Was jazz-fusion a dead end music genre?

francesco

Minerva Estassi
on the pro-fusion angle also i remember Nucleous and Ben on the Vertigo label, i have some tracks of them on the Vertigo Time Machine comp, they are very Miles/Soft Machine sounding for what I remember (Ian Carr, leader of Nucleus, wrote a book on Miles). nothing really exiting but a nice footnote.

Then can the Zappa of Hot Rats and the Grand Wazoo be considered progrockjazz ?, i think so, and also George Duke on those records, Geroge Duke on the '70 is very jazzprog.

Obviously Henry Cow first has a strong rockfusion taste.


What progjazz usually totally lacks is funk. Maybe THE funkjazz album is the aforementioned Blackbyrd, one of the greatest records ever. (for people interested in great jazzfunk but not willing to go bankrupt there is the really nice Pulp Fusion compilations series on Harmless, both lps and cds, that is really a pleasure).
 

mms

sometimes
children of forever by children of forever is a great lp, one of my faves from when i was little like.
my goals beyond by john mc g too.
those 70's herbie albums are essential.
dorothy ashbys world fusiony album the rubiat of .. is great too, love the overbearing mysticism.

james blood ulmer - some of his stuff is great and sits neatly inside post punk as do people like arthur russell and bill laswell to an extent.

i reckon there is alot of fusion in hip hop, its an essential place to find breaks, the flashy nature of the music has momentary bars which really work looped etc. even the bad fusion.
 
Last edited:

bruno

est malade
i haven't heard much in the way of jazz fusion but if anything else comes close to the atmosphere and pace of miles' he loved him madly, i'd like to hear it. if this is a dead end, it's a glorious dead end!
 

tate

Brown Sugar
YES OTM- prog lives on massively in metal.
Out of curiosity, what bands do you have in mind? The drone/doom strand of Sunn0))), Khanate, Isis, Pelican, Jesu, Neurosis, etc? I'm genuinely curious, b/c my metal listening ended sometime around the release of master of puppets, though I've been checking all of the so-called newer drone metal bands much the result of dissensians' prosyletizing . . . smile . . . I don't like mastodon at all, I must say . . . was curious.

Digression over, now back to jazz fusion, about which I hope and think that there is still very much to say. :)
 

francesco

Minerva Estassi
Out of curiosity, what [metal] bands do you have in mind?

I think that when (modern, alas no heavy rockblues) Metal is referred as the new Prog this goes in referee to Death Metal, , most of Doom Metal, and obviously all of so called Progressive Metal . I would have not consider Drone Metal in his purest incarnation (Earth, firsts SunnO))) records) and his structural and tonal simplicity prog not a little bit but obviously in it's current evolution toward artRock (Isis, Kanathe) it's, yes, becoming to go prog (an illness that plague a lot of musical genres, ask Goldie, so go figure!). Black Metal, born as a total antithesis to technique and progressive (Venom, Hellhammer, Darkthrone, Mayhem) evolved in symphonic too (Celtic Frost circa 'into the pandemonium', Emperor, Satyricon (who cited as influence italian prog like Osanna), Cradle of Filth).

Talkin' of Thrash Metallica have prog overtones on the Ride the Lightning/Master of Puppets/and Justice for All trilogy. And NWOBHM heroes, Iron Maiden, or Angel Witch, well, with titles like 'rhyme of the ancient mariner'....

...anyway the (silly) seriousness, being heavy on boring concepts, instrumental technique, this 'classical music' for retarded thirteen years old fanboys, the album covers, quite all metal reeks of Prog. Not AC/DC anyway, neither Reeks of Putrefaction by Carcass (what? :rolleyes: ).
 

tate

Brown Sugar
I think that when (modern, alas no heavy rockblues) Metal is referred as the new Prog this goes in referee to Death Metal, , most of Doom Metal, and obviously all of so called Progressive Metal . I would have not consider Drone Metal in his purest incarnation (Earth, firsts SunnO))) records) and his structural and tonal simplicity prog not a little bit but obviously in it's current evolution toward artRock (Isis, Kanathe) it's, yes, becoming to go prog (an illness that plague a lot of musical genres, ask Goldie, so go figure!). Black Metal, born as a total antithesis to technique and progressive (Venom, Hellhammer, Darkthrone, Mayhem) evolved in symphonic too (Celtic Frost circa 'into the pandemonium', Emperor, Satyricon (who cited as influence italian prog like Osanna), Cradle of Filth).

