millions
New Member
I was a charter member of the old fuze-zone, but what good did that do me?
Posts: 26
|
Post by millions on Jun 27, 2020 8:36:46 GMT -6
I'd say yes, in a way; it was about rejecting jazz conventions. I see it as being more exclusively black, and about the black experience in America. Many consider free jazz to be not only a rejection of certain musical credos and ideas, but a musical reaction to the oppression and experience of black Americans. Artists include Ornette Coleman, Eric Dolphy, Archie Shepp, Yusef Latif, Sonny Sharrock, Pharoah Sanders, John Coltrane, Don Cherry, Albert Ayler, Cecil Taylor, and Chick Corea. ![]()
|
|
|
|
Post by xmiles on Jun 27, 2020 8:49:44 GMT -6
The only problem I have with it is what it sounds like - and I have actually listened to some.
|
|
|
|
Post by GeorgeX on Jun 27, 2020 9:10:37 GMT -6
Not to me. Fusion isn't primarily about "rejecting jazz conventions"
It was the fusing of the electric sounds and riffs of rock music to
a tired jazz idiom, first and foremost. Free jazz has no rock element,
and you'd be hard pressed to say a standard rock fan would enjoy it.
Hell, I like trad. jazz and I can't listen to free jazz, at all. It has
it's own genre tag for a reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by funkle on Jun 29, 2020 12:37:44 GMT -6
Not to me. Fusion isn't primarily about "rejecting jazz conventions" It was the fusing of the electric sounds and riffs of rock music to a tired jazz idiom, first and foremost. Free jazz has no rock element, and you'd be hard pressed to say a standard rock fan would enjoy it. Hell, I like trad. jazz and I can't listen to free jazz, at all. It has it's own genre tag for a reason. Well put. When the fusion fathers talk about how it all got started, they usually mention being seduced by the energy of the rock bands of the time. Some people want to glom everything that mixes genres into fusion. I prefer a narrower definition. Otherwise It gets too broad. |
|
millions
New Member
I was a charter member of the old fuze-zone, but what good did that do me?
Posts: 26
|
Post by millions on Sept 24, 2020 5:03:28 GMT -6
To be fair, what I meants was that both free jazz and fusion have rejected certain aspects of traditional jazz.
Fusion has rejected these traditional,elements:
The traditional use of hollowbodied guitars, in favor of solid bodies.
Louder drums, more like rock drums
Electric bass
Use of large venues with big sound systems, mor like rock concerts
Overall, an electric sound, not acoustic, and not "chamber jazz"
Free jazz appeared to keep the trappings of traditional jazz (horns, acoustic format, use of big-bodied guitars (Sonny Sharrock), but discarded the traditional harmonic language;
In this way, is it not MORE radical than fusion? In this light, fusion merely "spiffed up" the same old tired jazz idiom superficially.
|
|
|
|
Post by conebeckham on Mar 22, 2021 20:40:56 GMT -6
Free Jazz means different things to different people, as does Fusion.
For example, Peter Brotzmann’s Machine Gun sounds nothing like The Shape of Jazz to Come, or Cecil Taylor’s later stuff. None of that sounds at all like “fusion” or Jazz Rock to me. Now, there are intersections...my fave being Coleman’s Prime Time stuff, esp. Of Human Feelings. Some of the early Lifetime stuff intersects with Free Jazz, and Chick’s Circle recordings with Braxton are Free—but not fusion at all.
|
|
