> I've been reading this musician vs dj thread and it led to some serious
> thinking on my part. It seems to me that it reflects an overall rift
> amongst the jazzers. I know people who prefer the experimental sound as
> opposed to the soulful sound with each side regarding their brand of a-j
> as being the true type. Take for example someone who is very into the
> Mo'Wax/Ninjatune thing might regard Incognito as a pop band and not truly
> acid jazz while the Incognito fan might feel the same about Mo'Wax.
>
> These problems are inevitable in a musical genre that encompasses as
> diverse groups as DJ Krush, Jamiroquai, and the Chemical Brothers. These
> sounds, to the untrained ear, seem entirely dissimilar. However, in many
> ways this diversity is the music's appeal. We should all revel in the
> idea of djs and musicians respecting eachother and collaborating where
> possible.
>
> As someone who definitely falls on the experimental/hip hop side of
> things, I must agree with the original post that said we have gotten away
> from live-instrument acid jazz and have moved into a new phase. I think
> this is due in part to a string of strong experimental releases and a
> string of weak live-instrument releases. However, this trend might be
> reversed with the Greyboy Allstars and their California kin. I would love
> to see more releases like that as opposed to the last Jamiroquai and
> Incognito.
>
> Just an opinion, flame me if you must
>
> Keith
> KWillis@vms1.gmu.edu
>
Right on, Keith, but I'm about to "flame you". Just kidding. As you were
saying, I think the diversity of the music, and the overall fact that
this music defies any single definition (although we use the very loose,
problematic term "acid jazz"), is the major appeal of it, at least for
myself. "Live" instruments have certainly not by any means become
"passe," they are frequently used in tracks that people might consider to
be more studio produced. I think that in 1995, with the technology
available, the need to expirement and de/reconstruct modes of making
music, and the spirit of the jazz aesthetic itself are the reasons that
the focus of this "scene" may seem to be more directed into the
"electronic" realm (the abundance of "quotes" simply means these terms
are debatable). Music played live has been the dominant mode of music up
until new technology became available (and still is for the most part). It
would be reactionary and hypocritical to write off these new modes as
"unmusical" simply because they do not conform to the standards of
playing music live. Yes, it is a radically different way of making music
(as the DJ is a radically different type of musician in contrast to the
"instrumentalist"), but it does not in the least mean it is somehow a
less legitimate mode of music. Jazz itself was regarded in the same way
when it first developed. I (and I think most people) do not identify with
jazz in order to stay grounded in the past and present, to be
knowledgable of factoids and trivia, to be interested in a particular
instrumental "sound" that qualifies as jazz, but to find musical inspiration
for the
future,for pushing what at times seems like a commercialized, stagnant form
of recreation into new realms of art and musicianship. Don't tell me that if
Charlie Parker, Diz, Coltrane, Mingus, Monk, Miles, and whoever else were
still alive and thriving today would
not be utilizing and manipulating electronic intruments as they
mainpulated acoustic instruments in their time. These people are visionaries,
they challenged music as people knew it, redefined it through destroying
the artificial musical boundaries that had been erected, created and
developed a new music out of old music, and approached music with the
same open-minded genius every time. The result- a music that speaks to
our souls, communicating feelings, ideas, and inspiration solely through
the sounds they developed. Was Miles a musical purist? Hell no, just the
opposite, and I think we all consider him to be one of the greatest
musical visionaries of all time.
So, as a group of fans and musicians, I think we need to
think why it is that we identify with jazz. We certainly love the music,
but why is that? Is it just the sound of it, or is it more? Does the
creative process involved have just as much to do with it?
Please don't think that I've somehow appropriated and hijacked
the spirit of jazz in order to suggest that electronic music is all that
is left. This could not be farther from the truth. The electronic(DJ) vs.
live music seems to me to be a surface argument, and the true argument
lies in aesthetic valuation, moreso our willingness to appreciate many
types. The live instrument will never die, it is the way in which our
jazz heroes spoke musically and spontaneously, translating their souls
through their respective mediums. Electronic technology allows us to
contemplate a little more, to orchestrate and plot the sonic collage, to
blend and produce sounds never before accesible, and often to create a
rich background for the live element to proliferate. Try to imagine the
dynamics at hand when these two forces are in dialogue- think about it
for awhile and you'll be astounded. Last thoughts- music is free, not
formulaic. It is universal, not uniform.
Peace-
Bubblicious