Where do you separate jazz and fusion?

[ruger9]

Wasn't sure which forum to put this in...

I've never been a huge fusion fan, most of what I have known as fusion was what I think of as "too many notes, not going anywhere". Almost like a self-indulgent exercise that focuses on ability instead of the song? But that's not what I want to talk about.

Some artists like Jim Campilongo are put into the jazz category... altho that's a loose association IMO. Guys like Jim and Duke Levine get categorized as jazz because no one knows what else to classify them as ("guitar music?). Julian Lage is decidedly jazz, yet I think some of his more electric stuff definitely crosses over into fusionland. Mark Lettieri (in the video below) is probably thought of as fusion, but some of his stuff can be jazzy as well. Mike Stern seems to be considered both, and accepted in both circles.

What makes music fusion instead of jazz? Is it distorted guitar? Heavy drums? Is there something fusion doesn't do that is required to be called jazz?

I actually don't look at music like this, I like good music, period. I've just always been curious about how/why some people draw the lines that they do.

[Tomcat]

Name speaks for itself, jazz mixes with other genres, to the point where you don't want to call it jazz. There is another name around: jazz-rock. To me, the difference is in the sound of the whole group, and especially drums & electric bass. Guitar sound, distorted or not, it's secondary.

The sound defines a playing style a lot, if you hear Dave Weckl drumming, doesn't matter if he plays swing or straight notes, you don't feel like playing archtop but solid or semi-hollow guitar.

Although sometimes you can find music that belongs to both worlds.

[AllanAllen]

If it's got Tony Williams I think it's proto-fusion or fusion, depending on the year.

Also, if it doesn't use or sound like Great American Songbook, Duke Ellington or Jobim tunes, it's probably fusion.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

I've never been a huge fusion fan, most of what I have known as fusion was what I think of as "too many notes, not going anywhere".

That could be a direct quote from a 75 year old article about bebop. There are many parallels between bebop and fusion, and your issue is probably the most common one shared by critics of both.

Both share an inherent reliance on knowledge of theory, prodigious technique, outside harmonies, and complex modulations. But each of these can (and often does) distract from and / or take precedence over musicality. FWIW, Franz Liszt did the same things. He was one of the most facile pianists ever, and he wrote pieces so difficult that virtually no one else could play them. He’d have felt at home at any top level NY jam in 1950. In fact, he’d probably have been the one to throw a cymbal at Bird.

There’s some mighty artful fusion out there. You just have to find it hiding among the show offs. Listen to the album Minor Elegance by Joe Diorio and Robben Ford for what I think is very musical fusion.

[ruger9]

That could be a direct quote from a 75 year old article about bebop. There are many parallels between bebop and fusion, and your issue is probably the most common one shared by critics of both.
.

Funny...I'm not the biggest fan of bebop either... especially the really busy stuff. For example, I prefer Ben Webster to Charlie Parker, Louis Armstrong to Dizzy Gillespie.

But I come from a very song-oriented camp: I was raised listening to Glenn Miller, Tommy Dorsey, the big band stuff. It's all about the SONG and MELODY. It was the pop music of it's time, after all. Once bebop got going, alot of it lost me. Sort of how people view guitar shredders: excellent technique, wow, but where's the song? Where's the melody I will walk away humming because it was so good I can't help but remember it?

Then, with MY OWN music (pop and rock), it again was more about the song (Joel, Springsteen, Adams, Mellencamp, etc) and less about the shredding (Van Halen). I do enjoy all of it, but Van Halen is the perfect example because they had SONGS. Eddie was a shredder, but never to the detriment of the song. For example, many can listen to Van Halen, but not Steve Vai.

[ruger9]

There’s some mighty artful fusion out there. You just have to find it hiding among the show offs. Listen to the album Minor Elegance by Joe Diorio and Robben Ford for what I think is very musical fusion.

Oh and I really dig Robben Ford.

[GuyBoden]

I disagree, 'Rock' is not a fusion of Rock and Roll.



+

[RLetson]

Musicians tend to be like street dogs--indiscriminate cross-breeders, with the kinds of outcomes one might expect. I'm old enough to have listened through the emergence of R&B, rockabilly, blues-rock, soul, funk, folk-rock, jazz-rock, prog-rock, newgrass, and hillbilly jazz. (Among others, I'm sure.) And before I was hatched (or old enough to pay attention, anyway), there was western swing.

In making my way back through the historical traditions, I can identify the bebop tunes that connect with swing (dance tunes played fast and with some gnarly harmonic-melodic twists) and those that kick free of dance altogether. I remember clearly how dissastified I was with "Bitches Brew" and a lot of rock-infused jazz, and how little I was moved by Steely Dan. I'm sure that there are jazz fusion pieces that I'd find interesting, but long experience tells me that, as with a lot of high-velocity hard bop, it's not likely. But that's just personal taste, not universal aesthetic theory.

[wolflen]

Many like rules..definitions that clearly tell what something is or is not..

much like driving without speed limits and lane markers or any rules at all..most dont have any idea
how to navigate in this environ and would rather not even try to participate in it.but the overall view of such,
it would be said .."its not driving.."

But those that DO participate in such "chaos" may beg to differ.

Some musicians that are considered the best jazz players/performers have "experimented" with the fusion style and it was
accepted and praised by many.

For me and I have said before..agreeing with Miles Davis...I dont like the label "jazz"

I find it strange that an icon of jazz can play an accepted standard like 'Round Midnight
and be praised..but Bitched Brew..no way pal..thats not Jazz

Strange indeed.

