend and bot says I'm dead so your opinion doesn't count.

and anyone else who noticed that the Neo movement in the 80s took the term "progressive rock" hostage as "Symph only" is just a fake profile created by me :roll

I gave you factual evidence which disproves your argument, and which you have yet to refute.

But I get it....You're not going to let your campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.

For the record, I'm not saying you were the only one to notice something. I'm saying it never happened, and I proved it. I'm saying your viewpoint is revisionist fantasy. Don't know how I can be clearer.

No Pride

12-21-2012, 11:17 AM

Ernie, for me "jazz-rock" was a 60s/early 70s thing defined by jazz players, e.g., Coryell, Steve Marcus, Tony Williams Lifetime, Nucleus, McLaughlin/MO, RTF (w/Connors) etc.. I never considered, say, Patto, If, or Blodwyn Pig--"rock with some jazz influence"--to be "jazz-rock."

But with "fusion" ascendant by the mid-70s, what had seemed exploratory and radical in the late 60s/70s sounded increasingly formulaic and pat to me, notwithstanding the chops and expertise of its players, monsters all. As I said, it's a music I should've dug but didn't. Not to be discounted was my move at the time to straight-ahead bebop, when the jazz wars between swing and bop in the 40s were being recapitulated between straight-ahead (acoustic) and fusion (electric) in the 70s, which no doubt colored my perspective.
Well, I think every musical genre (at least the ones with artistic rather than commercial intent) starts out being fresh and exciting and as more people gradually jump on the bandwagon it can start to get more predictable and formulaic. The thing is, if it's a style that speaks to you, you don't mind that so much, at least as long as the quality stays high. Heck, this message board wouldn't even exist if that wasn't the case. But I can appreciate what you're saying.

For me, I had already gotten into straight ahead jazz a couple of years prior to the time fusion was born, although my roots were in rock and that's a part of me that never died, although it soon had to share the space in my heart with other kinds of music. I vividly remember when Tony Williams Lifetime's "Emergency!" came out; it was a kind of music that I knew was going to happen soon, but it was still shocking (in a good way) when it did. And as a guitar player coming from rock and getting into jazz, fusion was the perfect and most comfortable music for me to fit into. I spent some time doing the big box archtop, dark clean toned, straight ahead jazz guitar thing, but it never totally felt like home to me. The jazz players I loved best were mostly sax and trumpet players and of course, they could make their instruments scream, honk and sustain; all things that couldn't be done with that kind of guitar sound. I was beginning to feel like I'd chosen the wrong instrument until I remembered that you could come close to replicating those kind of horn sounds by using a gained up amplifier and some lighter gauge strings. So going the fusion route was a no-brainer for me.

I guess I was aware of all of the jazz "border wars" between electric and acoustic jazz, but I wrote it off as being the product of closed minds. I will admit that once I bought another archtop hollow body guitar and played it with a clean sound, I started getting a lot more calls for straight ahead jazz gigs. It was an "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" kind of thing. But I always stayed involved with the rockier end of guitar playing at the same time. I just didn't bother mentioning that to the jazz purists I was working with. :)

Trane

12-21-2012, 02:10 PM

I gave you factual evidence which disproves your argument, and which you have yet to refute.

But I get it....You're not going to let your campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.

For the record, I'm not saying you were the only one to notice something. I'm saying it never happened, and I proved it. I'm saying your viewpoint is revisionist fantasy. Don't know how I can be clearer.

I'm not MT's lawyer, but your "facts" are mainly your persinal experiences... which are not any worthier than MT's or mine

I have subscribed to the Belgian fanzine Prog-Resiste since 95, and back then these guys loathed anything veering towards jazz... Even Caravan had little saving graces to their ears >> this was a neo/symphonic refuge >> they immediately adopted post-rock with symphonics leaning, though... OK, nowadays the Symph Weenies are a minoity in an expanded staff, but back then, they were only five, and only one enjoyed a greater scope of music...

Mikhael

12-21-2012, 02:35 PM

Well, I never understood MT's irrational urge to revise history, but I don't really care. It seems everyone ELSE knows what we're talking about, and many here are fusion fans (as I am). So I don't really care if someone wants to lump everything under the Prog umbrella, although the constant barrage under the guise of "The Truth" gets old. What *I* want to know is:

Is this thread about somebody mooning Chick Corea?

