|
Post by johndinkeldein on Apr 19, 2021 9:30:07 GMT -6
I will always put the blame on the synthesizer and party killers like individuals such as Yanni, Zawinul, and Kenny G. Am I wrong? Please educate me further.
|
|
|
Post by GeorgeX on Apr 19, 2021 10:39:59 GMT -6
That's a good question, one I never really thought about. I would guess the tendency to highlight the saxophone might have been problematic for some. Even when it doesn't actually mean the material is soft and smooth, it can give that impression. A lot of the 70s stalwarts faded or withered too, so there was a lack of carry over artists for fans to follow. I'm guessing there were industry pressures to move on from fusion too. I don't know. I don't think it has anything to do with synth.
Interested to see what others think.
|
|
|
Post by xmiles on Apr 19, 2021 10:54:19 GMT -6
It's a combination of factors but probably one of the most significant is human nature. Things just go out of fashion - humans like novelty. The music of our youth is always going to mean more to us than stuff we hear later in life.
Most artists can only produce a finite amount of good quality original work, maybe only one great album or book. There are exceptions like Miles Davis but I remember a thread on this site identifying artists who had only one good fusion album.
And of course there is the question of money. If it doesn't sell getting a record company to support you is going to be very difficult. This is particularly the case if it is instrumental music.
|
|
|
Post by shadow on Apr 19, 2021 13:58:52 GMT -6
Leisure suits
|
|
|
Post by johndinkeldein on Apr 19, 2021 17:05:49 GMT -6
I can see the saxophone as another culprit to ending the popularity of Fusion.
|
|
|
Post by funkle on Apr 20, 2021 9:55:18 GMT -6
My first thought is that your statement is predicated on a point of view that fusion is dead. Some people see it that way. Others (myself included) see fusion as being very much alive. As an example, in 2019 there were around 100 new fusion albums, which is close to the the entire output of the 70s decade. Looking at it that way, the 80s were more like a fusion recession than a funeral. There was a strong resurgence in the 90s, which was a great decade for fusion. Only it was a little more under the the radar than 70s fusion.
As for what caused the recession, I think it was a shift caused by 80s fashion & technology. The personality of that decade was so strong that more indulgent, dense, composition based music of the 70s (also a strong personality) was overturned by a more happy, flashy electronics based direction. At the same time, jazz went in a elite "classical" counter-direction that was intolerant electronic instruments - (a conservative reaction to the 70s experimentation and the 80s electro pop beats?) Muzak of the 70s became intolerable. Those forces pushed electric jazz in the "fuzak" direction for economic & socially current reasons. There were a few champions of 'darker' fusion (Tribal tech & Holdsworth), and some other decent (but electronic drum laden) stuff like Steps Ahead, CCEB, Kazumi Watanabe But it wasn't until the 90s that fusion got it's legs (or balls?)back.
I was weened on the 70s fusion, but also was very into the scene in the 80s fusion. Now I occasionally listen to 70s (& 80s) fusion, but I thrive on the new stuff. The older stuff is great, but feels very grounded in it's era. New fusion scene feels alive to me, and there is a joy of discovery that you don't have so much with the old stuff.
|
|
|
Post by johndinkeldein on Apr 20, 2021 11:53:50 GMT -6
My first thought is that your statement is predicated on a point of view that fusion is dead. Some people see it that way. Others (myself included) see fusion as being very much alive. As an example, in 2019 there were around 100 new fusion albums, which is close to the the entire output of the 70s decade. Looking at it that way, the 80s were more like a fusion recession than a funeral. There was a strong resurgence in the 90s, which was a great decade for fusion. Only it was a little more under the the radar than 70s fusion. As for what caused the recession, I think it was a shift caused by 80s fashion & technology. The personality of that decade was so strong that more indulgent, dense, composition based music of the 70s (also a strong personality) was overturned by a more happy, flashy electronics based direction. At the same time, jazz went in a elite "classical" counter-direction that was intolerant electronic instruments - (a conservative reaction to the 70s experimentation and the 80s electro pop beats?) Muzak of the 70s became intolerable. Those forces pushed electric jazz in the "fuzak" direction for economic & socially current reasons. There were a few champions of 'darker' fusion (Tribal tech & Holdsworth), and some other decent (but electronic drum laden) stuff like Steps Ahead, CCEB, Kazumi Watanabe But it wasn't until the 90s that fusion got it's legs (or balls?)back. I was weened on the 70s fusion, but also was very into the scene in the 80s fusion. Now I occasionally listen to 70s (& 80s) fusion, but I thrive on the new stuff. The older stuff is great, but feels very grounded in it's era. New fusion scene feels alive to me, and there is a joy of discovery that you don't have so much with the old stuff. Extremely good point on redefining it as a recession then death.
