‘Why can he not just be considered a jazz musician as opposed to an Indian Jazz musician?’
Frances Bannister is a Theatre and Film student at York University.
Before knowing anything:
I can get on board with this. In fact, this is so cool. It’s so different to anything I listen to, but I kind of like that. I just wish there was a video or a translation of the lyrics so I understood what was being said. Actually, do I? I don’t think I need to know what was being said to enjoy the music. It was definitely inspired by Indian sounds; I could tell that… Which gave a really interesting twist to classic electronic music. It was repetitive, but because it was a good beat, I didn’t mind the repetition and I really liked it when they said ‘Maya’, for some reason that just had a really cool sound to it. I also want to know what the main instrument was, because the only instrument I know in Indian music is sitar and unless that had been heavily modified I don’t think it was a sitar.
After being informed:
I know him! I absolutely know Trilok Gurtu, we studied him as part of my world music in GCSE Music (I don’t think he was on the syllabus though). You know what, that actually makes me really sad… Why can he not just be considered a jazz musician as opposed to an Indian Jazz musician? Artisits like Miles Davis and Don Cherry – who he PLAYED WITH – are just described as Jazz musicians, why is courtesy not granted to him? I wish this music was popular, particularly around here and I wish he was recognised for his solo music as opposed to his collaborations with Western artists, but I guess that’s just part of not being from England or America. I suppose with it coming out during the early 2000s it just fell into the background as the naughties pop bands took to the stage.