Hal...

12-21-2012, 03:29 PM

I guess I was aware of all of the jazz "border wars" between electric and acoustic jazz, but I wrote it off as being the product of closed minds.And weren't the purists always the ones with the closed minds? In all the interviews with the "electric" jazzers I've read, they have nothing but reverence for their predecessors. I've never read a compliment from a purist toward an electric jazzer... except maybe the guys in Miles' 2nd Great Quintet (who plugged in later; i.e. Williams, Hancock, & Shorter).

So I don't really care if someone wants to lump everything under the Prog umbrella, although the constant barrage under the guise of "The Truth" gets old.

Just felt that comment needed reiterated.

Trane

12-21-2012, 03:35 PM

walt

12-21-2012, 03:37 PM

I posted this in another thread, but here it tis again.If this is fusion, i consider it good fusion.YMMV.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2cbJBIAjlI

Hal...

12-21-2012, 03:47 PM

If this is fusion, i consider it good fusion.

Nah. That's excellent!

MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER

12-21-2012, 03:49 PM

I gave you factual evidence which disproves your argument, and which you have yet to refute.

I'm saying it never happened, and I proved it.There is no such proof. You are delusional if you think you speak for every Neo fanboy in the 80s

MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER

12-21-2012, 03:53 PM

I'm not MT's lawyer, but your "facts" are mainly your persinal experiences... which are not any worthier than MT's or mineQFT!

and thank you for stating some actual proof rather than imaginary kind of proof Moe offered

MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER

12-21-2012, 03:57 PM

OK, nowadays the Symph Weenies are a minoity in an expanded staff, but back then, they were only five, and only one enjoyed a greater scope of music...I dont think any Symph weenies would actually click on this thread unless they were real imbeciles and just wanted to take a dump in it, but if Symph weenies are truly on the decline it would be a much better world for all fans of Prog music so here's to you being right on that account Trane! :ipa

Mikhael

12-21-2012, 06:35 PM

I dont think any Symph weenies would actually click on this thread unless they were real imbeciles and just wanted to take a dump in it, but if Symph weenies are truly on the decline it would be a much better world for all fans of Prog music so here's to you being right on that account Trane! :ipa

Maybe Symph fans think the same about you. Taking a dump on someone else's taste in music, simply to make yourself look superior, doesn't give you much cred anyway. How about we discuss the music and leave this goofy crap out of it?

fictionmusic

12-21-2012, 07:24 PM

Maybe Symph fans think the same about you. Taking a dump on someone else's taste in music, simply to make yourself look superior, doesn't give you much cred anyway. How about we discuss the music and leave this goofy crap out of it?

If he left that goofy crap out of it he'd have nothing left to say!

I've seen this kind of thing from him for years now and no matter what anyone else says he either ignores them completely (especially when they prove their points) or responds only to the parts he has wit enough to address. Either way, besides the mantra, it makes for slim pickings.

I will say this though (more in the nature of an excercise in futility than any hope for edification); I am a working jazz player, grew up among jazz players, studied with and from them, and not a one of them have ever have called themselves a "Progressive Rock" musician. Even the rockier jazzers among them (of which I count myself as one) never expressed the idea that they were once considered in that holy pantheon of Progressive Rockers and were subsequently kicked out of Eden by revisionist Symph Weenies.
This whole thing is an idiosyncratic nostalgia-trip with a self-absorbed, self-righteous agenda and makes threads like these veer towards the useless.

Poisoned Youth

12-22-2012, 07:11 AM

LP, can you please just TALK about the artists and music you like for a change without the obsession of classifying them? There's some knowledgeable conversationalists in this thread and others like it (such as David, Ernie, Mo, etc.), and it's disheartening to open up threads like this to always see it come down to this.

You have more to offer than this.

Vic2012

12-22-2012, 11:04 AM

You have more to offer than this.

I agree. MT has a lot of musical knowledge and a lot to offer. I think the problem is the unsulting tone he uses. We share a lot of the same tastes in progressive music, but I'm one of those that makes a clear distinction between fusion/jazz, and prog/rock. Fusion is jazz. Prog is rock. There is cross pollination between both camps. But I just don't consider Santana or Mandrill "prog." And I admit that I have a narrow definition of what prog is but I'm okay with it. I like a lot of fusion, jazz, latin, etc., but it's not prog.