|
|
|
Post by xmiles on Apr 20, 2021 12:22:40 GMT -6
My first thought is that your statement is predicated on a point of view that fusion is dead. Some people see it that way. Others (myself included) see fusion as being very much alive. As an example, in 2019 there were around 100 new fusion albums, which is close to the the entire output of the 70s decade. Looking at it that way, the 80s were more like a fusion recession than a funeral. There was a strong resurgence in the 90s, which was a great decade for fusion. Only it was a little more under the the radar than 70s fusion. As for what caused the recession, I think it was a shift caused by 80s fashion & technology. The personality of that decade was so strong that more indulgent, dense, composition based music of the 70s (also a strong personality) was overturned by a more happy, flashy electronics based direction. At the same time, jazz went in a elite "classical" counter-direction that was intolerant electronic instruments - (a conservative reaction to the 70s experimentation and the 80s electro pop beats?) Muzak of the 70s became intolerable. Those forces pushed electric jazz in the "fuzak" direction for economic & socially current reasons. There were a few champions of 'darker' fusion (Tribal tech & Holdsworth), and some other decent (but electronic drum laden) stuff like Steps Ahead, CCEB, Kazumi Watanabe But it wasn't until the 90s that fusion got it's legs (or balls?)back. I was weened on the 70s fusion, but also was very into the scene in the 80s fusion. Now I occasionally listen to 70s (& 80s) fusion, but I thrive on the new stuff. The older stuff is great, but feels very grounded in it's era. New fusion scene feels alive to me, and there is a joy of discovery that you don't have so much with the old stuff. Extremely good point on redefining it as a recession then death. I think you are very much a glass half full rather than half empty person but maybe it's my age showing.
|
|
|
Post by funkle on Apr 20, 2021 14:12:43 GMT -6
I think you are very much a glass half full rather than half empty person My wife would disagree No, actually, I deeply appreciate, and have listened extensively to the classic '70s fusion, but I've always unapologetically preferred listening to newer fusion (including back when the old fusion was "new" fusion)
|
|
|
Post by xmiles on Apr 20, 2021 15:17:20 GMT -6
Can you give me some examples of the newer fusion that you prefer. I am not looking to start an argument but am genuinely curious.
|
|
|
Post by funkle on Apr 20, 2021 17:22:55 GMT -6
Can you give me some examples of the newer fusion that you prefer. I am not looking to start an argument but am genuinely curious. It changes on a daily basis, recently I've been listening to the new Steve Hunt, Gerald Gradwohl and Holdsworth live recordings. I regularly enjoy Machacek, all those Dutch guys, some newer Cobham, Progger, some funky stuff. It's not that I'm saying the new albums are "better". It's purely seat of the pants, what I want to listen to in the moment. Sometimes it is 70s Cobham or RTF, but usually it's something more recent. I have listened to a lot of the 70s stuff so much already and know it so well that the draw is more occasional nostalgic.
|
|
|
Post by GeorgeX on Apr 20, 2021 18:39:59 GMT -6
Can you give me some examples of the newer fusion that you prefer. I am not looking to start an argument but am genuinely curious. It changes on a daily basis, recently I've been listening to the new Steve Hunt, Gerald Gradwohl and Holdsworth live recordings. I regularly enjoy Machacek, all those Dutch guys, some newer Cobham, Progger, some funky stuff. It's not that I'm saying the new albums are "better". It's purely seat of the pants, what I want to listen to in the moment. Sometimes it is 70s Cobham or RTF, but usually it's something more recent. I have listened to a lot of the 70s stuff so much already and know it so well that the draw is more occasional nostalgic. I'm with you. As I've said around here before, I think the 70's idolatry is more than a bit much. Sure, the great recordings from then are as good as anything out there. But I think, overall, the two best decades for fusion are the 2010s and the 2000s. Much more quality depth than the 70s, and the top stuff is as good as any of the classics. With way less mileage on them
|
|
|
Post by funkle on Apr 21, 2021 15:50:16 GMT -6
I think the 70's idolatry is more than a bit much. To each his own, and if someone wants to idolize then go for it. That was such an exciting, energized time not just musically. I can see why it is loved. For me, it is fantastic, but stagnant (sorry, not in a rotten way. that's just the best word I can think of). Novelty is more exciting to me.
|
|
|
Post by GeorgeX on Apr 21, 2021 18:51:27 GMT -6
I think the 70's idolatry is more than a bit much. To each his own, and if someone wants to idolize then go for it. That was such an exciting, energized time not just musically. I can see why it is loved. Sure...all the way up to the point where you consider everything that has come out in the last 40 years of the genre to be less than. That seems to be the prevailing attitude of most of the hardcore 70s guys I know. In no other field would they think it makes sense to say, everything great was generated in one 10 yr. span, over 40 years ago, yet they give into their feeling on this without considering the other possible reasons. I wouldn't care, but these people might be out repping the genre to newbies. If I asked an expert buddy about, reggae say, and all the landmark records he told me to get were from the 60s, my impression would be, the genre isn't worth exploring, as everything great is way in the rearview mirror. That isn't a good image to put out there.
|
|
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 24, 2022 8:09:50 GMT -6
It has to do with the core audience. The core audience for jazz fusion came from the rock audience and consumers of rock albums. They were the "upper layer" of intelligent rock listeners who liked Zappa, Yes. Gentle Giant, The Grateful Dead's long improvising, The Allman Brothers, and "intelligent" rock in general. As they got older, they quit buying records.
|
|