Peace out to conflicted souls and those that are godless.

Anyway, your boy is chilling in Fran's waiting on his 6 oz peace of death with a side of heart disease.

Fran's is an American diner, (run and owned by Latinos which I find to be really cool). Going with the theme they play ol school rock, doo wop, soul et cetera.

On the loud speaker, "Sweet Soul music"

Got me to thinking...
It's pretty well established that the Black music tradition traces its way back to the church.
- ol negro spirituals (now known as
- gospel
- lots of R&B singers came out of the church...

So obviously there are gonna be some religious themes and imagery in the music. (as there are overtones of Christianity allthroughout Af. American culture)

Now the question is black music from a 'strictly' secular nature different than black music that comes from the church?

If it is different, in what ways?

Soul - Aretha and them folks obviously got trained in the church and you can hear it, both in content and technique

Modern R&B/'Hip Hop Soul' - ummm...I guess you can hear it in Jodeci? (I very well maybe wrong, being that I only care about 1 thing)

Neo Soul - They seem to take inspiration from something other than the Church. (Again I could be wrong)

How about the Blues or Jazz?

And we all know about....well we just won't get into that.

one
k. orr

[]there was conflict there

in a way its kind of like they were competing for th same audience

musicians/entertainers trying to get them to come out saturday night and the church trying to get them in on sunday morning

well as far as the blues is concerned....it seemed like more of a hybrid of the field cries and negro spirituals

whereas the church was a direct descendant of the field cries

the thing is that what we know as "gospel music" today was actually influenced *by* the blues.

many of the Delta musicians often switched back between sanctified music and blues as often as their conscience (and financial situation) dictated. so you'd expect a blurring of the boundary between them.

yet we do know that Thomas Dorsey's "take my hand, precious Lord" was as controversial in its time as Kirk Franklin is today because it so explicitly wedded a gospel theme to a "nasty" blues groove. listening to that song today, it doesn't even sound that bluesy, so one wonders what gospel music really sounded like then, sans blues influence.

>the thing is that what we know as "gospel music" today was
>actually influenced *by* the blues.


true, but we gotta look at the chronological order, though---negro spirituals existed before gospel---and the blues



and you can tell that the blues is a descendant of field cries and spirituals


>
>many of the Delta musicians often switched back between
>sanctified music and blues as often as their conscience (and
>financial situation) dictated. so you'd expect a blurring of
>the boundary between them.

but i think what made the blues different, musicwise, from sanctified music at that time, was that sanctified music back then had more of a mournful tone (and we're not even talkin of major vs. minor chords, here), in contrast with the blues, although it's also got a mournful tone, it's a got a bit of a kick in it's step, too-a more entertaining quality about it--enough to tell a difference


but you're talkin about is the secular vs sacred thing---i'm talking about the types of music whose traits that blues derived from


>

i would think that the blues would be a more direct descendent of the field cries specifically BECAUSE of the double-meaning nature of both of them. They both managed to appear spiritual, but almost always had some underlying social context/conflict being addressed in the guise of god.

and this is kinda adding a bit to what i said to afkap in regards to the blues and the sacred music

with spirituals, you have the sorrowful kinds and the more upbeat joyful ones (i forgot to mention that, 'kap)..........well, with the blues it took more from those more mournful, sorrowful spirituals

had a distinctly mournful character to it, which is why YT thought it was almost a perversion of Christianity.

are we talking about this as how white christianity reacted to it?

because that wasn't where i was at with this

but I just thought I'd mention it.

but i'm wondering....in terms of spirituals and gospel---how are we defining those two

beyond the obvious religious content, they really are two different things.

plus, we now know of the some of the social communication purposes that the spirituals served.

I don't think the spirituals had as much of a solid musical structure before the Fisk singers kind of formalized them in the 19th century, either…

>Neo Soul - They seem to take inspiration from something
>other than the Church. (Again I could be wrong)
>

they take inspiration from old records.

