|
Post by funkle on Aug 10, 2019 18:14:18 GMT -6
Have you guys checked out the Jazz Rock Fusion FB group? It has about 40k members, which is a lot of exposure for a fusion group and I've discovered some new things there. The downside is the frequent and sometimes egregious misunderstanding of what falls into the fusion category. I've gotten into a few weird arguments, one with a guy who used Hendrix, Sanatana, and Jeff Beck as examples of "jazz guitarists" who have influenced rock guitarists, and another guy claiming that BTO should be considered fusion. It's strange that so many people are a) drawn to that group, and b) are compelled to defend prog, mainstream and classic rock as being fusion.
|
|
|
Post by GeorgeX on Aug 10, 2019 19:17:25 GMT -6
Yeah, I was in it, long ago. I left because of all the off topic posts. The departed tribalfusion complained about things there as well. There was even a post there where they were arguing about what is fusion, and one guy said it didn't matter. Posts in a fusion group need not have fusion, apparently. And yes, those examples you cited are often thrown into jazz fusion by people that don't know any better. I hear Zappa often, and I don't remotely agree. Anything that is almost entirely vocal is disqualified from being fusion, to me. With Zappa, as well as bands like Aquarium Rescue Unit and Screaming Headless Torsos, it's the fact that many of the participating musos are indeed, fusion players. A guy on the Fusenet mailing list once characterized a Sting record as fusion because Colaiuta was on it. Even on RYM, where the musical acumen tends to run a bit higher, they usually lump anything instrumental into fusion, especially if there's any complexity, like Aristocrats, Morglbl, Planet X/Donati/Sherinian stuff. Liquid Tension Experiment, Owane, MCM, and the newer Special Providence stuff. I don't have a problem with Brand X though
I will never understand why people want to throw every band they like under the fusion banner. It's not like it comes with anything but relative obscurity!
|
|
|
Post by funkle on Aug 10, 2019 23:07:03 GMT -6
I will never understand why people want to throw every band they like under the fusion banner. It's not like it comes with anything but relative obscurity! That is exactly what is so confusing to me. It’s such an obscure little niche compared with classic rock and even prog. With so many other groups catering to those genres, what’s the point? Maybe this riff raff is just part of an open FB group. with The moderators don’t seem to be concerned.
|
|
|
Post by xmiles on Aug 11, 2019 1:31:47 GMT -6
Yeah, I was in it, long ago. I left because of all the off topic posts. The departed tribalfusion complained about things there as well. There was even a post there where they were arguing about what is fusion, and one guy said it didn't matter. Posts in a fusion group need not have fusion, apparently. And yes, those examples you cited are often thrown into jazz fusion by people that don't know any better. I hear Zappa often, and I don't remotely agree. Anything that is almost entirely vocal is disqualified from being fusion, to me. With Zappa, as well as bands like Aquarium Rescue Unit and Screaming Headless Torsos, it's the fact that many of the participating musos are indeed, fusion players. A guy on the Fusenet mailing list once characterized a Sting record as fusion because Colaiuta was on it. Even on RYM, where the musical acumen tends to run a bit higher, they usually lump anything instrumental into fusion, especially if there's any complexity, like Aristocrats, Morglbl, Planet X/Donati/Sherinian stuff. Liquid Tension Experiment, Owane, MCM, and the newer Special Providence stuff. I don't have a problem with Brand X though I will never understand why people want to throw every band they like under the fusion banner. It's not like it comes with anything but relative obscurity! MCM? I am sure it will come to me eventually but I can't place them right now.
As you know I don't worry to much about defining fusion but I certainly can't be bothered to get into an argument over it.
|
|
|
Post by GeorgeX on Aug 11, 2019 6:49:34 GMT -6
As you know I don't worry to much about defining fusion but I certainly can't be bothered to get into an argument over it. Wise man! Why bother? MCM = Masi Coven Macaluso, a short lived band....2 albums. I think the debut is fantastic(Ritual Factory, 2004)and there is a cover of Black Market, but none of it rings as fusion to me. The 3 members are def. all metal guys, but with better than metal skills and influences than your average bear though.
|
|
|
Post by xmiles on Aug 11, 2019 9:13:56 GMT -6
As you know I don't worry to much about defining fusion but I certainly can't be bothered to get into an argument over it. Wise man! Why bother? MCM = Masi Coven Macaluso, a short lived band....2 albums. I think the debut is fantastic(Ritual Factory, 2004)and there is a cover of Black Market, but none of it rings as fusion to me. The 3 members are def. all metal guys, but with better than metal skills and influences than your average bear though. Yes of course! Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by shadow on Aug 11, 2019 15:10:25 GMT -6
I will never understand why people want to throw every band they like under the fusion banner. It's not like it comes with anything but relative obscurity! They do the same thing with Prog on Progressive Ears. Prog is short for progressive rock created by the bands in the late sixties and seventies. It's not electronics or RIO or Math Rock or Saga or Wishbone Ash or Ambrosia. The problem with PE is that facts don't matter, it's like reading FOX News, you make up what you want to.
