Talk:Allan Holdsworth/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

The vocabulary in this article is, at times, hideous. See the "remark" for the None Too Soon album-"syncopated" time signatures? A time signature merely dictates the number of beats per measure, which does not affect the use of syncopation within the piece. Not to mention that the idea of "remarks" per album seems flawed-who are the remarks from? Is there a running theme throughout the "remarks"? Do the "remarks" serve as background information for each album, or whatever the writer feels like pointing out? I would strongly consider removing the remarks entirely, as they are irrelevant and inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. -ELPsteel

I'm not sure that the introductory paragraph complies with wikipedia's neutral point of view. i've read countless articles on allan, but can't recall comparions to lizst (sources, please?). "lauded for peerless technique", "unique efficiency", that sort of thing. i'm as big a fan of allan as anyone, but i don't really think this introduction describes allan in a fitting way, especially for an encyclopedic entry. Pstornes 23:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the caption for the image is incorrect. It should in fact read:

"Allan Holdsworth, The Genius and His SynthAxe"

because the picture shows Allan playing his SynthAxe controller.

Why don't you edit it then? --Lambyuk 00:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

As a newbie I was a little careful about editing stuff.

Don't worry about it! Welcome to Wikipedia... --Lambyuk 02:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

rofl

"Allan Holdsworth ranks with Jeff Beck, Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton, Edward van Halen and John McLaughlin as one of the most sig....."

why don't you guys just go ahead and include all possible guitar players? I'm deleting this 61.12.39.75 04:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

i knd of whonder y there are no pictures of the man on the this page on wiki.

apparently, images without copyright notices will be deleted. Pstornes 23:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC) You guys failed to metion thatAlan Holdsworth is God

Allan Holdsworth and Eric Clapped-out in the same sentence? PLEASE!!!! Neilsworld

Allan Holdsworth is better than all of those guitarists. Tons better. - xtheblademaster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.173.149.57 (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"big figure"? lol, c'mon, try leading figure.

"big figure" doesn't seem to do Allan's contributions to the genre much justice. I updated this. Also, I added a "Holdsworth Today" and "Holdsworth's fans" section (the latter is long overdue, I think).

this article is rampant in WP:NPOV vio's. Also, new sections lacked citations (see WP:CITE) and read more like "original research" (see WP:NOR). It's overdue for a cleanup as, for now, it's fancruft and far from encyclopedic. 216.21.150.44 01:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I submit to you that the new sections meet the requirements on the grounds that there are indeed "written or recorded records of field observations" for many of Allan's concerts that back up what I wrote, both in terms of his tour/band info and fan base. It's very difficult to grab a citation when this particular artist gets so little (if any) media coverage (in all media).

Furthermore, Wikipedia states:

"No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia."

[I consider myself an expert on Allan Holdsworth.]

"It does, however, prohibit expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable."

[My simple entries under "Holdsworth today" and "Holdsworth's fans" are verifiable; editing it out without first challenging the author (me) for verifiability is arrogant and heavy handed.]

"Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as these contributions come from verifiable (i.e. published) sources."

[Allan's tour schedule has been published on his web site, and in records online and elsewhere. His fan base, collectively, can be surmised and characterized from Allan's therealallanholdsworth.com's forum section, where many of them hang out.]

"Thus, if an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, then the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy."

This clause to me seems biased towards artists that get covered in "reputable publications". While Allan does, from time to time, get some light coverage in a few magazines, it's usually few and far between, and spotty. On top of that, many of the published articles tend to be interviews or discussions, rarely going into much detail outside well established parameters of equipment, current or upcoming release and tour. There have been exceptions, unfortunately, I don't see any content from these evident in this entry for Holdsworth.

Besides, the article is in-line and consitent with the stylistic treatement given many other artist's entries in Wikipedia. This isn't a science (i.e. authoring an article about a musical artist), nobody wrote "he's the best, the rest suck" type thing. So, I'm not sure what other choices there are besides facts written by fans and facts written by critics. This isn't the mating ritual of Alaskan seal or quantum phyiscs; it's art and it's the man behind the art. If you think it's rampant with NPOV vios, why not do the readers a courtesy & state where they are, or better yet, FIX IT. --208.115.202.63 05:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

...a "start class" rating, how helpful...

Now if only they'd actually improve it...

---

== Someone Take An Axe To Some of This Junk

A couple of points. When is someone going to get rid of the daft Liszt quote. Reviewers are some of the most musically ignorant people around. You might as well compare him to Lou Reed and someone hammering in a nail if you're not going to justify your comment and/or support it with evidence. The 'piano-like' and 'clarinet-like' descriptions are also subjective and should be excised forthwith. A 'keyboard-like' reference would be okay, because it's obvious and a comparison worth making. But as for the others, you might as well say 'I hear a Mexican washboard' like the 'I'm getting just a flutter of burnt strawberries' when someone drinks a glass of wine. Aural palette and all that. Further, the 'recommended recording' sentence please get felled like an axe? So we're allowed to raid music articles on Wikipedia saying 'the best album is...' all of a sudden? That whole end paragraph should go. As far as I'm concerned (and I too am 'an Allan Holdsworth expert' if the above person is) all of his work is his best work, period.

Re. the above, why doesn't someone paraphrase more of the encomia of praise on the Against The Clock liner notes? Bruford, eg, cites Allan's solo on UK's In The Dead of Night as just about a perfect example of its type. Now no-one should argue with him, man.

So can someone please get brave and sort this out? I would but I'm just too busy.

88.111.134.188 16:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree...

I wish this self anointed Wiki guitar police force were a little more even handed with all the stuff they decide to stomp out (while letting in the subjective quote about Liszt). Actually, I'm fairly certain I know exactly where that comparison came from and who first muttered it on the AH forum.

