Why music critics hate Jazz Fusion 

Robert Fripp once said that critics review themselves, not music. Good video.

“Pay no attention to what the critics say: no statue has ever been erected to a critic.” Jean Sibelius.

You don't have to understand words in order to enjoy music. Really, it's all a matter of closing your eyes, listening to said music, and then continue to interpret how what is being played makes them feel. I'm the furthest thing from a classically trained musician, i can't even read sheet music. However, i can tell you that Jazz Fusion makes me feel music on a very intimate level. While it's not something i listen too regularly as my favorite genres of music consist of Metal, Punk, and Hip Hop, Jazz Fusion scratches an itch that i don't get from Metal, Punk, or even a lot of newer Hip Hop artists of my generation. Jazz Fusion is able to paint pictures in someone's mind in ways that only the genre itself really can, and that is something that more critics should consider in regards to it's approach to structure, tempo, and instrumentation.

The British band IF were right at the forefront of all this, often noted as possibly being the very best early jazz fusion band

Thanks Andy for another great vid. I haven't found alot of jazz fusion on YT, so your discussions and nominations of great album/bands/musicians are greatly received. And yes the Trad Jazz lot are in the main snobs

Andy, you are a tonic. Thank you. I’m recommending your channel to all my pals. You’re spot on about music critics being music illiterates. They haven’t a clue.

critics are light years away from what is happening in music in general and jazz/fusion specifically because improvisation and physicality in music(anything around a backbeat ) frightens them. one more good video!

Yes! Over time I gave up on Melody Maker and Rolling Stone critics because it was clear that they were just posturing and politicising the music. They were so focused on the social world that they couldn't understand the appeal of good design. It reminds me of people who are so focused on the human world that they disregard other life forms, not appreciating how profound and interesting they are because, being frank about it, that won't help them get laid or land a promotion.

Nicely done, Andy! It should also be pointed out to the 'straight' jazz crowd that the very best fusion artists from the early-70s heyday raised, rather than lowered, the bar for musicanship and virtuosity overall, contrary to the more standard narrative.

Thanks Andy , this was a really great vid and I really enjoined it ,you made me think and I think that your discussion on it was very easy to understand and really fun to watch and listen to . ..

The genres I listen to the most are Metal (Black Metal being my favorite), Jazz (Fusion and Pulp Soundtracks), and Classic Progressive Rock. If I ever I started to care what Rolling Stone or critics in general had to say about anything, I would hope someone would run me over with their car. Good video.

Thanks Andy Edwards!I've been a jazz fusion/prog/psych head for years and I never got all the hatred for bands like Mahavishnu Orchestra .John Mc Laughlin is one of my heroes and so is Billy Cobham.I will see him next month.Many cool bands like Fermata,Energit,Modry Efekt ,Mahagon .Banquet by Lucifer's Friend is cool too

You provide really insightful analysis. Good to see you help set the record straight. Rolling Stones list of 100 greatest drummers of all time not surprisingly has Ginger, Neal, Moonie and Bonzo in the top five. And I give them some credit for having Steve Gadd, Elvin Jones and Tony Williams in the top 25. But they have Billy Cobham all the way down at 45, Vinnie Colaiuta at 49 and Narada Michael Walden didn't even make the list! There is no justice.

I had a crappy book called The Encyclopedia of Jazz and when it got to Miles' fusion period it ended his chapter saying something like: "After 1969 Miles Davis produced music that can not be considered jazz." I think I was only 14, but I threw that book down in disgust. On the Rolling Stone Guide, I never used it, but let my instincts direct me, rather than trusting some critic's opinion. A friend would sometimes come over with another mediocre record and tell me, "Its a 5 star album." My immediate response, "According to who?" One of my favourite music journalists was Lester Bangs, but his idea of a 5 star album was very different to mine. He thought Metal Machine Music was Lou Reed's best LP. I could never agree, but I enjoyed hearing him express his opinion.