Talkin' of Thrash Metallica have prog overtones on the Ride the Lightning/Master of Puppets/and Justice for All trilogy. And NWOBHM heroes, Iron Maiden, or Angel Witch, well, with titles like 'rhyme of the ancient mariner'....

...anyway the (silly) seriousness, being heavy on boring concepts, instrumental technique, this 'classical music' for retarded thirteen years old fanboys, the album covers, quite all metal reeks of Prog. Not AC/DC anyway, neither Reeks of Putrefaction by Carcass (what? :rolleyes: ).
Thank you, Francesco. Actually, earlier this evening I went back and checked your threads on doom metal and black metal. Quite intriguing!

As for your link to the "prog metal" page, yes, I know those bands all too well. I saw the grace under pressure tour as a boy and remember when the warning was released, the video to "take hold of the flame" and so forth used to be played on cable tv on friday nights. . . gasps and giggles . . . and I certainly never considered king's x worth much more than a quick ear-candy fix, or tool, much later, save for a few songs . . . there is something inherently silly to me about 'metal' which i find myself unable to abide - and that is speaking as someone who remembers when powerslave and turbo were released. I have a slightly different perspective on the drone metal, I guess, b/c I witnessed firsthand earlier versions of some of that.
 
Last edited:

Chris

fractured oscillations
Francesco OTM... pretty much touched on all the prog-ish metal bands and styles I had in mind; mid 80s thrash metal (adding Megadeth to the list), symphonic black metal, NWOBHM...

...anyway the (silly) seriousness, being heavy on boring concepts, instrumental technique, this 'classical music' for retarded thirteen years old fanboys, the album covers, quite all metal reeks of Prog.

Seriously, although there were the more traditional rock n roll, non-prog metal bands; Motorhead (despite Lemmy's Hawkwind roots), GnR, AC/DC, Judas Priest (except for maybe the synth solo on Turbo Lover and the 80s scifi album covers), and probably all of the LA hair bands.

As far as jazz-fusion's influence, I just realized that the American jamband scene is massively influenced by jazz-fusion as well as prog. Early 70s Grateful Dead was quite jazzy (the concerts, not the albums), but Phish in particular were very influenced by John McLaughlin, Metheny, and late Miles, as well as Zappa, King Crimson, and early Genesis; in turn spawning countless white jazz-rock-funk-fusion hippie wankfest bands. Actually... one of my deep, dark secrets is that I kind of have a soft spot for the Dead (though I never listen to them these days), but I really can't stand the rest of that stuff. I won't completely discredit Phish though, they're just not my thing.

Again, thanks to all for the additional recommendations...
 
Last edited:

hamarplazt

100% No Soul Guaranteed
I wouldn't really classify Henry Cow or Soft Machine as prog, although they clearly have some relation to it (ie Henry Cow are rock-in-opposition, and much more along the lines of what interests me, with the level of atonality going on and use of more modern "classical" influences). I was talking more of the classic UK big prog acts of the late 60s to late 70s.
Ever since punk made all things prog forbidden, people have been classifying the prog they like as something else (RIO, art rock, kraut...). It seems to me that most people are defining prog by the punk prejudices, rather than looking at the movement as it happened back then. There's lots of atonality and modern classical influences going on all over prog, also in big prog acts like Yes, King Crimson and ELP. Bill Martin has a good discussion of this in his book "Listening to the Future".
I've never met anyone actually into prog who doesn't classify Henry Cow and Soft Machine as obviously being a part of the big progressive movement - even those more into lightweight symphonic prog.

Yes never seemed to me to be particularly alien, unlike Henry Cow say or Can who are both impressively alien in terms of the vocabularies they bring into rock.
Can, well yeah, they're quite alien. Henry Cow... only in that they use elements foreign to rock, but those elements are not as such foreign in themselves. If you know some atonal chamber music and avant jazz, Henry Cow sounds quite familiar (and in a very good way, obvioulsy). Yes, on the other hand, sounds like nothing before.
 

gek-opel

entered apprentice
Out of curiosity, what bands do you have in mind? The drone/doom strand of Sunn0))), Khanate, Isis, Pelican, Jesu, Neurosis, etc? I'm genuinely curious, b/c my metal listening ended sometime around the release of master of puppets, though I've been checking all of the so-called newer drone metal bands much the result of dissensians' prosyletizing . . . smile . . . I don't like mastodon at all, I must say . . . was curious.