I took the time to put other factually based info on this page, which the self-anointed in-charge erased, a lot of it readily verifiable information. Sickening to think a great resource like this Wikipedia so limits an artist (like Allan) from getting a better page because of a few people - none of whom I'm guessing possess the decades of insider info and knowledge on AH that I and dozens of other people from his forum could detail here

...I'm guessing a bunch of 20 somethings with a recently beefed up vocabulary (e.g. NPOV) and a shiny virtual junior Wikipedia G-man badge. What a shame. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chrism07924 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Zappa McLaughlin

I've heard it said that both Zappa and McLaughlin have referred to Holdsworth as 1 of the most important and innovative guitarists on the planet. I'm sure I just broke most of the rules of Wikkipedia by saying so. I can't even remember where I learned that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaddeus Slamp (talk • contribs) 03:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC).Thaddeus Slamp 03:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Allan Holdsworth experts who doesn't have Reaching For The Uncommon Chord, a music book by Allan Holdsworth that states on the back "He's the best in my book" -Eddie Van Halen. If Eddie says he's the best, he's the best. I've read his material, not only heardit. And don't worry if he's not that famous now, he'll be like Van Gogh: he'll be remembered as the best when he's dead and gone. He does freaking 64th notes for crying out loud. And he tried to reproduce a saxophone sound, he said it in an interview. woulldn't that make more sense, seming that he wanted to play saxophone? I repeat, Allan Holdsworth is GOD (and Van Halen is Buddha). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.5.81 (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think Holdsworth sucks. Boring monotonous unfeeling mastibatory wankery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.169.18 (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

We get it, you don't like Holdsworth. But many people (including me) disagree. Not to say that I enjoy all of his albums, but I always enjoy Wardenclyffe Tower.

I think the op (I mean the guy who made the God / Buddha analogy) is greatly overstating their point, (at least in the sense that Holdsworth should not be endlessly noted for his technique, it's not important -- he is quite an emotional guitar player and his technique is a means to that end) for what it's worth.

There's no need to use such an uncivil tone, either, it's just flamebait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.74.5 (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Terrible article

I cut all the stuff that struck me as just embarrassingly amateurish. I also cut the quote from an internet site at the top of the second paragraph about what a wizard Holdsworth is, because a very brief search revealed that the entire article was in the fact the official bio from Holdsworth's own site. If anyone wants to find more testimonials from major players, go ahead. I didn't include any negative criticism because he's not all that controversial - people seem either to love him or to find him technically able but boring. It's not like Derek Bailey, who some people think can't play at all. Lexo (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

the opening paragraph containin "A player noted for his advanced knowledge of the fretboard and innovative playing" struck me as very amateurish, silly and vague in summarizing a master like Allan. I wish someone could clean this entire article up, the man simply deserves better than the hack job visible here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.0.163 (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If it's so incredibly bad, why don't you give it a try? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

References

If this article is in need of citations, which to me does seem to be the case, I'd like to suggest two sources. The first is a collection of transcribed interviews, mostly from reputable sources (although, to what extent guitar mags are at all reputable is another matter!). I did all these transcriptions myself, and I've proofread them as best as I could:

http://home.no.net/pstornes/ah/home.html

The second source contains a lot of the same material the first link, with additional material added:

http://ofeuillerat.free.fr/

Kind regards, Pstornes (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Playing style section needs improvment

The "playing style" section really does not say much about Allan's playing style. Allan's playing style IS unique, and there should be plenty evidence to support it in the list of links I provided in the "References" section. First of all, lumping him in the "fusion" or "jazzrock" category is much too general. Next, there is no doubt that he premiered unique playing styles and techniques that have been widely copied (which is worth its own section actually). Perhaps the most widely recognized aspect of his playing is his legato technique for soloing. Although guitarists had dabbled with this technique, and used it as part of their creative arsenal before, Holdsworth was the first guitarist to base his entire playing style on legato. Holdsworth built this style from the ground up: He developed left-hand fingerings of scales that facilitated legato playing, he does in fact not use traditional "pull-offs", (because he dislikes the detuning when you pull the string) but rather does it all by by a very complex system of left-hand hammerons. He uses his right hand merely to set the string in motion, and practiced controlling the dynamics of hammered notes and plucked ones to the extent that you can hardly tell which is which. And that's just for his lead playing. His chordal approach was also quite unique among guitarists in his time. I don't have time to get into this right now.

Then there is the issue of how he modified his gear to achieve his sound. His guitars are highly customized, as are his amps. I dare say no guitarist ever sounded like Holdsworth the way he did on "Tempest", which is often regarded as his first greater exposure.

Then there is the issue of his composition and improvisation. These are also parts of his style that came out of very deep research and woodshedding, and contain many unique aspects.

Various aspects of his style have been very widely copied.

You might think that what I've written here is very POV, but almost every article I've read on Allan supports these observations, and if I only had the time, I would reference every single claim. If someone feels like reading through every single article in the references I posted, go ahead... It's a shame that so little of this is written into the article, because the article gives very little insight into the many unique aspects of Allan's artistry.Pstornes (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

pathetic ...

Allan's page on Wiki, the one place you'd think a novice interested in learning about Allan could go to for an education, looks like someone wrote a few paragraphs on the back of a cocktail napkin. Where's the beef? 72.88.216.163 (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite and techniques expanded upon

In the wee hours of the morning, I did my best to rewrite the entire article to the best of my ability. I've tried to remove any obvious POV, and only include what can either be referenced or that of which is factual. Also, the numerous album pages that I've created have been linked to (The Things You See will be made shortly, as I just physically received the disc and booklet), but PLEASE do not attempt to reintroduce Velvet Darkness anywhere within his discography section, because that is against WP:Project Discographies guidelines. I believe it is sufficient enough to have included a link to it within the main article itself, together with a brief description of what went on with that album, but any other mention of it should not be made. Also, I simply HAD to remove the ridiculously worded table format for his discography, because none of it was needed and it read like a mini review half the time. Hopefully nobody will be stupid enough to add it back.

I did the original table, as it was the norm for many Wikipedia discographies at the time. That was several years ago (2005), and Wikipedia's standards have improved greatly since then. I have no problem with it being replaced, though some of the literary or contemporary references I'd originally included in it could probably go back on the individual albums page (e.g., Atavachron and All Our Yesterdays being titled after the Star Trek episode; Tesla's Wardenclyffe Tower), but I'm not that picky (nor do I have the time to do it myself). I did understand that others had subsequently populated it with editorical/critical opinions that had to go, but that's the nature of this place, isn't it. No worries and nice job on the update. About the only thing I'd add to the discography is the list of videos/dvds he's done, but again I don't have the time to write it up now. Acroyear (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Just noting that these tidbits you've mentioned have been added to the individual album pages concerned, as per your advice. Mac dreamstate (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

For the Techniques section, I threw in a short but reasonably informative—and at best NPOV—paragraph on his most renowned stuff, but if anyone wants to have a go at detailing his equipment, all your information can be found here: [1]. Let's keep it going and give this man the recognition he so richly deserves! Mac dreamstate (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the mass of edits!

