> I'd vote for this too - when I mention the list to other people I tend to
> call it "the unfortunately named acid-jazz list". While it wasn't a misnomer
> when it kicked off, it is now...
It all depends - certainly when we discuss music here it fits within the
funk/hip-hop/latin/jazz/soul/worldbeat/R&B/reggae/jungle - i.e.
groove-based genres.
Obviously if we talk about Rush, Pantera, Yanni or Green Day (at least in
the serious sense)
it's definitely not appropriate for the list. To paraphrase one article,
"Not everyone agrees on what acid-jazz is, but everyone seems to know what
it *isn't*."
I say keep "Acid-Jazz." Part of the reason why people don't recognize it
is that it lacks a visible identity. Yeah, for some people it will conjure
up images of Louis Armstrong on LSD, but blame it all on Gilles Peterson
(or whoever). And besides, music genres never had appropriate names -
"Alternative" is a joke in itself, at least now more than ever; I'm sure
people thought "Rock & Roll" sounded real stupid when it was first
mentioned, and I'd bet you the first Jazz musicians on Earth never took
the name seriously either. And "Classical" music, at least in its
popularly-recognized form, is really just a stereotypical description of
music that was created during a specific time period, a label inaccurately
given to music that bears superficial similarities to *actual* "Classical"
music. Music needs labels. Otherwise there would be no labels to cross.
Elson
-30-
=========================================================================
Elson Trinidad, Los Angeles, CA * elson@westworld.com
http://www.westworld.com/~elson
=========================================================================