PDA

View Full Version : fusion and prog


uzeb2
03-08-2004, 10:51 AM
I've always been curious, and would like to see a discussion about it, about why the fusion and prog genres are often combined, including here.

After all, they are completely different types of music. Fusion uses jazz progressions and scales, while prog is not much more than complicated rock riffs.

For example, Yes couldn't play a jazz tune if their lives depended on it, whereas artists like Chick Corea, Al DiMeola and Stanley Clarke, who are strictly jazz musicians, often get lumped into the same prog programs as Yes.

Maybe stations like this should be called progressive rock/fusion jazz.

Avian
03-08-2004, 11:31 AM
If we could call ourselves what we are we would be Aural Moon: The Progressive rock/fusion/new age/ambinet/modern/experimental garden.

Too long. :-) To describe us best, we just say Progressive Rock. BUt you certainly can't label us with just one genre.

Avian

KeithieW
03-08-2004, 12:07 PM
Aural Moon calls itself "The Progressive Rock Garden" because that's what it is.

The VAST majority of the music on the playlist is prog rock but there are, thankfully, other genres there as well such as fusion, classical and folk.

I don't know of a single station that doesn't play at least some music that is out of thier normal remit so why should AM be any different?

Everything that is here on The Moon is here because Jim and Avian reckon that it fits in with the overall feel of the station and I reckon they've got it SPOT ON!!!! (with the possible exception of Godsp.......no Keith don't go there!!!!!

uzeb2
03-08-2004, 01:02 PM
Yes, I see what you mean. I think the "overall feel of the station" is the key. While carrying a genre label may have restrictions, you don't want it to be too restrictive.

By the way, I meant no criticism of the station. I think the playlist is excellent - better than anything else around. Just wanted to get some other opinions on this.

Rick and Roll
03-08-2004, 01:04 PM
Uzeb you are correct, there's a lot of rock on here, but not as much as other internet radio.

I love fusion. I often wonder why it gets lumped in with progressive, though. Must be cause it goes nowhere else.

Same with "guitar gods" like Eric Johnson, etc. Not prog, but fine here.

But basically, I don't care what's here, I skip it if I don't like it.

Hey, there's ONE Zeppelin song!

Really disagree with your statement about "couldn't playa jazz tune" etc. Musicians choose to play what they LIKE, not what they CAN.

Steve Harris is just as good as Stanley Clarke. Love them both, just play different styles. Don't sneeze on the musicians that play heavy or pop. They're talented, just do something different.

Is Phil Collins any less talented now he's completely lost his manhood?

Yesspaz
03-08-2004, 01:08 PM
What makes fusion not prog?

Progressive rock is rock that infuses "art" influences (classical, jazz, world) rather than strictly "popular" influences (country, blues). [I add "strictly" because there are definite influences of country and blues in prog, but that's not all. If that was all, we'd be discussing Eric Clapton.]

Jazz and Rock becoming Jazz Fusion is generally considered both a subgenre of jazz and a subgenre of progressive rock. Always has been?




BTW, Yes has some pretty good jazz numbers, albeit jazz fusion numbers. The opening of "Sound Chaser" is jazz fusion. "On the Silent Wings of Freedom" has a strong jazz element. Granted, none of these are pure. However, the cover of "I See You" on the first album is prime jazz and is as good as any jazz fusion song ever.

Yesspaz
03-08-2004, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by Rick and Roll
Is Phil Collins any less talented now he's completely lost his manhood?


HA HA HA, I'm freaking rolling!

KW, you are a riot!

uzeb2
03-08-2004, 01:36 PM
I don't think you can really mix prog and fusion, as is being done in some previous posts. Jazz, which includes fusion, is on a whole different level than rock. There are different, more sophisticated chords and scales that are not generally used in rock. I believe that almost any jazz artist could play prog, no problem. However, I'll bet there are many many progressive rock artists who can't play jazz.

I disagree that Yes plays any jazz whatsoever. They have no training in this area and, from what I've read in their books, don't care if they ever do. If they ever did decide to play jazz, they would have to put in the years of training for it, just like everyone else does.

Rick and Roll
03-08-2004, 01:50 PM
Yesspaz that was me with the Phil comment.