>Now the question is black music from a 'strictly' secular
>nature different than black music that comes from the
>church?

as far as being a completely different entity....no, i don't think so

i think even now, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree----because you still have those traits like melisma, polyrhythm, heavy syncopation--bending of notes, call-and-response



>
>If it is different, in what ways?
>
>Soul - Aretha and them folks obviously got trained in the
>church and you can hear it, both in content and technique

exactly, i do think it's a form of r&b, just more derived from the church

>
>Modern R&B/'Hip Hop Soul' - ummm...I guess you can hear it
>in Jodeci? (I very well maybe wrong, being that I only care
>about 1 thing)

i think it's an even more modern version of r&b


>
>Neo Soul - They seem to take inspiration from something
>other than the Church. (Again I could be wrong)

mmmmm----not really-because they still incorporate some of the african derived traits as the ones i listed earlier---traits that are also used in the church----along with other things mixed in sometimes----but they're related

i tend to think of
>
>How about the Blues or Jazz?

i think a said a little about the blues in another reply

but i think in jazz you have the some traits of european music incorporated along with the blues traits (blues scale, polyrhythm, call-and-response, syncopation), like european rhythm and harmony....and european rhythm is more like a 1-2-3-4 thing-pretty unsyncopated--pretty stiff.....and their harmonies are---and jazz incorporates the blues scale and the european diatonic scale---blues scale has bent notes-like flattened 3-5-7 notes

but as far as the origin of jazz is concerned, it's not very easy to peg down

>>Now the question is black music from a 'strictly' secular
>>nature different than black music that comes from the
>>church?
>
>as far as being a completely different entity....no, i don't
>think so
>
>i think even now, the apple doesn't fall far from the
>tree----because you still have those traits like melisma,
>polyrhythm, heavy syncopation--bending of notes,
>call-and-response
>

apart from the sycopation and call & response (maybe the polyrhythm, too… but hip-hop, for all its rhythm-emphasis is often much LESS polyrhythmic than other forms of black music), hip-hop ain't really deal with none of those qualities.

[]its really playing by its own rules

in that it is a primitive form of music which at the beginning of a new century is the defining reference for all the other music that will emerge in that century.

it's a line in the sand, really. the first time there was a true generation gap… no, a straight-up generation BREAK… in the black music continuum. (there had already been a bit of a gap that started opening up with P-Funk and them)

I find it interesting that when you look at black music history, you find that there are groups that made the transition from gospel to doo wop to soul to funk to…. to whatever you want to call the black music of the 80s. you just look at their history and it's a journey through various hairstyles and trouser cuts. but once you get to hip-hop, all artists of the past become persona non grata, and all the hightop fades Earth Wind and Fire and the Temptations may adopt do not change the fact that they are instantly rendered irrelevant.

I notice the same phenomenon in Jamaican music… look at all the epochs from ska to rock steady to reggae to "international reggae" and you find all the same names adapting to the times. once you get to dancehall/ragga, Jamaica's hip-hop equivalent, all the old names instantly fall off.

and it also is a part of the oral tradition----but we also have to take into account, the sampling aspect

and if they're sampling (or outright snatching) an old soul or r&b cut......then i still think hip-hop r&b does have a relation

you can look at the way the samples are orchestrated in a song, for example, say like a pete rock-that can place samples in a certain manner-have em come in at certain times-that incorporates african musical traits-the syncopated (his offbeat way of doin things)....shoot, even the way he rhymes sometimes, that offbeat thing again---the polyrhythms, even if they are coming from drum programming

"it's a line in the sand, really. the first time there was a true generation gap… no, a straight-up generation BREAK… in the black music continuum. (there had already been a bit of a gap that started opening up with P-Funk and them)"

This makes sense considering the fact that our generation is more removed from our forefathers than any other generation. Our "Post Civil Rights" generation live in a different world and our music reflects our new world.

