From: templon@paramount.nikhefk.nikhef.nl (Jeffrey Templon)
Subject: Re: r.m.bluenote --> r.m.jazz + r.m.blues (was: rec.music.jazz)
Organization: NIKHEFK
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:19:51 GMT

jojw@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (John J. Wood) writes:

>Outside classical music, one of the biggest bonds both blues and jazz
>share is their longtime durability, yet share progress over time.  Both

[...]

>I would think both blues and jazz had their importance in the first
>half of the 20th century, and those genres often crossed each
>other (examples:  big band music, Les Paul).

I can't buy this argument.  Automobiles also had their importance
in the first half of the twentieth century.  Should we then
lump them in with r.m.b on this basis?  Should we then lump
r.m.c.w with r.m.rocknroll? (they shared elvis and the 50's)

Yeah I know that stretches the argument to the absurd, but I
hope you see my point.  Not trying to be antagonistic here ...

>While I appreciate Richard's thoughtful arguments in general, I would have
>a difficult time seeing r.m.bluenote split into r.m.jazz and r.m.blues.
>I hate to repeat myself, but I'm one who tires of "categorization"
>(and it's more than sometimes, Richard:-) and attempts to keep an

[...]

>Another example is Bela Fleck & The Flecktones, a truly talented
>quartet whose base is progessive jazz, but whose components are
>based in bluegrass, folk, pop, R&B, country, jazz, and even rap.  Fleck
>could easily be discussed in both r.m.country-western and r.m.bluenote
>(and even in r.m.gdead for that matter).  Not to mention acoustic-based
>musicians like dobro player extraordinaire Jerry Douglas, guitarist
>Tony Rice, mandolinist David Grisman, and violinist Marc O'Connor:  
>While those musicians are often associated with country, bluegrass,
>and folk, their musical explorations are often in the freewheeling
>jazz vein and are instrumental-oreiented.

>So...my question:  what happens in the case of an artist whose work
>can be discussed in *both* jazz and blues? That's one of the bonds, IMHO,
>that makes r.m.bluenote a newsgroup that matters.  Plus, what happens
>when you cross-post between r.m.jazz and r.m.blues? 

Well, given that argument, then you have to include Mark O'Connor
and Jerry Douglas, etc. etc., then you also have country, bluegrass,
and folk influences here.  Why then stick with the name bluenote?
What you're arguing for is music that goes for quality, is
more "instrumental-prowress" rather than "sell lots of product"
oriented, and isn't afraid to cross boundaries.  Why single
out jazz as special for that?  Why not create rec.music.good?

If you're not going to have just one big music newsgroup, you
have to create some boundaries somewhere.  And like somebody
else said, there is no SPECIAL connection between jazz and
blues.  People here in Europe think so (that there is a special
connection), and you should hear what they do with blues.  It sounds
just like jazz.  It's AWFUL.  Not that I think jazz is awful, but
to hear something like "All Your Love" (the one covered by John
Mayall w/ Eric Clapton) done in a jazz style really stinks.  My
opinion of course.

My opinion on the situation (however) - no good reason to
change how it is.  There aren't that many articles (at
least that make it to Europe - maybe there are more in
the U.S.)  If it ain't broke don't fix it.

So I don't disagree with the poster's final conclusion.
Xref: sparky news.groups:18439 rec.music.bluenote:7445