Re: An Open Apology to Kim

[Mark Hamburg <mark_hamburg@baymoon.com>]

on 5/30/03 11:08 PM, ernesto schnack at schnack@mailbolt.com wrote:

> On Fri, 30 May 2003 22:53:20 -0700, Mark Hamburg 
><mark_hamburg@baymoon.com>
> wrote:
>> Why did Windham Hill put out Piano Sampler albums and Guitar Sampler
>> albums
>> (including one with David Torn), etc?
> 
> Actually, that also provides a good example of what Kim fears.  While 
>there
> is a lot of talent in Windham Hills and similar labels, there is also a 
>lot
> of fluff that gets lumped in the same category. A lot of solo acoustic
> guitar music gets put in the New Age bin, even though a lot of it doesn't
> necessarily fit that style, preventing them from reaching the largest
> market possible, in fact pigeon-holing them.  This was a great 
>frustration
> for Michael Hedges and others.  -- ernesto schnack
> http://schnack.does.it
> 
> 
I contemplated acknowledging that issue as I was writing the message. I 
was,
however, trying to make the point that companies marketing to more than 
just
musicians have found it useful to classify music by instrumentation. Keith
Jarrett hates being lumped in with George Winston but to a lot of 
listeners,
it's solo piano. (Insert ECM v Windham Hill digression here.)

I would have expected that for many musicians, the New Age label might have
been annoying because of the level of fluff in the genre (which I'm not 
sure
is really any higher than in many other genres), but that by giving record
stores a place to position them, it actually got them into record stores 
and
in front of customers. Where it does become dangerous is if the business
side starts saying "You can't do that because it isn't <insert genre-name
here>." A genre can help you get a market, but it can also confine you.

Rick Walker, Andre LaFosse, Bill Walker, Jon Wagner, Max Valentino, and 
Cara
Quinn (just to name some people that have performed together in various
combinations) are all playing in more or less a similar genre or at least
are capable of doing so. Their individual sounds are relatively different.
Having a name for that genre is useful in promoting it. There are people 
who
use loopers, who don't sound like them, but from an audience standpoint
"live looping" is moderately descriptive of what they do. So, if one wants
Rick to stop talking about "live looping" because it excludes other people
who use loopers in very different ways, then perhaps it would help if there
were some suggestions of other names for this emerging genre.

Mark