|
|
|
Post by xmiles on Aug 11, 2019 15:15:41 GMT -6
I will never understand why people want to throw every band they like under the fusion banner. It's not like it comes with anything but relative obscurity! They do the same thing with Prog on Progressive Ears. Prog is short for progressive rock created by the bands in the late sixties and seventies. It's not electronics or RIO or Math Rock or Saga or Wishbone Ash or Ambrosia. The problem with PE is that facts don't matter, it's like reading FOX News, you make up what you want to.
|
|
|
Post by GeorgeX on Aug 11, 2019 15:33:53 GMT -6
I will never understand why people want to throw every band they like under the fusion banner. It's not like it comes with anything but relative obscurity! They do the same thing with Prog on Progressive Ears. Prog is short for progressive rock created by the bands in the late sixties and seventies. It's not electronics or RIO or Math Rock or Saga or Wishbone Ash or Ambrosia. The problem with PE is that facts don't matter, it's like reading FOX News, you make up what you want to. That is my experience with prog forums too. The limits of what qualifies as progressive are ridiculously overstretched by some.
|
|
|
Post by funkle on Aug 11, 2019 15:40:23 GMT -6
I will never understand why people want to throw every band they like under the fusion banner. It's not like it comes with anything but relative obscurity! They do the same thing with Prog on Progressive Ears. Prog is short for progressive rock created by the bands in the late sixties and seventies. It's not electronics or RIO or Math Rock or Saga or Wishbone Ash or Ambrosia. The problem with PE is that facts don't matter, it's like reading FOX News, you make up what you want to. Isn't progressive also a genre that has evolved and still in existence, or did it end in the 70s? I thought bands like Planet X and Dream Theatre were in that camp. I tend to lump a lot of instrumental music that is not fusion into prog. I'm not a big prog guy, so forgive me if I got it wrong.
|
|
|
Post by GeorgeX on Aug 11, 2019 18:11:00 GMT -6
They do the same thing with Prog on Progressive Ears. Prog is short for progressive rock created by the bands in the late sixties and seventies. It's not electronics or RIO or Math Rock or Saga or Wishbone Ash or Ambrosia. The problem with PE is that facts don't matter, it's like reading FOX News, you make up what you want to. Isn't progressive also a genre that has evolved and still in existence, or did it end in the 70s? I thought bands like Planet X and Dream Theatre were in that camp. I tend to lump a lot of instrumental music that is not fusion into prog. I'm not a big prog guy, so forgive me if I got it wrong. No, you have it right. In many ways, the evolution mirrors fusion. Supposed glory days in the 70s, hard times in the 80s, a re-birth of sorts in the 90s and beyond.
|
|
|
Post by funkle on Aug 12, 2019 13:15:59 GMT -6
What do you guys think about Santana? I never considered it fusion, but not a day goes by without someone posting something.
|
|
|
Post by xmiles on Aug 12, 2019 15:24:48 GMT -6
What do you guys think about Santana? I never considered it fusion, but not a day goes by without someone posting something. The band no but Carlos does have some albums that many would call fusion: Love Devotion Surrender, Illuminations and The Swing of Delight.
Personally I love Caravanserai and both that and Welcome definitely have some fusion elements.
|
|
|
Post by GeorgeX on Aug 12, 2019 18:30:48 GMT -6
What do you guys think about Santana? I never considered it fusion, but not a day goes by without someone posting something. Nothing I've heard from him is fusion. However, I haven't heard a whole lot beyond the famous stuff. If any of it is, I'm guessing it isn't much, so characterizing him as a fusion player, like they seem to there, sure doesn't work for me.
|
|
|
Post by funkle on Aug 12, 2019 21:04:18 GMT -6
What do you guys think about Santana? I never considered it fusion, but not a day goes by without someone posting something. Nothing I've heard from him is fusion. However, I haven't heard a whole lot beyond the famous stuff. If any of it is, I'm guessing it isn't much, so characterizing him as a fusion player, like they seem to there, sure doesn't work for me. Reading up on it, Santana was considered to fuse rock and latin-jazz, so technically could be called jazz rock. As far as calling it fusion, where it falls flat for me is a lack of any elements of jazz harmony.
|
|