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.
who can agree that...
- Thread starter bassAddict05
- Start date
I can agree that for YOU that's true.
That's the beautiful thing about music. Find what turns your crank and get into it.
For me it's all about having a large enough understanding and collection of music that I can find something to suit my mood whatever it is.
But yeah, during those times that I feel like doing some serious grooving, there's nothing better than old school funk.
That's the beautiful thing about music. Find what turns your crank and get into it.
For me it's all about having a large enough understanding and collection of music that I can find something to suit my mood whatever it is.
But yeah, during those times that I feel like doing some serious grooving, there's nothing better than old school funk.
What really moves me is hard rock, but I realize there are many others who don't like it. No matter; it's still the music for me. But funk and punk, no.
I am a lover of all lot music, and while I can't say what the "purest form" of music is, if it makes you wanna get up and dance regardless of how well you know you dance which is in my case, terribly, then it's pretty friggen close. But, you can bet yer biscuits I'll be doing it in time with the beat 
).
).funk's pretty good, dude. The stankier, the better. But I dunno man... the "purest"? Reggae, funk, metal, old country, the blues... it's all the same to me. If it's good, it's good.
I never understood funk as being it's own genre. I mean, I can understand "funky" as a musical adjective, but isn't funk just short for funky _____ (fill in the blank with rock, blues, jazz, R&B, whatever). I mean, it's derived from something else, right? Just like "punk" isn't it's own pure unique genre; it's a form of rock music.
john turner
You don't want to do that. Trust me.
Funk is the purest forms of music.
meaning, it does what music is ment to do. Move you.
Funk is the peak of Music.
Weather you listen to Metal only, or even progressive rock, deep down inside your heart loves that funk
lol. i may be moved by a lot of funk, but imo the purest form of music was written by bach. everything since then has been a (necessary) dilution.
Funk is the purest forms of music.
meaning, it does what music is ment to do. Move you.
Funk is the peak of Music.
Weather you listen to Metal only, or even progressive rock, deep down inside your heart loves that funk
Funk is one of many good forms of music...but it doesn't do all that much for me. Wagner, Beethoven, the Beatles, the Stones, or even Dick Dale, it's not.
Pure
Not so pure
that's a little like comparing the Sistine Chapel to the bathroom wall at a truck stop, isn't it?
I think the OP's idea of a pure music's function is problematic. "Moving" people, in his use refers to getting them dancing, I think. This is rarely a concern of mine in most of the music I play. (You can dance to <i>l'Histoire du Soldat</i>, but not many people do.) However, most of us are meaning "move" on an emotional/psychological level. The trouble is that moving people (physically) is not actually the intention or role of music in many contexts. I have trouble believing that Perotin was concerned with getting people up and dancing. Have we seen any clarification from OP?
