I agree with JP, if hip-hop and trip-hop were so much alike, Id read
about it (trip-hop) in The Source.
Dane Black
>----------
>From: John Schauer[SMTP:john_schauer@development.uchicago.edu]
>Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 1996 7:58 PM
>Cc: acid-jazz@UCSD.EDU
>Subject: Re: What the hell???
>
>chris larkin <C.J.Larkin@reading.ac.uk> 6/14/96 9:25 AM wrote:
>####
>> I disagree that trip hop is different from hip hop tho; ok, its
>>newer, and it mostly comes from Bristol, but thats like saying blues is
>>only blues if its from Chicago. And tell me hip hop isnt experimental and
>>instrumental - or indeed that trip hop is all
>>instrumental - that too is innaccurate>:)
>> Chris Larkin
>> 55 Lower Brook Street
>> Reading Berks RG1 6BU
>#####
>On 13 Jun 1996, Tony Reid wrote:
>> > Another new name is trip hop which is exactly the same as hip-hop;).
>>
>> this is just inaccurate. admittedly, there's probably more in common than
>> proponents of either bag is willing to admit, but they're NOT
>>identical. if
>> one must think of trip hop in terms of hiphop (which wouldn't be a
>>bad place
>> to start), consider it "experimental instrumental (usually) hiphop".
>>one's
>> much more likely to find bleeps and other electronic sounding elements,
>#####
>
>I'd have to agree with Tony.
>For those who don't think there is any difference between hip hop and
>trip hop,
>most US hip hop consumers/listeners do recognize the huge difference.
>If there
>were trip hop cuts on the popular NY hip hop mix tapes and or if
>Stretch/Bobbito, Funkmaster Flex, or Sway/Tech played trip hop, people
>here
>would immediately recognize the difference and change the station or
>put in
>another tape.
>
>If the majority of listeners recognize a difference, that seems good
>evidence
>that one actually exists. Documenting what the difference is obviously
>a much
>harder job.
>
>jp
>