Subscribed! Thank you for your succinct and eloquent summary of a subject that has bothered me for years. I'm not a musician just a lover of music. I would really like to hear your view on Cream, one could argue the first jazz rock fusion group. The blueprint of rock and jazz is here, and the influence of British jazz, blues and rock on the genre. Looking forward to your future content. All the best.

It is interesting that you show the second edition of the Rolling Stone record guide. The first edition, with the red cover, came out before punk really had made its impact and so was much kinder to Prog and fusion. And then, when the second edition came out, it had downgraded the music we love. Those record guides help me discover a lot of great music, but they also held me back on my discovery of more complex music because of their bias. I had to discover fusion on my own And I actually hold a lot of resentment towards those pricks for wanting me to just listen to blues and punk my entire life So I agree with your general assessment. I love a lot of punk rock. The clash is one of my favorite bands. But simple music should not be held in higher regard of complex music. That is an unfair and actually pretty darn ridiculous standard that was set up by critics who use the new wave to set up new guard, rails and box out more complicated music that’s denying many people, who need to have more complexity in their ears.

Excellent observations, as usual, Andy. However, I think the bigger question should be, why does a profession like "music critic" even exist? Since the interpretation and like/dislike of a particular song or genre is so innately personal and individual, why should anyone have the ability to determine what is "good", or not. I've felt that way about media critics as well. It's a ridiculous concept implemented by the elites because they loath the masses and their "pedestrian" sensibilities.

Hello Andy ! I can't agree more about what you said in this video. People (and critics) always want to put anything into boxes and jazz is the complete opposite of that. Fusion is trying to move it further. Welcoming all kind of electric instruments in the narrative to create something new. Unfortunately, the world we living it is always reducing the power and the opened path created by those creative musicians. I didn't know your channel two days ago but I'm glad to listen to someone like you. Keep doing that, it's so refreshing and enlightening !

Yes, I get it and largely agree with you, however, I instinctively don't like jazz and never have. The more jazz there is in progressive music the less I like it. Great stuff for over-indulgent musicians who wish to showcase their obvious talents, but not so great for most other people. I like, form, structure, orchestration, musicianship, composition, vision, arrangement, relevance, great and relevant lyrical content, and purposefulness. Jazz says to me, "look how sublime at playing our instruments we all are, and not a lot else. Yes with all of that cleaver meandering about, sometimes something really good turns up almost by accident, and yes occasionally PR musicians use jazz chord progressions to create a certain sound or atmosphere, Steve Howe for example. They may like Jazz themselves and/or use it for inspiration, but to my mind, this is not Jazz by definition. For example, have you ever heard Oscar Petterson play the same piece of music the same way twice? I rest my case.

“They criticize what they don’t understand”. I see what you did there

Great analysis..with regards to the jazz snobs, guitarist Jim campilongo has a great quote.. “when I listen to Louis Armstrong I don’t hear an ES175 through a polytone amp”.

Excellent points. You've opened my mind to a lot of ideas.

I'd like to add to what you said as well, by saying that in addition to journalists oftentimes not being able to understand what goes into the creation of music, and by extension sophisticated forms of music in particular, they also enjoy being the ones that discover certain bands or artists, and if they weren't there at the beginning of a burgeoning scene or were late to catch on to a particular artist or emerging style then you can almost guarantee that what they will write abut them will almost always be unfavourable. There was, and I would imagine, still is a large degree of cronyism in any form of music journalism. It certainly was something that I observed in my experience as a musician, friends of the journalist or record label would be pushed infinitely, unless the band in question had such a strong following that the label or press couldn't ignore them.

Well spoken Andy.

