John Abercrombie talks about his past and fusion
Carl Greeff
thought you might be interested to hear this quote from John
Abercrombie. He begins with a reference to Ken Burns' series.
"I didn't mind that they stopped in the 1960's, because I agree that when
rock and other influences came into the music, it would have been so
confusing to follow the history of the pure form of jazz," Abercrombie said.
"A lot of the music in the early 70's, including some of the stuff I did,
I wouldn't want included in any documentary. When fusion came along,
it was exciting, but it had almost nothing to do with the music that
inspired me. I did it because it was fun, but it was music like fast food.
It didn't las long, and most of it was pretty meaningless.
"My evolution really picked up when I got to ECM (record label). The other
music was so far from jazz. The volume was so intense, and it was all
just rock beats, no swing rythms and no harmony. With ECM I started
writing, and I met Jack DeJohnette and Ralph Towner. -- and playing with
them definitely made me improvise more like a classical musician, in a style
that was not just jazz."
Joe Finn
Carl Greeff wrote:
> Since some of you may not get the Santa Fe New Mexican, I
> thought you might be interested to hear this quote from John
> Abercrombie.
I can relate. I heard John in a concert during the fusion era. He appeared in a
group lead by Billy Cobham that included Randy and Michael Brecker. They were
really loud and played a lot of very intense rock beats. It was not the most
"meaningful" music as John observes. I sat in the front row with pencil and
paper copping his licks. He saw me doing this but didn't seem to react much. I
was sorry to have missed him after the show. His playing was very impressive. I
still admire him a lot. ........joe
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Nazodesu
<ttc1...@taconic.net> wrote:
> Carl Greeff wrote:
>
> > Since some of you may not get the Santa Fe New Mexican, I thought
> > you might be interested to hear this quote from John Abercrombie.
>
> I can relate. I heard John in a concert during the fusion era. He
> appeared in a group lead by Billy Cobham that included Randy and
> Michael Brecker. They were really loud and played a lot of very
> intense rock beats.
What Satch was doing and Parker was doing and Trane was doing were all
very different beats. Whatever the "intense rock beats" may have been
(or continue to be under such "non-jazz" musicians as Scofield) is
wholly irrelevant to whether it was jazz or not.
> It was not the most "meaningful" music as John
> observes.
I don't know what either of you mean. Meaning in music as in any
artform is a result of a performer and a perceiver. Meaning is
personal. If Mahavishnu Orch wasn't fusion I don't know what is and I
found many people *profoundly* moved by this music.
It may have been a total waste of John's time and meaningless in the
sense that it didn't direct him anywhere artistically or musically,
that's fine. But otherwise I don't get what this means.
> I sat in the front row with pencil and paper copping his
> licks. He saw me doing this but didn't seem to react much. I was
> sorry to have missed him after the show. His playing was very
> impressive. I still admire him a lot.
I saw him with Lester Bowie and DeJohnette and they were fascinating as
players, but oddly unmoving. it kind of meandered and didn't have
group feeling, just a series of individual voices, which I assume was
the case. I forget who was on bass. I could swear it was Gomez, but I
can't imagine that it was now, some 22 years later.
My only complaint was that they didn't seem to play much off of one
another or being following a group objective. But such things are
difficult to asses; that's just m take.
--
The storm starts when the drops start dropping. When the drops stop dropping
the storm starts stopping.
crib
<< such "non-jazz" musicians as Scofield >>
you might consider checking out his latest record, with kenny garrett, brad
mehldau, christian mcbride and billy higgins. i think it's terrific. scofield
is not only capable of holding his own as a jazz musician (whether or not one
thinks most of his albums representative of that fact), but he's also a heck of
a writer.
as for abercrombie's past...i think that without one's past, no matter how
small the change, one's present would be different. if abercrombie's fusion
days were necessary to bring him to the wonderful and magical level of music
that he's been on for quite a few years now, i certainly wouldn't call them
"meaningless."
crib
Nazodesu
<crib...@aol.com.go.away> wrote:
> nazodesu writes:
>
> << such "non-jazz" musicians as Scofield >>
>
> you might consider checking out his latest record, with kenny
> garrett, brad mehldau, christian mcbride and billy higgins. i think
> it's terrific. scofield is not only capable of holding his own as a
> jazz musician (whether or not one thinks most of his albums
> representative of that fact), but he's also a heck of a writer.
I consider him a fine jazz guitarist, that's why I put "non-jazz" in
quotes. The theme being that some how fusion was not jazz at some
level. Some of Scofield's funkier grooves are still jazz as far as I'm
concerned, just like Horace Silver but with a different angle.
> as for abercrombie's past...i think that without one's past, no
> matter how small the change, one's present would be different. if
> abercrombie's fusion days were necessary to bring him to the
> wonderful and magical level of music that he's been on for quite a
> few years now, i certainly wouldn't call them "meaningless."
Nor I. Which was my basic point.