RE: Jungle on this list

Michael Aregood
Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:27:38 -0500


> > Just to clear things up a bit: what I mean by intellectual
> > content is the thought or idea that has manifested itself
> > musically through the process of composition.
>
So you are saying that jungle (and electronica?) is NOT a thought or
idea that has manifested itself musically through the process of
composition? That to me is absurd.

> > I've "dabbled" in electronica myself and gotten pretty
> > tired of it. Sure, pushing buttons can accomplish fast
> > results. With the invention of MC-303, etc. anyone (and
> > I mean ANYONE) who can count 4/4ths can create cool
> > tracks and play around with technological sound. What
> > I couldn't get from my dabbling was the feeling of
> > actually creating something worthwhile.
>
I don't get this. First you say anyone can do it... then you say you had
trouble creating anything worthwhile. Obviously not "anyone" can do it.

> Being creative
> > and communicating a message, a feeling, an impression
> > is important to me as a human being and songwriter.
>
Check out the new Air record, Moon Safari...

> > But it wasn't a human creating the music - it was a
> > lifeless, cold, metallic box. Even with techniques
> > like Physical Modelling, we've come nowhere near
> > recreating the sound of a muted trumpet solo, the
> > detailed resonnance of an old jazz guitar.
>
The only difference between the art being created in the electronica
genre and creating art with a guitar is the medium you chose to work
in... Sculpture is no more valid than painting and vice versa...
> >
> > Don't get me wrong guys&gals; technological music was evolved
> > immensely, but why does it always cater to its own audience?
> > What is lacking that is holding it off the charts? Bands
> > like Jamiroquai or BNH are commercially oriented, sure,
> > but they haven't let techology take over - and I think
> > that is part of their general appeal.
>
who gives a shit about general appeal? i don't. What does that have to
do with the price of tea?

> > People like to be able to identify with what they hear or see.
> > That's easier when the music allows room for reflection and
> > afterthought, when you can feel that it has organic, human -
> > intellectual - content, not when it's just organized sound
> > created by a machine.
>
You are overgeneralizing. SOME people like to identify with seeing a
person playing a guitar. Not everyone. I like to identify with what i
see in my mind when i close my eyes and concentrate on the vibrations in
my ears. Like the sounds of waves crashing on a beach, or a creaking
door, or a dog barking in the distance... Are you telling me that these
things don't allow room for reflection and afterthought? Try recreating
that with a guitar...

I am not dissing live music, i need the organic "intellectual" sound to
compliment everything else i listen to. Absolutely. But bro, how can you
subscribe to an acid jazz list and start dissing electronica (which a
large part of what acid jazz is about)?

Argo

> On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Michael Aregood wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure but I think it means that the people who play
> traditional
> > instruments have all gone to ivy league schools and are therefore
> much
> > smarter than their less fortunate counterparts who dabble in
> > electronica... =)
>