that reverse snobbery was definitely true. i remember reading a quote from Miles about how one of his bands, it might have been the group that did Jack Johnson, was the best rock band ever...which i always thought was a big loada

nice mini-series on fusion, by the way.

Thanks, Mark!

I feel compelled to point out an awkward analogy that I made, that of the "reverse Jim Crow." I don't think the treatment by jazz fans of rock music is race-oriented; while most rock musicians are white, so are most jazz fans.

What I meant was that the music of little money and marginal appeal (i.e., jazz) treats the big-money, big-influence music with contempt and bias.

Sorry for the unfortunate racial overtones.

that's ok, i got what you were saying.

unfortunately, i now have the urge to go home and listen to some early King Crimson.

Good piece, but I can't let the dig on Chicago go unremarked upon. I know a lot of music fans think Chicago was too lame for rock and too tame for jazz. And sure, their output starting in the late '70s did become something of a farce (especially after Terry Kath's death). But I really feel that to casually dismiss their first five or six studio albums (vintage Chicago) is to miss some really fine music, regardless of labels.

If you want to dismiss vintage Chicago as not having the musical chops or vision of, say, King Crimson or Mahavishnu Orchestra, that's certainly valid. If you're looking for new and exciting depths of virtuosity or creativity well then vintage Chicago isn't for you. But to casually dismiss them as "shit" reeks of the same snobbery you are accusing Miles Davis of.

A great conversation, Michael. I too have always felt that some of the fusion of the rock guys were just as impressive as those from the jazzers. Jeff Beck is yet another example who comes to my mind. If Soft Machine's Third had been done by Miles it would have been heralded as a "fusion classic" instead of a "rock-jazz near-classic." And Zappa/Ponty's King Kong is breathtaking in both musicanship and compositional complexity, yet very few people seem to know about it.

Although they probably don't belong in this discussion, don't be so quick to dismiss Chicago. They did some amazing stuff on their first five albums beyond the am radio hits and jazz fusion was only a part of it. Furthermore, Zappa helped to inform their more adventurous side.

I'll give you guys this: Chicago Transit Authority and Chicago II both had some pretty great material on them.

I've never heard Chicago III...IV, on the other hand--the four-record, live-at-Carnegie-Hall thing--I really detest. The sound is terrible, and come on: four records? It just gives fuel to the claims that rock of the period got bloated and self-indulgent.

But it's probably unfair for me to dismiss them out of hand, yes. Especially since this whole series came up as a response to fusion being dismissed out of hand.

heh, this is great! i was just about to mention how much i love the Chicago at Carnegie Hall set.

oops!

Great series, looking forward to more. I'm not at all familiar with Nicholas Payton, the name caught my eye so I'll have to check him out.

One small correction - David Torn's last album under his name prior to Prezens was 1996's What Means Solid, Traveler? (I'm also not counting the 1998 album with Vernon Reid and Elliott Sharp, GTR OBLQ, as that was a collaborative effort.)

Chicago V has some great stuff on it too, along with the lighter (but still very good) fare like Saturday in the Park.

ok, you make some good points in defense of fusion/jazz-rock. i suppose my general hatred of the genre comes from the fact (as you ably describe it,) that fusion's promise was seemingly squandered. remember back in high school, when i first got into miles that it was the fusion period that really struck me. "in a silent way" was a bit of a revelation. (and the fact that can stole all their ideas about recording from miles/teo was really something, although i only learned that later.)

it was just that by the time i got to miles' 74-75 concerts, i was extremely bored. some of that stuff i still love, like "he loved him madly," but i still can't listen to much of that stuff. and weather report? pish. virtuosity trumps creativity a lot of the time in fusion and jazz-rock. that's the stop where i get off. i despise virtuosity in rock, so why would i want that added on top of some pretensions of being "jazz?"

my taste in jazz definitely runs towards the avant. i got the naked city box and found myself bored with the more trad jazz stuff AND the metal-jazz hybrid material. but then i got to one of the later albums, can't remember which right now, and it had sounds like buzzing insects and clanging metal percussion and trad instruments so warped that you often couldn't tell what they were. fucking marvelous album. more noise or experimental music than jazz, but definitely informed by jazz structures.