I'm one who has always loved music that surprised me. I'm also a bit of a snob when it comes to chops. From early prog entry's like King Crimson to the revelations of Mahavishnu and RTF. The surprises, the adventure and the chops are there. The musicianship of Planet X and the wonderfully pop influenced Dirty Loops, these musicians are dedicated to their craft and it comes out wonderfully in what they create. You don't have to be a musician to appreciate them just have an open mind. I agree with what you had to say about critics. If there are no words to muck around with and the musicianship is beyond reproach it does represent a challenge. Obviously a couple of the entities I mentioned do have lyrics but they are often just part of the overall gumbo and I guess that can be hard to criticize if that's all that's on your agenda.

1:25 if there`s one person who "gave frank zappa the permission to do the things he did", it`s probably frank zappa.

Some critics are jerks! The ones that hate jazz fusion!

Music critics in my experience (something I began to utterly avoid some years ago) focuses practically entirely on lifestyle; confer Zappa on style or genre preferences as a style of jacket or like gang colors. Or a wallpaper for your room to tell yourself who you think you are.

Yes, yes, yes! A point I've made many times myself. Critics are literary people first, and often not musicians at all. And as someone - myself - who is a musician first and a writer somewhere down the line, I know from experience that sometimes the narrative takes over. The story line that develops during the writing becomes more important than the subject (the music or musician) itself. I could add more to this discussion, but that'd risk getting into politics. I'll just say that too many critics come from NYC's literary culture, and they all think in lockstep about everything, not just about music. And to them cultural elements are more important than the music itself. Thus some lesser talents rise above the more gifted but less interesting to write about.

Great to hear your 2 cents on this -It´s still a problem today! Too Jazzy for Rock clubs and too Rocky for Jazz clubs! It´s still the best though!

I totally agree with you. Never thought about it before, but I agree.. as beginner jazz musician I have read that Stan Getz and Paul Desmond were "commercial" musicians, so I didn't listen to them. But when I did, I found out they were both marvelous musicians... their problem was simply they had broad success... critics could not stand it 😂😂

The jazz/fusion I was familiar with was Billy Cobham/mahavishnu , Caseopia, and Vital Information (Steve Smith)

Well said.

RETURN TO FOREVER!!!!!! I wanted to scream this name over and over and over again. Romantic Bloody Warrior FFS! It was widely panned by critics, so there's your tie-in. "Flawed" someone called it!? It's literally the best coolest most out-there album ever recorded!

One thing about the Rolling Stone Record Guide in its multiple permutations: You can't really trust their critical assessments. Especially if they're written by populist obsessives like Dave Marsh, who sees no reason to tell the truth about bands or artists he hates. He regarded Pere Ubu as some art damaged product of the Sex Pistols when they formed a year or two before them. And Ubu front man David Thomas made it plain that the music the Pistols were making was music they had already moved away from. So as a reference, the record guide is fine. Critically? Not so much. Still, I get your point about critic's attitudes towards fusion. Jazz traditionalists were particularly brutal.

Those who can do. Those who are jealous of those who can criticize. Art critics are frustrated artists, food critics frustrated chefs, etc etc

Spot on about critics!

Well said!

Jazz critic Martin Williams said that jazz fusion was a dead end street with a few nice houses. Jaco was one of those houses.

Quite insightful rant. Yes, have always thought rock writers come from the world of words, and have no idea how deal w instrumental music of any kind, really. Their opinion on fusion et al, is not to be trusted.

Yes, Apocalypse is incredible

Don’t think Frank Zappa needed any permission from Dylan . On Franks 15 th birthday as a present he got to make a phone call to Edgar Varese haha who wasn’t home . Frank had a school friendCaptain Beefheart . They listened to Johnny Guitar Watson. But …. You are doing a great job Andy and thanks a lot for talking about Fusion . I’m mixing a fusion EP today and don’t care what anyone thinks . The critics are just wanna be thickoos and jazz fusion music is to complex for them . Yes the critics love their words ha ha

Guys like John Mclaughlin, George Benson, Pat Martino and Pat Metheny had to come along. It was time for a refreshing change. Guys like Barney Kessel and Tal Farlow - two incredible talents, took jazz guitar playing (single-line stuff) about as far as it could go. Kind of like Eddie Van Halen coming along after guys like Ted Nugent and just about every other rock guitarist took that 70s style about as far as it could go.