That's what one gets for digging up source after source late at night and in the early morning, only to realise stuff went wrong and even more sources can be found... It's a never-ending quest, eh? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

allan holdsworth discography

Looking for guidelines for this discography. 1. The album/CD IOU live. basically i have a copy of this sitting on my shelf as have many Holdsworth fans. It is listed on many music websites including Amazon.co.uk, amazon.com, audiophile imports etc. The album keeps being removed from the discography list. On the official Allan Holdsworth site Allan regards it as a bootleg. If we delete this album then several others have to go by using this criteria.

The concert was originally a japanese TV broadcast, which was released as a laserdisk, the lead singer of the group then issued a CD version (edited) of the concert in 1993. It has been re issued "officially" several times since. Holdsworth being a "small fry" in the music bizz cannot afford expensive legal fees to have this and some other albums removed from circulation.

There are several other recordings of Allan which he regards as "not being official" but have a widespread official release in japan and the UK, USA and europe. Holdsworth gains no royalties from these recordings so considers them as pirate. If these recordings are easily available in genuine shops and web shops how can we consider them as unnofficial? If we delete them from Wiki then this surely is not an accurate discography.

I am a long time fan and have a lot of knowledge of this artist and have not included known bootlegs in the discography of which many hundred are in circulation and which are of various dubious quality. My amendments have been to officially released albums (you can buy from officially credited shops/eshops)

There are about 40 + compilation albums including tracks by this artist which i have refrained from including because the majority of the tracks are on the main core of solo albums and artist albums he appears on.

Would it be credible to have a different section comprising compilations so visitors can differentiate between these and the main core of albums/work?

And for any potentially interested fan they do not become confused and go out and buy a whole stream of albums which comprise tracks listed several times on various compilations? Some of the same tracks can appear on up to half a dozen different compilations over several years.

There are a lot of gray areas in this discography, if we stik to black and white entries its going to look inane, especially to fans of said artist and ignore their knowledge.

I am now listening to a 2012 Chad Wackerman album entitled Dreams Nightmares and Improvisations on CDBaby.com. From the site: http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/chadwackerman2 'Allan Holdsworth, Jimmy Johnson and Jim Cox collaborate on the latest release from Zappa drummer Chad Wackerman. This exciting CD blurs the line between composed and improvised pieces.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelgreenx2 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

WTF!! I have everything this guy has ever officially recorded so i add it on here and so some stupid ass then decides to edit it by removing 90% of the entries. Go and edit Richard Clayderman or Barry Manilow instead asshole.

Heh. You might want to be calm down a bit there, darling. It's not that big a deal. Think of it this way: the whole point of a musician's discography on Wikipedia is to highlight primarily what the artist has recorded themselves, especially if they've done a lot of solo work. The fact that Holdsworth has recorded so much stuff with other artists makes the section look needlessly long and almost unnavigable in comparison with the rest of the article. Therefore I chose to make it more compact, like a "selected discography" in the same way Derek Sherinian's is laid out. Finally, a lot of information on the bulk of Holdsworth's other recordings can be found at his website. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

For heavens sake

Allan NEVER brewed his own beer, why does wikipedia insist on stating false facts? His studio was called the brewery, but thats as close as he ever came to brewing beer himself. He did create a product called the fizz buster to allow British handpumps to be connected to American kegs. Get your facts straight PLEASE

72.192.181.2 (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)SH

It is not Wikipedia who is stating that he brewed his own beer—rather, it is Holdsworth himself who has stated the beer-brewing through means of numerous interviews he has given; all of which are cited on the article (and sourced from reliable locations such as his own website). Therefore, how can this fact be disputed when he has gone so far as to explicitly say that he brewed his own beer? And yes, we do realise the difference between that and the studio named The Brewery. Those are also separate things that he has mentioned many times within interviews. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Holdsworth and instrumental rock

As with Frank Gambale's article, in a short space of time there has been a considerable amount of edit warring with regards to the genres Holdsworth has played. Whilst to some it may seem odd that instrumental rock has, at least until now, firmly been included within his list of genres alongside his primary jazz fusion, it would pay to bear in mind that many 'pure' fusion albums of yesteryear are now labelled as instrumental rock as well. Examples include Jeff Beck's Blow by Blow and Wired, the bulk of the Mahavishnu Orchestra's work, and even the iconic Dick Dale (of "Misirlou" fame). All are considered to have played instrumental rock which, at its most basic level, is a rock-based style with few vocals. The guitar does not have to be 'heavy', and elements of jazz can often be heard as well within the context.

Therefore, considering the fast-paced and 'heavy' stylings of various Holdsworth albums such as Heavy Machinery and the intro to "Metal Fatigue", it can safely be said that he has not been locked solely into jazz fusion throughout his four-decade career. To say so would be simply false. As a concrete example, even in his brief time with Level 42 he adopted a more straightforward rock-based style. And finally, if one takes a look at the bio section of Holdworth's website, a statement that reads "he participated in many of that era's landmark jazz-fusion and instrumental rock recordings" should say enough to acknowledge that he has played in this style.

He plays jazz fusion now, but he has played instrumental rock as well. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily go by something on his own website. I'm a bit more comfortable with "instrumental rock" than saying he's "primarily known" for his work in jazz-rock fusion, which isn't confirmable. Allan Holdsworth attained his first major notice by playing in Tony Williams Lifetime, but the bands of his journeyman days: Igginbottom, Tempest, Soft Machine, Gong, Bruford, UK ("jazzy" though they can be at times) are progressive rock bands, not Miles alumni jazz-rock fusion. There's a world of difference between Allan Holdsworth and, e.g., John McLaughlin.

That said, Holdsworth's one of the very few metal guitarists's heroes totally comfortable in a jazz idiom; obviously, e.g. his albums with Gordon Beck are straight-ahead jazz / jazz rock. It's that his self-taught harmonic conception, his way of shaping scales to solo with around the chords he uses, has very little in common with guitarists associated with jazz-rock like (again, e.g.) Mike Stern, John Scofield, John Abercrombie or Pat Metheny (or Jeff Beck, for that matter).

"Instrumental rock," though, would be a sadly typical Wikipedia-ism — a descriptor so vague and devoid of content that nobody could muster an objection to flag it. "Instrumental rock" like Dick Dale's Top-40 hit "Misirlou" — you're kidding, right? Holdsworth's never had anything like a radio hit, even in "the Great White Hope of British progrock" UK, even his stuff with Level 42. Holdsworth's first self-led band, I.O.U., had several vocalists (Paul Williams, Paul Korda, Jack Bruce), as does his albums Atavachron, Secrets (Rowanne Mark) and Wardenclyffe Tower (Naomi Star).