Vic2012

12-22-2012, 11:06 AM

moecurlythanu

12-22-2012, 12:33 PM

I'm not MT's lawyer,

I'm glad you're not my lawyer either, because you have an inability to recognize evidence.

but your "facts" are mainly your persinal experiences... which are not any worthier than MT's or mine

Seriously? Are you for real? I listed bands, a label, and 2 compilations. Are you saying that they don't exist? I can assure you that they do, and weren't made specifically for me.

I have subscribed to the Belgian fanzine Prog-Resiste since 95, and back then these guys loathed anything veering towards jazz... Even Caravan had little saving graces to their ears >> this was a neo/symphonic refuge >> they immediately adopted post-rock with symphonics leaning, though... OK, nowadays the Symph Weenies are a minoity in an expanded staff, but back then, they were only five, and only one enjoyed a greater scope of music...

And 1995 has exactly what to do with how Prog was considered in the 80s? I know English isn't your first language, but c'mon man.

moecurlythanu

12-22-2012, 12:39 PM

There is no such proof. You are delusional if you think you speak for every Neo fanboy in the 80s

And you are ridiculous if you think the opinions of a few "Neo" fanboys in the 80s constituted the prevailing wind. If that was the standard for determining anything, we'd only be able to be certain about gravity and the sun coming up.

I tell you what. I'm on vacation til Jan 2. Not what I wanted to do with my time, but how about I go up into the attic, pull out the boxes of catalogs, fanzines, & mags from the 80s, and do some scans and uploads. I don't need a mirror site with this board. You want me to do that? We can irrevocably bury your fantasies forever. What say we do?

moecurlythanu

12-22-2012, 12:43 PM

QFT!

and thank you for stating some actual proof rather than imaginary kind of proof Moe offered

Well that's what I thought. In your fever dreams, Trane's assertion constitutes proof, where my example of concrete, actual bands, label & albums does not.

We live in a world where belief is more valued than fact, and evidence is shunned in favor of faith. Your "critical thinking skills" are but a tiny symptom of a much larger disease.

MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER

12-22-2012, 01:02 PM

MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER

12-22-2012, 01:05 PM

Maybe Symph fans think the same about you. Taking a dump on someone else's taste in music, simply to make yourself look superior, doesn't give you much cred anyway. How about we discuss the music and leave this goofy crap out of it?uh... except for the obvious fact that anyone who knows me knows that I like pretty much *all* Prog equally, including being a big Symph fan myself! I have not 'taken a dump on Symph' so your assertion is unfounded and downright ignorant of my point.

moecurlythanu

12-22-2012, 01:34 PM

Look who's perpetuating the inane course of conversation here! I find it ironic that I am the one being asked to stick to the subject (which by the way, "The Assination of Jazz Rock" whatever that means) when Moe is the one who continues the idiotic attacks on others here.

Disagreeing with you and presenting contrary evidence to your positions is an attack? Wow. In that case, there have been several "idiotic attacks" upon you in this thread by several different people. Heavy is the weight of martyrdom.

Go back and look at the thread. You'll see I responded to one of your posts, not vice versa.

Facts...Damn pesky things.

sonic

12-22-2012, 01:51 PM

Wow. From jazz rock to a bitch slapping extravaganza. PE 3.0 has hit its stride. :lol

fictionmusic

12-22-2012, 02:56 PM

By the way, as I was reading this thread I was playing that Joe Chambers thing. One thing I like about this new site is that when you post while playing a YT video, the act of posting doesn't stop the video. Good jazz, btw.

I really enjoyed that Joe Chambers clip. On the other hand who really enjoys the bitch slapping extravaganza? It is of course a consequence of the nomenclature crusader and happens pretty well every time this topic comes up. All you need to do is have a thread titled jazz-rock and it's just a matter of time before we get here.

Trane

12-22-2012, 07:16 PM

I'm glad you're not my lawyer either, because you have an inability to recognize evidence.

Seriously? Are you for real? I listed bands, a label, and 2 compilations. Are you saying that they don't exist? I can assure you that they do, and weren't made specifically for me.

And 1995 has exactly what to do with how Prog was considered in the 80s? I know English isn't your first language, but c'mon man.

