03 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAdmittedly I had to give thought about it's current state. Jeff Beck is still playing it. Stanley Clarke will bring it out and John Mclaughlin occasionly brings out the electric axe to explaore it again. In Downbeat recently he went into how much he still enjoys it.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "significant". For that matter, I have to question the significance of the jazz rock fusion era. From what I can tell, it pretty much died on the vine unless you want to consider "smooth jazz" alive.
I've heard that Return to Forever may rejoin and tour which would excite interest again I would expect.
When I hear new King Crimson releases I still hear it. In fact it remains in other prog rock bands like Tool.
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by badmoonThis is an oversimplification, but I guess I tend to think of jazz-rock fusion as almost killing jazz in the '70s. Then in the '80s Marsalis resurrected post bop which continues today as an interpretive rather than creative music. In the '80s there was also a resurgence in the "avant-garde" which continues to grow artistically. Many notable musical ideas have been assimilated though out of sight of the mainstream.
Admittedly I had to give thought about it's current state. Jeff Beck is still playing it. Stanley Clarke will bring it out and John Mclaughlin occasionly brings out the electric axe to explaore it again. In Downbeat recently he went into how much he still enjoys it.
I've heard that Return to Forever may rejoin and tour which would excite interest again ...[text shortened]... King Crimson releases I still hear it. In fact it remains in other prog rock bands like Tool.
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneJazz rock has always been controversial. I do prefer more mainstream jazz but I won't discount the quality of the jazz rock period.
This is an oversimplification, but I guess I tend to think of jazz-rock fusion as almost killing jazz in the '70s. Then in the '80s Marsalis resurrected post bop which continues today as an interpretive rather than creative music. In the '80s there was also a resurgence in the "avant-garde" which continues to grow artistically. Many notable musical ideas have been assimilated though out of sight of the mainstream.
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by badmoonA comparison of the relative quality of jazz rock and mainstream jazz is sort of interesting. Speaking in generalities, on one hand jazz rock draws on ingredients that are less rich than those used in mainstream jazz, yet on the other hand, at its best, it also draws on ingredients that are more rich than those used in mainstream jazz.
Jazz rock has always been controversial. I do prefer more mainstream jazz but I won't discount the quality of the jazz rock period.
12 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneBud Powell, Art Tatum, very ,ver y good!
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "significant". For that matter, I have to question the significance of the jazz rock fusion era. From what I can tell, it pretty much died on the vine unless you want to consider "smooth jazz" alive.
12 Mar 08
1 edit
Personally, I feel that what makes jazz jazz is improvisation. It may just be my own opinion, but jazz records just take this improvisational feel away. Sure, they're still improvising in the studio, but it's not really the same. You can record and re-record until it sounds the way you want it. Live CD's are better still, but they too lack the certain little something.
The greatest jazz pianist i've seen live are probably a guy called Jeff Barnhart, or Brian Kellock. Although my fiancée's sister went to see Jacques Loussier at the fringe last year. Apparently, he's not shabby either...