Where do you separate jazz and fusion?

[ragman1]

Semantics.

Not at all, you haven't understood.

Someone brings you a screwdriver and you say 'How do I separate the vodka from the OJ?' Well, the answer is you can't because it's all mixed up. So it is with fusion, it's a mixture of jazz and rock, funk, blues and/or R&B.

If you mean what's the difference between jazz and fusion, that's a different question.

Jazz fusion - Wikipedia

[ragman1]

[pamosmusic]

Not at all, you haven't understood.

Someone brings you a screwdriver and you say 'How do I separate the vodka from the OJ?' Well, the answer is you can't because it's all mixed up. So it is with fusion, it's a mixture of jazz and rock, funk and/or R&B.

If the OP means what's the difference between jazz and fusion, that's a different question.

Jazz fusion - Wikipedia

Yes but if someone says “how much vodka can I put into this orange juice before you call it a screwdriver” then it’s a bit of a different question and harder to answer.

the answer: when does it start to taste like a screwdriver

[James W]

Yes but if someone says “how much vodka can I put into this orange juice before you call it a screwdriver” then it’s a bit of a different question and harder to answer.

the answer: when does it start to taste like a screwdriver

Indeed. I think jazz in general is a kind of fusion. Jazz has always borrowed from other genres, be it Tin Pan Alley songs, the blues, classical music, folk music, Spanish music, Indian music, rock music etc.

So separating fusion and jazz is sort of disingenuous. There is no clear-cut boundary, and if there was the music in general would be much less interesting. I mean, I understand the desire to categorise and define, but the reality is always more complex and interesting.

[ruger9]

From a player considered fusion -

See, to me, that's jazz. Doesn't matter that he's using a chorus effect. The music/arrangement is jazz.

But again- I'm not trying to argue points, I'm just interested in what people think... I don't believe in "rules" or labels; I listen to music that I deem good. Jim Campilongo isn't really jazz to me, but what else would you call him? Bill Frisell too. Campilongo has said that when people ask him "what kind of music do you play?", he has a hard time answering, because he's not jazz, rock, pop, country... so he answers "guitar instrumental music", then if pressed he'll elaborate with "like Jeff Beck", because he says most people at least know Jeff Beck. (he's not comparing himself to Beck, only in that they both play "guitar instrumental music".

[ruger9]

Not at all, you haven't understood.

Someone brings you a screwdriver and you say 'How do I separate the vodka from the OJ?' Well, the answer is you can't because it's all mixed up. So it is with fusion, it's a mixture of jazz and rock, funk, blues and/or R&B.

If the OP means what's the difference between jazz and fusion, that's a different question.

Jazz fusion - Wikipedia

I am the OP. And I'm not interested in wiki definitions of anything. Especially art.

As I said in the post above, what makes Julian Lage's Serenade JAZZ, while Mark Lettieri's Montreal is likely considered FUSION?

And most of the Bill Frisell stuff I've heard over the years I would not call jazz. I guess I'd call it fusion by default... Johnny Smith and Kenny Burrell I think "jazz", not Bill Frisell. Frisell is too different and daring and border-crossing IMO.

[Lionelsax]

Temperature ? Which metal ?

[ragman1]

I am the OP

I know, pleased to meet you :-)

And I'm not interested in wiki definitions of anything. Especially art.

You hear something and, presumably, you want to know which genre it belongs to. I think that's what you mean.

If you don't have at least some idea of the difference between jazz and fusion how can you answer the question? Jazz and fusion are different and the difference can be described. They have different ingredients and a different history.

You refute definitions but want to separate jazz from fusion. So you've already defined them as different, right?

[ruger9]

I know, pleased to meet you :-)



You hear something and, presumably, you want to know which genre it belongs to. I think that's what you mean.

If you don't have at least some idea of the difference between jazz and fusion how can you answer the question? Jazz and fusion are different and the difference can be described. They have different ingredients and a different history.

You refute definitions but want to separate jazz from fusion. So you've already defined them as different, right?

At least part of my point is, definitions are (at least can be) nonsense.

What makes the Lettieri tune fusion, but the Lage tune jazz?

If Lettieri played an ES-175, and used no effects, and his bass player used a stand-up bass, both both played the exact same things, most people would call it jazz. Which would be nonsense IMO. Because the MUSIC did not change. Only the sonics did.

And I'll make it clear one more time: *I* kind of don't believe in definitions, and I'm not trying to argue... I'm just interested in what others THINK the difference is. IMO, there is no objective answer to the question, as James put pretty well in his post.

[ragman1]

I've edited my other post. Sorry, I forget I was talking to the OP!

Well, you know, players will blur the lines. I guess it's up to how one hears it as to how one wants to categorise it. I mean, a lot of jazz these days has sort of morphed into rock-like music.

[pamosmusic]

At least part of my point is, definitions are (at least can be) nonsense.

