Would there have been Jazz Rock Fusion or the Fusion "Genre" without Miles Davis?

[We No Speak]

Realizing that "Fusion" is not a clearly defined genre, I'm specifically talking about the early 70's "Golden Age" of Mahavishnu, Weather Report, Return to Forever, etc.

I posted a similar poll at my site which asked "He may or may not have invented Fusion, but would there be Fusion without Miles Davis?" assuming the question was self-explanitory, and was getting a 50/50 split. I've revised the poll because there seems to be too much confusion over the word "Fusion".

Rick Calic
www.jazzrockworld.com

[Pete C]

I voted yes. I think, for instance, Coryell did work that is clearly fusion before Miles mined that territory.

[burning dog]

Yes Coryell, Herbie Mann, Gary Burton. A lot of British R&B that featured jazz elements and musicians and some styles of US soul-jazz would have morphed into a kind of Jazz Rock Fusion as well .

[VIBEr]

Originally Posted by burning dog

Yes Coryell, Herbie Mann, Gary Burton. A lot of British R&B that featured jazz elements and musicians and some styles of US soul-jazz would have morphed into a kind of Jazz Rock Fusion as well .

Yes, and some of those British acts had already recorded jazz-rock before Bitches Brew was released (I'm thinking of Nucleus in particular, and maybe Soft Machine in general). There's no question that many of the 70s bands came out of Miles's bands, but the seeds were already planted before Miles jumped on the rock bandwagon. I don't even think the genre would have been that different if Miles himself had not even gone that direction.

[burning dog]

Miles's take on fusion in the 69-75 period was very much his own brand, despite many of the big names passing through his bands.

Ian Carr of Nucleus was very keen on Miles's acoustic quintet of the late Sixties. He was also keen on Cannonball's band with Zawinul, Chalres Lloyd's Quartet, Soul and R&B, so maybe it's not surprisng he developed a brand of fusion that bore a resemblance. There may have been some copying, but mostly it was that they were drawing on similar influences.

[Ron Thorne]

Originally Posted by Pete C

I voted yes. I think, for instance, Coryell did work that is clearly fusion before Miles mined that territory.

I agree, and another musician who played a major role with Coryell during some formative years was . . . saxophonist Jim Pepper. And, Bob Moses.

In addition to some other names I've seen here, Burton, Lloyd, Zawinul and Cannonball -- I think it could also be argued that Brian Auger and his bands added to the genre in a distinctive way.

I'm sure I'll think of others.

[Ron Thorne]

To follow up on my earlier post, I think that some of you may really enjoy reading the liner notes from The Free Spirits recording Out of Sight and Sound, an album that makes a strong claim to be the first jazz/rock album . . . ever. This wasn't in the early 70's, it was 40 years ago, folks. It was a Coryell-led session, strongly supported by Jim Pepper and Bobby Moses, as well as Chris Hills and Colombus "Chip" Baker.



The album was recorded in Rudy Van Gelder's famous NJ home studio, but there were some very interesting twists and anecdotes, many of which are shared in the liners.

Here's a sample:

Says Coryell today, "I got to the city, and all this rock'n'roll, blues, and pop music was just as popular as jazz. I got into the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan. We were all into the Beatles. The world was into the Beatles! I was not pursuing jazz stuff exclusively. I was doing everything, and a lot of that included trying to write songs. I wanted to try to create a new type of music that would express my generation. I was imagining what it would be like if John Coltrane met George Harrison." Confirms Moses, "It was really Coryell that got me over whatever prejudice I might have had about rock. I have to credit Larry with really making me take rock'n'roll seriously."

[We No Speak]

Interesting...

I completely agree that there were many musicians fusing things way before Miles, but somehow I can't see there being "Fusion" without him.

The connection between Miles and the big name pioneers is too strong to ignore:

John Mclaughlin & Billy Cobham - The Mahavishnu Orchestra
Joe Zawinul & Wayne Shorter - Weather Report
Chick Corea & Lenny White - Return to Forever
Tony Williams - Lifetime
Herbie Hancock - Mwandishi & The Headhunters

These guys were the Godfathers and they all played with Miles. Since this is just discussion, I can't see how there could have been Fusion without Miles. The connection is so obvious.

Maybe the fact that there are so many that think there could have been Fusion without Miles is one of the big reasons the genre is so hard to identify and define.

Rick Calic
www.jazzrockworld.com

[John L]

Yes. Fusion was in the cards. In some sense, jazz has always been about fusion. Before the 60s, jazz always incorporated popular sounds. Why should it have stopped? As some people have indicated, experimentation with jazz-rock fusion began before Miles.

That isn't to say that Miles didn't have an enormous influence on the particular directions that fusion took, and the speed with which it developed.

[Ron Thorne]

Originally Posted by We No Speak

Interesting...

I completely agree that there were many musicians fusing things way before Miles, but somehow I can't see there being "Fusion" without him.

Are we in a symantic cul-de-sac here? Are we splitting hairs between the words "fusing" and "fusion"? If so, I'll have great difficulties moving forward.

