Jazz for aficionados

During the 80's I just collected good sounding music, that was classified as jazz although it didn't fit the classical definition of jazz; meaning to sound similar to the jazz of the 50's and 60's, but it was original.

After that, the latest music out called "jazz" took on a similarity that was too much for me to take; it forsook all originality in order to be "jazz". It wasn't till quite recently, meaning since I started this thread that I began going back in time. Unlike Frogman and Acman, I absolutely do not like current music that sounds like 50's and 60's jazz; it sounds like someone trying to imitate the music of that era.

Now, thanks to "you tube", I can go back in time and still get music that I've never heard before; that's because the giants of that era recorded so much more music besides what was most popular at that time. Although soon I will have all of the music recorded by the giants of that era, I won't run out because jazz is popular all around the globe; consequently it will be Burmese jazz, or Japanese jazz, but it'll still be new.

Frogman, and some others seem to think or feel that musicians who go to the best schools, and progress to the point where they have developed the highest skill level on their chosen instrument, can exceed the jazz made by the giants of the 50's and 60's; but I don't believe they can.

While that seems illogical, music is not a science with a mathematical preciseness, it's a lot more subjective than objective; for example, I say no one communicated abstract emotions through their music better than "Bobby Timmons", and this is what jazz is about; "communicating abstract emotions". Of course it's about a lot more than that, but that's at the top. Frogman says there is such a thing as "objective reality" involved in jazz, and I disagree, but if he and others that think like him could give an example of "objective reality" in regard to jazz, I could be persuaded to change.

Enjoy the music.

"There was a time, 40 yrs ago or more, when the music had an edge. It was possessed by a renegade spirit. There was an element of danger in it. It was taking risks, crossing boundaries, making discoveries. The musicians themselves didn't have a name for this hybrid sound. They just played with the prevailing attitude of "let's do something different". It was Cream meets Coltrane. It was Jimi jamming with Miles, jazzers discovering the power of Rock, rockers capturing spirit of jazz. It was called Fusion." - Bill Milkowski, from the liner notes of a record called 'Chroma - Music On The Edge' (an amazing Fusion recording from the 90's featuring R Brecker, D Chambers, B Berg, M Egan, M Stern, and others). It's an oversimplification to define Fusion simply as the combining of Jazz & Rock. Let's look at the 4 greatest Fusion bands; Mahavishnu Orchestra, Weather Report, Return To Forever, & The Headhunters. The one thing they have in common is Jazz chops mixed with Rock volume/dynamics. Mahavishnu and RTF both brought a heavy dose of Classical structure and voicings. RTF also brought a Spain/Spanish/Brazilian influence (the 1st RTF band practically invented the electro/Brazilian/Jazz genre!). Zawinul and Weather Report had this European/other worldly international sound, and of course, Hancock's Headhunters brought the Funk! I've always felt that a prerequisite for a successful Fusion band is that there be at least a few virtuoso gun-slingers in the band! If I were to add the bio's of the musicians in these bands you'd see an amazing degree of variety in their overall experiences and skillsets. When you FUSE all the info and influences together you start to have a rudimentary understanding in the roots of true Fusion. In great Fusion you can hear Jazz, Rock, Classical, Funk, Latin, Brazilian, European, virtuosity, spirituality, and very importantly, a sense of fun! You guys remember having fun listening to music? The visceral joy you'd feel at a Hendrixian power chord? Rockin' out!? I'm 61 yrs old and I still enjoy rockin' out. It never ceases to amaze me when I meet with friends from my youth who USED to be avid music-lovers who have somehow lost it as they got older, or their musical tastes have softened to the point that they think 'rockin' out' is somehow immature or childish. Not this old timer! Anyhow, just thought I'd throw this Fusion tidbit out there, there's SO much more I could add. Lastly, any attempt to categorize Michael Brecker as just a 'Fusion' player couldn't be more incorrect. Anyone that thinks this is simply revealing how little they truly know. My concern is that perhaps someone that ISN"T familiar with the subject matter will read some things on this thread and believe them to be fact when they couldn't be more wrong!

Great post, Chazro; I agree with every word that you wrote. I especially like your last sentence; that is precisely the reason why I make a point of striving for clarity in the discussions. I also agree that describing fusion as simply a combination of jazz and rock is an oversimplification; unfortunately, for the sake being able to have any kind of reasonable discussion on this thread, simplification is precisely what is needed. My comment re what fusion is, and in the context of the discussion that was taking place at the time, was something like: "let's define it as a combination of jazz and rock, which is AS MOST PEOPLE KNOW IT". I believe that is an accurate, if unfortunate, fact.

Michael Brecker was a giant as the various clips posted show, while not even scratching the surface of his greatness. A great loss when he passed recently. Please continue to post.

I always look for originality, not copycats! New musicians playing in a different style, taking the music to new places, or at least trying. That's all I have shown since we began.

I also don't care if they get their training on the steet corner or in a university.

More 80's..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2lIG4vg6tQ