Re: Why Acid? Part II.


Gerry Villareal (gerryv@massive.com)
Fri, 22 Oct 1999 10:21:21 -0400 (EDT)



I personally don't really like the term "acid jazz" but I DO NOT want to
change the name of the list. Why bother to dress it up with some other
label that will mean less and less as we involve more and more music over
time? The acid-jazz list started as a rallying point. Maybe we should just
consider the name the root of the list that just describes its beginnings
in the early 90s. When people ask for a description of the list, point em
to the faqs and the mail archives on the website.

If we want a term that describes all the different sonic moments and
movements we discuss then call it "simply good music." (Respect to Guru
and Premier.) But no. "Acid-jazz-l" forever!

>>>I recognize that, but IMHO, this is the *Acid Jazz* list and whatever
gets
>>>serious discussion on this list
>>>becomes "acid-jazz" by circumstance whether it was meant to be or not.
>>>Perhaps
>>>its coincidental but it just so happens that whatever Gilles Peterson
plays,
>>>it's stuff we're already talking about.
>>
>> Maybe the name of this list should change as times have changed.
>>
>
>This has come up several times, and always gets voted down, but I
>for one would very much like to see it changed. I think "acid jazz"
>doesn't properly reflect the diversity here, and is just as archaic
>as "acid house" at this point. How about the "nugroove" list?
>I'm certainly open to other suggestions...



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri Oct 22 1999 - 16:27:27 MET DST