Rick, with all due respect, I think that one of the distinctions being made is that while Miles was definitely an essential, vibrant part of the fusion scene, it might have been vastly different, but still possible without him. That seems especially possible in view of those who forged new musical jazz/rock paths before him. It's not a wish, but it's entirely likely.

Your thread question almost begs for a chicken-or-egg-first answer.

[VIBEr]

Originally Posted by We No Speak

I completely agree that there were many musicians fusing things way before Miles, but somehow I can't see there being "Fusion" without him.

The flaw in that argument is that it presumes those musicians are all a bunch of sheep who can't think for themselves unless Miles "shepherds" them in a certain direction.

Ron has an interesting observation that fusion might have been different without Miles, but I'd go one further - I wonder if fusion would have been better without Miles? Some of those acts sure don't hold up very well after 30 years.

[burning dog]

Originally Posted by VIBEr

- I wonder if fusion would have been better without Miles? Some of those acts sure don't hold up very well after 30 years.

I agree with the second point, but I think the question should be "Should the big labels have signed and promoted those fusion bands merely because they were led by Davis sidemen?"

[Gary Sisco]

Tony Williams played fusion before Miles, also.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Tony Williams played fusion before Miles, also.

Yes, and I may be commiting heresy, but I'll even say that Miles was always more of a brilliant synthesizer than a true innovater. He made a certain sense of things that were in the air, brought the right people together, challenged them, and ultimately made the forms more coherent and helped to disperse the seeds. The 2nd Quintet too was essentially Miles bringing together directions that all of his band members were already exploring.

[burning dog]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Tony Williams played fusion before Miles, also.

Yes.
John Mclaughlin was already playing with Lifetime when Williams got him the 'In A Silent Way' gig.

[Mike Schwartz]

For matter of discussion the poll question is OK, but as has been mentioned, this was a form already in action so there's really no "Would there have been..."

I'm a YES.

[We No Speak]

I think we may be splitting hairs here.

I will disagree with the notion that because there's a leader, the rest are sheep. We have a president (leader), are we sheep? Well, that's not a very good analogy is it? We're certainly getting a good fleecing. Sorry, couldn't resist that one...


Agreed - Fusion was happening and would have happened anyway

Agreed - Fusion probably would have sounded different if not for Miles

(Hmmmm - who knows, might have sounded better if he wasn't the leader)

Disgreed - There would be Fusion (as it is) without Miles

Reason - There is always "somebody" that becomes a/the leader, gives direction, focus, a name, and legitimacy to almost any new art form. In this case it just so happened that is WAS Miles.

I think it's very interesting that we all seem to agree on the facts, but I'm the only one that draws the conclusion. Well, the only one in a Jazz Forum.

Thank you all so much. I really appreciate the enlightenment.

Rick

[VIBEr]

Originally Posted by We No Speak

Disgreed - There would be Fusion (as it is) without Miles

Reason - There is always "somebody" that becomes a/the leader, gives direction, focus, a name, and legitimacy to almost any new art form. In this case it just so happened that is WAS Miles.

I would have to agree that, due to who was signed and who wasn't, that the Davis sidemen would have parlayed any influence from Miles into their individual bands. But the argument appears to presume that Miles had some intention to create a movement, when I simply believe Miles was mainly interested in picking up a bigger check playing to rock audiences instead of playing Shelly's Manne Hole for club fees. I can't find any indication that Miles even cared what his sidemen played after they left his gig.

I would also have a problem designating fusion as a new art form, much less a legitimate one (what legitimate means in this context). Fusing styles that are already in existence hardly constitutes a new art form. It was an inevitable idea (fusing jazz and rock) that had to be explored by someone, and it was. I tend to think of fusion as being a trend - a lateral move sideways than a progressive move forward. Now this is not meant to be a criticism of anyone's taste in music if you happen to really like fusion, but I would hesitate to make it anything other than what it was.

[GoodSpeak]

I would argue that Jazz by nature is a kind of "fusion", if you will.

Although, I think if Miles hadn't gone that way, Fusion may have sounded much different as it evolved. Sadly, though, it appears Fusion is now synonymous with that smoothie stuff.

[Gary Sisco]

Miles innovated so far as the sound of a trumpet goes, was also an innovator of the movement that became hard bop, and then again innovated out of hard bop with his (wrongly named) "modal" period. I agree about his synthesizing importance, however, and his ability to lead great bands. Innovation often is synthesis, though, since no one is sui generis and can't be. Leading great bands is no small thing in itself, or having the ear to know which guy you want and need to produce the sound you're hearing. Miles wanted Wayne Shorter for quite a while and basically treaded water with others until Shorter was freed up to join him.

If the question is, Would there be a fusion as we know it without Miles? the answer would be no. But it would be no no matter who you name. I think Miles got into things no one else did in the 70s.

[Mike Schwartz]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

I would argue that Jazz by nature is a kind of "fusion", if you will.

