McLaughlin might, indeed, have been the only musician typed as “jazz” who was actually equally at home in both jazz and rock. If there's any doubt of that, it should be immediately resolved on one listen to the second Mahavishnu Orchestra album, Birds of Fire (1973). It's tempting to say that the record proves that McLaughlin had one foot in jazz and another in rock, but listening to it again, it's even more tempting to suggest that McLaughlin actually had about ten feet. Immediately apparent are groundings in '60's garage rock, British blues-rock, Beatle melodies, psychedelia, and early '70's prog. On the other side, McLaughlin also shows a mastery of big-band style voicings, bebop harmonics, freeform improv, and basic call-and-response solo conversations. Birds of Fire demonstrates that a true fusion of jazz and rock really was possible - it also demonstrates that there is such a thing as a really great fusion album.
It’s for that reason that I suggest (not propose, but suggest; this one needs far more examination before it can really be a solid theory) that John McLaughlin is the real key figure of jazz fusion. He and Miles stand toe-to-toe in that sub-genre's pantheon: Miles, the man with the vision, and McLaughlin, the only one who knows how to execute it.
So there we begin, with a recasting of fusion, a shifting of its personnel. Think about how that affects most contexts, and I'll be back with a real defense.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - Pico
You didn't disappoint, Michael, this is very insightful study on Johnny Mac. The statement "He and Miles stand toe-to-toe in that sub-genre's pantheon: Miles, the man with the vision, and McLaughlin, the only one who knows how to execute it." hits the nail on the head.
His first three solo records "Extrapolation," "My Goals Beyond," and "Devotion" are all extraordinary and yet so diametrically opposed to each other, and unjustly overshadowed by his Mahavishnu work, IMO. But there's no argument from me that McLaughlin is a key figure in the development of fusion, and without him, fusion could have likely gone down a completely different path.
2 - Mark Saleski
great writeup michael....though i have to say that my favorite McLaughlin comes from the trio he had with Triloc Gurtu and...oh shoot, who was it now dangit?! uh, Jonas Helborg? a sort of mini-Shakti.
3 - zingzing
i am reserving judgment... reserving... man, it's pushing at me like a 2 mile line for the toilet the morning after octoberfest... all lubed up with coffee and nicotine... i can smell the judgment already, and it smells awful. awful judgment.
4 - Phil Peters
I don't necessarily disagree but your point about Bitches brew having a funk backbeat is correct. That was fusion... (I was listening back then, coming from Allman Brothers to Return to Forever & Mahavishnu Orch and backwards)not Jazz-Rock. Bass players, Harvey Brooks,Dave Holland and most especially Michael Henderson helped make Miles Electric Bands Fusion
5 - Michael J. West
Phil, what? I think you're either missing a negatory syllable or you added an extra one. You don't disagree, but you think I'm right?
Let me get to what I think you're trying to say: you will never, ever hear me say a negative word about Dave Holland's work. In addition to his brilliant bass on Miles' records from Bitches Brew on, and his breathtaking early solo records like Conference of the Birds (hasn't somebody, somewhere, done a piece on that at BC? Or am I misremembering?) he is to the best of my knowledge leading the single best jazz band in the world today. But he didn't play NEARLY the part that McLaughlin did in creating fusion, on Miles' records or anywhere else.
6 - Michael J. West
Pico and Mark, I'm amused (in a good way) that each of us agrees on McLaughlin's place in fusion's ranks, but that each person has a different favorite of his work. That, to my mind, is one of the marks of a great musician: he has so many different aspects, all of them great.
7 - Pico
"breathtaking early solo records like Conference of the Birds (hasn't somebody, somewhere, done a piece on that at BC? Or am I misremembering?) "
Why yes, Michael, someone has ;&)
clicky clicky
8 - Mean Bunny
I also agree that John McLaughlin is the most important figure in the "fusion" movement. His sense of abandon and risk-taking combined with his mind-boggling virtuosity and originality captured the "edge" of rock 'n roll combined with the harmonic sophistication of jazz in a way that NONE of his contemporaries (in either rock or jazz) could ever match. Putting all the descriptives aside, he simply was and is one of the most original, creative musicians of our times. What more could a music fan ask for?
9 - Doug Plavin
John McLaughlin's musicianship aside (which I have no qualms with), the majority of fusion suffers from the celebration of ego. Ironically, it was Hindu based guru, Sri Chinmoy that really fowled up things by condoning and sanctioning the Mahavishnu Orchestra's music as coming from a higher source. Bullcrap. Sorry if I appear cynical, but I think CBS's intention with the MO was to use fusion as a way to sell "jazz" records and artists to prog rock fans. And things just went from bad to worse once the homogenization set in with the ilk of Jeff Lorber and Kenny G. and all the Smoove Fuzak. Fusion also suffers from the exploding head syndrome. At a certain point,you simply run out of clever, and since you can't blow up your head as a flashy finale,what's left? NOTHING. Because fusion primarily exists to impress, and it's underpinnings are not set in art, but in commerce. With some rare exceptions (like almost anything Wayne Shorter has written) fusion is vapid, artless, and soulless. It's just a giant ball of wrong that should have been squashed decades ago.