yeah. once you name a genre of music, it ceases to be about all the things
it was originally. the same problem happened with industrial in the late
70s. and with punk before that. once you group a collection of
independently acting artists under a banner of your own devising (as
opposed to theirs) you have commodified what they are doing and forever
changed it into something else.
for those who complain that acid jazz is moving out of the underground, i
say it has been out of the underground ever since labels like instinct
began releasing compilations composed entirely of rehashed songs culled
from smaller labels around the world. those labels, the ones you never
hear about and can never find, are the underground. i think there is some
middle ground between the mainstream and the underground, and that is
where acid jazz has generally been hanging out. maybe it is
shifting into the mainstream. i dont know. i dont really care. the people
who make good music now will continue to make good music. the bandwagon
jumpers might actually turn out something good. they might not. ill wait
and see. just because mall kids start likeing it soesnt suddenly turn a
good song bad.
industrial lost its original motivations a decade before nine inch nails
debued. punk burned itself out long before it really hit america. i think
that jazz has a lot more to say musically and a lot less to say
philosophically, so i believe in its ability to weather whatever pop fad
comes and goes. the beatles are not rendered impotent by the fact that
oasis can churn out shitty soundalike imitations. similarly with jazz.
itll survive. its made it this far.
my 2 cents
-matt
<greec1@arch.wustl.edu>