While I do not agree that Yes plays jazz (I See You is a bastardized jazz sound, and Silent Wings is not jazz), you still cannot ignore the fact that everyone is talented.

To me jazz is three guys in a smoky bar, not Return To Forever. I've seen them, and even Romantic Warrior (the song) is still not straight jazz.

Spiral Architect plays metal. They have a bassist who is incredible.

Just because it's jazz means it's hard to play?

Yes does not play jazz, true - but Yes CHOOSES not to.

progdirjim
03-08-2004, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by uzeb2
I don't think you can really mix prog and fusion, as is being done in some previous posts. Jazz, which includes fusion, is on a whole different level than rock. There are different, more sophisticated chords and scales that are not generally used in rock. I believe that almost any jazz artist could play prog, no problem. However, I'll bet there are many many progressive rock artists who can't play jazz.

I disagree that Yes plays any jazz whatsoever. They have no training in this area and, from what I've read in their books, don't care if they ever do. If they ever did decide to play jazz, they would have to put in the years of training for it, just like everyone else does.

wow, do we have a jazz snob here?

Jazz and progressive rock are different. It is insane to suggest that jazz is more sophisticated, more difficult to play, or somehow *better* than rock. (As a matter of fact, the primary thing that defines jazz is improvisation.) There is simple and complex jazz, and simple and complex rock. As far as musicians go, there are those very talented, somewhat talened, and hacks in both.

I remember when I was first learning how to play jazz drums, in college, I met a drummer who was very schooled in jazz. we started practicing together, and I thought I was getting so much more out of the time since I was learning so much just watching this guy play. What I soon found out is that he was learning just as much from me with my rock background.

If you listen to certain pieces of Return To Forever, as an example, and didn't know it was musicians with jazz backgrounds playing it, you would call it rock. I said prog rock and jazz are different above, and they obviously are; they also share a hell of a lot of common musical roots...

moses
03-08-2004, 02:35 PM
I think it all depends on your definition of fusion. Just like the definition of progressive rock, it's different for different people.

However, one generally accepted definition is "jazz with some rock elements." Not far removed from that would be "rock with some jazz elements."

Many of the "rock" bands here on the Moon incorporate jazz elements. There are tons of examples, it would be pointless to list them all.

So it's my humble opinion that fusion certainly belongs here because "jazz-rock" and "rock-jazz" are awfully close. Kinda like "blue-green" and "green-blue" in my box of crayons. :D

Rick and Roll
03-08-2004, 02:57 PM
I'm at work, and I really didn't have time to get my point across -

Thanks Moses and Jim, you both said it well.

That box of crayons reference reminds me of an XTC tune but I can't think of which one....

Avian
03-08-2004, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by uzeb2
I don't think you can really mix prog and fusion, as is being done in some previous posts. Jazz, which includes fusion, is on a whole different level than rock. There are different, more sophisticated chords and scales that are not generally used in rock. I believe that almost any jazz artist could play prog, no problem. However, I'll bet there are many many progressive rock artists who can't play jazz.

I disagree that Yes plays any jazz whatsoever. They have no training in this area and, from what I've read in their books, don't care if they ever do. If they ever did decide to play jazz, they would have to put in the years of training for it, just like everyone else does.

Just to name one, Bill Bruford is a trained jazz drummer - his drumming on Yes and King Crimson albums is very jazzy. When he joined Yes (answered an ad) he thought he was indeed joining a jazz band! Burford's Earthworks, his long-running jazz ensemble, would seem to give your theory pause.

Prog and fusion go hand in hand. Much prog dips in and out of fusion. There are certainly bands that spand both prog rock and fusion. Planet X is one.

It mixes pretty seamslessly here on AM, and a lot of other internet "prog rock" stations. The popular syndicated show "The Canvas Prog Hour" has a heck of a lot of fusion in there.

Avian

uzeb2
03-08-2004, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Avian


Just to name one, Bill Bruford is a trained jazz drummer - his drumming on Yes and King Crimson albums is very jazzy. When he joined Yes (answered an ad) he thought he was indeed joining a jazz band! Burford's Earthworks, his long-running jazz ensemble, would seem to give your theory pause.

Avian

And one of the reasons he left Yes was because he was getting bored. This jazz trained drummer went on to the more challenging projects with Earthworks.

