The trendy snack won't give you cancer or heart disease. Okay, vaping may. Not sure where the scientific consensus on that stands.
Never underestimate the power of the avocado. It makes one badass dip.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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 free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Funk is ending up like the Blues
- Thread starter Dr. Cheese
- Start date
Never underestimate the power of the avocado. It makes one badass dip.
In order of paragraphs:
1) true, but how many of those listeners bought ‘The White Album’?
2) Nah. There’s a willful ignorance of the 20th century canon that I see amongst younger musicians/listeners.
What’s funny is they’re into Bruno Mars and Greta Van Fleet (both good bands) but don’t bother with Morris Day and The Time or Led Zeppelin.
3) never heard of him. Will check him out, but what does that metric mean these days? Something I hardly see in MY region at least (Central Oklahoma): young African American blues guitarists.
Chops are cool but most of what passes for funk these days is retreads of old grooves that sound played out to me.
From the nonsense about funk needing to be on the one to loosey goosey Bootski reboots, what I'm missing is what funk was about starting on the mid sixties... one rule: it had to be funky.
What did early James Brown sound like? Mandrill? The Commodores before they went Lionel Ritchie? Earth Wind and Fire during the "Power" days. Hell, Kalimba Song was straight quarter notes and oozed funk. Kool & the Gang before they got a lead vocalist. And so on.
When people start creating original music on the level of a Fencewalk (what sounded like that before that?) or Palm Grease, etc...
People seem to mistake note count for content. Placement is far more important IMO. So is space. And people who lived back then love it no less now. That's how things go. And I hear far more funk in gospel than anywhere else.
From the nonsense about funk needing to be on the one to loosey goosey Bootski reboots, what I'm missing is what funk was about starting on the mid sixties... one rule: it had to be funky.
What did early James Brown sound like? Mandrill? The Commodores before they went Lionel Ritchie? Earth Wind and Fire during the "Power" days. Hell, Kalimba Song was straight quarter notes and oozed funk. Kool & the Gang before they got a lead vocalist. And so on.
When people start creating original music on the level of a Fencewalk (what sounded like that before that?) or Palm Grease, etc...
People seem to mistake note count for content. Placement is far more important IMO. So is space. And people who lived back then love it no less now. That's how things go. And I hear far more funk in gospel than anywhere else.
Last edited:
+1 on this. They know all the right parts, but it's just hollow. And they get all this praise for doing nothing new at all.
Plus, affectedly ironic and silly, and totally derivative musically. I don’t like them either.
Oh man...
Fear the Borg. What did Heraclitus say in 544 b.c.?
“No man ever steps in the same funk twice, for it’s not the same funk and he’s not the same man.”
Something like that... I can’t remember.
Interesting thread - and lots going on. Let me throw some more on the pile...
I was lucky to grow up in a house with parents who listened to a huge variety of music. My folks were in radio before (and for a while after) the dawn of formatting/required playlists. Needless to say, they went to a lot of shows, knew a lot of music, and had a massive collection - 3,000+ for vinyl and a couple thousand CDs when it was all said and done. Point being, I grew up hearing jazz, blues, 'traditional' funk, fusion, classic rock, new wave, americana, the list goes on.
The best part of this was that my parents would play and suggest stuff all of the time, but they also encouraged me to discover my own stuff. When I hit middle-school & started branching out, my dad would pay attention to 'new' stuff I was listening to and try to identify some influences/roots. Then we'd go sit in front of the record-wall and pull a stack of vinyl to check out based on those influences. Along with that, it turned into a trade as I continued to explore. I would give stuff to my folks, they would suggest stuff to me. It was collaborative musical growth.
I'm guilty now, as many are, of having the bulk of my knowledge in certain genres/eras. I try to explore new & old, but it's hard to drink from a fire hose. And there's certain emotional/experiential connections to music that you listen to at formative times. You can grow that library, but you can't recreate it all the time. So I think this leads to two things. First, certain people feel that music 'just isn't what it used to be', which is not a unique experience. You simply can't go back and recreate that feeling of an album you listened to when you got your first car, had your first breakup, went on your first road trip, whatever. Second, younger artists will often have their formative musical experiences ingrained in their DNA. i.e. The styles they listened to probably influenced the music they learned on an instrument. Furthermore, the music they learn and love to listen to will inevitably come out when they write or perform - how that rears it's head varies widely from tacit influence to seeming rip-off.
The point is, I think that sharing & cross-pollination of genres is happening in a new way with digital media, youtube, file-sharing, online collaboration among musicians, etc. It's easy to say new artists are just buffing out the edges of styles introduced in years past, but that seems dismissive to me. I'm more of the mindset that some newer artists are just working from a totally different palette, because they've had the ability to consume much more media than generations past (generally - I know there are always exceptions). The downside to the digital media fire-hose also has an upside. The downside is ADD, diminishing appreciation for albums verus single tracks, etc. The upside is that a kid getting into the blues can go down the rabbit hole and obsess over the history of Robert Johnson while diving into all of his known recordings. There's two sides to every coin.