Are vocals the point in Allan Holdsworth's ouevre? No. But lumping his unfailingly exploratory music in with the likes of Pipeline and Telstar certainly shouldn't be, either — no matter how allegic his own website is to the only descriptor that does the whole of his music justice: jazz-influenced progressive rock.

In broad outline, the same career trajectory as Soft Machine.

Snardbafulator (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

"it would pay to bear in mind that many 'pure' fusion albums of yesteryear are now labelled as instrumental rock as well." by whom? are there published RS cites to support that assertion? I would be interested in seeing them. Mahavishnu, for example, consisted of players notable for their jazz musicianship, but they were drawing on a range of influences, of which one was rock, hence the labels fusion, jazz fusion, and least favourably, jazz rock. --188.223.6.168 (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

"Now labelled ..." Gotta love that passive voice :)

Why jazz rock "least favorably?" That's a perfectly decent generic descriptor that covers everything from Mahavishnu to late Soft Machine (including much of Holdsworth). What's "least favorable" (to this un-passive commenter) is "jazz-rock fusion," which fits Mahavishnu, Return to Forever, Weather Report, Lenny White, Stanley Clarke, Tony Williams and the rest of the American Miles alums, — but doesn't at all fit contemperaneous British jazz rock.

The most glaring example I can think of is on Holdsworth's live album Then! It kicks off with a Lifetime standard, Alan Pasqua's "Proto-Cosmos." Now that's "jazz-rock fusion." It's a perfectly respectable tune; it's just entirely different from everything else on the album — from the in-your-face head to the Brecker-oid chord progression. Worlds away from "The Things You See," "White Line," "Water On The Brain, Pt. 2" or "Non-Brewed Condiment."

Those are progrock tunes, though it's not offensive to see them described as jazz rock.

They're not in any way, shape or form "jazz-rock fusion" like "Proto-Cosmos."

Snardbafulator (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

it's an error to reduce Mahavishnu, Weather Report, and RTF, Headhunters, etc. to "Jazz Rock," elements such as jazz, funk, blues, Latin, (and Indian Classical in MO's case), are more prominent, hence "fusion." The main commonality with "rock" was the use of amplification, the early US fusion stuff features virtually nothing with a straight 1/8th feel, exceptions being Lifetime and Miles's Fortune, Cosey Foster etc. stuff, though the latter was still very bluesy. I would have described "Metal Fatigue" as prog-rock though. --188.223.6.168 (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Compositions and Style

Overall, I strongly endorse this article's rewrite; it definitely jibes with the tons of Holdsworth interviews I've read over the years and does his artistry and place in the guitar pantheon proper justice. I just have a minor concern with two technical issues in the musical analysis section:

"The harmonic structure of his pieces is highly advanced, with frequently shifting tonal centres..."

No question.

"...and unique combinations of keys and modes."

Since keys and modes are in the broadest sense synonymous, this is ambiguous. I'm not tempted to delete the clause, since I think you're trying to say something; I'm just curious as to what precisely. Do you mean he uses polytonality? Or do you mean polymodality — which is a little different? I'm curious because Holdsworth is not an archetypical progrock composer like, say, Robert Fripp of King Crimson or Kerry Minnear of Gentle Giant, who on occasion very consciously use early 20th century classical ideas like modal superimpositions over whole-tone scales or octatonic symmetries. As progrock goes, Holdsworth's original music is not all that "tricky" in terms of structure — he tends to follow the time-honored jazz head/solos/head format so that his tunes are all of a piece rather than episodic (with an occasional exception like the multisectioned 14-minute "The Un-Merry-Go-Round" from Metal Fatigue). From what little Holdsworth has talked about his composition technique, it appears he writes the progression first and hones the tune as a chord melody, and some of those strange, neither-fish-nor-fowl scale patterns he solos with are a direct consequence of the uniquely-voiced and occasionally non-diatonic (i.e. non-modal) chords he has to play over, the same way that emphatically shifting meters come directly out of working his hands around the progression rather than a pre-composed time signature structure.

The "unique combinations" is what got me curious, because that implies a compositional idea of superimposition, and I don't sense that at all in Holdsworth's original music. I think, to the contrary, he's (rather un-eclectically for a progrocker) aiming for a unity of form and content. The legendary Eric Dolphy, discussing the difference between his classically-trained, rehearsal-heavy approach and the intuitive "harmolodics" of Ornette Coleman and the first-generation of free jazzers, famously said something I'd kill to get Allan's reaction to. No matter how dissonant or even polytonal against the chords he may sound at times, Eric thinks of every note he plays as directly relating to the chord progression.

That, I think, epitomizes Holdsworth's approach as well. He seems to play everything with a deep respect for the ongoing harmonic climate, whether on a rock ostinato, an altered blues or one of his own or his bandmates's strikingly original chord progressions — or, for that matter, playing balls-out freely with Chad Wackerman or HoBoLeMa.

"His phrasing almost always features striking yet subtle transitions between notes that are both consonant and dissonant,"

Not to be too pedantic (heh), but barring feedback I may change that to read "striking yet subtle transitions between consonant and dissonant notes." It's a simple tautology that a note in any given harmonic context can't be simultaneously consonant and dissonant. Consonance and dissonance are of course relative terms and officially "dissonant" intervals like the major 7th can, naturally, sound insipidly "consonant" in the context of, say, a tonic M7 chord. But the subjective experiences of "consonance" and "dissonance" define each other. A trick of Holdsworth's is to conclude a cadence on a dissonant tonic chord (cf. the head section of "Three Sheets to the Wind" from Road Games, the final chord of "Secrets," etc.), so you expect consonance but hear dissonance — the progression resolves but the chord doesn't. But harmonic movement still doesn't directly equate to dissonance.

Was that what you were thinking of?

"...with wide and unpredictable intervallic leaps."

You know it.

