Hey Elson!
re: 7-8 guys being a pain in the a** to work with. Well, look at the
Beatles, as a perfect example. There's 4 guys, who, after a while, couldn't
get along. But I think it's generally agreed that individually, they haven't
been able to produce what they did as a group.
Even though doing it yourself can be fun, (I'm talking music making, here),
it seems to me the emphasis on the one-man producer-musician takes some of
the interaction (i.e. chemistry) out of it. This seems especially true with
jazz. In fact, Ellington was the master at getting individuals to relate
together in a group setting.
As for retro vs. the future. Yeah, I think looking back, ala the Acid Jazz
movement, may in fact be dead... but, I wonder if the real problems lie in
the fact that there just aren't alot of real creative musicians playing
instruments other than sampler right now. Is learning saxophone, or piano,
etc., a dead end these days?
Or then again, maybe people just don't know how to appreciate real
musicians? I mean, Charlie Hunter is just too bad... how many records is he
selling? And, if not many, is that his fault, our fault, or both?
BTW, isn't it wierd that so many "categories" of music are defined solely by
the rhythm programming alone? (2-Step, Happy Hardcore, Garage,
blahblahblah.) It's as if the programming has transcended all else; melody,
harmony, etc.
Back in the day, Chopin wrote "waltzes" and "mazurkas" which were pieces
dictated by the rhythm. But, his personal stamp was undeniable. You can tell
its him in the first few notes. Are we getting as many "personal" musical
statements nowadays?
Still raging against machines as I chop, slice, cut and paste,
Steve (an e-trinity fan, btw)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Nov 26 2000 - 06:13:18 CET