i suppose we have fusion to thank for opening up both the sound of jazz and rock music. it's the point where jazz musicians recognized the beauty of repetition and the rock musicians found the way to really stretch themselves out. for that, fusion should be revered. (so, i like fusion as an idea... but not so much in practice.)

and thanks for mentioning cabaret voltaire. great fucking band there. their work from 1978-1982 ranks as one of the most fertile periods of creativity for any genre, at any time. they did so much then. i'm pretty sure you have "the living legends," which has a song called "eddie's out." that would be the closest they ever got to fusion, i would say, although they did use a lot of jazzy improvisation and had a certain telepathy normally reserved for jazz ensembles. sometimes, i'm convinced that "eddie's out" is their best work. 10 minutes of mad avant-industrial-punk-opera-jazz-surf music. strange fusion, indeed.

and the fact that can stole all their ideas about recording from miles/teo was really something

AHA! There you go! Can = fusion. And you can't argue with Can.

oh bah. i dunno about can being fusion. would you consider them a jazz band? certainly, they did have a lot in common with jazz (and fusion in particular), but i think it's more of a case of them arriving at a similar idea from a different direction. they came to their improvised funk from a steady diet of vu, jb and classical minimalism, probably with some jazz thrown in. i certainly wouldn't label them a fusion group (faust, at their most jazzy, fits that bill better).

still, of all of the major krautrock bands, can is lowest on my list right now. faust is obviously the greatest. can... i rarely listen to nowadays. actually, the last time i listened to them was on a recreation of a bbc radio block selected by johnny rotten. he was asked to pick some of his favorite music... you know, some reggae, some stooges, some mc5, beefheart, etc. but then he whipped out "hallelujah" and said, "i bet you won't play this the whole way through," or something like that.

damn straight.

meh. i'm really into the idea of suicide right now. (the band, for fuck's sake.)

May I just say that I am not really aware of this nomenclature debate. But, if it does exist- I suggest the reason is quite simple. To me "fusion music" very rarely has a vocal element to it. I suppose if we were to delineate between the two descriptors- "jazz rock" contains more vocals. i.e. when I think of Frank Zappa; I think of his voice and not his guitar playing...That being said, Zappa's contributions to "fusion" are quite well accepted in books on that topic as are other artists'- including Chicago! So, I am not quite so sure what all the fuss is about...

Walter, I know that there are some books out there that do give a fair shake to Zappa's contributions to fusion...but in what you might call the mainstream jazz press, it's those who approach fusion from out of the jazz world that get attention. Perfectly natural, of course, but unfair.

As for the nomenclature debate, I started it. In this column. :-) But while I understand your point, I can't agree with your differentiation: almost all of the work from Zappa's fusion/jazz-rock/whatever period is instrumental.

By the way, I'm looking forward to reading your book about the Mahavishnu Orchestra.

ELECTRIC VS. ACOUSTIC. I think that the major "fusion" movement that replaced "jazz-rock" in the late 70s was the highly innovative work being done in "newgrass" and "world music." David Grisman's first Quintet album debuted in 1976, which is arguably the seminal "newgrass" album which spawned the explosion of innovations by other talents such as Bela Fleck and Edgar Meyer (arguably two of the best musicians in the world). This was also the same time that McLaughlin introduced Shakti (see, he was ALWAYS ahead of the times and the critics), and Ralph Towner's Oregon produced the ethereal and breathtaking OUT OF THE WOODS. These recordings were soon followed by Steve Tibbetts, Egberto Gismonti, Michael Hedges, Paco de Lucia, Jerry Douglas and other innovators who forged new fusion possibilities by expanding the influences and sounds, while prominently featuring acoustic instruments.

Late to the party, as always... Is there any wine or cheese left?

Mean Bunny, I'm glad you recognized David Grisman's seminal contribution to the development of "newgrass." He's a musician's musician, who has provided a platform for other musicians to grow and develop. I've seen this from the time he was a teenager, when he wrote me (a nine year old kid) a manual to learn to play the ukelele. He's gone far since.

Now if I could only get him to come to a Jacob's Ladder festival here in Israel...

#16 "...he wrote me...a manual to learn to play the ukulele."

Ah hah! Ah hah! The secret is out: The so-called "Ruvy in Jerusalem" is really -- Ta Da! -- Tiny Tim!

(Stam shtuyot sheli, Ruvy.)