What makes the Lettieri tune fusion, but the Lage tune jazz?

If Lettieri played an ES-175, and used no effects, and his bass player used a stand-up bass, both both played the exact same things, most people would call it jazz. Which would be nonsense IMO. Because the MUSIC did not change. Only the sonics did.

And I'll make it clear one more time: *I* kind of don't believe in definitions, and I'm not trying to argue... I'm just interested in what others THINK the difference is. IMO, there is no objective answer to the question, as James put pretty well in his post.

Separating “sonics” from music might be a mistake.

People say Taylor swift is vapid pop music … but if you were to look at the music on a score it would look quite a lot like the classic pop music of the 60s … Beatles etc.

I’m not saying the two are the same (though I do think rather highly of Taylor Swift) … but if you’re looking for ways to separate them, you’re probably going to be leaning pretty hard on differences in production, instrumentation, orchestration, etc.

[ruger9]

Separating “sonics” from music might be a mistake.

Totally agree, that's part of my point. So things like "guitar effects" doesn't automatically make something fusion.

[pamosmusic]

Totally agree, that's part of my point. So things like "guitar effects" doesn't automatically make something fusion.

I think we’re saying slightly opposite things … I think actually “sonics” … aesthetic differences in timbre, orchestration, etc … are super important and can be fine ways to differentiate one style from another.

That’s not to say that I disagree with you about the specific example of Julian Lage, though. So I might disagree with you on this point, but I’d definitely agree with you on the larger point that these things are super messy and separating out genres often has more to do with what we expect someone to be playing than with what they’re actually playing … Julian Lage used to play with Gary Burton so we’re inclined to call his music Jazz, even if there’s no particular musical reason why.

[lammie200]

I think music classification was originally dependent on how many plastic dividers record stores could afford and pretty much stayed stuck on that.

[frabarmus]

I remember Pat Metheny saying that he considers everything he does/did to be jazz, including Pat Metheny Group which many consider fusion (andsome even "progressive pop", or something). Fair enough, by me... if there's some jazz-vocalbulary somewhere in the mix...

[Christian Miller]

Like most things there’s no edge to it and debating the edge is a ridiculous waste of time best done over many pints in a pub …

We can certainly recognise the centre - Allan Holdsworth playing Devil Take the Hindmost is definitely fusion.

Tbh electric jazz is a bad definition too, because jazz has been partly electric since the 30s…. OTOH I also feel bands like the Chris Potter’s Underground are not fusion based on … the vibes. Wayne Krantz doesn’t regard his stuff as fusion. Sometimes we talk about the ‘55 bar sound’ which feels totally different from 80s fusion which is funny given Mike Stern used to play there every Monday. But when I heard him I’d say he was playing electric bebop.

Sooo…. Not a lot of help.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ruger9]

OTOH I also feel bands like the Chris Potter’s Underground are not fusion based on … the vibes

Oh well... now we're getting into something concrete LOL

[Bob_Ross]

Separating “sonics” from music might be a mistake.

Composer Charles Ives once famously asked "What does sound have to do with music?!?!"

My first inclination would be to answer "Everything!" ...but then I remember, there are people for whom "music" is the abstraction; it's the thing that provokes musicians into producing the artifact, which just happens to be a sonic representation of the music.
:shrugs:

People say Taylor swift is vapid pop music … but if you were to look at the music on a score it would look quite a lot like the classic pop music of the 60s … Beatles etc.

Bad example: I'll admit I haven't listened to a ton of Taylor Swift's music...but everything of hers that I have heard was conspicuously devoid of the sort of clever pitch devices (i.e., melodic or harmonic moments) that infused so many post-1964 Beatles songs. If you were to look at Swift's music on a score you would find a textbook example of the sort of material that prompted Alexander Nazaryan to conclude "Melodies of Popular Songs Have Gotten Simpler Over Time"

[wolflen]

I think Christians view of having "pints at the pub.." should be a prerequisite to discussion like these.

Again..I agree with Miles..I dont like the term Jazz..I do like..Music..which could mean John Cage..or Bach.

The wanting the "correct" label for a style of music seem to be the associate producers job at a FM Station that lets the
listeners know every 9 mins or so that they are listening to "the soft sound of jazz"

Then of course is the task of changing the name of established styles..players or groups that once were known
as Jazz..are now considered fusion or worse..progressive rock..yikes..!

