• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Funk 70s Style

bluewine

Inactive
Sep 4, 2008
10,296
27
WI
I hate posting songs, but this is such a good example of 70’s East Cost funk, I had to share it. You don’t hear this type of bass playing much any more.(especially the refrain)

The older 55 + side will get this, you younger guys won’t. And that’s not a bad thing, this is not what is happening now with funk. I don’t expect younger guys to understand or appreciate what was going on with funk back in the 70’s.

Do you younger guys think this style is dated? That is really the purpose of the thread, do younger bass players think this style is out of date and has no relevence.




BTW, the guitar work at the outro of the song is phenomenal.(Buzzy Feiten)
 
Old guy here. I'd forgotten that tune. Thanks for posting it. Relevant? You bet yer sweet @$$ it is. Oh wait... I'm old. Actually, I still think you find this feel running in some Rap/Hip Hop samples, and another "aging" performer named Prince. It's just one of the many fine flavors of Funk :cool::D:cool:
 
Old guy here. I'd forgotten that tune. Thanks for posting it. Relevant? You bet yer sweet @$$ it is. Oh wait... I'm old. Actually, I still think you find this feel running in some Rap/Hip Hop samples, and another "aging" performer named Prince. It's just one of the many fine flavors of Funk :cool::D:cool:

Good to hear that, I forget about these old Gems and once in a while they come up in my memory bank. Awesome bass lines all through this one. Enjoy.
 
The older 55 + side will get this, you younger guys won’t. And that’s not a bad thing, this is not what is happening now with funk. I don’t expect younger guys to understand or appreciate what was going on with funk back in the 70’s.

Do you younger guys think this style is dated? That is really the purpose of the thread, do younger bass players think this style is out of date and has no relevence.




BTW, the guitar work at the outro of the song is phenomenal.(Buzzy Feiten)


Dude, what planet do you live on? Good music is good music, period.

You make way too big of an issue with age. Based on what you're saying, no one should be listening to Classical music because all the original performers died centuries ago. Only people in nursing homes would be listening to Blues and Swing (nevermind the multitudes teens doing swing dancing in the 90s). Only old folks would ever listen to any Classic Rock.


Seriously, I've been listening to Soul and Funk since my early 20s. It's my favorite type of music, even though I'm not 55+. And there's probably many young musicians on here who can school the old folks on knowledge and playing of classic Funk.
 
Like someone else said, you put too much focus on age. I'm 16 and I play and listen to a lot of funk (as well as a lot of other music), but I don't really think age should impact what you listen to. Funk will always be relevant and will never get old. It's too influential to be forgotten.

Good. Song by the way.
 
Dude, what planet do you live on? Good music is good music, period.

You make way too big of an issue with age.

Maybe it's just me.

My significantly younger and current GF took me to see Modest Mouse, Off Spring and 3 Eleven. I was out of my mind, I could not figure out what all their fans were getting excited about. All I saw was a bunch of dudes onstage with baggy cargo shorts on and t-shirts playing marginal songs with marginal musicianship. I didn't get it.

Hey but I am glad you guys recognize the value of what I still think might be a dying art form (70s East Coast Funk)
 
Like someone else said, you put too much focus on age. I'm 16 and I play and listen to a lot of funk (as well as a lot of other music), but I don't really think age should impact what you listen to. Funk will always be relevant and will never get old. It's too influential to be forgotten.

Good. Song by the way.

Well, if your 16 and you get it, then I guess there hope left for the future of man kind.
 
Maybe it's just me.

My significantly younger and current GF took me to see Modest Mouse, Off Spring and 3 Eleven. I was out of my mind, I could not figure out what all their fans were getting excited about. All I saw was a bunch of dudes onstage with baggy cargo shorts on and t-shirts playing marginal songs with marginal musicianship. I didn't get it.

Hey but I am glad you guys recognize the value of what I still think might be a dying art form (70s East Coast Funk)

Only proving that at their best, the younger mind is more flexible. Your assessments reak of the "noise" comments emitted from my parents as we watched The Beatles on Ed Sullivan.
 
...I am glad you guys recognize the value of what I still think might be a dying art form (70s East Coast Funk)
So that was the Rascals? As in the Young Rascals? As in "It's A Beautiful Morning", "Groovin'", "how Can I Be Sure", "Good Lovin'", all those great old blue-eyed soul tunes? Wow, they sure changed! I had no idea!
(just Googled them, only Cavaliere and Danelli were left of the orig. lineup)
 
The Rascals, along with the Righteous Brothers, Mitch Ryder, and precious few others, were the pinnacle of '60s blue-eyed soul. The Rascals' talents, however, would have to rate above their rivals, if for nothing else than the simple fact that they, unlike many other blue-eyed soulsters, penned much of their own material. They also proved more adept at changing with the fast-moving times, drawing much of their inspiration from British Invasion bands, psychedelic rock, gospel, and even a bit of jazz and Latin music. They were at their best on classic singles like "Good Lovin'," "How Can I Be Sure," "Groovin'," and "People Got to Be Free." When they tried to stretch their talents beyond the impositions of the three-minute 45, they couldn't pull it off, a failure which -- along with crucial personnel losses -- effectively finished the band as a major force by the 1970s.