Don't get me wrong. The guys in Yes are great musicians and songwriters. But they cannot play jazz.

Jazz is a whole different world of scales and chords. Usually a person has to train for years before they can play it. Ask any guitar player and I'm sure almost all will agree that jazz guitar is the hardest to play.

This is why I made the statement that many rock musicians cannot play jazz, while all jazz musicians could play rock, no problem. The improvising in rock is elementary compared to jazz.

It is true that much of the progressive rock out there has jazz elements. This is either by rock guys who have picked up a few jazz licks here and there, or it's by jazz-trained musicians who have opted for a more rock sounding style (fusion).

And speaking of drummers, Neil Peart, probably the best rock drummer in the world, stated that his tribute to Buddy Rich project was the most challenging he ever had.

Rick and Roll
03-08-2004, 04:21 PM
I know I'm opening up myself here, but what's harder about jazz?

Do you play with three hands?

Do you play in Vulcan?

There is nothing physicially different. You are arguing a very strange point.

Blanket statements like that are ridiculous.

Rick and Roll
03-08-2004, 04:22 PM
I know I'm opening up myself here, but what's harder about jazz?

Do you play with three hands?

Do you play in Vulcan?

There is nothing physicially different. You are arguing a very strange point.

Blanket statements like that are ridiculous.

I just saw the California Guitar Trio play Brahms last week, each of them playing every THIRD NOTE. Try to tell me what's tougher than that!

Yesspaz
03-08-2004, 04:25 PM
RnR, sorry about thinking you were KW for a sec.... I have no idea....

Now, to quote myself:

Originally posted by Yesspaz
"On the Silent Wings of Freedom" has a strong jazz element.

Never said Silent Wings was jazz. I said it had a strong jazz element - namely Alan's drumming.

Rick and Roll
03-08-2004, 04:27 PM
no problem, Spaz:)

Yesspaz
03-08-2004, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by uzeb2

The guys in Yes are great musicians and songwriters. But they cannot play jazz.
CANNOT is a strong word. I think my argument here stands without explanation.



Jazz is a whole different world of scales and chords. Usually a person has to train for years before they can play it. [/QUOTE]
Since you do agree that Bruford is an expert in jazz, how about this quote by him from the YesYears documentary about Yours is No Disgrace:
"Steve is very much in a Wes Montgomery/Jim Hall phase on that solo, always has been."

Secondly, and ex-girlfriend of mine, a trained opera soprano, was in my truck with me when I was listening to I See You, said somethin along the lines of, "Whoa, he (Banks) is playing inverted 7ths! He knows more about music that most guitarists I hear."


The improvising in rock is elementary compared to jazz. [/QUOTE]

Ask any jazz musician about "faking it" and see what he says.

KeithieW
03-08-2004, 05:30 PM
Who gives a damn whether they can/can't play Jazz/Rock? (Delete as required)

Do you like what you hear?

Yes/No...............end of story.

I don't think that Michael Bolton can sing Opera and I don't think Jose Carreras can sing show tunes but they both released albums of those differing styles........and good luck to them. I didn't like them but I can't say they shouldn't give it a go.

Yesspaz
03-08-2004, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by Keith Waye
Who gives a damn whether they can/can't play Jazz/Rock? (Delete as required)

Do you like what you hear?

Yes/No...............end of story.



Heh! I like you KW.

progdirjim
03-08-2004, 08:18 PM
let me try the more direct approach. You are wrong.

Originally posted by uzeb2


And one of the reasons he left Yes was because he was getting bored. This jazz trained drummer went on to the more challenging projects with Earthworks.

wrong. he went solo because he wanted to be a band leader, as opposed to songwriter number 5, which he was with Yes.

Don't get me wrong. The guys in Yes are great musicians and songwriters. But they cannot play jazz.
I've never seen them try, but I'm willing to bet all the members of Yes are very capable of playing jazz.

Jazz is a whole different world of scales and chords. Usually a person has to train for years before they can play it. Ask any guitar player and I'm sure almost all will agree that jazz guitar is the hardest to play.

wrong again. most of my guitarist friends would say classical is hardest, one says flamenco is harder, none say that jazz is inherently harder than rock. I know some good jazz guitarists, for the record.