Since Vulfpeck is an example thrown around in here, I would look at their interviews and commentary on influences. They cite a lot of different stuff (Stuff) and seem to pay homage while trying to add their own thing. I don't love all new genres of music, just like I don't love all past genres. Still, I wouldn't dismiss the creativity or originality of an artist just because it has obvious influences from the past. That's just a natural part of the creative process.
I was lucky to grow up in a house with parents who listened to a huge variety of music. My folks were in radio before (and for a while after) the dawn of formatting/required playlists. Needless to say, they went to a lot of shows, knew a lot of music, and had a massive collection - 3,000+ for vinyl and a couple thousand CDs when it was all said and done. Point being, I grew up hearing jazz, blues, 'traditional' funk, fusion, classic rock, new wave, americana, the list goes on.
The best part of this was that my parents would play and suggest stuff all of the time, but they also encouraged me to discover my own stuff. When I hit middle-school & started branching out, my dad would pay attention to 'new' stuff I was listening to and try to identify some influences/roots. Then we'd go sit in front of the record-wall and pull a stack of vinyl to check out based on those influences. Along with that, it turned into a trade as I continued to explore. I would give stuff to my folks, they would suggest stuff to me. It was collaborative musical growth.
I'm guilty now, as many are, of having the bulk of my knowledge in certain genres/eras. I try to explore new & old, but it's hard to drink from a fire hose. And there's certain emotional/experiential connections to music that you listen to at formative times. You can grow that library, but you can't recreate it all the time. So I think this leads to two things. First, certain people feel that music 'just isn't what it used to be', which is not a unique experience. You simply can't go back and recreate that feeling of an album you listened to when you got your first car, had your first breakup, went on your first road trip, whatever. Second, younger artists will often have their formative musical experiences ingrained in their DNA. i.e. The styles they listened to probably influenced the music they learned on an instrument. Furthermore, the music they learn and love to listen to will inevitably come out when they write or perform - how that rears it's head varies widely from tacit influence to seeming rip-off.
The point is, I think that sharing & cross-pollination of genres is happening in a new way with digital media, youtube, file-sharing, online collaboration among musicians, etc. It's easy to say new artists are just buffing out the edges of styles introduced in years past, but that seems dismissive to me. I'm more of the mindset that some newer artists are just working from a totally different palette, because they've had the ability to consume much more media than generations past (generally - I know there are always exceptions). The downside to the digital media fire-hose also has an upside. The downside is ADD, diminishing appreciation for albums verus single tracks, etc. The upside is that a kid getting into the blues can go down the rabbit hole and obsess over the history of Robert Johnson while diving into all of his known recordings. There's two sides to every coin.
Since Vulfpeck is an example thrown around in here, I would look at their interviews and commentary on influences. They cite a lot of different stuff (Stuff) and seem to pay homage while trying to add their own thing. I don't love all new genres of music, just like I don't love all past genres. Still, I wouldn't dismiss the creativity or originality of an artist just because it has obvious influences from the past. That's just a natural part of the creative process.
I’d wager that you’re the same age as the players that schooled me on the funk canon when I first started gigging. I had Parliament/James Brown/Rick James’ ‘Street Songs’ under mumy belt in my shed regimen but got put in musical bootcamp. Better for it.
I had (still have) a reverence for what came before. Not encountering any respect/reverence with younger musicians. They act like the new crop invented all of this.
Get off my lawn.
Sure its retro funk but it still manages to scratch that itch. Growing up I really dug players like Paul Jackson from the Headhunters and Robert"Pops" Popwell of the Crusaders, also Max Bennet was so smooth.
Recording techniques have changed substantially,in the old days when they push the button you gave it your best shot because studio time was expensive, now you can do a million takes in the comfort of your own home, back then playing under pressure sometimes yielded amazing results.
Love how the drummer is just behind the beat...Dirty/Funky/Greasy
Some humans may be black or white whereas I see musicians as being purple
Surprised at ya here Cheese, spurred a whole thread of haters to hate on the modern iteration of the music that you like.
A person may not know about Muddy while they're listening to the Stones. That doesn't make the stones bad. It presents an new opportunity to learn about music history (which is what OG 70s funk is).
Yall of the older generations may not understand this as easily. I learned about some great music at underground raves when I was 16. The first time I ever heard "Tonight, gonna leave that 9-5 up on the shelf and just enjoy yourself" was in a House mix with insane bumping 4 on the floor. Was it better than the original? Hell na, Off the Wall is one of my favorite MJ songs ever. IMO can't be improved. At the time when I was 16, I didn't know any better.
Don't hate because it's new or different. It's not a good look.
Same here. I here funk in early Yes with Chris Squire and Bill Bruford.
