School Me on Modern Funk
Mr. Casual
953 Posts
Any new bands to know about...?
Mr. Casual
953 Posts
Comments
Olski's Melting Pot Music label also has a lot of funky goodness. Breakout's "Planet Rock" and A-Ko's tracks being the standouts for me on the label's comps. (Day of course too
Also: Poets of Rhythm, Nostalgia 77, The Broken Keys, Breakestra, The Budos Band, El Michels Affair, Connie Price, Antibalas (afrobeat), Daktaris, Lefties Soul Connection, Sharon Jones, Binky Griptite
check for alot of the Daptone, Truth & Soul, Soul Fire, Ubiquity catalogues as well.
fuck a soul fire
believe it....some people are really into photo-realism and thats fine by me but i stand by my drunken post
So no band past 19** can play funk?
I think it's funny when people diss modern
bands for being derivative, as if bands in the
60's & 70's - especially the low-budget private label
bands that everyone sweats and throws money at - weren't
completely derivative of each other.
thanks...I had too google that...still not quite sure what it means...yes it's late...
funk is really a way of playing your instrument not a james brown groove retreaded for the millionth time. time to break new ground.
not saying there weren;t copycat artist before cause we all know there was and always will be.
so here are a few funky modern artist (imho) that have funk but don't play "funky"
1. sade
2. anita baker
3. tony allen (black voices)
going to see a band that plays a certain style
of music that was popular in a certain era.
I'm not talking about Beatlemania-type shit, believe
me, I have no tolerance for cornball stage shows ... but
a band can play 60's/70's style funk and not be irrelevant.
Shit, it's dance music. One of the most danceable
styles of music ever. I guess people going to see some
Daptone act and just watching them and posting up with a beer
is kinda pointless, but people going to see a funk band and
getting down and having fun makes sense to me.
I'm no cheerleader for the shit - I've seen like 2 or 3 of
these kind of shows, was never blown away, but you claiming
they "all suck" just seemed a little extreme.
possibly extreme. i have gone to bars before and danced to 2nd and even 1st rate cover versions and thats fine. these people provide a service and i am not above getting wasted and having fun.
Which has more cred?
Also, they don't play it because it's retro or a tribute, they play it because they prefer it to what's on the radio now. Artists should make music that they would love to listen to.
The neo-funk albums are also generally more solid than the old ones, most of which have two funk tracks if you're lucky.
Funk is an art and there is no reason that it should be confined to a certain time period.
You can say this about the live shows, but you can't say it about the records... the recorded output is both. Trying very, very hard to sound like old stuff. Which is just as retro-revivalist as dudes making garage throwback records in the 80s and rockabilly guys in the 70s.
STR8 DOPE
Don't sleep!
I will ride for Nicole Willis & The Soul Investigators every day of the week. That album is great in any era.
I'm not sure if you are referring to the recording techniques or the musical composition, but either way I disagree. They are not trying to sound "old", they are trying to sound "good". Funk that is recorded with modern recording techniques sounds absolutely awful (see the 90's JB Horns CDs - unlistenable). Funk just doesn't sound right that way.
As far as composition, as I said, it's the kind of music they like, and they make records for other people who like that music (those people tend to always want more of it...). As said above, people have been making blues and jazz records for 80 years, why shouldn't people continue making funk records?
Do you really think the neo-funk bands are reminiscing about the good old days of the 60s and trying to recreate them? Most of them aren't old enough to remember.
I agree you need to have SOMETHING new about the music. A 100% JB clone is never very interesting no matter what time period. But JB invented a genre and I believe there's lots of room left for exploration and experimentation within that genre.
Anyway, the bottom line for me is that a song is either good or bad, the year has no relevance. For instance, the Poets of Rhythm's Discern/Define album has many great songs and is musically groundbreaking and it's still pure funk. On the other hand, The Calypso Kings' Soul Strike! is recorded well, but lacking in composition and innovation.
Speaking for myself and my band, when I write a song, I just write what I hear in my head. Most of the time it happens to be funky (probably because I listen to funk a lot). Should I dismiss that inspiration because funk has "already been done"? Or should I write and record the music that's inside of me? That's the difference between expressing yourself artistically and trying to get a single on the radio for money and fame.