This is why I made the statement that many rock musicians cannot play jazz, while all jazz musicians could play rock, no problem. The improvising in rock is elementary compared to jazz.
Many jazz musicians cannot play complex rock. All rock musicians can play simple jazz. Period.

It is true that much of the progressive rock out there has jazz elements. This is either by rock guys who have picked up a few jazz licks here and there, or it's by jazz-trained musicians who have opted for a more rock sounding style (fusion).

And speaking of drummers, Neil Peart, probably the best rock drummer in the world, stated that his tribute to Buddy Rich project was the most challenging he ever had.

But he did it. And Buddy Rich is amongst the best jazz drummers ever. Neil Peart is excellent, but it's silly to call him the best rock drummer. There are dozens that you could arguably give that title to. For me, playing Neil Peart and playing Buddy Rich are about equally challenging. (and that is very challenging indeed:mad: )

Yesspaz
03-08-2004, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by progdirjim
let me try the more direct approach. You are wrong.




Ha ha ha ha Lol, ROFL, ha

Guffaw, he he he, hardy har har, woooo!

Gotcha! :eek:


I love it. Love it, love it, love it. I can't stop laughing. I nominate THAT LINE as a top five funniest posts ever!:cool:

KeithieW
03-09-2004, 02:38 AM
If you're reading this Jack Foster III aka Jazzraptor, what is your slant on this?

Having played your album a lot in the last few weeks and hearing the wonderful cross overs between prog and jazz I'm SURE you must have an opinion. Would you share it with us?

My opinion on the drumming side of things (for what it's worth and remembering that I'm not a drummer) is that, sure, "Jazz" drumming is difficult but then so is "Rock" drumming. I've sat and marveled at the sticks prowess of Lenny White and everytime I hear it I've often wondered how Phil Collins keeps going during the 'Apocalypse' section of "Suppers Ready". I can only assume that he switches off and goes into automatic mode. I've tried to play along and get lost about 4 bars in. I'm sure that practise makes perfect but it still sounds bloody difficult!!!!!!

I see a lot of Blues Bands when I go gigging and even though most of the songs appear to be in 4/4 time the drummers add their own little flourishes that spice it up.

jazzraptor
03-09-2004, 11:49 AM
If you're reading this Jack Foster III aka Jazzraptor, what is your slant on this?

Having played your album a lot in the last few weeks and hearing the wonderful cross overs between prog and jazz I'm SURE you must have an opinion. Would you share it with us?


Well, I agree with you Keith. If it touches you in some way when you listen to it, it's good music . . . regardless of genre. I really don't think jazz is better than prog or vice-versa. They're different.

To play devil's advocate to uzeb: Progressive Rock is more "advanced" than jazz in some ways. Prog often incorporates complex time changes and stray bars; there's very little of that in jazz. Also jazz key changes (ii-V-I to ii-V-I) are more predictable than prog key changes, which can go anywhere at any time. Also, prog rock explores a broader range of aural texture. Artists search for new sounds and combinations of sounds. Turn on a jazz radio station, and 95% of the time you'll hear a standard combo playing with somebody soloing. Jazz artists are more concerned with line through a chorus of changes (and interesting subsitutions) than they are with the aural landscape of the song.

There's improvisation in prog of course, but jazz IS improvisation (over structure). Everybody in the band should be improvizing ALL of the time to a degree. As an accompanist, you comp to solo. So you have to be listening closely at all times in order to fit in, and to improve the whole.

Jazz harmony is typically more sophisticated. But sophistication should not be confused with "better". Some of the most touching music that I've heard is very simple harmonically. And of course, prog harmony can be sophisticated as well.

Jazz song forms are usually simpler than prog forms. Jazz almost always is in the form: chorus, chorus, chorus, chorus . . . chorus, where the first and last chorus contain the actual song melody (called the head). (The chorus often contains a bridge.) Middle choruses are solos. This standard form allows pretty much any jazz guy to play with others; they know the form.

Prog has complex forms and combinations of sections. So where jazz is AAAAA form, prog can be AABCADEAaltBaltFZ!

(You asked for it Keith!)

Bottom line is that they're different. I've known guys who are competent jazz players, but embarrass themselves when they try to play rock; they just don't understand the idiom. And there are guys who play great jazz, but are blown away technically by the best rock guitarists out there. I like listening to good musicians, regardless of genre.

