Do jazz fusion guitarists like John McLaughlin actually have anything to say?

[scuzbucket]

Hey guys, I'm back from the Congo visiting friends for a week.

For a few days only.

My question is this:

Do guitarists like John McLaughlin actually have anything to say?

I mean he plays the guitar pretty well I guess, as do all those other famous guys that play "jazz fusion".

But would it really matter if you just replaced him with Pat Metheny or cross-bred him in a lab with Alan Holdsworth and have his lab created son play instead of him on random jazz fusion recordings (like that awful Santana album "Welcome" for example)? Or simply have Frank Gambale, John Scofield or Bill Frisell step in on one of his sessions.

I mean they all play the same airy fairy, tuneless "jazz fusion" stuff without a hint of a memorable/hummable melody.

Would a blind person notice?

[Side Man]

Originally Posted by scuzbucket

I mean they all play the same airy fairy, tuneless "jazz fusion" stuff without a hint of a memorable/hummable melody.

I believe the genre is called "Untreated Raw Newage"...

[jdmulli]

I think every artist has something to say.

Of all the artist you named, I think they all have different voices. Is it a voice I care to hear? Not really, but that's beside the point.

[blue]

Definitely. So does someone speaking Sanskrit.

The fact that I don't understand it, doesn't mean there isn't some deep stuff going on...

[mr. beaumont]

Exactly, just because you don't understand the language...

And if you think Bill Frisell sounds anything like McLaughlin, apparently you don't.

What a mean-spirited idea for a thread anyway.

[jpd]

It's not what he says...it's how he says it

[jdmulli]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

What a mean-spirited idea for a thread anyway.

I agree.

It's fine to not like something, but I've never understood peoples need to announce it publicly.

[reeve21]

Originally Posted by scuzbucket

But would it really matter if you just replaced him with Pat Metheny ...

I mean they all play the same airy fairy, tuneless "jazz fusion" stuff without a hint of a memorable/hummable melody.

Would a blind person notice?

Pat Metheny is one of the most melodic players I have ever heard.

I prefer acoustic jazz to a lot of the fusion stuff, but if you are saying these guys are less than great players I have to disagree.

[Rondoraymundo]

The question should not be whether or not John McLaughlin has something to say, but rather if you have ears to hear.

[Denny B]

The 'Tater has returned from the Congo...

[tbeltrans]

It is threads such as this that make me question why I would spend time in forums. Fortunately, there are always voices of reason that speak up in such a thread, rendering the original post moot.

Tony

[Tele1111]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

Exactly, just because you don't understand the language...

And if you think Bill Frisell sounds anything like McLaughlin, apparently you don't.

What a mean-spirited idea for a thread anyway.

My thoughts exactly.

Mark

[hovishead]

I don't agree with the presumption that if you don't like a type of music you don't understand it. You shouldn't need to "understand" music to enjoy it.

There are plenty of pieces from the classical/romantic periods that I don't fully "understand", but I know they are beautiful and that I enjoy listening to them. If I was told to stand up and explain the theory behind them I'd be stumped however.

Jazz-Fusion..... I can't think of any artists or albums playing this style of music that I've ever wanted to hear again. I won't pretend I've listened to a massive amount, but I had a flat mate that loved the genre and put it on at any opportunity.
Just devoid of any emotion or beauty IMO. I was always glad when such albums came to an end. One of my ideas of hell is listening to jazz-fusion for the rest of time.

I also don't understand why it's seen as more valid to discuss things that you like than the things you don't.

Surely a discussion forum is the perfect place for such discussions...?

[Mr. Jelly]

I think it's a fair question. Any artist or performer that puts himself out there has to contend with being questioned. I look at and deal with visual art every day all week long and have had a discussion about art a time or two. I haven't listened to modern jazz as I dropped out after Miles and Larry Coryell. Was it something to hear and experience? Yes. But it wasn't entertaining enough or interesting enough to me to keep bringing me back. As far as does he have something to say? An argument is that he is still doing it, as far as I know so I'm presuming. And any artist that keeps doing "it" must have more to say than all the artists that have quit doing "it". Please realize that there are allot of artists that have spent their life making their art and have not become a success. Allot more have quit. So did the ones that quit have something to say? Evidently it's not strong enough of a cause to those. But if don't get someone's stuff or dig it so be it. I believe art is an expression of the artist not a judgement of the audience.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Denny B

The 'Tater has returned from the Congo...

Is that a Fusion Jazz piece title ? It would also be a great title for a Bluegrass piece