>1.a. how much of what you're talking about revolves around
>image?
>How much of that image is
>-fashion
>-looks
>-"attitude" (for lack of a better term)

generally, i would say that Cool is mostly about “attitude,” though fashion and looks are a part of it.

>b. How much around music?

i think a good deal of it. there are certain modes of music that do not fit into the general Cool code

>Urban black music - and even later rural blues - has always
>been well-dressed, stylish, full of attitude.

blacks have always wanted to see their entertainers looking good, yeah.

>Come to think of it, soul was never a fully urban style
>until the mid-70s, and look at the classic soul guys... they
>certainly dressed sharp.

i think Soul was ALWAYS urban, even if it proudly wore its rural roots on its sleeve

but you know, i think you might be concentrating too much on the whole idea of “cool = dressing well”

>2. If some anti-coolists eventually triumph and their
>anti-cool becomes the new cool - what is the process by
>which this occurs?

i’m not sure i understand the question.

>Thinking particularly of P-Funk, especially since they play
>so large a role in your discussion. they buck the trend you
>seem to talk about, but does what they did continue to be
>cool?

you know, i think i might have even simplified things a bit because i put a lot of emphasis on early 70s Funkadelic, a period in which they were barely even “black” (Coolidge hates when i say this and has chosen to ignore it, but George DID say that they made a conscious attempt around 1974 to make their sound and image “blacker”…. and more acceptable to black audiences. this involved mostly slicker, more polished production, more controlled soloing on all instruments but especially guitar, and drums that hewed closer to what would end up becoming disco)