NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/bit/listserv/allmusic/15544

Text File | 1993-01-28 | 3.5 KB | 69 lines

Comments: Gated by [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!uvaarpa!darwin.sura.net!paladin.american.edu!auvm!MAGNUS.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU!SKOVITZ
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.allmusic
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 08:01:46 EST
Sender:       Discussions on all forms of Music <[e-mail]>
From:         Sonia Kovitz <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Re: More catagorization horror stories
In-Reply-To:  <[e-mail]>; from "Jeff
              Preston" at Jan 27, 93 3:40 am
Lines: 55

MOI:
> It
> >made you get up and DO it.  Now how much jazz can you say that about?
> >(I hope I haven't made a horrible Volks Paw)
n.n.:
>   If you would hang the label of "jazz" on Praxis, I'm afraid you have.
> Using the unambigious, clinical, politically-correct safe-sex definition
> of "fusion" as popularized by a Mr. Beer so long ago, you could probably
> get away with labelling them as a psychedelic funk-metal fusion, even
> though there seems to be a lot of improvising going on. I think it was
> decided that improvising does not jazz make, so in the case of Praxis,
> we'll call improvisation a moot point. I think there are better ways to
> describe Praxis, anyway. It's damn good tuneage though, ain't it Sonia?

 But I CAN'T call it fusion because I've had my nose in the air over fusion for
ten years and it's too late to pull it down now.  People just say the word
"fusion" and I turn bilious.  I of course missed Mr. Beer's unambiguous,
politically-correct etc. def. of fusion long ago; would a resurrection make
OTHER people bilious?

Truthfully I haven't the slightest idea how to define jazz either.  And as for
the term "alternative," hooboy, do I have better things to worry about.  But I
DO wonder about defining things...not to be so rigidly categorical but it does
help you understand better if you go at defining intelligently.  I realize that
I have no inkling of how to define jazz; all I can think of is that the term
itself (I think) was an African-American old-time word for "doing it" which is
not very helpful here.  But the roots of a term do belong in the definition
somehow.

I think people mis-use labels and categories because they glom on to them like
slimy sucker-like parasites (without really understanding the terms or
caring about them other than to make ONESELF look COOL).  Yet in fact
the problem lies not with the terms and categories per se, but with how well we
arrive at the definitions.  Trying to pigeon-hole everything is dumb, I agree,
but to try to think about the "essential nature" of something, anything,
including vagaries of music, is worthwhile (though I'm no good at it).

I believe that most people are really very clumsy at defining things.  I think
schools just try to ignore problems like this and hope no one will ever ask how
to do it.  Just "look it up in the big book and shut up."

Then you get a few prefab definitions under your belt and use them as
ammunition to whack at other people  (present company excepted).
 It's hard to keep the spirit of this sort of inquiry disinterested, in the
best
sense.  Well I'm sure you can tell that I've had a lifelong crush on
Socrates.  Funny how what he was up to never goes out of date.

I really am interested in exactly "what" _Transmutation_ is 1) because I am so
completely enthralled with the music, and 2) because I am curious and want to
learn more about that music and trying to "define" it may be of some help.

So....?

Sonia (it's too early for this shit)