Good catch: I believe Mike Nock's Fourth Way was a direct influence on Weather Report.

There definitely was snobbery. "Native Dancer" by Wayne Shorter and Milton Nascimento is a good example, IMO. Not a bad track on that album, but deemed "too commercial".

Love the ranting.

Music critics are often over-interested in the written word (the lyrics) above the actual sound and creation of the music.

The Penguin Guide To Jazz On CD (3rd ed.) calls Apocalypse & Visions 'drearily directionless'.

Some good points. Rock bands haven't been exempt from bad reviews either. Led Zeppelin's first album was trashed in The Rolling Stone. As far as I can tell most critics have always wanted to trash Zeppelin, but after a time the band just got so big that it didn't matter, and today many critics appreciate them. My feeling about jazz is that its emphasis on improvisation over time resulted in a monotonous format - it is always soloing. As Stravinsky noticed there is a paradox in music where restrictions can be freeing and too much freedom limiting. So to some extent I can relate to preferring the early stuff like Ellington because it is more concise and catchy.

Great talk Andy. I hate the way that we have many documentaries on Jazz music, Rock music, Pop, Classical, Reggea, Soul, Hip Hop, but non really on Jazz Fusion. To think that it's been around now for over half a century, and it's fans is a world wide audience. I love the documentaries on the graet rhythm sections like the Wrecking Crew and Motowns Funk Brothers. And even though there are documentaries on James Brown, there isn't any about his rhythm sections who invented Funk. It was never mentioned that James Browns music (at it's peak) was a group effort. On many occasions he had very little part in putting the grooves together, but he put his name up as composer anyway. You can tell that Rock and Fusion drummers alike played close attention to Jabo and Clyde. O.K. thats my rant.

So, basically a video about Robert Christgau. :p Just kiddin'

Thanks for the rant! Good stuff. The bigger the critic the bigger the snobbery!

Compadre....perhaps you could rant about eastern influence in jazz and rock.....thanks

I would assume most music critics, especially back in the day, were into literature but fell into music criticism to pay the bills.

The question is, what does jazz fusion even mean... Many artists or groups placed in that category don't agree, or understand why. (For instance Weather Report (Zawinul, Shorter, Pastorius) or Pat Metheny and Lyle Mays.)

Rolling Stone magazine was never interested music that pushed beyond blues/folk/country-based rock. They didn’t understand jazz, classical or avant-garde styles so they dissed them. Now, RS doesn’t even care about rock - just pop. It’s a joke.

I've never been into jazz fusion either. Its a bit if a closed book to me and I wouldn't know where to start.

I love Return to forever

That's because they simply lack an understanding of what bands like Mahavishnu was doing, and they just want to hear simple rhythms and simple melodies with lyrics they can sing along to as being an example of a great "pop" song. Mahavishnu was not trying to be commericial like the rock bands of those days. They had a different "message" if you will, and it wasn't them trying to have 3 minute songs that got lots of radio play that attracted teenagers. They were simply far more cerebral and attracted mostly OTHER musicians that wanted to learn from some of the best players in the industry expressing themselves blending many forms of music together, breaking the barriers between one style and other style of music. Apocolypse takes a while to get into for the average person because it's not just taking a famous classical piece and putting it to a rock beat like others did.

Like everything else in the West, money or the acquisition of it drives almost everything. Fusion is a lot more difficult to exploit. It generally requires thinking. Many people just want to be sensationally entertained, they don't want to think or apply their deeper self. That together with your idea about musical ineptness makes it not as profitable to promote.