The roots of the Rascals were in New York-area twist and bar bands. Keyboardist/singer Felix Cavaliere, the guiding force of the group, had played with Joey Dee & the Starliters, where he met Canadian guitarist Gene Cornish and singer Eddie Brigati. Brigati would split the lead vocals with Cavaliere and also write much of the band's material with him. With the addition of drummer Dino Danelli, they became the Rascals. Over their objections, manager Sid Bernstein (who had promoted the famous Beatles concerts at Carnegie Hall and Shea Stadium) dubbed them the Young Rascals, although the "Young" was permanently dropped from the billing in a couple of years.

After a small hit with "I Ain't Gonna Eat Out My Heart Anymore" in 1965, the group hit number one with "Good Lovin'," a cover of an R&B tune by the Olympics, in 1966. This was the model for the Rascals' early sound: a mixture of hard R&B and British Invasion energy, with tight harmony vocals and arrangements highlighting Cavaliere's Hammond organ. After several smaller hits in the same vein, the group began to mature at a rapid rate in 1967, particularly as songwriters. "Groovin'," "Beautiful Morning," "It's Wonderful," and "How Can I Be Sure?" married increasingly introspective and philosophical lyrics to increasingly sophisticated arrangements and production, without watering down the band's most soulful qualities. They were also big hits, providing some of the era's most satisfying blends of commercial and artistic appeal.

In 1968, almost as if to prove they could shake 'em down as hard as any soul revue, the Rascals made number one with one of their best songs, "People Got to Be Free." An infectious summons to unity and tolerance in the midst of a very turbulent year for American society, it also reflected the Rascals' own integrationist goals. Not only did they blend white and black in their music; they also, unlike many acts of the time, refused to tour on bills that weren't integrated as well.

"People Got to Be Free," surprisingly, was the group's last Top 20 hit, although they would have several other small chart entries over the next few years, often in a more explicitly gospel-influenced style. The problem wasn't bad timing or shifting commercial taste; the problem was the material itself, which wasn't up to the level of their best smashes. More worrisome were their increasingly ambitious albums, which found Cavaliere in particular trying to expand into jazz, instrumentals, and Eastern philosophy. Not that this couldn't have worked well, but it didn't. They had never been an album-oriented group, but unlike other some other great mid-'60s bands, they were unable to satisfactorily expand their talents into full-length formats.

A more serious problem was the departure of Brigati, the band's primary lyricist, in 1970. Cornish was also gone a year later, although Cavaliere and Dinelli kept the Rascals going a little longer with other musicians. The band broke up in 1972, with none of the members going on to notable commercial or artistic success on their own, though Cavaliere remained the most active.

[This invalid link has been removed]
 
Only proving that at their best, the younger mind is more flexible. Your assessments reak of the "noise" comments emitted from my parents as we watched The Beatles on Ed Sullivan.

Every age has had it's share of music that can be confusing the the listener. The Beatles did songs like "I Am the Walrus", and "Why Don't We Do It in the Road" which back then made some people confused, while today they are considered "classics". Look at other psychedelic bands from the 60s, and I'm sure they confused plenty of people (including the ones on drugs ;)).

Funk music was probably confusing when it first came out. Percussive vocals, as opposed to the melodic vocals of Soul and Pop. Repetitive riffs, syncopated beats, wah-wah pedals and other effects gave it a different sound that their predecessors. I'm sure plenty of older folks hated Funk when it first came out.

Honestly, I get frustrated with older musicians who stop listening and appreciating music after they reach a certain age or it's past the era of their prime. Not all of them do it, but plenty do. Music is constantly evolving, and I love listening to new music. It makes me a better musician, even if I were to never play that music.
I once worked with a guitar player back in 2005 who said he didn't like new music like Van Halen. He seemed really confused when I told him, it's not new music, it's Classic Rock. 25 years passed since VHs first album, and he considered it "new". Sad to think he let 25 years of music just pass him by without an attempt to appreciate anything from that span.
 
Every age has had it's share of music that can be confusing the the listener. The Beatles did songs like "I Am the Walrus", and "Why Don't We Do It in the Road" which back then made some people confused, while today they are considered "classics". Look at other psychedelic bands from the 60s, and I'm sure they confused plenty of people (including the ones on drugs ;)).
Those songs are still confusing, but in a silly goofing off way-I don't think those tunes were meant to be serious in the first place.
I mean, look at Primus!! Even if you don't really dig them, you can clearly see it's quirky and humorous, but that's the whole point.

I actually like music that causes some kind of confusion and challenges me. Music that I can understand immediately I usually find boring.