Snardbafulator (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, you certainly have my 'blessing' to give it a re-write (not that Wikipedia requires anyone's blessing, heh). In fact, more technical expertise on the Compositions and style section is extremely welcome. Overall, I've tried to focus more so on his career history and discography than the technical stuff. Since you seem to have far better knowledge on that front than I do, I'm more than happy for you to give it a shot. I'm admittedly pretty limited in that department, so what you see currently is the best I could do with what I know. I'd like to believe I understand some of what you've explained (particularly the consonance/dissonance thing), but I'm not able to express it in such detailed terms. It sure sounds good, and isn't POV, therefore I'm in full support of whatever re-writing needs to be done—at least on the technical side of things. When it comes to layout and whatnot, I've gone to quite a lot of effort in otherwise keeping everything consistent within the article (especially after some horrendously POV edits were made in the last few years), so if you could keep me updated on any large-scale changes that you intend to make, I'd appreciate that. Best of luck! Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I will add one thing, though: the sentences which read "The harmonic structure of his pieces is highly advanced, with frequently shifting tonal centres..." and "... unique combinations of keys and modes" were not originally added by me. They were added by this user who has since not made any further edits on Wikipedia. I kept them in the article because (at the time, anyway) I didn't see any problem with it. Just wanted to make that clear. Whether one wishes to keep, re-word or delete them altogether is fine by me. However, the part about "... wide and unpredictable intervallic leaps" was indeed written by me, and I would like it to be retained. Without going into hugely technical territory (of which you're undoubtedly better capable of doing), I don't think that statement is too far off the mark for the average reader. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool. As I say, the article on the whole is real good and more importantly, confirmed by stuff I've seen Holdsworth say (catching potential misunderstandings like his positive feelings for the guys in UK despite his musical dissatisfaction). I never saw the article years ago when people were flinging brickbats at it in here for unutterably silly things like Liszt comparisons. The stuff on style analysis is inevitably "original research" though, but that's actually okay, because good music analysis is sort of like solving math equations on you own: nobody will flag you for it if you get it right — and very few will notice if you get it wrong. There's a generic problem with using established music critics to reference this stuff, though. Most good music critics have a so-so grasp of music theory, and that's okay because they're trying to communicate to a general readership and the vast majority of artists don't require deep theoretical exegesis to communicate the essense of their artistry (and Holdsworth is one of those few artists where it helps). The music writers in guitar magazines have a worse problem — they have an empiric understanding of music theory, so they'll often get the terminology right but miss the broader context. None of the stuff in "Compositions and Style" already written here can be definitively sourced, even though critics for years have been noting things like Holdsworth's unpredictable interval leaps and pure legato style.

I'll only change the two things previously noted in this section. "Unique combinations of scales and modes" is going because it's unclear, and as you noted the person who wrote it is a drive-by contributor who apparently won't be back to clarify it. I might replace it with Eddie Jobson's "advanced modal improvisations" and inline-cite it from the notes to the Road Games CD reissue (from record company material not an unbiased source perhaps, but certainly a technically knowledgable one). "Notes which are both consonant and dissonant" I will clarify and provide with examples, because I think you're trying to get at something important and characteristic in Holdsworth's style. He absolutely counters and often inverts harmonic expectations in unique ways. I'll give that some thought first, because I want what I say to be as concise as possible. "Wide and unpredictable intervallic leaps" absolutely stays as written; I completely agree with you there.

The bigger thing I'll tackle is a bug-aboo of mine and I might well get whacked for it from others (which is perfectly okay; rock on Wikipedia!) I'm going to clarify the style references, because very, very few musicians of that era strode with equal competence between the worlds of Miles-alumni "jazz-rock fusion" (originally a jazz critic term), British jazz rock and progressive rock. I'm simply going to link "jazz-rock fusion" to where it's appropriate, i.e. Tony Williams Lifetime, Frank Gambale's Truth In Shredding and Jean-Luc Ponty's Enigmatic Ocean, "jazz-rock" to Soft Machine, None Too Soon and The Sixteen Men of Tain, "straight jazz" to his earlier albums with Gordon Beck and "progressive rock" to Tempest, Gong, Bruford, I.O.U. and some of his earlier solo albums, e.g. Hard Hat Area (which also qualifies as jazz-rock).

Okay, let the hairsplitting begin! I'm going to set forth my principles here before I get "corrected" out there. "Fusion" by the late 70s became an all-but-meaningless buzzword, applicable to everything from instrumental funk just this side of disco to the New Agey crapola we now call (love them radio station marketing categories) "smooth jazz." "Jazz-rock fusion" in the beginning, however, was anything but. Unlike "jazz-rock" (or, for that matter, "instrumental rock"), it's not a catch-all category that's acceptible only because it's so undefined. "Jazz-rock fusion," when coined by the guys in Down Beat, was a very specific genre label meant to encompass the jazz musicians who followed Miles by getting into electric instruments and playing very loudly, often in odd time signatures but definitely sans flextime. Although the musical ethic was similar to the progressive and eclectic things happening in that expansive era, and athough "fusion" of that era had an enormous influence on progrock, the musicians were of an entirely different class, both in chops and broad musical background.

But monster chops and enormous background don't, in themselves, ultimately define a style's place in the pantheon of influence. Nobody, for instance, would deny Return To Forever's place in the fusion pantheon — Chick Corea was both the keyboard's answer to John McLaughlin and fusion's answer to Keith Emerson — just as no one would deny Soft Machine's answer to Miles Davis as a progenitor of generations of British jazz-rock musicians and the development of an improvisational, trans-modal, odd time-oriented electric style. Whose music is more "important"? Impossible to say. What is possible to say is that Mike Ratledge, for all the keyboard polls he's won over the years, hasn't a tenth of the chops or musical versatility of Chick Corea. Dem's da fax. Just as Phil Miller, a tremendously respected and original progrock and jazz-rock guitarist who came out of the same British blues boom milieu as Holdsworth (and John McLaughlin) would never dream of putting his command of the guitar anywhere near that of Allan Holdsworth's. Holdsworth had nothing to fear from John McLaughlin — perhaps the only broadly-speaking jazz rock guitarist who's won more praise over the years from his peers than Holdsworth — and had zero problems playing with the likes of Tony Williams. That's the difference between jazz-rock and jazz-rock fusion. An aesthetic one? Not necessarily (it's a matter of taste). A technical one? Absolutely.

Okay, there's the gratuitous blog-like opinion essay that isn't supposed to be on Wikipedia's Talk pages. I'll wait to see how hard I get smacked before I make the article changes.

Snardbafulator (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Edits done. I'm pretty satisfied, especially with the Composition and Style section; I even spelled oriented "orientated" so as not to blow anybody's style nationalism fuses — and here it is, the Fourth of July :) I didn't wind up citing Jobson because I found a different way to phrase that point, but also because I'm still new at Wikipedia and don't yet know the coding for inline cites. I also found a better description for Heavy Machinery — it's a very cool disc but I don't think it's anybody's idea of "experimental music." Basically I just changed "jazz fusion" to jazz-rock fusion" and called Bruford jazz-influenced progrock rather than "fusion-orientated."

Okay, here's my head. Here's the scimitar. Have at it.

Snardbafulator (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Genre issues?