Dude, Citing two obscurre Japanese compilations (despite Japa, being one of the two stronghold 80's prog on the planet) and holding them as 80's openness banner is definitely a personal appreciation, AFAIAC(Yes Japanese prog fans were definitely more open-minded then, rather than most 80's or early 90's prog fans on the rest of the planet)

The fact is that these Prog-Resiste guys starting this fanzine in 95 were the archetype of 80's prog lovers, that just started their fazine in the mid-90's >> their first ten issues were filled with reference to Gerrad, Bellaphon, IQ, Twelth Night, Marillion, Pallas, Pendragon, It Bites etc... Personally, outside of Marillion and to a lesser extent IQ, I'd hardly heard of any if them (and ditto my buddies)... I learned about the 80's prog through their writings

You can check out their mag contents by clicking on their very early fanzine issues and see what these guys were reviewing (they don't feature their special articles in those table of contents, for some strange reasons) >> You'll not see the least amount of jazz (yet they speak of Bjork in their first issue)...
http://www.progresiste.com/issues.php
Just know that things like Deus Ex Machina or Runaway Totem reviews was the doing of only one of the five writers (Dom Genin)... Things start vchanging around issue #10, with the arrival of new writers... Magma, Caravan Forgas, DFA start appearing... And other mags like Acid Dragon or Big Bang were also relatively hermetic to anything jazz in the 90's

Hal...

12-22-2012, 09:03 PM

It is of course a consequence of the nomenclature crusader and happens pretty well every time this topic comes up. All you need to do is have a thread titled jazz-rock and it's just a matter of time before we get here.
That's why I've always ignored him. In fact, in 12 years as a member of PE, he's only the 2nd person here I've actually put on ignore, and that was only because of this thread. Perhaps I should have said to him after the 2nd or 3rd time, "look, you made your point. Repeating yourself ad nauseam isn't going to change anyone's mind."

Personally, if it were me and I realized I was a minority of 1, I'd have shut up after the first useless diatribe.

You know, if everyone ignored him, wouldn't he go away?

moecurlythanu

12-23-2012, 12:54 AM

Dude, Citing two obscurre Japanese compilations (despite Japa, being one of the two stronghold 80's prog on the planet) and holding them as 80's openness banner is definitely a personal appreciation,

:lol Are you kidding me? 1987-1989 was Prog's nadir...Everything was obscure. Prog was obscure! I'm assuming you mean that you didn't have them. Tsk, tsk. But you are correct in stating that Japan was a minor hotbed of Prog in the 80s.

AFAIAC(Yes Japanese prog fans were definitely more open-minded then, rather than most 80's or early 90's prog fans on the rest of the planet)

Now you're contradicting yourself. You're saying it happened, but because it was Japan it doesn't count.

The fact is that these Prog-Resiste guys starting this fanzine in 95 were the archetype of 80's prog lovers, that just started their fazine in the mid-90's >> their first ten issues were filled with reference to Gerrad, Bellaphon, IQ, Twelth Night, Marillion, Pallas, Pendragon, It Bites etc... Personally, outside of Marillion and to a lesser extent IQ, I'd hardly heard of any if them (and ditto my buddies)... I learned about the 80's prog through their writings

Hmm, sounds like "personal appreciation" to me.

And other mags like Acid Dragon or Big Bang were also relatively hermetic to anything jazz in the 90's

First of all, that's irrelevant to MT's post that I took issue with. He said that revisionists in the 80s said that only Symphonic Prog was Prog. Jazzy Prog isn't the only other option. Secondly, Jazz is a Meta-Genre. It's like Rock, Country, Folk, etc. Only the arrogance of the Prog fan ever had the temerity to place a Meta-Genre that was far older under the heading of a sub-genre of Rock. (Prog-Rock.) And/or Sub-genres of Jazz, such as Jazz Rock or Fusion.
In the 90s/00s, Progressive Rock fans who also loved Jazz Rock/Fusion decided that their primary loves needed to be classified under the same umbrella group (Prog.) For reasons that I apparently cannot relate to. It's revisionist, and it's inaccurate. Most seem to be aware of that, but then there are you diehards.

How do you explain Audion Magazine, Eurock, Harmonie, and The Organ? All of whom covered Prog in the 80s as Prog, that was not Symphonic?

I'm not going to take the time to dig out my old fanzines/catalogs/magazines and scan & upload them until and unless I know that this site is going to keep all threads permanent. That's too much work to see it disappear simply because no one is posting recently in the thread.

MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER

12-23-2012, 02:13 AM

their first ten issues were filled with reference to Gerrad, Bellaphon, IQ, Twelth Night, Marillion, Pallas, Pendragon, It Bites etc... Personally, outside of Marillion and to a lesser extent IQThe problem with facts is that they do not stop Moe from turning this thread into a bitchfest about how his opinion is right and your facts and my 70s Prog experiences are wrong. He will continue to badger and badger and badger until he completely destroys any semblance of this thread (not that "assination of Jazz Rock is necessarily a very clear thread topic mind you) He is the type who MUST HAVE the last word so that he can claim victory in his little world... let him go.

Back to the original topic: whether Jazz Rock has been assinated or not ;)

As I stated earlier, in the early-mid 70s it was all part of the progression of Rock music. It didnt matter to the music fans I hung with in NY that these were Jazz musicians, we loved it cause it ROCKED and it was just as progressive as King Crimson and Hatfield and PFM. Assination... may be nowadays, but not back then!
LP, can you please just TALK about the artists and music you like for a change without the obsession of classifying them?I'm guessing you haven't read my posts. I have stated that classification is the trend since the 80s. We had no such weeny classifications when musicians first started doing progressive things with Rock music. I haven't classified anything in this thread so I have no idea why you would write such a thing.

moecurlythanu

12-23-2012, 03:08 AM

The problem with facts is that they do not stop Moe from turning this thread into a bitchfest about how his opinion is right and your facts and my 70s Prog experiences are wrong. He will continue to badger and badger and badger until he completely destroys any semblance of this thread (not that "assination of Jazz Rock is necessarily a very clear thread topic mind you) He is the type who MUST HAVE the last word so that he can claim victory in his little world... let him go.

:huh Again, you were the first to turn the discussion in this direction with post #89. I know that doesn't matter to your Joan of Arc sensibility. I haven't merely stated opinions. You have. I haven't seen a single fact from you. You see, in order to move from belief to fact, there must be independently provable evidence, hence my citation of the Japanese bands, label, and CDs. This is evidently lost on you. I've seen your posts on religion on PE2, so this isn't out-of-character with you. But you haven't provided a single shred of evidence that is independently provable. I guess when anecdotal evidence colors your whole world, that's good enough.

Since you have apparently come late to a concern for this thread, I'll give you my word that if I do upload scans that bury your fantasy, I'll do so in a new thread. That will be dependent on whether or not the thread is permanent, but I'll likely call it something like "The Death Of A Dream."

moecurlythanu

12-23-2012, 03:15 AM

fictionmusic said: I've seen this kind of thing from him for years now and no matter what anyone else says he either ignores them completely (especially when they prove their points) or responds only to the parts he has wit enough to address. Either way, besides the mantra, it makes for slim pickings.

Hal... said: Personally, if it were me and I realized I was a minority of 1, I'd have shut up after the first useless diatribe.

This is a wake-up call. Earth to MT.

Trane

12-23-2012, 04:56 AM

:lol Are you kidding me? 1987-1989 was Prog's nadir...Everything was obscure. Prog was obscure! I'm assuming you mean that you didn't have them. Tsk, tsk. But you are correct in stating that Japan was a minor hotbed of Prog in the 80s.

Oh!!! And I'm supposed to be kidding you!!! :lol...

Nope, in the 80's Japan was one of the only two hotbeds for Prog on the planet (if you exclude RIO, which was international, but even more obscurre than neo-prog), the other hotbed was the UK (both of them specializing in neo, btw) ...

Hmm, sounds like "personal appreciation" to me.
Indeed, you share your personal appreciation that you consider factual.. and I counter with my own "facts" which are a personl appreciation ;)

First of all, that's irrelevant to MT's post that I took issue with. He said that revisionists in the 80s said that only Symphonic Prog was Prog. Jazzy Prog isn't the only other option. Secondly, Jazz is a Meta-Genre. It's like Rock, Country, Folk, etc. Only the arrogance of the Prog fan ever had the temerity to place a Meta-Genre that was far older under the heading of a sub-genre of Rock. (Prog-Rock.) And/or Sub-genres of Jazz, such as Jazz Rock or Fusion.
In the 90s/00s, Progressive Rock fans who also loved Jazz Rock/Fusion decided that their primary loves needed to be classified under the same umbrella group (Prog.) For reasons that I apparently cannot relate to. It's revisionist, and it's inaccurate. Most seem to be aware of that, but then there are you diehards.