"So," said Jimmy..who had his name on a nice blue plastic name badge at All Music Inc, "I can get you
a great deal on this rare Gibson L5 for just under $6500..and you can play any thing you want on it
and everyone will hear it as jazz..even if you playing ACDC riffs." Sissy Roberts turned to her husband, Thomson Carter Roberts, Esq

"Toms..Does this seem like a good deal..?"..Thomson, who played in a hard rock band in college, looked past Sissy
and straight into Jimmy's eyes and said as loudly as he could.."Fuck No"

Jimmy just put his hand over his nice blue plastic name plate..hoping it would protect him

[pamosmusic]

Bad example: I'll admit I haven't listened to a ton of Taylor Swift's music...but everything of hers that I have heard was conspicuously devoid of the sort of clever pitch devices (i.e., melodic or harmonic moments) that infused so many post-1964 Beatles songs. If you were to look at Swift's music on a score you would find a textbook example of the sort of material that prompted Alexander Nazaryan to conclude "Melodies of Popular Songs Have Gotten Simpler Over Time"

Well I’ll have to tell you then that I don’t just think rather highly of Taylor Swift. I love Taylor Swift and think she’s a fantastic songwriter and entertainer. A better comparison for her might be someone like Bowie, where the music is great but also part of a larger immersive artistic thing.

So for what it’s worth, you might listen to some more. Or maybe if you don’t like it, you can just not listen to more, but then you might withhold opinion.

And it is pop music … so the hit hits are the things you’d probably hear if you weren’t making any effort to hear her, and that would generally (not always, but generally) be the least interesting of her stuff.

Anyway. I listened to Abbey Road today. Listened to 1989 twice in a row the other day while I was working.

Good music is good music.

[pamosmusic]

I would also say you can pick even the best Beatles album and find a clunker or two. Abbey Road has Octopus’s Garden. White Album has Glass Onion. Fine if people like those tunes and I love the Beatles and don’t skip those tunes when I’m listening.

But worth noting that something unusual about Taylor Swift is that she’s crazy prolific. Like 25 tunes on an album pretty much across the board. So there are always tunes on there that I don’t like but there are always a dozen or so that are killer.

So hearing a few of her tunes and making the call probably isn’t the move. A good example is 1989 … probably the best pop album of this century. The huge single on it was Shake it Off which is the only track I truly don’t like. So on the one hand, that’s the one people have heard and it’s not a great picture of the album as a whole. And on the other hand it has like … 6 billion streams. So what the hell do I know.

Probably the most famous Beatles song is Yellow Submarine, right? Great tune but it’s no Blackbird or Norwegian Wood. if someone said “I don’t know the Beatles are kind of goofy and I like music with a little artistic merit” then it’d be clear they were missing the boat. While My Guitar Gently Weeps isn’t in their top 20 on Spotify.

I think if the eighties had Prince, MJ, and Bowie … we’ve got Beyoncé, Adele, and T Swift and the three of them will probably stand the test of time.

Anyway … as you were … jazz fusion etc

[Litterick]

Jeff Beck: “For Christ’s sake, I wish somebody would make up a name for this kind of music,
‘cause it ain’t jazz and it ain’t rock. It got overtones of both, but it’s really got no name of its own.”

Rohter, Larry. "Jeff Beck: The Progression Of A True Progressive".
DownBeat. Vol. 44, no. 12, 17 June 1977.

[Litterick]

I hear this word “fusion” a lot, and although fusion between musics and cultures is going on, I think to label a particular music ‘fusion music” is to limit the music. There’s a lot of jazz-rock fusion at the moment, and as long as that music is labeled that way, it always remains two musics and the fusions don’t have room to take place. I know that the influences I am most aware of are jazz, a lot of contemporary non-jazz music, some classical music, some rock music; but what I put out I don’t see as a mixture of all these, I don’t. It’s one kind of music to me, and I wouldn’t want to label it jazz, rock, classical, contemporary, or fusion music. l’ve been to concerts that have been mixtures of jazz bands and symphony orchestras, and they never seem to work because they are advertised that way and the elements are separated all the time. If they aren’t separated, if the music is presented as the music of one composer, that seems to stand more of a chance. There is a fusion going on every time somebody writes music, all the things that have influenced that writing. It’s not just a fusion between jazz and classical, or jazz and rock; there are all sorts of elements going in, all sorts of inspiration and influences which come out in the composer as one thing.

Michael Gibbs in Jazz-Rock Fusion, The People The Music
By Julie Coryell, Laura Friedman
Dell Publishing Co, 1978, page 59

[Litterick]

I think music is in a pretty healthy state. I think the fusion movement in particular over the last three years has made incredible strides and has opened a huge market. The media is still geared more or less the same way unfortunately, though it’s not so bad in America as in Europe. I regard the fusion movement as today’s music, today’s jazz. Looking back, I think I’ve always looked at our bands as a situation in movement forward, pushing forward: pushing out knowledge of jazz harmony, pushing out knowledge of rhythms, and using not only rock rhythms, but Latin rhythms, AfroCuban, Brazilian—anything to enrich the whole situation.

Brian Auger in Jazz-Rock Fusion: The People, The Music
By Julie Coryell, Laura Friedman
Dell Publishing Co, 1978, page 145

[Mick-7]

Don't know if this is fusion but certainly one of the oddest guitar tones I've ever heard, like a damaged Leslie speaker or something. However it appears to be the only tune on the album in which he uses it.