Mac, you there? It looks like I've escaped a bullet on the expunging of "jazz fusion," but after reading every single interview on The Allan Holdsworth Information Center (a compendium from I.O.U. to The Sixteen Men of Tain), in the interest of verifiability I suppose I can't object if somebody wants to re-insert those references. As much as I think the term "jazz-rock fusion" is a very specific genre label, apparently "jazz fusion" is general critic-speak, applicable to stuff like Bruford — which I understand but vastly differ with. The differences between Jean-Luc Ponty's archetypical '77 fusion record Enigmatic Ocean and Bruford's Feels Good to Me from the same year are immense and have to do with compositional focus. Yes, Jeff Berlin is the quintessential Berklee-educated fusion player, but keyboardist (and "reasonably advanced" harmonic advisor) Dave Stewart is not, and (unlike Phil Miller) never had an apprenticeship playing in jazz bands.

It seems Holdsworth himself is extremely allergic to genre labels of any sort, and it took him until the last decade or so to get comfortable even with the appellation "jazz" for his music. He absolutely despises the term "fusion" (and didn't much care for being called a jazz player) because he resists anything that would place his music in a pre-conceived box. "Jazz," at the time of the interviews I read, represented to Holdsworth the prevalent approach to playing through chords derived from bebop, chord-scale theory and George Russell's Lydian Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organization — especially to endless variations on the archetypical ii-V-I cadence that even Coltrane's revolutionary major-thirds approach in Giant Steps is derived from. Holdsworth remarked on a famous guitarist giving a clinic to a bunch of youngsters and playing a bebop phrase on the guitar, which evoked yawns. This guitarist then played the exact same phrase through a fuzzbox and everybody went "Yeah!" Holdsworth hates what he calls the "bebop through a fuzzbox" approach to jazz guitar, and this recalls his youth discovering John Coltrane and Cannonball Adderly. While he loves and appreciates both, he'd note how Adderly's solos contained the whole history of the music he played previously, while Coltrane's — playing through the very same chords — seemed to come into existence sui generis. That was the ideal of improvising something entirely new, unlike any pre-practiced "licks," that Holdsworth has strived for his entire career. To the extent that this is nearly impossible to consistently achieve goes far in giving context to Holdsworth's famous inability to be satisfied with his previous work.

As an aside, I have to note that (along with fellow autodidact Frank Zappa), Holdsworth has a true loathing of dominant chords. Even a chord as apparently gnarly as two major triads stacked a tritone apart, to Allan is just a C7b5m9 — a "nasty old altered dominant." He even wrote a tune on Atavachron to tribute this loathing, "The Dominant Plague" — the head resolution of which is, no doubt ironically, a study in how to put dominant harmony through its paces. In that archive, I also discovered eye-opening stuff I hadn't read before where he dissects his whole approach to scales. Jobson's "advanced modal improvisation" may be a misnomer; Holdsworth conceives of scales as variously stacked 3 and 4-note chords, which he then breaks down into permutations of whole and half steps, often producing scales which pursue that permutation through two, sometimes three octaves before repeating themselves. "Advanced," but perhaps not "modal."

I haven't seen Holdsworth ever comment on or react to the term "progressive rock" one way or another. But over the years, the only label he's comfortably used to self-identify with is as a rock guitarist. I don't think this is centrally involved with his tone, since most rockers have a soft spot in their fuzzy hearts for distortion and Allan only considers it a "necessary evil" in order to get sustain. I think (and this'd be original research as I haven't seen anybody connect these dots) that's because when Allan was coming up, the wildly popular blues-based guitar rock of his day — Hendrix, Cream, even the likes of Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple — still carved a major place for genuine improvisation, and Allan has consistently called himself first and foremost an improvising musician. Just past his journeyman days, all electric music became brutalized by the need to turn it all into a marketable, self-replicating commodity: hard rock and metal became arena circuses, "fusion" had been tweezed into funk jamming (albeit over 4 and 5-note chords instead of just 3) and progressive rock took an exceptionally hard battering, sometimes from the musicians themselves (e.g. John Wetton and Eddie Jobson trying to expunge improvised solos from UK). No wonder Allan's experience with Ted Templeman at Warners became a nightmare.

It's all-in-all quite surprising that Holdsworth doesn't have the same sort of rotten things to say about progrock that he does about fusion, because it's at the hands of the "visionaries" attempting to turn progrock into FM radio fodder that he had his very worst experiences ("Fuck Paul Williams — we'll get Geddy Lee to sing on Road Games!"), right at the moment when he might've gotten big. It may be because (original research) Holdsworth recognizes in the underground spirit of progrock that it never was about calcifying into an acceptible style, the way jazz had trod the edges of "legit" (while always yearning for acceptance) its entire history. Although taking the bigger perspective, on a strictly musical level Allan Holdsworth may be more justly put into the broad category of jazz than rock, because however dauntingly complex, his compositions are always meant to serve as springboards for improvisation, Allan Holdsworth is also significantly the archetypical progrocker, a man who continues to live by Frank Zappa's dictum that "without deviation from the norm, progress is impossible."

Anyway, I've said my piece. If anybody wants to re-insert "jazz fusion," it's justifiable in terms of verifiability. I think it's better the way it is, but that's just yours truly ...

Snardbafulator (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm still here. I just haven't had much time to spend on this article for a while (considering that it's more thought-provoking than some of the other, simpler stuff I edit regularly), but I will say this: whether or not it's technically correct to those who are well-versed in these things, such as your good self, there are a multitude sources dating back decades that lump him generically within the jazz fusion genre. Whilst I realise he has dabbled in other things like rock (including the instrumental kind, i.e. Heavy Machinery) and normal jazz, I really have no problem with the article stating that he is a jazz fusion player. I also know that he doesn't like being labelled under any particular genre, but such labelling has almost always been out of the artists' hands. Besides, I think labelling genres makes it easier on the consumer when choosing what to listen to.

Furthermore, as to your changes, "jazz-rock fusion" doesn't actually appear to have a concrete article of its own on Wikipedia. There's jazz, jazz fusion, jazz rock (sort of, albeit classed as a further subgenre under jazz fusion) and rock, but your link to "jazz-rock fusion" merely ends up jumping straight to the jazz fusion article. Until the differences between all the fusion-related genres (of which there are clearly many, although I'm not very knowledgeable in them) have been settled by other experts around these parts, I would prefer that jazz fusion remains the primary genre for Holdsworth's article. Is that OK by you? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Mac. Well-done response, thanks. While I love a good debate, I try hard not to be an argumentative guy (and have not the temperament of an edit warrior). I understand and respect Wikipedia's consensus / verifiability approach, so I'll say my final piece here, and if afterward you choose to revert "jazz-rock fusion" to "jazz fusion," I'll have no choice but to live with it. (I might grumble a little to myself, but that's okay, too :) Your points are lucid and at least one is unarguable.