Digression over, now back to jazz fusion, about which I hope and think that there is still very much to say. :)

The people you quote are definitely the stuff in modern metal I'm most familiar with, but they're more drone/metal or post rock/metal. Actually its stuff more on the Mastodon tip that are progish. There's also a heap of post-hardcore/screamo stuff that this friend of a friend keeps playing me, and that's all very prog in its structures and technical excesses, at least as much as old school Metalica if not more so. Inevitably I find it a bit too melodically fiddly, though others may disagree.
 

gek-opel

entered apprentice
Ever since punk made all things prog forbidden, people have been classifying the prog they like as something else (RIO, art rock, kraut...). It seems to me that most people are defining prog by the punk prejudices, rather than looking at the movement as it happened back then. There's lots of atonality and modern classical influences going on all over prog, also in big prog acts like Yes, King Crimson and ELP. Bill Martin has a good discussion of this in his book "Listening to the Future".
I've never met anyone actually into prog who doesn't classify Henry Cow and Soft Machine as obviously being a part of the big progressive movement - even those more into lightweight symphonic prog.


Can, well yeah, they're quite alien. Henry Cow... only in that they use elements foreign to rock, but those elements are not as such foreign in themselves. If you know some atonal chamber music and avant jazz, Henry Cow sounds quite familiar (and in a very good way, obvioulsy). Yes, on the other hand, sounds like nothing before.

By that line of argument even Can aren't that alien in global terms, (ie if yr familiar with musique concrete on the one hand, and various funk/world musics on the other, then they do indeed sound quite familiar). But what I was really looking for is another way of describing "futurism" in language that might make more sense! So "alien" is the term that I use, and in a sense Can and Henry Cow were alien (in terms of Artrock) as they assembled and synthesised influences that previously had been entirely outside the acceptable remit of possible influences for "rock". Obviously to an extremely well informed listener almost nothing can possibly sound alien. But I need more detail on why you reckon Yes in particular sound like nothing before.
 
Last edited:

francesco

Minerva Estassi
Yes in particular sound like nothing before.


On this Yes vs. Henry Cow tip.
Now i found Henry Cow quite boring, meanwhile Yes had become one of my favorite band, go figure! Yes were "futuristic" in a old classical way, lot of references to classical science fiction, proto new-age mysticism and others fantasy. Sure they were unique, since i don't know of band who tried to sound like them, unlike the many groups who copycat King Crimson or Henry Cow. Speaking of which they have a sort of nostalgic bucolicism, no? And too much "good taste"!
 

hamarplazt

100% No Soul Guaranteed
Yes had all the idyllic back-to-nature covers, not to mention Jon Andersons lyrics, but in terms of the music, there's nothing bucolic about it to my ears. What makes it "alien" and sounding like nothing before? Well, first of all I'd say just listen to it, it's so obvious! But basically it's the rhythms, and in particular Chris Squires bass, the way it writhes and jumps and twists elastically, and still has this weird propulsive groove. I'd say you'll have to go to jungle or grime to find basslines that take the lead so much, and are as bizarrely syncopated and simultaniously totally funky. Those grooves command the rest of Yes' music, the way it's structured, the strange ways the tracks develop, taking odd twists and turns. Well, and then there's the high pitched, sexless vocals - sexless in the best sense of the word: as un-rock as vocals get. Just skip the words he's singing.

As for Henry Cow, they had some links with the Canterbury scene, and especially their first lp "Legend" has a bit of that hippe-folk feel I'd say, so not completely un-bucolic. There was also Lindsay Coopers woodwinds on later records.

As for Can, you can single out the ingredients there too for sure, but I'd still say there's an x-factor that makes it quite alien. It has just as much to do with their overall dream-like mood as with the hypnotic grooves.
 

jd_

Well-known member
Talking of metal being prog, has anyone heard Ocrilim's album "Anoint"? It's a solo disc from the guitar player from Orthrelm. Definitely a strange one!
 

