@alexatpos
Hello alex -
Apologies to all the "aficionados" for bringing up yet again an already discussed topic.
I certainly wasn’t taking issue with anything you had said. If your tastes lead you to sort of "specialize" in a certain period of jazz music, by all means, continue - I am not criticizing that choice. I also don’t think you are one of those closing the door to calling music "jazz" that was created outside some "golden era" (which truly might have been a zenith for the music form). I understand such is not your preference and that is fine. I do enjoy posting things to exercise Rok because his replies are entertaining AND informative (even when I don’t agree which seems to be often).
Jumping onto your question to Frogman, the term that links most of those groups I listed is "fusion" - a mix of jazz and rock elements. I’m sure you knew that so perhaps you are looking for finer definitions as you suggested for more traditional, golden era jazz.
I do find Rok's use of the word "noise" a little extreme; no doubt he exaggerates to make a point. To my ear, "free jazz" - part of the orthodox jazz canon - has much stronger claims on being "noise". By contrast much of the stuff performed by those groups I listed has pretty strong melodic content and would hardly serve as an example of "noise".
As far as me developing "a further affinity towards some specific sound of that [golden] era" (well put, by the way) - the process is underway and has been aided by many of the suggestions posted here. So, thank you for your input so far. It’s appreciated.
Hello alex -
Apologies to all the "aficionados" for bringing up yet again an already discussed topic.
I certainly wasn’t taking issue with anything you had said. If your tastes lead you to sort of "specialize" in a certain period of jazz music, by all means, continue - I am not criticizing that choice. I also don’t think you are one of those closing the door to calling music "jazz" that was created outside some "golden era" (which truly might have been a zenith for the music form). I understand such is not your preference and that is fine. I do enjoy posting things to exercise Rok because his replies are entertaining AND informative (even when I don’t agree which seems to be often).
Jumping onto your question to Frogman, the term that links most of those groups I listed is "fusion" - a mix of jazz and rock elements. I’m sure you knew that so perhaps you are looking for finer definitions as you suggested for more traditional, golden era jazz.
I do find Rok's use of the word "noise" a little extreme; no doubt he exaggerates to make a point. To my ear, "free jazz" - part of the orthodox jazz canon - has much stronger claims on being "noise". By contrast much of the stuff performed by those groups I listed has pretty strong melodic content and would hardly serve as an example of "noise".
As far as me developing "a further affinity towards some specific sound of that [golden] era" (well put, by the way) - the process is underway and has been aided by many of the suggestions posted here. So, thank you for your input so far. It’s appreciated.