el> I still don't think so. It might be the case wth some artists and
el> recordings, but it's really up to the DJ to decide what can be done
el> with the record in terms of mixing - A lot of that rare groove stuff
el> made in the 70s had rhythmic breaks because it was called for in the
el> song, and I still think it's done that way today. It was merely a DJs
el> idea to go, "I can get two copies of the same record and try to
el> lengthen this break..." If all artists did their music to cater to DJs,
el> I bet you there would be a lot of DJs out there that would find it
el> boring and not much of a challenge.
el> "But then what do I know? I'm not a DJ" :)
speaking as a dj (and using my resounding tone of authority), i would agree
w/the gist of what elson is saying. the rare groove stuff was definitely
made w/breaks because of musical demands. the only time that i wish that
tunes were made w/djs in mind is when i'm in the middle of a mix (of course,
i also wish all my records were at the same tempo then, too). when something
is too dj oriented, and not musically oriented enough, it tends to be really
boring & repetitive. while that makes it easier to mix/blend, a track should
be able to stand on its own.
on the other hand, i would look at the term turntable jazz a little
differently. there is certain jazz that is more likely to be spun by a dj
(never mind that some of the music we discuss has no jazz in it whatsoever).
lou donaldson, herbie hancock (almost all periods), miles davis (see herbie),
wayne shorter/joe zawinul/weather report are dj classics. i've never heard
any dj spin coltrane's *interstellar space* or mahavishnu orchestra's *birds
of fire*. or... one could say that one of my dj sets is like an albert ayler
piece--i start off w/something familiar or basic, and extrapolate into pure
sound sometimes (e.g. tonite i used and excerpt from vangelis' "beauborg" as
a layer/transition).
as far as the name of the list, i'm another voice for the status-quo. acid
jazz is a vague enough term to allow us to discuss many different sounds,
while still keeping some kind of framework to the subject matter. when i saw
the subject heading of "luscious jackson", i was kind of annoyed--i assumed it
was way off topic (that's what i get for assuming). i'm discovering some of
these rock bands groove and are actually *good*. i think that groove is a
constant in the music we tend to like here. i however think that calling it
the "groove music" list would be even *more* vague...
t-bird
p.s. i just heard this band "lode" last week--they rock! er, groove...
... I haven't lost my mind; it's backed up on tape somewhere!