My argument fails on the fact that Wikipedia has no separate "jazz-rock fusion" category. But that's not an argument for status quo ante. It's an argument in the strongest terms that I make Wikipedia Priority #1 creating a jazz-rock fusion page. As it would be my first article, that means doing the research, reading all the insufferable help files, using the Sandbox, learning the coding for inline cites, the whole proverbial nine. Because while "there are multiple sources dating back decades" that peg Holdsworth as "jazz fusion," there are multiple sources dating back decades further still that confirm "jazz-rock fusion" as a commonly-understood term for the sort of edgy, airplay-unfriendly, relentlessly solo-oriented music Holdsworth played with Tony Williams Lifetime and (to a somewhat lesser extent) Jean-Luc Ponty. Jazz-rock fusion isn't a current term; this would be a matter of setting the historical record straight. That the term is not as yet on Wikipedia is reflective of Wikipedia culture; not many 51-year-olds are still interested enough in the music of their early teenage years to write articles about jazz rock as they remember it and the younger folks who are interested in progressive music, jazz rock (broadly understood), amazing guitar etc. have simply gone by more contemporary sources. The sources I'd use would be jazz publications, especially Down Beat, which is a bit more creditable as a magazine than most later rock journalism.

Another reason, quite apart from currency, that rankles about "jazz fusion" is that, taken without its common inference, it's incoherent. "Fusion" implies combining at least two things. Jazz as "fused" to what? Indian music (e.g. Shakti)? Classical (e.g. Gunther Schuller's Third Stream)? World Music (e.g. Oregon, Paul Winter Consort)? Not according to Wikipedia, which reads the term to mean jazz rock, which merely makes it the oft-repeated rock critic's lazy elision of "jazz-rock fusion." So the linguistic imprecision (chauvanistically implying that the exotic and substantial forms than jazz can productively fuse with other than rock are naturally less significant) is another reason why this term is such a major hemhorroid to me.

Finally, the most significant reason I care so much about this issue is reflective of the only point you made that I have to disagree on at the angle of 180°. I think labelling Allan Holdsworth's music "jazz fusion" does a terrible disservice to the consumer (not to mention, of course, Mr. Holdsworth himself), because Holdsworth's music, from any period, doesn't at all resemble what is currently marketed as "jazz fusion." Turn satellite radio to the "jazz fusion" station. You'll never hear any Holdsworth (the only places you'll hear him are on college stations, satellite progrock stations [rarely] and listener-supported stations that ape the early 70s "free form" format and gives the human DJ a wide berth in programming). As he's said so often, he's too jazz for rock programming and too rock for jazz programming. A consumer expecting "jazz fusion" would get nothing that resembles George Benson, Bob James, Michael Franks, the CTI label. There would be nothing to either boogie to or romance your girl with. If Wikipedia wants to lump this stuff in with the likes of Mahavishnu Orchestra, they've got a serious disambiguation problem. And thus "jazz-rock fusion" veritably screams for a separate page.

"Jazz fusion" grew directly out of "jazz-rock fusion." Think of jazz-rock fusion as an unstable isotope of jazz rock, with a half-life of about three years. Jazz-rock fusion wasn't universally critically beloved by any means and by the mid-70s, a critical consensus began to build (prior to the punk-driven collapse of progrock more generally) that virtuosity for its own sake was leading to a dead end. Fusion adapted much more effectively than progrock to the changing economic circumstances in the wake of the two 70s oil shocks, because fusion is based on jazz, and jazz can be broken down into funk, blues and the American song form without doing violence to its fundamental nature. While proggers were desperately scrambling for a way to become more popular, many of them sending their fan base screaming by ostentatiously "selling out," "fusion" quietly became mellow, lightly funky instrumental music and market-niched itself onto specialized FM stations. Very few jazz fans freaked when George Benson topped the charts with On Broadway. Now of course there's some really excellent music from this later era that Wikipedia classifies as "jazz fusion" — it's just mixed in indiscriminately with the blatantly (if quietly) commercial stuff. And I submit that these two superficially similar isotopes are as distinct as U235 and U238.

I thought of suggesting the more straightforwardly descriptive compromise label "jazz-rock," but since Wikipedia would merely redirect that to "jazz fusion," the issue would remain. If you'd like to change the label back to "jazz fusion" until such time as I get a Wikipedia-acceptible page up for jazz-rock fusion, I suppose that will only serve as a positive goad to get me working on the article. Ball's in your court ...

Snardbafulator (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

All of that sounds good to me (I know, it could be considered kinda sheepish to just go along with what someone else says, but you're the first editor with whom I've had a proper, articulate discussion on this, and I genuinely don't find myself disagreeing with anything you've put forth). Since you've OK'ed it, I will go ahead and change all mentions of jazz-rock fusion back to jazz fusion for now, but do let me know when you've got that new article for jazz-rock fusion up and running, because that'll be the game-changer to take this article in a better direction (i.e. perhaps more informative, in musical terms, than it currently is). In a way, consider having this [Allan Holdsworth] article labelled with jazz fusion as merely a stopgap until the new article can take over. There have been other editors who have also wished to see a separate article for jazz-rock, so I'm sure they'd be very happy to see it. Best of luck, and looking forward to seeing your work. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Jazz-rock fusion blues ...

Oh goodness, Mac, you're not being "sheepish" because I'm not offering any hardcore resistance. We seem to be engaging, rather, in the archetypical Wikipedia-approved edit negotiation because neither of us seem to have any ego invested in anything other than attempting to be reasonable. As it is said, it's supposed to be a clueocracy around here.

My Compositions and Style edits are apparently going to stand, and those are the ones I consider truly important. Any genre discussion is going to revolve more around what happens to be au courant that what is more linguistically apt or historically accurate. Genre warring, sadly enough, is one of Wikipedia's more common forms of vandalism.

I did have a hairy ol' squint at the jazz fusion talk page, and unfortunately it's a bit puerile over there. I left a message with my suggestions (a bit more snide and supercillious than I'd ever have reason to be here), but frankly I despair of finding a consensus or a set of reasonable allies, although we may well see. As I stated earlier, I'm not really one to make a set of bold edits and then preside over the resulting tag-team flamewar. The main problem is, these guys really don't seem to have the fundamental idea of what makes a music form fused with (as opposed to being merely influenced by) jazz.