Rick and Roll
03-09-2004, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by jazzraptor



So where jazz is AAAAA form, prog can be AABCADEAaltBaltFZ!

(

If I read that correctly, jazz = 5 Native American wigwams, and

prog = Swedish pop Drug Enforcement Agency alternating Zappa
in Baltimore

Close?

Sharuru
03-09-2004, 01:26 PM
altough i understand what is uzeb willing to say, i'll say it differently: rock, even prog rock, is a lot more "squary" (can I say that ? :D ) than jazz. Jazz got SWING, which doeasn't have rock.Of course ELP, or other bands swing as well but Yes, since it was the example doesn't swing , at least for me

progdirjim
03-09-2004, 02:19 PM
You're right about swinging, Sharuru, but the point I've been arguing is the claim that jazz is inherently more difficult to play. I am a drummer, and swinging is easy. I've met rock drummers that couldn't swing, and I've met jazz drummers that couldn't NOT swing. They are stylistically different, but neither is harder.

uzeb
03-09-2004, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by jazzraptor


To play devil's advocate to uzeb...I like listening to good musicians, regardless of genre.

Nice post, jazzraptor. Points taken. This is why I started this post in the first place, to get some other views. And I agree, the bottom line is listening to good musicians, regardless of genre.

Rick and Roll
03-09-2004, 03:02 PM
we're right back where we started!

Yesspaz
03-09-2004, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by Sharuru
Jazz got SWING, which doeasn't have rock.

Yeah, but so often, rock has Groove. Like King's X says, "Welcom to the Groove Machine."

Yes might not swing, but songs like On the Silent Wings of Freedom definitley have groove.

Sharuru
03-09-2004, 03:59 PM
Then , if it's a question of technicity, of course prog rock musicians are skilled. I'll take Dream Theater as an example. Really impressive, buyt so boring (for me ). Just showing off. All this rollings by portnoy...:o :rolleyes:
Prefer a classic jazz rythm led by Elvin Jones, or John Marshall, my fav drummers. Much more "finesse" if you understand the word.DT is so much heavy, instead of whispering it just screams right into your ears, if you see what i mean.

Yesspaz
03-09-2004, 04:47 PM
Hey Sharuru, if you are looking for a power drummer with the skills and fluidity of jazz, request latter day Don Caballero. Thier drummer, Damon Che, is killer. Anything off "American Don" is thier jazzier stuff.

Sharuru
03-09-2004, 05:15 PM
Hey do you know about a band called The Bad Plus ? trhis is powerful drumming as well :D

jazzraptor
03-09-2004, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Rick and Roll


If I read that correctly, jazz = 5 Native American wigwams, and

prog = Swedish pop Drug Enforcement Agency alternating Zappa
in Baltimore

Close?


ZACK-lee!!

KeithieW
03-10-2004, 02:19 AM
I knew you would hit the nail on the head Jazz......

Look at a guitarist like Steve Howe. He, of course, plays "Rock" guitar but some of the lines and tones he uses are pure "Jazz". He also plays "Classical" guitar and......well darn it, he's such a great musician he can cross over between lots of styles.

A big difference between Prog and Jazz is the fact that, to these ears at least, the compositions in Prog tend to be more complicated. As Jack says complication shouldn't be confused with better.

I come back to what I said before:

If you like it.magic. If you don't like it......magic too. Just don't dismiss it. If you find the time to look into something you don't, at first, like, you may discover something that is actually a GEM and change your mind. Get someone who does like it to explain why they like it and a whole new world of delights may open up before you.

Rick and Roll
03-10-2004, 08:28 AM
I think I'll put on some Dada!

podakayne
03-12-2004, 09:29 PM
i happen to love both branches of prog on this and if i must agree JAZZ nailed it and Jim drove it home too. the complexity of both divisions are note eliminative of each other. and in the hands of throughly competent magicians each can be as complex as the other...why do they get lumped together...because each does the same thing...they break away from the set and settled and travel roads unheard to bring new canvases to the listener.

prog, jazz, fusion...it's all Good and we eat it up here at Aural Moon.

p.s. nice to see that altime #1 quote of yours Jim in context...nearly fell off my chair when i read it.

fusion was not my daddy's music but he could play!

:cool: