Talk:Jazz from Hell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Genre
Could you really call this album "jazz rock"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.163.172.44 (talk • contribs) .
- The album genre tag was marked this Electronic, which definitely doesn't apply (I reverted that). I applied the genre Rock, as it used to be, but a more specific term might be appropriate. Anyhow, Frank Zappa never really played Jazz, after all, the album was called Jazz from Hell to distinguish it from Jazz. Jazz Rock doesn't fit either, as I wouldn't compare this to for example Bitches Brew by Miles Davis. I'd say keep it Rock. IHassel 19:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Definitely not rock. Electronic music is probably the best qualification. Actually I do think it sounds kind of like tonal-serialist music in some parts (and I am not using this as a condescending term, it's not atonal but it does have lots of patterns and inversions). Fusion might not be a bad classification, a lot has happened in the fusion world since Bitches' Brew.... Examples of fusion albums that don't particularly sound like that album are practically any Pat Metheny Album, all of the Chick Corea albums that I've heard, Jean-Luc Ponty's work (not surprisingly he and Zappa were friends), Allan Holdsworth. All I think fusion people would consider fusion and are not particularly like Davis in that period. 2008-01-16
== It's not really rock, either. It is electronic, insofar as the music is performed entirely by a computer (except "St. Etienne"). I'd say it's certainly an electronic album.
Prehaps it's a electronic/jazz/rock album? It is very different to say the lest... - 142.46.140.149 20:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It has more in common with Zappa's classical music than anything else. Most of it's tunes are more frequently reinterpreted live as classical pieces than as jazz or rock pieces, so I think 'classical' would make sense.