The galling irony is that most of their sources are fine. They're just willfully misreading them. Julie Coryell, the wife of Larry Coryell and as the article says probably the first jazz-rock fusion guitarist (even before McLaughlin), calls her book JAZZ ROCK FUSION. She should know; she was there at the creation. And yet this term is mentioned not once is the whole article. The article deliberately (and maddeningly) misquotes AllMusic (a decent source for relatively sympathetic reviews of a whole raft of obscure music, but a terrible one for music history discussions) by inserting the term "fusion" in brackets to dishonestly imply that the quote is contrasting "jazz fusion" with jazz rock, when the quote is obviously contrasting the music played by jazz musicians (jazz-rock fusion) with the music played by rock musicians (jazz rock). This is the sort of thing that makes the idea of corrections by fiat or even gentle persuasion as to the inaccuracy and dishonesty of what has been put forth completely demoralizing before an attempt has even been considered. Whaddaya gonna do ... sigh.

So I'll watch the page to see what kind of responses my passive-aggressively provocative rebuttal may provoke, but won't move on creating a new page unless I get some support over there. It's pointless to try to do this stuff without building consensus first.

As for your reversions, have at them. In context they do happen to be appropriate.

Snardbafulator (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your ventures into the jazz fusion talk page, all I can say is "Oh dear". I was going to suggest that you put forth your ideas at the WikiProject Jazz talk page, but from the sounds of it.. yeah, the most likely case is that you may not (at least initially) have a huge deal of support for such a groundbreaking new article unless you manage to find several kindred spirits with the same aptitude and forward-thinking outlook for all this stuff. Give it a shot anyhow, for you never know if some editors are thinking the exact same thing as you. I, too, have recently developed an interest in seeing this whole jazz-rock deal expanded upon somehow (as in, to be given its own distinct article from jazz fusion), but ultimately the most I can do is sit back and watch this story unfold, since I don't have the resources nor time of day to commit to such an undertaking. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Mac, here's my battle plan. I'm going to fire the first shot across the jazz fusion page's bow by removing "[fusion]" from that AllMusic quote, on the simple grounds that it's a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy to attempt to stick words in your source's mouth to make them say what you want them to say. Especially to, you know, attempt to justify the title of your article when your major sources aren't referring to the music by that name. I don't care how many times these guys have seen the term "jazz fusion" on the internet — it was not what the music was referred to at the time it was made.

Yeah ... stuff like this gets me a little annoyed.

Secondly, I'm going to take the issue to the Music Genres Task Force and solicit their opinions. I won't go into a song and dance about the appropriateness of "jazz fusion" as a genre (since these folks spend their time battling off pseudo-genres like "Intelligent Drum & Bass" and "Deathgrind" and can't be expected to be jazz experts), but I'll ask them more generally about the relative weight that Wikipedia should bestow upon internet-driven retroactive neologisms vs the terms the music was known by at the time it was made. Somebody posted about Creedence Clearwater Revival becoming known as "Swamp Music" (on the strength of one Austrailian critic — apparently for all of one song, "Born on the Bayou") when the term had zero currency back in the day, and they recieved some sympathetic commentary. I'll pitch the idea of splitting the article into "Jazz Rock," "Jazz-Rock Fusion" and perhaps also "Fusion" (to accomodate the blatantly commercial style it evolved into in the 80s and 90s). If they argue (as you have) that the term's internet ubiquity and widespread use trumps historical accuracy (and/or linguistic precision), then I'll simply accept that as Wikipedia's policy on assigning genre labels.

Finally, I'm going to have a look-see over at the Jazz Project and get a sense of how offensive jazzers find the term "jazz fusion," especially since it was likely coined by a rock critic. I'll also see what the consensus appears to be in the jazz world for giving the Miles-led movement a separate genre from the movement led by Frank Zappa and Soft Machine. If genuine jazz aficionados have no problem with the label "jazz fusion" or conflating the two, then I'll gracefully drop the entire subject.

Thanks for the good suggestion.

Snardbafulator (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill Bruford solo album vs the Bruford band

Another edit: In the Bruford section, I added wikilinks for Feels Good to Me and One of a Kind. I also clarified a recent edit by distinguising FGtM as the Bill Bruford solo album (recorded under the name of Bill Bruford) from OOAK (recorded under the name of Bruford and commonly referred to as the Bruford band). Snardbafulator (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Photos

We sorely need a better photo of Holdsworth in the infobox, as well as some within the article such as him playing the SynthAxe and his other wacky instruments. That old one from 1978, whilst cool in a historical way, is pretty atrocious for the introduction of an encylopaedic article. I've tried finding some free examples from Commons and Flickr, but without luck as they're all under licence. Anyone care to help out on this? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Myriad

You cannot have "a myriad of" - awful English. This article needs rewritten by someone literate! 92.26.97.205 (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

What's the problem? According to Merriam-Webster, "a myriad of" may be used to refer to "a great number <a myriad of ideas>". Furthermore, if you are so much more literate than all of those who have contributed to the article (which I slightly doubt, considering you left out "to be" from your sentence), by all means have a go at rewriting it yourself. I have suggested this to other users before who have whined about the content here, but interesting nobody has taken me up on that suggestion to date.. which must mean the article reads fine after all, heh. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Dreadful Article

This is one of the worst Wiki entries I've ever read, absolute dross. There is no neutral point of view, it is filled with irrelevant, illiterate verbiage and endless repetition. The opening paragraph goes into detail about AH's Musical technique only to repeat the same thing further down. It reads as if it were written by several 13 year old fans, none of which are literate, or are communicating with each other. Curiously there seems something rather appropriate that the AH's Wiki entry is incoherent nonsense, given the fact that his body of excellent work has found such little mainstream success and understanding/appreciation. Please could some qualified literate individual take a chainsaw to this garbage, and rewrite it into a cohesive encyclopedic entry worthy of the man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.37.115 (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

How about offering some suggestions for improvement to get things going, rather than simply making a bunch of denigrating 'drive-by' comments from an IP? It's all good and well to spew out vitriol, but what have you got to offer if the article is so incredibly bad? Maybe you'd like to state your gripes in bullet points so that we can actually get somewhere—collaboratively, since that is what we're all here to do. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Further, regarding the one specific criticism you make, as per WP:LEAD, the lead summarizes an article, therefore repetition of points in the intro and the body is to be expected. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)