Fusion is dead?

[Tony G]

Janek,
I saw a post where you claimed "fusion is dead". I guess I'm confused as to what you consider fusion. I've never been one to be very good a labeling styles of music. I'm just now taking a listen to your podcast, and your song "Mystery to Me". Is this not considered fusion? Would you consider it smooth jazz or something else?

I'm just looking for some clarification here. As mentioned, I have a hard time labeling styles of music.

Thanks,
~Tony

[janekbass]

I just hate the word fusion because of the way it is mainly used.

When I hear that word I think of Chick Corea Elektrik band, UZEB, Tribal Tech.... and that whole genre of music. WHich was smoking at the time, but not too progressive today.

I don't know what I would call Mystery to Me, but I certainly would use the word fusion. It's improvised music, it's electric by the nature of some of the instruments, and it's based in composition.

Easy,

Janek

[Tony G]

Originally Posted by janekbass

I just hate the word fusion because of the way it is mainly used.

When I hear that word I think of Chick Corea Elektrik band, UZEB, Tribal Tech.... and that whole genre of music. WHich was smoking at the time, but not too progressive today.

I don't know what I would call Mystery to Me, but I certainly would use the word fusion. It's improvised music, it's electric by the nature of some of the instruments, and it's based in composition.

Easy,

Janek

Cool, thanks Janek. Would you mind quickly commenting on how the word fusion is mainly used, and why you hate it?

[markjazzbassist]

maybe he just meant the genre is dead, like that people aren't going out to see fusion concerts that much anymore.

i could see that.

Return to forever and mahavishnu and such in the 70's brought out big crowds, but i don't see anyone playing prog-jazz (fusion IMO) bringing lots of people to the clubs.

All IMO.

[narud]

Originally Posted by markjazzbassist

maybe he just meant the genre is dead, like that people aren't going out to see fusion concerts that much anymore.

i could see that.

Return to forever and mahavishnu and such in the 70's brought out big crowds, but i don't see anyone playing prog-jazz (fusion IMO) bringing lots of people to the clubs.

All IMO.

yeah, but what jazz brings lots of people to the clubs at all in the first place.

[janekbass]

I think that the sooner we stop calling these artforms Jazz or Fusion, and start moving forward, the sooner we might bring more of an audience to venues for live music.

I wouldn't call my music jazz or fusion, or rock, or soul or funk at all. It has influences of those styles in it, but I would never use them to describe the end product of what my writing and playing has to say.

I think the biggest problem with jazz musicians is the fact that they call themselves jazz musicians. Why not call yourself an improvisor? as soon as you label the music you start to put a time limit on it in some respects. The more open you can keep the style, the more chance it has to move and change with the times, and with your ideas. And your composition is what can really fuel that process.

Easy,

Janek

[Brad Johnson]

Originally Posted by narud

yeah, but what jazz brings lots of people to the clubs at all in the first place.

Yeah, that did immediately come to mind.


I don't see a problem in what other people choose to call various musical idioms. One is free to stop calling music anything they want to stop calling it.

[fraublugher]

I agree , jazz and fusion labels have a more definitive association in the mind of the club-goers nomenclature than other genres , except one.

imho

[ding_man]

I met a college professor of jazz studies that called jazz "Western Improvised Art Music" so he could stay general.

[xafofo]

i also dislike genres and labeling music into categories. i think of music as a giant continuum of space, not boxes labeled "rock" "jazz" "classical"

but most people are very genre-centric, and each label you put on music gives them certain images of what the music is. it's a way of stereotyping music, and it seems jazz, fusion, smooth jazz, etc get a bad rep in the general public's eyes

i agree with janek that if we stopped labeling music, then we could overcome the stereotypes

[Aaron]

I just started a new thread pertaining to the question: "what do you do when someone asks you to label your music?"

[gwx014]

Originally Posted by ding_man

I met a college professor of jazz studies that called jazz "Western Improvised Art Music" so he could stay general.

I like that. I'm going to use that the next time someone asks me what type of music I play.

[Brad Johnson]

Originally Posted by xafofo

i also dislike genres and labeling music into categories. i think of music as a giant continuum of space, not boxes labeled "rock" "jazz" "classical"

but most people are very genre-centric, and each label you put on music gives them certain images of what the music is. it's a way of stereotyping music, and it seems jazz, fusion, smooth jazz, etc get a bad rep in the general public's eyes

i agree with janek that if we stopped labeling music, then we could overcome the stereotypes

I disagree. It's not like I'm some big labeling guy but remove them and you'll have much longer conversations just explaining what genre you're talking about.

I disagree with a lot of labels but they can, generally speaking, narrow things down.

BTW stereotypes don't exist because something has a name.

[xafofo]

Originally Posted by Brad Johnson

I disagree. It's not like I'm some big labeling guy but remove them and you'll have much longer conversations just explaining what genre you're talking about.

I disagree with a lot of labels but they can, generally speaking, narrow things down.

BTW stereotypes don't exist because something has a name.

true...

but really, what's the point of explaining what genre a piece of music is? so people can get an image of it by applying their conceived stereotypes!

ideally when you say "rap" you would be simply describing a musical form of ryhmes over beats. i have no problem with using that definition to classify music. but in reality there's all sorts of additional connotations and stereotypes that come with the word "rap," and it becomes much more than just a term to categorize music

i *think* that's the point Janek was getting at.. that the word "jazz" has too much baggage associated with it that it deters people from listening to and enjoying it

[Phil Smith]

Originally Posted by xafofo

i *think* that's the point Janek was getting at.. that the word "jazz" has too much baggage associated with it that it deters people from listening to and enjoying it

Doesn't that depend on the listener or better yet who you are talking to? One may be tired of labels but that doesn't mean that the world at large feels the same way.

