Fusion - need your help

[White Lightning]

I'm lecturing a class of students 'bout Jazz (real fun).It's a 2 to 3 academic hours class, in which I give the historic aspect of the music, we listen to music and discuss it. A basic Jazz appreciation workshop, for students who don't know anything about Jazz.

Now we come to the topic of Fusion.

Since fusion is not my forte, I'll appreciate some help: tips, explanation what exactly is fusion, recommended listenning, etc.

I assembled a suggested tune list. Any comments on the list will be most welcomed:

1. Bitches Brew - Miles Runs the Voodoo Down

2. Weather Report - Eurydice

3. Light as a feather - Light as a feather/Spain

4. J. McLaughlin & Mahavishnu - Birds of Fire

5. Jaco Pastorius - Donna Lee/Continuum

6. Hebie Hancock/Headhunters - Watermelon Man/Cameleon

7. Weather Report - Birdland

8.George benson - On Broadway/The Ghetto

what else? Any major artist I failed to include?

Should I add anything by Zappa, Steely Dan, Van Morrison, Soft machine etc. ?

Is it wise to include G.Benson?

Thanks in advance for your help!

[BFrank]

Here's a few off the top of my head:

Billy Cobham - "Spectrum"

Tony Williams - "Emergency"

Return to Forever - "Hymn of the Seventh Galaxy"

Stan Getz - "Captain Marvel"

Miles Davis - "Jack Johnson"

Santana - "Caravanserai"

Santana/McLaughlin - "Love Devotion Surrender"

[JSngry]

ANYTHING but "Birdland"!

[Chuck Nessa]

I'd ignore it. No real effect on the artform to date - only a commercial consideration at the time.

[Bright Moments]

Tony Williams - "Emergency"

[Joe G]

I like that list as is, Barak, although I don't normally think of Benson as a fusion artist. You could say it was a fusion of jazz and R&B I suppose. Put simply, I'd say that fusion was originally a melding of jazz improvisational and compositional techniques with the rhythms, textures, and energy of rock and funk. The original impulse was indeed a creative one, and one that is squarely in the tradition of jazz, IMO--that of appropriating and incorporating what's happening in the culture at large; musically, technologically, spiritually, etc. Takes a lot of vision and talent to pull that off, and the musicians you listed were among the few that did it right.

Some recent fusion albums:

John Scofield: Uberjam

Pat Metheny Group: Speaking of Now

Christian McBride: Vertical Vision

there's more but I'm drawing a blank.

[BFrank]

There is the 70's ECM school of fusion:

Terje Rypdal

Eberhard Weber

Pat Metheny

John Abercrombie

I almost forgot ... Larry Coryell:

Barefoot Boy

Offering

Spaces (w/McLaughlin)

Edited June 28, 2004 by BFrank

[tjobbe]

Hi,

I would say you should cover three areas of fusion:

a ) the Miles Davis root where the Bitches Brew plus few followers of his former team mades should be covered who were looking for something beyond Post Bop

b ) the european style ECM likes that encorporated different sounds

c ) the more "pop/stylish fusion" players like the Grover W. and Chuck Mangiones, the GRP's and DMP's that got very popular in mid 70s until end of the 80's

Cheers, Tjobbe

Edited June 28, 2004 by tjobbe

[king ubu]

ANYTHING but "Birdland"!

explain? (asking seriously!)

[7/4]

ANYTHING but "Birdland"!

explain? (asking seriously!)

Birdland isn't fusion!

[7/4]

c ) the more "pop/stylish fusion" players like the Grover W. and Chuck Mangiones, the GRP's and DMP's that got very popular in mid 70s until end of the 80's

Cheers, Tjobbe

Why don't we leave the fathers of happy jazz (aka smooth) out of this?

[tjobbe]

c ) the more "pop/stylish fusion" players like the Grover W. and Chuck Mangiones, the GRP's and DMP's that got very popular in mid 70s until end of the 80's

Cheers, Tjobbe

Why don't we leave the fathers of happy jazz (aka smooth) out of this?

.. you can "ignore them" but still they sold a lot of records and it is a contrast to what the others have done/were doing. I guess for a lot of "non-hard core jazzer" this IS fusion...

For completeness I believe it should be mentioned (as it shouldn't be an I like that and this I do dislike thingie or ?)

Cheers, Tjobbe

Edited June 28, 2004 by tjobbe

[7/4]

They're not jazz. Kenny G. isn't either.

[7/4]

It's like saying the Spice Girls are essential to the history of rock because they sold a lot of records.

[JSngry]

ANYTHING but "Birdland"!

explain? (asking seriously!)

Taken on its own terms, sepearate from all the historical aftermath of itself, "Birdland" is indeed a marvellous piece of music, a compact little multi-sectioned gem worthy of late-30's/early 40s Ellington (and I do mean that!). It was hugely interesting and exciting when it first came out, at least in my circles.

But...

It's kinda like putting together a "straight ahead" jazz compilation for "general" educational purposes and including "Take Five" or some such. Why?

A) the artists in question have done meatier work elsewhere (and don't get me wrong, I like both cuts immensely, but still....)

B ) it's something that a lot of people have already heard, if only through osmosis

and

C) (following from B ), it's something that some people have heard so often in so many different versions (and contexts) that they've developed a distaste for it, and that might turn them off on whatever else they will hear in conjunction with it.

If I wanted to present a cut from HEAVY WEATHER (and why not?), I'd maybe go with "Palladium", every bit as catchy and "accessable", but significantly less familiar to the "civilian" population.

Just my opinion, and not a particularly strongly held one at that!

Edited June 28, 2004 by JSngry

[king ubu]

ANYTHING but "Birdland"!

explain? (asking seriously!)

Taken on its own terms, sepearate from all the historical aftermath of itself, "Birdland" is indeed a marvellous piece of music, a compact little multi-sectioned gem worthy of late-30's/early 40s Ellington (and I do mean that!). It was hugely interesting and exciting when it first came out, at least in my circles.

But...

It's kinda like putting together a "straight ahead" jazz compilation for "general" educational purposes and including "Take Five" or some such. Why?

A) the artists in question have done meatier work elsewhere (and don't get me wrong, I like both cuts immensely, but still....)

B) it's something that a lot of people have already heard, if only through osmosis

and

C) (following from B), it's something that some people have heard so often in so many different versions (and contexts) that they've developed a distaste for it, and that might turn them off on whatever else they will hear in conjunction with it.

If I wanted to present a cut from HEAVY WEATHER (and why not?), I'd maybe go with "Palladium", every bit as catchy and "accessable", but significantly less familiar to the "civilian" population.

Just my opinion, and not a particularly strongly held one at that!

Makes perfect sense what you say

(I only was afraid a bit that you might not like "Birdland"... but as I see that's not the case at all, I may sleep quietly )

ubu

[BruceH]

First of all, forget Pons and Fleischmann! Their experiments are not reproducable in any meaningful way, and....

Oh.

Nevermind.

Edited June 29, 2004 by BruceH

[danasgoodstuff]

I've got an idea for a little classroom exercise that might prove enlightening (or not). Pick two cuts from Bitches Brew: one that was pieced together from numerous bits in post-production ("Pharoh's Dance"? I don't have the box in front of me) and another that was one continuous 'real time' take. Don't tell them which is which, let them see if they can here a difference first, then tell them and see what they think. It may be a total nonissue to them and they might be surprised at the opinion of guys like Martin William's who thought that "In a Slinet Way/It's About That Time" was clearly an editing error.... The only drawback is that the tunes of this era are mostly so long that this would eat up a lot of class time. Whatcha think?