[Christian Miller]

Fusion is keytars, synth pads and chorus pedals.

Electric jazz is fingerstyle bass with frets and fender Rhodes.

Jazz rock is when the band plays a cheesy shuffle in 15/8.

Any questions?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AllanAllen]

Fusion is ... chorus pedals.

...

Any questions?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I bent your statement enough to make Jim Hall fusion. Now, to unsubscribe from the thread before you reply.

[Christian Miller]

I bent your statement enough to make Jim Hall fusion. Now, to unsubscribe from the thread before you reply.

you know, if the shoe fits…. I am not to blame. It’s science!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ruger9]

you know, if the shoe fits…. I am not to blame. It’s science!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bob_Ross]

if it doesn't use or sound like Great American Songbook, Duke Ellington or Jobim tunes, it's probably fusion.

Huh...so apparently I'm not a jazz musician, I'm a fusion musician?
Oh thank god, that means I can take off this ridiculous beret!

[supersoul]

Jazz is dark suits, fusion is headbands and mustaches

[Christian Miller]

Jazz can also has mustache


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ragman1]

Where do you separate jazz and fusion?


I think the question's wrongly put. Fusion is the combining of two styles. Jazz fusion is rock and jazz together.

When you say separate jazz and fusion you can see that's a strange way of putting it. Jazz fusion itself contains jazz. I don't know if you see what I mean.

Maybe put the question differently? In the meantime enjoy this, possibly.

[Strat-itis]

A basic way I would put it is if both the groove changes to more derivative of another style and they start to use less traditional changes. Then it starts to become fusion.

[EllenGtrGrl]

Oh and I really dig Robben Ford.

Yeah, but IMO Robben Ford is more blues, than jazz.

Jazz guitar vs Fusion guitar to me:

1. Fusion guitar tone, has more gain/is dirtier sounding than jazz. Bill Connor, Al DiMeola (in the 70s at least), etc., definitely play Fusion. Miles Davis may have been blowing cool jazz, when he was playing trumpet, but when I saw a live performance of Mike Stern playing with Miles on TV (the first I saw Mike playing), in the late 70s or early 80s, he was definitely playing in a Fusion style, and while he was not using metal tones, he did have a fair amount of dirt to the sound he was getting from his Tele. Sometimes modern jazz veers pretty close to entering Fusion territory - I've heard Kurt Rosenwinkle occasionally play with his guitar tone just veering into breakup/overdrive.

2. Jazz guitar players don't use effects, whereas Fusion guitarists are not averse to using effects as a part of their guitar sound.

3. I've never heard fusion players play chord melody.

[Christian Miller]

Jim Hall used effects. So not a jazz guitarist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

Allan holdsworth plays a chord melody arrangement of a jazz standard here

So not a fusion guitarist


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GuyBoden]

Jazz Fusion doesn't use a "Jazz Triplet Swing" rhythm, but sometimes it does.

[ruger9]

Where do you separate jazz and fusion?


I think the question's wrongly put. Fusion is the combining of two styles. Jazz fusion is rock and jazz together.

When you say separate jazz and fusion you can see that's a strange way of putting it. Jazz fusion itself contains jazz. I don't know if you see what I mean.

Maybe put the question differently? In the meantime enjoy this, possibly.

Semantics.

The video I posted would probably not be considered jazz at all. But I don't see it as being much different than this video, which will be called jazz by most people, simply because Lage is the one playing it (which is not a good enough reason to call it jazz IMO)

So if the Lettieri tune is fusion, why would this Lage tune be called jazz?

[ruger9]

Yeah, but IMO Robben Ford is more blues, than jazz.

Jazz guitar vs Fusion guitar to me:

1. Fusion guitar tone, has more gain/is dirtier sounding than jazz. Bill Connor, Al DiMeola (in the 70s at least), etc., definitely play Fusion. Miles Davis may have been blowing cool jazz, when he was playing trumpet, but when I saw a live performance of Mike Stern playing with Miles on TV (the first I saw Mike playing), in the late 70s or early 80s, he was definitely playing in a Fusion style, and while he was not using metal tones, he did have a fair amount of dirt to the sound he was getting from his Tele. Sometimes modern jazz veers pretty close to entering Fusion territory - I've heard Kurt Rosenwinkle occasionally play with his guitar tone just veering into breakup/overdrive.

But, I don't see TONE as being a dividing factor. If someone played Emily on a "metal guitar" into a Marshall, Emily is still Emily, and Emily is still jazz.

2. Jazz guitar players don't use effects, whereas Fusion guitarists are not averse to using effects as a part of their guitar sound.

I totally get that, as that how "the world" of fusion has developed. But this also goes back to my above point: if a music is jazz, then it's jazz... it doesn't matter if someone is using a delay or not. But WHY is it jazz and not fusion?

Just trying to clarify, If I can... if you're going to play a jazz tune, and you're using an L5 into a Fender Tweed Deluxe, or using a superstrat into an light overdrive pedal and a delay, it's still the same tune, therefore it must still be jazz.

So in that way, the terms "jazz" and "fusion" don't really mean anything about the music, only about the sonics. That's what I'm trying to get at.

3. I've never heard fusion players play chord melody.

Hmm now that's interesting... I'll to circle back on that one. I'm thinking, but I don't recall ever hearing that either (from a player considered to be "fusion")

[James W]

From a player considered fusion -