Yes, I did say "TB staples" in that post. Your powers of observation are functioning correctly.Including that post.
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 University Disappointment
- Thread starter Johnius
- Start date
- Status
As I said before, I don't think there's really any great debate here, to be honest. But I'll throw a couple more of my opinions in, just for the heck of it.
First off, I don't see classical music (for example) as being rhythmically stiff, personally speaking. Just the opposite in a lot of cases. I guess it would depend on the performance. But a lot of stuff by Bach, Tchaikovsky, Mozart, Strauss and quite a few others can really move a person, rhythmically. After all, much of it was dance music. Maybe I've misunderstood the way the word stiff is being used here.
Second - there's no doubt at all that James Brown and others mentioned in this thread have been terrific innovators in a way that makes them very special, musically speaking. The extent to which they were influenced by what music they'd heard during their lives is something only they would know, I guess. But I don't think it could be disputed that even the most "out there" innovators in music are influenced from a very early age by the music they hear to some degree. And if you listen to James Brown (to stick with that example) you can certainly hear elements of blues and jazz in there, and the influence on those styles can be traced back to gospel and so on pretty much ad infinitum. The fusion of black African music with "conventional" music (at the time and by European/white American standards) has a had a profound and lasting effect on our music, much to our continuing delight, I'm sure. I don't think anybody in the last century has been immune from that, whether we're talking James Brown or anyone else.
No offence or argument intended to anyone, just saying it as I see it.
First off, I don't see classical music (for example) as being rhythmically stiff, personally speaking. Just the opposite in a lot of cases. I guess it would depend on the performance. But a lot of stuff by Bach, Tchaikovsky, Mozart, Strauss and quite a few others can really move a person, rhythmically. After all, much of it was dance music. Maybe I've misunderstood the way the word stiff is being used here.
Second - there's no doubt at all that James Brown and others mentioned in this thread have been terrific innovators in a way that makes them very special, musically speaking. The extent to which they were influenced by what music they'd heard during their lives is something only they would know, I guess. But I don't think it could be disputed that even the most "out there" innovators in music are influenced from a very early age by the music they hear to some degree. And if you listen to James Brown (to stick with that example) you can certainly hear elements of blues and jazz in there, and the influence on those styles can be traced back to gospel and so on pretty much ad infinitum. The fusion of black African music with "conventional" music (at the time and by European/white American standards) has a had a profound and lasting effect on our music, much to our continuing delight, I'm sure. I don't think anybody in the last century has been immune from that, whether we're talking James Brown or anyone else.
No offence or argument intended to anyone, just saying it as I see it.
This was a joke?:
What? I can't bring up a composer if Jauqo didn't mention him? This is an open forum. IF he hasn't studied Bartok, then I think it would benifit his music. If he did, then great. No big deal.
I completely missed it. It read as if you were indignant about what you quoted by me. Still does.
This was a joke?:
What? I can't bring up a composer if Jauqo didn't mention him? This is an open forum. IF he hasn't studied Bartok, then I think it would benifit his music. If he did, then great. No big deal.
I completely missed it. It read as if you were indignant about what you quoted by me. Still does.
No the joke was 'Jaqo check out some Bartok for crying out loud.'
It was said in a light hearted manner. If it was somehow insulting to him, or you (??) then I apologize.
Why is this important to you?
As is everyone's supposed right.
I personally didn't hear Blues when I first heard Sex Machine when it originally came out. I didn't hear Gospel either. I'd hope that's okay.
Because you're still talking about it and quoting me.
I could be rude and ignore you, would that be better?
Not at all. But you could avoid wide generalisation about "most european rythms". Countries in Europe are relatively small, but the culture is really, really diverse - there is a lot of rythym between Irish Tap Dance, virtuosic Spanish Flamenco, Russian classical piano mastery and dark, mystic slavic folk. In my opinion - too much ground to cover in a single sentence.
Example: "Most US rythms are not stiff."
Rythms played by who? New Orleans march bands (don`t know the proper name if there is one - sorry)? Rural blues played by a one man band (preferably old, hungry and one handed
? Pre rocknroll bluegrass and country stuff? Seattle "dirt and overall sadness" bands? Or maybe Britney Spears last few cds? Etc. Etc. And please - no damn jar-jar. I don`t really dig rebelion as it is, but this guy takes my love for the Empire to the next level
Agreed. What you wanted to say I do get from the context, but that doesn`t make that one sentence perfect and correct.
Because you're still talking about it and quoting me.
I could be rude and ignore you, would that be better?
No, somewhere between ignoring and talking is probably best.
Just so we're clear, that was also a joke.
- Status