I always remember Thelonious Monks comment to a reporter about his style of playing. "Some folks like playing the white notes some like playing the black ones but I go for the ones in between" The one thing about Jazz is that its an evolving story the past serves the present and points to the future. Is fusion just a Bitches Brew.?? I hope this does not Freak you Out.

All you said, its true

A friend gave me a coffee mug with lots of amusing musical statements on it. One such is a definition "Musicologist: Someone who listens to music but can't hear it" This is downright wrong, but it could be the definition of some music critics, many of whom seem more concerned about their own coolness than the music they write about.

The years of music synthese are gone. Now we have just mixes of styles.

Good rant. Indeed rock critics often talk about the lyrics and have little else to say. Often, more studious rock fans then fall into the same habits. It's strange to me that the less serious music fan often pays more attention to the music! Of course I don't mean always, and I don't mean outside of rock.

Rock and roll history have much deeper history that you think. I know that because I' am interested in music history, and I seach for evidence. I actually have books that have information about the deep roots of rock and roll music the goes back in time before 1920s. If you wanna know more first find the book that is called "The history of the Devil music". Some of the fist rock and roll or even progressive musicians and instrumentalists are born in the beginning or the end of the 19th century with the first for example progressive rock musicians Franz Liszt, Joseph Philip Knight or Trixie Smith and others who have that rock and roll spirit and development. I know that is very hard to believe, but really that is the truth you have to accept it.

Critics have to manufacture a way for them to appear relevant like anyone else. The safest way to do that is to write about pop/dance music targetted at people under thirty. Really with music you can overthink it as the most important thing is exposure, in that most people like things they have pretty much already heard 1000 times before.

Interesting thoughts about critics valuing lyrics more than music. I started out valuing music more than lyrics and probably still do. I never understood the high status of Dylan. I dont find his music interesting, so maybe you can explain to me what you mean when you say Zappa needed permission from Dylan to do what he did. I very much agree with your music talks and rankings, but I am wondering if you like the Soft Machine, Hatfield and the North ect. as you have not mentioned them. I would like to hear you talk about that British scene and to give me some new ideas.

but yes, I prefer instrumental music. I see lyrical music as a giant ego trip, a soul-hijacking. I'm trying to get over my phobias, and I dig hip-hop, but lyrical "songs" just sort of turn my stomach. I'm in drum therapy and trying to address this. I might try vocoding next. Baby steps.

What do you think of Robert Chrisgau?

why are Rap and Country artists being inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and yet Jazz artists are continually ignored?

Mine is a copy of NME 'Book of Rock' dated 1973 .. veritable bible

And then in 1966 Jimi and Cream came along and evolved the blues form and brought the masters out. Coltrane was not ignored despite the interpretations of the Byrds. Carlos Santana toured with John McLaughlin and yes, they planted new seeds and they jammed and had a ball. Miles always wove in and out of all the music. This is why I don't prefer categories.

Never been a fan of music critics I tend to just go with my ear. Not for any grand reason but because one of first bands I liked (Queen) were consistently rubbished so I decided not to put much stock in someone elses opinion. Although being human I like the ones who agree with me,but then thier usually in some book telling you how wonderful a band is that you already like,hence buying the book.

If you can't DO it, be a critic of it.

I totally agree Andy most of these critics can't even play a cowbell. Wynton Marsalis pisses me off he is the snobbiest of snobs, allowing no quarter for Fringe artists like Cecil Taylor. - " To say or even think Music should sound a certain way, is heresy, and contrary to why it's played." td

I started my journey in jazz with Chick Corea, Yellowjackets and Pat Metheny, so, I don’t understand the critics either.