I said I wasn't being MT's lawyer, so I go by my own opinion, not his ... indeed changing his sig would be a nice idea, becauseit reads needlessly picky on this mostly "over-with" era of yesteryear... We do have some common ground in this issue, but but I fight my own fights

Well, by showing how the Prog-Resiste early writer were revisionist themselves (their name indicates that "Prog Resists"), defender of the "prog faith" (that was very rampant a spirit in the early 90's), I showed you that there was plenty of revisionism done by the guys into 80's neo (and I was not one of them, since I just finished saying that outside Marillion and IQ, I'd never heard of these bands until the mid-90's ... mind you, I spent most of the 80's in JR/F and Jazz... I only returned to "rock" in 91-92)

Mind you, it's the same Prog-Resiste organization that holds today the PR Convention/festival featuring a fairly wide palette (see the thread about it in the What's new forum)... So these guys more or less stopped being revisionists, now that Prog is not a dirty four-letter word and that some of it gets played on airwaves ...

Though you're right that if the JR/F doesn't fit under the PROG umbrella, it's definitely in the progressive music umbrella

How do you explain Audion Magazine, Eurock, Harmonie, and The Organ? All of whom covered Prog in the 80s as Prog, that was not Symphonic?

Never read Eurock or Audion, so I can't say... And in my post, if I didn't mention Harmonie, it was precisely because they stood a little apart from the typical Eurpean/French prog fanzines

Splicer

12-23-2012, 08:46 AM

Whenever arguments like this erupt and then devolve I always think back to the philosophy of a coworker of mine that boils down to, "It doesn't matter".

I've always liked melodic music although what I consider melodic might be a very wide range. That said, I expect music to evoke a positive response in me so that even after one listen I can remember something of what I've heard, enough that I am compelled to listen again. A Schubert piano sonata sticks with me after one listen. Noisecore does not -- granted it's not meant to. The same goes with Prog, Jazz-Rock, Fusion, and whatever other sub-genre I'm listening to at any given moment. I like music that evokes emotion and I find that my ear is tuned to (mostly) Western scales and forms with a smattering of others. This is pretty much what I care about when I listen. Does it grab me and make me want to listen again? Everything else is just tribalism as far as I'm concerned and has nothing to do with my tastes.

Jymbot

12-23-2012, 09:44 AM

I might've heard the term "brass/rock" back then, but never "horn/rock."

That is likely because (likely) I, Wallace, Prince of Eagles, brought that term into prominence in the mid 90s with brilliant posts on places like Galactic Zoo forum.
That is the sort of thing Prog Mastermen do. Worlds revolve around the words of Prog Mastermen. Things they say become part of the common vernacular.

By the way, most excellent thread

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s145/baggra/Bitco/psych/KrissAkabusi.gif

- even though its one of those tiresome quibbling-over-minutae threads.

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s145/baggra/Bitco/psych/prisx01r-1.jpg

Moderators should make sure this one is not lost next time a PE make-over goes down.

"You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas. You've just crossed over into... the Differentiation Zone. "

Jymbot

12-23-2012, 10:37 AM

Acid Dragon magazine. Now there was a real shit-wipe.

Wot's this "Organ" mag, Moe? Never heard of it.

Jymbot

12-23-2012, 11:46 AM

In fact, in 12 years as a member of PE, he's only the 2nd person here I've actually put on ignore

Hope Wallace was the first.
That would be a compliment to me since Moe is such an astute poster.

No Pride

12-23-2012, 12:03 PM

Boy, this thread has certainly gone down the shitter. :( And all over genre and subgenre classification, of all things.

I understand what MT is trying to say to some extent (although I also understand how his way of saying it is annoying to some). In the early '70s, I was one of those people who listend to (what we now call) prog rock, jazz rock/fusion, straight up rock n' roll, straight ahead jazz and all sorts of other stuff. I never cared what kind of music it was or wasn't; all that mattered was whether or not I liked it. And it's true that both jazz and rock were undergoing a sort of musical revolution around the same period of time. Of course, with jazz having been around longer, this was about it's fourth or fifth revolution and I don't think it was necessarily a part of the same revolution rock was undergoing. But anyway, that was then. Now we have categories and subcategories for everything, which I suppose is a necessary evil, at least when it comes down to trying to be descriptive. But fighting over what is the CORRECT category gets kind of innane, doesn't it?! Well, it does to me anyway...

