From: smehta@kwela.nynexst.com (Sandeep Mehta)
Subject: Re: r.m.bluenote --> r.m.jazz + r.m.blues (was: rec.music.jazz)
Reply-To: smehta@nynexst.com
Organization: Speech Technology, AI Lab, NYNEX S&T Inc, White Plains, NY
	<RSHAPIRO.92Sep28170608@kariba.bbn.com>
Date: 29 Sep 92 10:18:19


> rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) writes:

> As with any genre, it's hard to say exactly what "blues" or "jazz"
> means. Nonetheless, all of us are quite capable of dealing with these
> concepts out there in the real world. If you walk into a record store,
> and see a section labeled "Blues", would you look for Coltrane records
> there?  Probably, you wouldn't. If you saw in the newspaper that a
> local radio station had a blues show, would you expect to hear Derek
> Bailey's music being played?  Probably you wouldn't. If you meet
> someone new and s/he says s/he loves to listen to blues, would you
> think to yourself "ah, another Ornette fan"? Probably, you wouldn't.
> Whether one should do anything of these things, in some more
> fundamental philosophical sense, isn't really relevant to what we all
> actually do in the world as it is. In real life, outside of esoteric
> discussions in r.m.bluenote, we all know what blues means, at least
> more or less.  We know what section to look in at the record store; we
> know what to expect from a blues show; we know, at least roughly, what
> someone means when they say they like blues or jazz.

I'm all for a focussed discussion. While I do not mind a
genre-specific definition of the blues I have, so far, being trying
to emphasize that if we rise above such specific definitions -- no
matter how convenient, how helpful, how organized -- then both sides
of the fence, so to speak, would benefit from it.

Does keeping r.m.b "united" (yikes! :)) guarantee that some Usenet
neophyte will not have another CFV rave and rant come December??
No!! Does it mean that a more abstract and, hopefully, substanstive
philosophical discussion on the element of the blues in jazz and in
other popular music will occur?? I doubt it! Does it mean that the
rockers-turned-blues-fans will open their ears to more music?? I
doubt it!  Is all this sufficient justification for splitting the
group. I do *not* believe so. I generally favor organization but in
this case I do not believe it helps any cause.

Coincidentally, I ran into a quote by Ali Farka Toure, a Malian, in
this month's WIRE which might shed some light, even if you disagree
with him, on what I've been trying to emphasize:

	I don't really know the word blues, but what you're talking
	about comes from a traditional feel of original music which
	then influenced the music that became known as the blues. If
	you imagine a tree, then the blues is the branches of that
	tree; Malian music, not African music, and not even West
	African music, is the roots. American blues, to me, just
	means a mix of various African sounds. It's not American
	music, it's African music imported directly from Africa, and
	when I hear "the blues" I don't hear America, I hear Africa.

	-- Ali Farka Toure, on being asked "What does the word
	   `blues' mean to you"?, The WIRE, Sep 1992.

I particularly like the phrase: "traditional feel of original music"
which to means more than any genre bending (or busting) definitions.

/sandeep
--
smehta@nynexst.com
--
               "Why do you compose atonally? You've got talent!"
                 -- Strauss to Hindemith, Donaueschingen, 1921.
Newsgroups: news.groups