This one is for Janek...

What do you call the music you play when you're doing a hit with Mike Stern? To me that's fusion(in a Tony Williams, Billy Cobham kind of way) , you may have another name for it, but if I had to describe that sound to someone that's what I would describe it as.

Fusion to me is another form of Jazz i.e. improvisation with no walking bass or tumbaos in which case it would be "Straight Ahead", "Bebob", "Cool Jazz" or "Latin Jazz".

[Aaron]

Originally Posted by Phil Smith

Fusion to me is another form of Jazz i.e. improvisation with no walking bass or tumbaos in which case it would be "Straight Ahead", "Bebob", "Cool Jazz" or "Latin Jazz".

I don't think that is a great classification either.

I've heard fusion tunes with walking basslines (i.e. Weather Report's version of Rockin' in Rhythm). And I'm sure there are some fusion tunes that use some tumbao patterns. I've heard straight ahead stuff that neither has walking bass nor tumbao patterns.

I think the problem with labels like fusion, bebop, cool jazz, or latin jazz, is that, essentially, they are not really describing the music itself but putting a label on a 'movement' of musicians, whose music happened to share some commonalities. The biggest names in fusion had roots with Miles in the late '60s-early '70s - Weather Report, Return to Forever, Herbie Hancock/Headhunters, Mahavishnu... I see fusion as a trend that came out of the Bitches Brew era. I don't think Miles, Chick Corea, McLaughlin, or Hancock called their music fusion. I read that Zawinul disliked the term - as he preferred his music to be called world music.

[gkbass13]

i just want to say that i like your responses a lot more in this thread than the one where the original question came from (fodera's in jazz or whatever) janek. good job of explaining exactly where it is you're coming from and i personally couldnt agree more. i think one of the stresses on the music industry right now is the imediate sens eof urgency to throw a label on everythign and everyone. it seems as though the marketing ploys that this urgency to label represents is often counterproductive and often times annoying.

[Phil Smith]

Originally Posted by Aaron

I don't think that is a great classification either.

I did say "TO ME", you can have your own idea about things and there's nothing wrong with that. It's not about a perfect classification or perfect term, merely what most people understand to be the case. Outsiders will have one idea of what the terms mean and insiders will have another idea of what the term mean, especially if they are trying to distinguish themselves from the label of the larger term. It's kind of all about the marketing.

[Brad Johnson]

Originally Posted by xafofo

true...

but really, what's the point of explaining what genre a piece of music is? so people can get an image of it by applying their conceived stereotypes!

The label isn't really an explanation, it's just a label. The stereotypes are ont he people who dwell on them.

If I say Italian car, what sterotypes come to mind? In my case, none because while it puts to mind all of the cars I'm aware of from that particular country, it doesn't put a particular car in mind. There's a big difference between a Detomaso and a Fiat, yet they're covered by that label. It narrows it down enough that I have a general idea of what the subject is... cars from Italy. As such I wouldn't bring Volvos up in a relevant discusiion

ideally when you say "rap" you would be simply describing a musical form of ryhmes over beats. i have no problem with using that definition to classify music. but in reality there's all sorts of additional connotations and stereotypes that come with the word "rap," and it becomes much more than just a term to categorize music

Someone's mind going into hyperdrive at the mention of a word isn't exactly a concern of mine. That's their problem. When I hear the term "rap" I think of some type of rhythmic spoken word. As such any stereotypes that you may see don't enter into my picture. That's the difference between hearing the label ("rap") and allowing your brain to fill in the rest ("gansta rap" for example). They're not interchangeable.


Simply put, there are two basic kinds of music to me... music I like and music I don't care for. Under each the same types, in different forms can easily exist. There's metal I like and metal I don't. The same is true for just about any other label. Again, the label only puts the music in the ballpark and I see nothing wrong with that. If I hear the term Jazz fusion I don't generally expect Emo.

i *think* that's the point Janek was getting at.. that the word "jazz" has too much baggage associated with it that it deters people from listening to and enjoying it

And to that I'd say so what... it's their loss if they want to be that narrow-minded. Actually I've seen the opposite, where people say they listen to Jazz and it turns out their favorite artist is Kenny G. They like the idea that the listen to Jazz.

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by janekbass

I think that the sooner we stop calling these artforms Jazz or Fusion, and start moving forward, the sooner we might bring more of an audience to venues for live music.

I wouldn't call my music jazz or fusion, or rock, or soul or funk at all. It has influences of those styles in it, but I would never use them to describe the end product of what my writing and playing has to say.

I think the biggest problem with jazz musicians is the fact that they call themselves jazz musicians. Why not call yourself an improvisor? as soon as you label the music you start to put a time limit on it in some respects. The more open you can keep the style, the more chance it has to move and change with the times, and with your ideas. And your composition is what can really fuel that process.

Easy,

Janek

An interesting Topic - as a listener and music fan, I suppose I want to know what I'm going to get. So I like the fact that when I go to Brighton Jazz Club I'm going to see/hear some great musicians playing mostly improvised music.

The Fusion thing is interesting - as at said club, I have seen many different "fusions" of jazz with other musical genres :

Acoustic Ladyland fusing Hendrix tunes with acoustic Jazz circa Miles second great quintet.

Tom Arthurs fusing Messiaen with Free Jazz!

Gilad Atzmon fusing Jazz with Palestinian Micro Tonal traditional songs and Jewish music!

Ben Davis/Basquiat Strings fusing Bartok String Quartets with Jazz a la Dave Holland!

etc. etc.

I love Fusions of Jazz with other music and they seem very much alive and well in the UK !!