Rok, now that O-10 has weighed in and, as you like to say, restored order, I feel better about moving forward. So, the discussion will be (wether you like it or not) about more than just "fusion"; whatever that is. Further, it should be pointed out that by "whatever that is" I simply mean to suggest the futility and pointlessness of trying to put a strict label on music of this era (any era really). That is something that I truly do hope you learn to appreciate as you grow as a listener; that labels are, more than anything, a hindrance. Your rigid definition of the music is certainly a hindrance to having a dialogue. The other aspect of the difficulty of having a dialogue with you is of a more personal nature and has been discussed before: you refuse to understand that there is no difference between telling someone who is saying: "hey, check this out, this is interesting music" that the music is just noise or by noise makers, and calling him a jerk. But, hey, as I have said before, shrink is above my paygrade.
So, more than fusion will be discussed, and since that has been settled I feel free to humor you and address your questions and comments re "fusion".
What is "fusion"? Well, to my way of thinking the answer could not be more obvious; but, hey, let's state the obvious anyway, for Rok's sake. "Fusion" is a fusion, a marriage, of two or more styles of music. As I said, that should be obvious; and, as O-10 correctly pointed out, that fusion can be of a wide variety of styles. However, part of the con-fusion is due to the fact that while "fusion" is a generic term, it has come to mean, in the mind of most listeners and because of industry labeling, a fusion of jazz and rock. Sticking point: as with any art, music and the fusion of various styles can, and usually does, happen slowly. A jazz artist might release an album that has subtle elements of rock that may not be obvious, and this is simply an indication of the evolving nature of his music. The before-mentioned Joe Henderson is a good example of this. So, what are the obvious signs that a jazz artist is fusing rock into his jazz background, or that a rock artist is bringing jazz into his "recipe":
The most obvious almost doesn't need to be mentioned. Jazz-rock fusion almost always uses electric instruments in the rhythm section; as rock does. A key aspect of the playing style has to do with with rhythm; rock "swings" in a different way than jazz does. Tap your foot to a rhythm, any tempo; those are downbeats, usually (but not always) four to a measure. Now, think about the obvious relationship between music and math. Each one of those "beats" can be, and is, divided in time into portions of the amount of time that it takes to go from one beat to the next; subdivisions. The most important and obvious subdivision is what is generally called the "upbeat". The upbeat in rock is often the subdivision exactly halfway between any two downbeats. Again, tap your foot: 1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4 etc. Now think about a high-hat cymbal on the upbeat exactly half way between the beats; that's your most basic rock beat. In jazz that upbeat is not placed half way between; instead it is placed closer to the following beat. This is what gives jazz that "swing" feel. Think: TAT...taTA, TAT...taTA, TAT...taTA. Difficult to put into words, but hopefully you get the point. That's some of the "academic" stuff, I hope it's of some value to someone, and I assure all its just scratching the surface.
Now, there is a truism in art that says that what most determines what is good and not so good is how well the art reflects the time of its birth; wether we like what it says about the time is a different matter. That is at the core of the pointlessness of a comparison between Bird playing Donna Lee and a bunch of "fusion guys" playing Donna Lee; proves nothing of value and is an absurd comparison. Would it not be of infinitely more value to accept the fact that there is creativity taking place in any decade and any style? I don't think Rok has any idea how ridiculous Bird would sound playing something like this (and not for lack of trying):
https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=qM-gSeBjKk8Or Trane playing something like this:
https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=ZPoT0thwduoOh yeah, a small detail, that same "fusion guy" could also play like this:
https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=UQx96DsZXxAThe point? One listener's musical universe does not define everyone else's. And an attempt to do so, because of our need to justify our own likes, biases and narrowmindedness by denigrating someone else's wider scope is, well...everyone has to decide for themselves just what that is.
As the OP generously likes to say, enjoy the music.
