O-10, I am not quite sure why there seems to be an element of bickering or defensiveness in your recent posts. I realize that it's always tricky when putting thoughts in writing in a way that conveys the intended message, and I am willing to leave it at that; and apologies if I am misconstruing. I believe in clarity and while I am sure that I fall woefully short of that goal, it is my goal nonetheless. Words matter. I'd like to address a couple of your comments:
Re "the 70s": this was your opening sentence:
****Well aficionados, as much as we liked those decades, it's time to move on to the 70's, and examine that decade in detail****
Further, at no point in your post did you even mention "fusion". So, how does one examine the decade "in detail" without examining the music that, either didn't meet the popular definition of "fusion", or is music that is simply showing the seed of the general movement of that decade toward fusion. As Rok shows in his most recent post the term hasn't even been clearly defined yet. So, my intention was (and is) to look at the music of that decade "in detail".
Now, as far as what music, exactly, "exemplifies that decade":
Part of my intention was to point out "in detail" that there was a lot of music that, not only continued the hard-bop (and other) jazz tradition, but was fusion that informed or influenced the music that many listeners would go on to think of as "fusion". A lot of this music became popular, but was by no means the music that kept a closer connection to what defines good jazz: a high level of harmonic and rhythmic sophistication, inventiveness, and a high level of improvisational sophistication. Gato and Sanborn (to name two), as fun and listenable as their music is, don't meet those standards. Much of that music was, or would morph into what many would go on to call "smooth-jazz". The point is that there is a lot of "fusion" that never became "popular" precisely because it is challenging for many listeners, but that is the fusion that most deserves to be looked at. If "popularity" defines what music exemplifies a decade I must say that I have a problem with that notion and find a contradiction in the premise.
Much has been said on this thread about the idea that "popularity" defines what is good. I still disagree with that notion and I have never gotten a good explanation for this dichotomy (I realize that I am using broad brush strokes here): I think it's fair to say that Rok dislikes most "fusion"; certainly as defined by players such as Gato, Sanborn and Metheny. Yet, they are (were) hugely popular. However, he likes Headhunters; they were not "popular". Yet, Headhunters played music that was on an infinitely higher level as defined by the standards mentioned previously. Discerning listener that he is, I am sure that is the reason why.
Re my role as "leader":
Not quite sure what that means. I am a firm believer in democracy so I think everyone's contributions will shape the direction of the discussion. However, if my comments above don't suggest wanting to take things in a certain "in detail" direction, I will try to be more clear.
Re "Are we going to get into the music, or what?"
I thought that was precisely what I have been doing through my comments and posts; unless, of course, personal attire somehow says more about the music :-)
BTW, much of Joe Henderson's music in the 70's and beyond was most certainly "fusion". So, perhaps the intention is not to look at the music "in detail". If that is the case, I am not quite sure I can be of much help; and certainly not "lead". I would suggest again to look at the list by the author of the article Rok posted a few posts ago. It's quite good and, to my mind (and obviously the author's also) it "exemplifies" the 70's.
Regards.
Re "the 70s": this was your opening sentence:
****Well aficionados, as much as we liked those decades, it's time to move on to the 70's, and examine that decade in detail****
Further, at no point in your post did you even mention "fusion". So, how does one examine the decade "in detail" without examining the music that, either didn't meet the popular definition of "fusion", or is music that is simply showing the seed of the general movement of that decade toward fusion. As Rok shows in his most recent post the term hasn't even been clearly defined yet. So, my intention was (and is) to look at the music of that decade "in detail".
Now, as far as what music, exactly, "exemplifies that decade":
Part of my intention was to point out "in detail" that there was a lot of music that, not only continued the hard-bop (and other) jazz tradition, but was fusion that informed or influenced the music that many listeners would go on to think of as "fusion". A lot of this music became popular, but was by no means the music that kept a closer connection to what defines good jazz: a high level of harmonic and rhythmic sophistication, inventiveness, and a high level of improvisational sophistication. Gato and Sanborn (to name two), as fun and listenable as their music is, don't meet those standards. Much of that music was, or would morph into what many would go on to call "smooth-jazz". The point is that there is a lot of "fusion" that never became "popular" precisely because it is challenging for many listeners, but that is the fusion that most deserves to be looked at. If "popularity" defines what music exemplifies a decade I must say that I have a problem with that notion and find a contradiction in the premise.
Much has been said on this thread about the idea that "popularity" defines what is good. I still disagree with that notion and I have never gotten a good explanation for this dichotomy (I realize that I am using broad brush strokes here): I think it's fair to say that Rok dislikes most "fusion"; certainly as defined by players such as Gato, Sanborn and Metheny. Yet, they are (were) hugely popular. However, he likes Headhunters; they were not "popular". Yet, Headhunters played music that was on an infinitely higher level as defined by the standards mentioned previously. Discerning listener that he is, I am sure that is the reason why.
Re my role as "leader":
Not quite sure what that means. I am a firm believer in democracy so I think everyone's contributions will shape the direction of the discussion. However, if my comments above don't suggest wanting to take things in a certain "in detail" direction, I will try to be more clear.
Re "Are we going to get into the music, or what?"
I thought that was precisely what I have been doing through my comments and posts; unless, of course, personal attire somehow says more about the music :-)
BTW, much of Joe Henderson's music in the 70's and beyond was most certainly "fusion". So, perhaps the intention is not to look at the music "in detail". If that is the case, I am not quite sure I can be of much help; and certainly not "lead". I would suggest again to look at the list by the author of the article Rok posted a few posts ago. It's quite good and, to my mind (and obviously the author's also) it "exemplifies" the 70's.
Regards.