tate

Brown Sugar
Yes had all the idyllic back-to-nature covers, not to mention Jon Andersons lyrics, but in terms of the music, there's nothing bucolic about it to my ears. What makes it "alien" and sounding like nothing before? Well, first of all I'd say just listen to it, it's so obvious! But basically it's the rhythms, and in particular Chris Squires bass, the way it writhes and jumps and twists elastically, and still has this weird propulsive groove. I'd say you'll have to go to jungle or grime to find basslines that take the lead so much, and are as bizarrely syncopated and simultaniously totally funky. Those grooves command the rest of Yes' music, the way it's structured, the strange ways the tracks develop, taking odd twists and turns. Well, and then there's the high pitched, sexless vocals - sexless in the best sense of the word: as un-rock as vocals get. Just skip the words he's singing.
With all due respect to hamarplazt and francesco, I find the suggestion that Yes were sonically 'alien' or futuristic very hard to swallow. Exhibit number one: Steve Howe, whom I consider to be one of the un-grooviest, un-funkiest, and most ham-handed guitarists in the history of recorded sound. The way that he always found it necessary to insert some cock-eyed country riff or major third into a solo, his hiiiiiideous guitar tone, his horrific note selection . . . Howe always destroyed the vibe for me, always reminded me that I was listening to a prog band who were trying too hard rather than something 'futuristic' . . . i listened to a lot of Yes back in the day and almost always, there comes that 'wincing' moment when Howe ruins the song. "I've Seen All Good People" sounds alien? To me it sounds quite the opposite - all of those stupid major scale guitar riffs and bends are just unbearable. As for the rest of the corpus, Bruford was nice while he was there, one can find some ferocious early live bootlegs scattered 'round, Relayer had some nice moments (e.g., "Sound Chaser"), Squire was always a monster as you say, and I am fond of many individual moments and songs in their corpus, but still . . . Steve Howe and Rick Wakeman's diddle-diddle and ultra-ultra goofy Jon Anderson? Futuristic? Eeeeeek.
 

francesco

Minerva Estassi
well, at least the discussion is interesting. now i find Yes futuristic in a non post-modern way, in a classic sci-fi adventure mood more Olaf Stapledon or Starship Troopers than K Dick or the almighty Ballard so much loved by postpunkers. there is also to say that this futuristic Yes observations should be placed in their prime time (the early/mid '70) and in confront to others big prog act: genesis and gentle giant had all litearies references to past full of myths (there is this tension beetween progression and state of the art new technology and this lust for a mythic old land that is one of the most interesting thing of prog), pink floyd post-cosmic became humanist, van der graaf choose obscure existensialism, king crimson were sadly mostly confused by which directions and thematics endorse (ah if only they had delivered an album all like the Red track!!), most italian prog were or socialist/communist or catholic, Yes were fantasy sci-fi epics (and the cover more than bucolic old lands seems to me like fantasy alien/alternative universe lands). And also 90125 sounded thank to Trevor Horn and his samples like the electronic future of AOR rock in 1981 (but nothing date faster than visions of future). Was not Kodwo Eshun, of AfroFuturismBlackSonicScienceFiction a Yes fan?
 
Last edited:

francesco

Minerva Estassi
uhm, i don't think that much of Howe really, i think his guitar just add to the mix but it's not the lead instrument... Wakeman really had been in and out without the sound changing that much... yeah, it's Squire that really is my hero. Squire is Yes.
 

tate

Brown Sugar
there is also to say that this futuristic Yes observations should be placed in their prime time (the early/mid '70) and in confront to others big prog act: genesis and gentle giant had all litearies references to past full of myths (there is this tension beetween progression and state of the art new technology and this lust for a mythic old land that is one of the most interesting thing of prog)
Ah yes, interesting point, Francesco. The intersection of new technology, new levels of performance expertise, and the lust for myths and old lands seems especially to apply to Gentle Giant, with all of their pseudo-Renaissance musical stylings ("Knots," "On Reflection," "In a Glass House" ) and references ("Raconteur-Troubador," etc). What is your view on Gentle Giant, Francesco? They always appealed to me much more than Yes (though I agree, Squire was amazing and Yes certainly wrote some classic songs), because Gentle Giant were more adventurous, more genuinely weird. And stripped down. And groovy. Gentle Giant, for all of their complicated arrangements and complex structures, were always still extremely tight (live bootleg videos bear this out). Weathers was the perfect drummer for the group - minimal and unfussy, but still in the pocket. On "Free Hand" and "Just The Same" and "Interview" and "Experience" etc, Weathers could hit a stride that was somewhere between groove and motorik - whatever one would call it, the band knew how to deliver an ensemble performance that was awfully, awfully tight. And completely devoid of the overblown Yes-like arena-rock epic vibe. Minnear was pretty crazy too, where on earth his musical imagination came from heaven only knows.

Also, Gentle Giant wrote so many great prog 'songs'! Free Hand, On Reflection, Just the Same, So Sincere, Playing the Game, Cogs in Cogs, The Advent of Panurge, Knots, The Boys in the Band . . . .
 

Grievous Angel

Beast of Burden
I love a bit of post-Miles fusion.

Broken beat's got lots of it, obviously.

There should be some of it in dubstep IMO. I've done one.
 
Top