Although, I think if Miles hadn't gone that way, Fusion may have sounded much different as it evolved. Sadly, though, it appears Fusion is now synonymous with that smoothie stuff.

Goodie, you know NOT of what you speak.

Ask out friend Rick here, and he'll rattle off 15 new CD's that both fall under the fusion umbrella and are certainly UN_smoothie stuff, that are fabulously well played.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Mike Schwartz

Goodie, you know NOT of what you speak.

Ask out friend Rick here, and he'll rattle off 15 new CD's that both fall under the fusion umbrella and are certainly UN_smoothie stuff, that are fabulously well played.

Mike,

I'm certain he could and I can name several myself.

I'm not sure you understood what I wrote. I am fully aware of what Fusion is and own numerous Fusion CDs.

My point was that the genre today is more often associated with that smoothie stuff...and not be me and not as the sole representation of that genre. OK?

[We No Speak]

I think most educated listeners know the difference between a Jeff Lorber and a Joe Zawinul or a Dave Koz and a Wayne Shorter or a..........

I think what Goodspeak is referring to is that many people today think that Kenny G is Jazz and that whole crowd of _____________ (insert your favorite slander here), that couldn't tell the difference between Allan Holdsworth and John McLaughlin.

Going back to the original question, there's no doubt that Miles was a master at more than just music. Staying popular and marketing were certainly no less impressive. I used to say that Miles was "Hard Pop" meaning that he would take whatever is popular and make it cool. No disrespect intended as I personally think that Miles had an effect on all music that came after him in one way or another.

I still think the question has brought out some very interesting viewpoints and it's great to hear them. Personally, the Mahavishnu Orchestra was an actual life changing experience, and thus my view is what it is.

On the other hand, if it weren't for Duane Allman, I may never have gotten into Jazz in the first place.


***EDIT***

I notice I'm still the only one to actually vote "No" in the poll....

[Ron Thorne]

Originally Posted by We No Speak

I notice I'm still the only one to actually vote "No" in the poll....

I think that should pretty much answer your thread question, Rick.

I agree that there have been some very interesting and provocative comments and points of view.

[We No Speak]

Originally Posted by Ron Thorne

I think that should pretty much answer your thread question, Rick.

I agree that there have been some very interesting and provocative comments and points of view.

Indeed!

Again, thanks to everyone for indulging the curiosity of an old Jazz Rock Fusion die hard.

Rick

[Lilsis]

Originally Posted by burning dog

Yes Coryell, Herbie Mann, Gary Burton. A lot of British R&B that featured jazz elements and musicians and some styles of US soul-jazz would have morphed into a kind of Jazz Rock Fusion as well .

Would Cal Tjader be in this category? For some reason, I remember him with a sort of 'fused' approach.

[Leon Harris]

Originally Posted by We No Speak

Realizing that "Fusion" is not a clearly defined genre, I'm specifically talking about the early 70's "Golden Age" of Mahavishnu, Weather Report, Return to Forever, etc.

I posted a similar poll at my site which asked "He may or may not have invented Fusion, but would there be Fusion without Miles Davis?" assuming the question was self-explanitory, and was getting a 50/50 split. I've revised the poll because there seems to be too much confusion over the word "Fusion".

Rick Calic
www.jazzrockworld.com

It seems pretty clear to me that by the late 60's that a Fusion vibe was "in the air" Jazz had often drawn on rock hits "...Basie plays the Best of the Beatles..." but they were usually played ala Basie rather than ala rock. In smaller cities than NYC, it was not at all unusual for jazz musicians to play on R'n'B and rock dates (as here in Chicago with jazz players like Charles Stepney and Maurice White who were R'n'R and R'n'B studio musicians with Chess, Checker, and Argo/Cadet.)
The first time I heard a Jazz group really swing a Rock Beat in a way that was not jazz and was not rock but was a compound of both was the (unrecorded) Eddie Harris / Charles Stepney quartet (can't remember who the drummer was) in the early 60's (1963-64 or so.) I am certainly not saying that Eddie Harris was the inventor of "Fusion". There were quite possibly musicians in other cities doing the same kind of mixing of idioms at the same time.

Leon Harris

[Chazro]

Would hard-core Fusion have happened without Miles, ...absolutely, no doubt! In this parallel universe where there was no electric Miles, most of, if not all, the musicians that gravitated to Miles's instead seek out Jimi Hendrix!!

[Gary Sisco]

Miles' use of the Harmon mute and close miking created a new trumpet sound. He made the microphone an essential part of his sound by getting right up on it. In a way, it would be correct to say that his electric period began about ten years before it's normally dated. He began manipulating his sound with microphone electronics around 1955.

I would call him an innovator. No one sounded like Miles before Miles did, and plenty used that sound afterward.

He also introduced the flugelhorn to jazz, another change in sound and pallet.

Some sort of fusion was inevitable simply because rock was in the air and being heard and listened to by younger musicians.

[walto]

He also introduced the flugelhorn to jazz

Is that really true? I didn't know that!