Do you think that fusion was created because of economical reasons?

Question

Towards the end of the 1960's jazz record sales were way down and clubs were closing all over the country.

Rock was taking over, do you think that the musicians created fusion to have an audience, so that they could continue playing music? It seems that they could not contunue playing jazz and still make a living.

Answer 1

No. I think it was created because jazz musicians wanted to branch out. I don't think you could say that Miles was not passionate about what he did. He loved what he did and that showed in his music.

Maybe that is a small factor, but I think that playing bebop gets old after a while. Also, some jazz musicians like rock music. I am a saxophonist, but I grew up listening to all kinds of stuff.

Music is music. The jazz musician does not limit him/herself to one genre or another. Miles did not even think of himself as a jazz musician. He was just a musician. He played what he felt, and he allowed the music to change him. It's a give and take thing. The music will evolve, it is the job of the musician to evolve with it.

Answer 2

What a great question!

To start, Miles Davis was already exploring fusion in 1969 on "B***ches Brew". Many of the musicians went onto to form fusion bands immediately after, such as Joe Zawinul and Wayne Shorter's Weather Report and John McLaughlin's Mahavishunu Orchestra.

Fusion didn't take off immediately. There was the usual backlash from traditionalists and many rock fans were puzzled in concerts where a fusion band would open or headline, since the music was far different than what they were used to hearing (the 4/4 rock beat).

Add to that the fact that many of the fusion bands were musically weak in comparison to the jazz-trained bands. So, what we wound up with after all of that was "smooth jazz", which is as exciting as mayonaisse.

(Edit) Fusion actually turned me into a jazz fan, since I was a teen at the time it first hit. I became curious about what jazz was like before that, and kept going backwards, making delightful discoveries along the way. So, I don't bash fusion because otherwise I'd have never seen Sonny Rollins, McCoy Tyner, Lockjaw Davis, Bob Wilber, Major Holly Jr. and many others perform live.

Answer 3

I support your Q 100%, but not only economical, the reason, I think was more revolutionary. Not only that pop mixed into jazz, but the new instruments (electric guitars appeared some were in the early 60's even for mass production), the new multi track recording and sound effects were the new industrial music revolution and both pop & jazz musicians were using them and experimenting in new directions. I think that the both styles, even though different, had so mush to give and the only way to exist equally was to emerge into jazz fusion.
See, I'm an optimist, and maybe that's why I don't take sides.
Honestly I'm more a fan of the good old jazz standards.

Answer 4

Perhaps some jazz artists looked at it that way, but I don't think that the innovators had that in mind. Those who later joined the movement after the leaders put out some really awful recordings that they were quite ashamed of.

Many jazz purists and critics lambasted Miles and others who ventured into fusion and jazz audiences resisted this new trend. Rock audiences weren't sophisticated enough to understand and embrace the music and many called it 'noise'. It was unchartered territory and those who innovated, like Miles, Hancock, Shorter, Zawinul, Corea, Coryell andMcLaughlin were plenty courageous.

Most people who bought 'Bitches Brew' and many of the early fusion classics did so because of the buzz that was created. It was more morbid fascination than it was true acceptance and very few albums hit the big time in sales.

Personally, I got into fusion because I got tired of listening to Led Zeppelin and 'arena rock'. I was searching for something more exciting and innovative. I was listening to some jazz at the time, but fusion opened my eyes and ears to jazz forms and afforded me a greater appreciation for the jazz musician. I thought, "If they can do this in fusion, what did they do when they played straight ahead jazz?"

I would venture to say that early fusion albums probably sell better now than when they were originally released. The only exceptions might have been 'Bitches Brew' and 'Headhunters' (which was the highest-selling fusion album of the time). So, in conclusion, if fusion was created for economic/commercial gain, it failed in that purpose at that time.

Answer 5

I think the people who created fusion did so for creative reasons. Miles Davis could have spent the rest of his life playing "So What?" and made a comfortable living doing it.

But you're right insofar as a lot of bands and clubs appear to have gotten into fusion because it was more popular and accessible than jazz. I recall a lot of fusion bands in small clubs in the 70s, some of them pretty awful.

Answer 6

no, I don't think fusion was "created" as a sell-out.
it was literally new styles and sounds working their way into the jazz idiom.
But it soon got cheezed out by commercialization.

Answer 7

I think that it was made or it happened for a reason. Once a musician slightly changes his sound/style for a new/unique or better sound its called evolution.

Answer 8

It was a way to get the "rock" listening audience to listen to something a little more challenging.