ON another note, to say jungle (or drum n bass, whatever) is punk in
essence is only true to an extent. Music in general is reactionary. ALL
ART is reactionary. And its not reacting against anything else than ART.
Rock was a reaction, jazz was a reaction, hip hop was a reaction, techno,
funk, punk, jungle, they all reacted against the complacent norm of the
rest of music.
An artform explodes on the scene and everyone says YES! SOMETHING NEW! A
REASON TO SAY FUCK YOU TO THE REST OF MUSIC! (its a "punk rock" attitude,
but the attitude has been around much longer than the term, and the
attitude will outlive the term as well). But once enough buzz surrounds a
new movement, it gets diluted. And Im even extremely hesitant to say that
this is the fault of record labels (though they do play a part). Punk
rock turned into green day. jazz turned into kenny G. Jungle turned into
LTJ Bukem (am I stepping on toes?). Of course there are still
revolutionaries within all of these genres (bands like modest mouse came
out of punk, people like squarepusher came from jungle, etc.)
What it comes down to is there are always a handful of artists out there
doing something amazing and actually REACTIONARY. FEw artists actually
embody the punk rock attitude.
enough for now.
scott
On Mon, 27 Oct 1997, elson trinidad wrote:
> At 07.48 AM 10/27/1997 PST, mark givens wrote:
> > Dear List:
> >
> > I consider Portishead to be trip-hop (vocal). True they and ames
> >Lavelle hate the term. But yet it persists. why? Because it fits.
>
> I"m not as bothered by the term "Trip Hop" as most people are, so I'm in
> the same boat with you.
> I mean, slowed-down loops, minor key and the lack of rapping are a dead
> giveaway.
> It's true many artists don't like being pigeonholed, yet at the same time
> many of them are simply following a trend musically, but when they get the
> chance, they start getting all snobbish and holier-than-thou about "We're
> not that, that's just a media term, etc. etc." There's a huge amount of
> hipocrisy in that although they start blaming the media for spoon-feeding
> people that term, they are *heavily dependent on that same media* to
> announce to the world that they're all high and mighty. (Things that make
> you go hmmmm....) If artists truly want the music to 'speak for itself'
> then they'd better shut up first and *let* it speak for itself.
>
> Speaking of media terms regarding music genres, I understand that generally
> the whole fuss is about who said it first. If it came froma media source,
> the artists will all resent it. But if it came from a musician, DJ, etc,
> then it seems more acceptable. "Ska" was coined by a ska musician. And I
> may be wrong on this, but
> the much-more willingness by "Drum 'N Bass" artists to use that term
> probably means it originated within the scene than from out of it. Then
> again it also seems like most drum n bass artists have their own mission,
> not just as an alternative to standard techno music (which really is a punk
> version of disco on the most basic level), to make this music get a name
> for itself, and earn its place in the history of music.
>
> Of course, there are exceptions; "Rock N Roll" was coined by a Cleveland,
> USA (that's why the Rock N Roll museum is there) radio DJ (that's
> considered media) and for years no one had a problem with admitting to
> playing "rock" music. Also, "Acid Jazz" was coined by the very person who
> detests it the most today, DJ Gilles Peterson (But I do believe we've gone
> through that road many times...)
>
> E
>
>
>