Hi Andy with regards to the standard of "music criticism" we have had to endure over the past 40 years especially in the UK, it is very clear to me that the only criteria is to paraphrase a 90's Stereophonics hit "enough education to perform" and a semester of literary criticism at a Russell Group university . And it's not just jazz fusion, progressive rock and heavy metal bands have been given a kicking too. If you look back over the years at the BBC 's woeful music output especially after the demise of The Old Grey Whistle Test, and the death of John Peel. It took Mark Cooper to add a music segment to Newsnight/The Late Show that eventually morphed into Later with Jules Holland. It took Peter Gabriel and WOMAD to open the establishments ears and eyes to anything other than "payola approved radio friendly unit shifters". And even now with the total colonisation of festival culture, and endless "talent"/reality shows (covid 19 permitting) the music is still curated to be PG rated ( stay under 4 minutes, in 4:4, using the Pentatonic scale) happy days!

were you 500 miles high during the recording of this video Andy? :))

I've never heard Zappa cite Dylan as an influence. I was under the impression that as well as black rhythm and blues records, it was Edgard Varese's music that opened Zappa's ears to what was possible in music. As for your demolition of music critics, wow you make some staggering generalisations! Critics are entitled to have opinions, strong ones and mild ones. The 'problem' with fusion was how the genre developed. Miles Davis's early electric albums were praised, so too Hancock's Mwandishi band, early Weather Report, early Mahavishnu Orchestra. Most critics were open to the new ideas; it's a fallacy to suppose that most were stuck in the rut of trad jazz. However, as the 70s went on lots of fusion became mostly about virtuosity - lots of hyperactive guitar noodling and extraordinarily fast drumming. Critics found these demonstrations of technique vacuous and self-indulgent. Progressive rock followed a similar trajectory as it became increasingly grandiose and, yes, pretentious!

as a fellow musician, there's always the desire to label certain superlative songs according to the genre that they seem best to exemplify. that is, an r&b or rock song from the 90's with a sax (Candy by Cameo) or trumpet (West End Girls) solo could be artificially placed in a jazz category for the purposes of helping a young musician appreciate jazz conventions. you're partly right about some listeners not having as wide of an appreciation for musical artistry because they are not seeing the next genre as a legitimate extension of the last genre, as in jazz is but ragtime interlaced with blues, or whatever other oversimplification that jazz aficionados and critics debate between each other. on the other hand, there are legitimate criticisms that jazz fans tend to ignore. for example, fusion and jazz are different enough from each other to entitle each of them to their own repertoire. the jazz fan's desire to continue categorizing Weather Report and Inner Mounting Flame as "jazz" is at tension with the jazz critic's desire to preserve some semblance of form and mystical folkways that carried jazz across multiple generations. the same goes for whatever is meant by "free jazz" or "avant garde jazz." sure, the Coltrane fans want all of his albums to appear in the jazz section, so that the whole body of work is considered a progression from the strict rules of swing and bebop to the "freedom" of having no rules at all. the problem is that the logic of the taxonomies breaks down when all the definitions and boundaries are ignored. like you pointed out, there's something annoying and illogical about characterizing Miles Davis as just the embodied soul of a 17th century negro spiritualist. the same goes for those who claim fusion and free jazz are formerly repressed inevitable sentiments of Tatum, Parker, or Armstrong. just be honest, finally, that free jazz is anti jazz; and also that fusion is a departure from genre defining rules that made jazz enjoyable for generations. give up the name "jazz" and let those new things be what they are in actuality.

I see it this way: the only person who can criticize my mother is myself, just as the only people who can be true music critics are us musicians. For example, if Leonard Bernstein says he didn't like The Nice's version of "America," I can disagree but I will respect it. Now, if a music critic says the same thing about the same piece of music, I will be extremely indignant.

if you think about it long enough man.. and you did almost directly say this - .. EVERY genre from Swing and Country via Rock 'n' Roll and Rythym 'n' Blues, through Big-Band, Hard-Rock Metal, Soul, Punk and Funk, Grunge and Grime to EDM... *IS* Jazz fusion.. it's basically FOLK only less insular ;)

Robert Johnson is as valid as any other blues or country music. Quite popular in its day. What are you saying is more important? Bluegrass and country/blues ie Leadbelly etc...?

