The University of Toronto recently hosted a Chemical Biophysics conference. Despite the name, attendance from members of the physics department was practically nil. If one wishes to glean a deeper meaning from this, one could claim that physicists have little interest in hybrid genres such as biophysics. They brush it off like lint from a sweater because "it's just too bio" for them, and therefore "isn't real physics".

I believe it's completely their prerogative to think that way, and they should be viewed as elitist or closed-minded for doing so. If someone likes pure physics, and aren't susceptible to being tickled by research not involving Maxwell's equations, mentions of Einstein, fundamentals of quantum mechanics, or string theory, then fine for them: they know what they like, so let them enjoy it. However, anyone who wishes to further expand their knowledge base by remaining open to hybrid forms of physics (geophysics, biophysics, optics -- the latter is considered an impure form of physics in many institutions) can be richly rewarded. For one thing, the physicist can claim expertise in a wider band of subjects. There is nothing, NOTHING, that a physicist is more proud of than their ability to solve a wide variety of difficult problems. That ability, says the physicist, makes them as distinct from other scientists as vertebrates are from invertebrates in the animal kingdom. Furthermore, exposure to hybrid forms can lead to expansion of one's research into fields that would not otherwise have been an option within the boundaries of their own field. For instance, some theorists have made significant headway in solving difficult problems through collaboration with mathematicians, and laser physicists have found many new uses for their inventions through collaborations with engineers or chemists.

Nonetheless, I believe many physicists are loathe to the idea of attending a Chemical Biophysics conference, and with talks titled "The Sequence-Specific Association of the ETS Domain of Murine PU.1 with DNA Exhibits Unusual Energetics", I can't say I blame them. That title, and many others at the conference, are far too intimidating to physicists because almost every word within it is a word that a physicist would never use. They look at that title, which is all Greek to them, and immediately dismiss it as being "too bio for us". No matter how much physics actually appears in their talk/paper, even if the research is eminently comprehensible to physicist, getting to take the leap of faith and attend is difficult because the stigma that it's "too bio for us" is very strong. But don't think that this train of thought is limited to only physicists. A chemist could look at the title, spot the word "DNA" and declare "that's way too bio for us" as well. Or, a biologist could look at the title, notice that the title contains the word "energetics", and lose interest because that word implies extensive physical chemistry content.

Thus, Chemical Biophysicists are faced with the dilemma of being too bio for the physicist, too chemistry for the biologist, etc., and end up associating mainly with their own kind rather than spreading the gospel to researchers in all three fields. One alternative option would be to dumb things down. If conference organizers made it a priority to attract physicists, and tone down the field-specific language to meet them part way, they might draw in more curiosity seekers. But the "hardcore" chemical biophysicists would be upset by the watering down. With less to sink their teeth into, such a conference would risk alienating their core contributors.

None of this is new to those who follow the club scene. Techno and house DJ's, producers, and fans have been at each throats, dissing one another, scoffing at and excluding one another for years (it is mainly the DJ's/producers who are at fault, since they guide what many people listen to, but this point is certainly debatable). Techno people don't like house because "it's too house-y", and house people don't like techno because "it's too techno-y". And then there is "tech-house".

I'm biased here. I like house, but it can't hold a candle to techno. But tech-house is almost a swear word. Just hearing the name makes me cringe. This stuff is supposed to bridge the gap between house and techno, but it's usually just house music with a little more hi-hat and the same bland attempt at Chicago soul vocals. Like I'm supposed to start spinning this stuff? I'm supposed to try and meld this soft stuff with the rough-as-sandpaper tracks that I normally play? Forget it, that just won't work. It won't sound good.

That's not to say that *all* tech-house is bad. I really like material by Savvas Ysatis and Salz, but I'd say their stuff is far more techno than house, and it doesn't have vocals, and is usually quite minimal (like the techno I prefer).

In record shops, they'll often put the house and techno sections next to each other, with tech-house inbetween (they often put trance records on the other side of the techno section -- don't even get me started about the injustices there). The aim is obvious. Tech-house acts as the buffer between the two genres. Ordinarily, the techno people would develop tunnel vision even if the house section was twelve inches away and not even glance in its direction. By putting tech-house in the centre, you just might get them to stray a bit outside their normal boundaries and play something a little different than they normally would. Then you'd have techno and house people spinning and listening to some of the same records, and there doesn't seem to be anything wrong about that. The problem is, DJ's are extremely smart. They come into the shop having a good idea of what they want, and they'll notice a record off to the side of their favourite section, notice that it's not on a label they recognize, doesn't *look* like a typical techno or house record, and become skeptical. They know that it's something different than what they normally shop for. This makes them very difficult to fool. If they choose to listen to it, they'll hold it to a different standard.

I've also been in clubs and seen the crowds dwindle when the music got too techno-y. How do you get a house crowd to warm up to techno? If it were me, I'd be tempted to tell them to stick it and teach them a lesson by punishing them with the hardest techno I could find. But my desire to make a decent living in the field and not piss off promoters would probably have to override some of sadist instincts. So I'd meet them partway and play Auch, or Salz, or Basic Channel, or Theorem -- stuff that isn't too scary loud, but is deliciously minimal. Thus, I could try to please a crowd but not compromise my musical integrity. But if it doesn't work, then I'd be screwed. I wouldn't give in any more than that.

In the past year, I feel that I'm reading about a lot more people trying to push this particular type of pan-musicalism. That is, they are former purists who are making an active effort to reach across the great divide. Montreal artists have been especially forward in this respect. Such hybrid notions are still a ways outside my main interests, but I'm a bit of a techno purist. I know what I like, and I'm fine with it.