So Jymbot, care to explain what a "prog masterman" is and how you earned that title?

-=RTFR666=-

12-23-2012, 12:09 PM

So Jymbot, care to explain what a "prog masterman" is and how you earned that title?

Aw, man, don't encourage him. :(

No Pride

12-23-2012, 01:04 PM

Aw, man, don't encourage him. :(
I know, I'll probably regret it. But when you keep hearing the same claim over and over, you find yourself wanting to get to the bottom of it for once and for all. ;)

Jymbot

12-23-2012, 01:14 PM

No, you will not regret it seeing as how you are not getting it in the first place.

We have been through all this before, Jimmehs.

A Prog Masterman does not have to spill...anything.
Nada.

Protestations and voiciferous, hair-yanking entreaties aside - not that Im saying the collection makes the Masterman - Wallace is willing to go halfsies with you and describe (as much as words can) the old record depository. But that is a whole story in itself (which has been spread and marvelled at over the internet many times before) and would just be detracting potency from this thread.

(If you sincerely want to know, start up another thread.)

nosebone

12-23-2012, 03:13 PM

Where's MT's lawyer?

Shadow

12-23-2012, 07:04 PM

Where's MT's lawyer?

Where's the music on MTV?

Vic2012

12-23-2012, 07:19 PM

Jymbot is fulla beans. He's full o' shit. He's God's gift to prog.

:lol

Jymbot

12-23-2012, 08:10 PM

I would not say consuming a third can of chick peas the other day qualifies one for being full of beans.

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s145/baggra/Bitco/psych/super-fart.gif

As to being full of shit, yes I do eat rather well.

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s145/baggra/Bitco/psych/bungholio.jpg

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s145/baggra/Bitco/psych/bird15bush-finger-2.jpg

moecurlythanu

12-23-2012, 09:37 PM

Acid Dragon magazine. Now there was a real shit-wipe.

You have such a way with words, Walter. Thierry is a member here and will no doubt be greatly edified by the constructive criticism.

Wot's this "Organ" mag, Moe? Never heard of it.

UK 'zine that began publishing in the 2nd half of the 80s. The lovely Marina is a member here, and Sean may be as well. They were not a Prog-only mag, covering a wide variety of musics from the UK's underground. They were big on championing Cardiacs especially, as well as similar bands like Ring, and Zag & the Coloured Beads. Iirc, they had been regulars at the Marquee on Wardour St, and were present for a good bit of the NWOBPR which crested 1983-1986. Some of those bands received some coverage in The Organ as well, but they tended to like the noisier bands.

moecurlythanu

12-23-2012, 09:40 PM

I see the posting has come full circle, back on to the topic of "Assination." ;)

MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER

12-24-2012, 01:39 AM

I understand what MT is trying to say to some extent (although I also understand how his way of saying it is annoying to some). :lol well, I never claimed to be a 'master of tact', but yes, like you Ernie, I was there in the early 70s and I know what it was like.

Back to the "assination of Jazz Rock' (whatever that's supposed to mean) Jazz guys experimenting with adding Rock to Jazz in progressive ways is not exactly what I would call 'the evolution of Jazz'. If one is honest then it should be quite obvious that Rock music pre-1967 was a very simple/crude form of music; unlike Jazz which had (as you noted) gone through various refinements/changes. To add Rock to Jazz would not be a refinement of Jazz; it would be a dumbing down of Jazz according to the Jazz snobs of the era. Since Rock was an inferior musical form up until circa 1967 one might be persuaded to agree. But if we look at it from the other side of the coin, the adding of Jazz to Rock (no matter the musician's musical background, i.e. Rockers like Soft Machine or Jazzers like Tony Williams) had the effect of taking Rock music to a higher plane. It was the true progression of Rock music in the very same way as the white boys in Britain adding Classical elements to Rock. And it happened by no uncertain coincidence, at the very same time; the late 60s. Jazz musicians contributions the the foundation of Prog is unmistakeable and inseparable no matter how any bigoted individual (and I wont name names) might try to spin it. I was there. I know first hand.