I have often felt that between the jazz music critics and the rock music critics the rock music critics are the far better writers. But they write lofty, witty, artistic sometimes surrealistic prose often about stupid music! Who cares about Jim Morrison? And, ironically Jazz writers are rather prosaic and music of the highest water!

Mahavishnu, one of the greatest bands ever

Downbeat critics, who are tough but fair, are probably the best music critics by far. They've given Miles Davis Bitches Brew five stars (excellent). But also given Ornette Coleman's Free Jazz a split rating, one star (poor) and five stars (excellent).

Except for "In a Silent Way" and "Bitches Brew" which I listened to when they came out I have always hated fusion. I detest improvising jazz over straight 8ths! Bebop phrasing is based on a duple meter with a triplet feel. "They don't fuse" as Herb Ellis said. Besides that I always hated the sound. Fusion records sound opaque like rock music; every nook and cranny is filled. It is like a big glossy opaque wall. It certainly keeps me out. I like music which breathes which has a topography like the Miles Davis Prestige recordings. You can hear the bass drum pedal squeaking. I remember the zeitgeist of the 50s. It was pervasive, atmospheric and cool. Fusion solos are incredibly virtuosic, bombastic and aggressive. I think many musicians of all stripes fear musical space and silence; they are "showing off" which is a sign of insecurity. In the mid to late 60s the new rock music obliterated jazz and out sold it 10 to 1 ! Many jazz artists retired. Some went to Europe, Scandinavia. I think fusion, in a way, was challenge to this. The rockers were getting into long, improvised solos. So the jazzers beat them at their ow game and made some money too. I am glad that now at this point in history fusion is an historical study!

Great video - you nailed it. Imagine a food critic who couldn't taste the difference between basil and mint. Critics heap praise on people like Bruce Springstein, while hammering Yes. They never mention how banal Bruce's music is.

Critics make there living off of the hard work of creative talented artists . They are bottom feeders .

Good Rant!

I like the way Andy indicts his taste about 10 seconds into the vid . Follows it up with a howler about Bob Dylan giving Frank Zappa “permission “ to do his type of music . Jeez Andy , hang it up .

MY CONDOLENCES TO ANYONE WHO HASN'T DISCOVERED FUSION AS THE GREATEST GENRE. SHAME IT'S THE WORLD'S BEST KEPT SECRET. SAD EVEN WHEN A MUSIC ILLITERATE HEARS IT THEY'RE FLUMMOXED AND FAKLEMPT. ONE SHOULD KNOW RTF WHERE HAVE I KNOWN YOU BEFORE IS THE BEST ALBUM EVER ❤

The thing about certain styles like jazz fusion being treated as lacking by critics is because they are only about music. Or worse, only about notes. Or worse, only about lots of notes. Or worse, only about technique. What people want is an artist to be about something and for that something to be liberating in a bigger sense personally or socially. It gives people ideas to get out of being stuck in existence. Like a revolutionary or freedom fighter leads by courage an artist leads by courage but in the safe realm of art. A bit like a shaman if the music doesn't have lyrics. You know it when you hear it. So they must do this thing, but using music, sound, notes. Thing is, it is very possible to take the externals of the.noise music makes without this liberating task, and make music. Analytical people can do this. But people will fundamentally be left unsatisfied or disappointed. Harsh truths.

I like your content. I like your ideas. But I don’t like 70s jazz fusion. It also about taste. Love Dylan, Coltrane and Miles during the 60s. Love the 80s music, folk music, classical music etc etc. But there is just something about the 70s jazz fusion, yes.. it’s not timeless, it hasn’t aged well.

Because they are usually frustrated musiciens.

Jazz fusion is my favorite music. I'm in the minority, but that's ok.

Who cares what critics think?

jazz critics are pathetic : They know very well that a jazz musician can be succesful just for being academic : for learning a high amount of phrases they pick up to " improvise " without real creativity.

Ah critics!? 🥸