Peace

Wendell

>I find it interesting that when you look at black music
>history, you find that there are groups that made the
>transition from gospel to doo wop to soul to funk to…. to
>whatever you want to call the black music of the 80s. you
>just look at their history and it's a journey through
>various hairstyles and trouser cuts.

This journey through history does have some musical relevence beyond "dress codes". If one were to look at this chronology and only see the asthetic changes...they'd be missing out on some great artists. Beyond the hairstyle and dress code changes were some great musicans, who wrote great music that is and shall continue to be relevent.



but once you get to
>hip-hop, all artists of the past become persona non grata,
>and all the hightop fades Earth Wind and Fire and the
>Temptations may adopt do not change the fact that they are
>instantly rendered irrelevant.

I don't believe that is accurate. The way this is said makes you think that the first time Rappers delight was played on the radio...all of the sudden all the soul/funk/R&B/jazz artists become irrelevent. Nothing could be further from the truth:

1) One of the main components of hip hop's DNA is the usage of "old" or previously made records in the music. Sampling. Dj's usage of records to make music. So just by it's nature, these older artists are far from relevent, they are actually essential in the make up of hip hop music. To and one of your favorite topics in.....I see a lot of the dress code styles of the 70's in the likes of grand master flash, Africa Bambata, etc....in fact a very concise argument can be made that hip hop was the most recent incarnation of the evolution of FUNK.

2) One of the the best things that Hip hop has done in its history is expose new generations to classic music that may have been forgoten. Cratediggers know what I'm talking about. James Brown, P-funk, just to name a couple were exposed to a new generation primarily because of hip hop. These men sold more records, gained more exposure, and garnered more revenue primarily because of the usage of their music in hip hop. Outside of the social consciousness, the other primary pediological aspect of hip hop is that it taught (I would use teach, but it doesn't do it in the present tense) a new generation about music of its past...from funk to rock to jazz to R&B...

Looking specificlly at P-funk.....The current transidental Mothership voyage that has lasted from about 1988 until present was made possible by hip hop's usage of Pfunk material. Pfunk actually may have died had it not been for hip hop increasing intrest in the music, and thus making it possible for them to tour. One thing they will never have to worry about is being able to sell tickets for tours and hip hop helped bring that to a new generation....there are young people who weren't even alive when the mothership was flying high, that now know albout it and are members of the thumpasaurus people....


The "demise" of the bands in terms of urban music is a very recent thing. So, if one were to say that musicianship is irrelevent to the hip hop youth of today, that would be a true statement. There are reasons for this that warren coolidge has discussed a couple of times..lol. But to generalize and say that it became irrelevent as soon as hip hop came on the scene...is inaccurate.

I changed my mind about my decision to leave the Lesson forever, and my first day back THIS is what I get…

morning, Coolidge!

>This journey through history does have some musical
>relevence beyond "dress codes". If one were to look at this
>chronology and only see the asthetic changes...they'd be
>missing out on some great artists. Beyond the hairstyle and
>dress code changes were some great musicans, who wrote great
>music that is and shall continue to be relevent.


of course the relevance extends beyond "dress codes"… I used that just to illustrate a point, and I'd expect that people be perceptive enough to understand what I mean.

most new music movements are accompanied by cultures and styles of dress, and it's interesting to see how some veteran acts have gone through appropriating this series of cultures, but they have largely been unsuccessful at doing so with hip-hop (the Isley Brothers being a notable exception)

>but once you get to
>>hip-hop, all artists of the past become persona non grata,
>>and all the hightop fades Earth Wind and Fire and the
>>Temptations may adopt do not change the fact that they are
>>instantly rendered irrelevant.
>
>I don't believe that is accurate. The way this is said makes
>you think that the first time Rappers delight was played on
>the radio...all of the sudden all the soul/funk/R&B/jazz
>artists become irrelevent. Nothing could be further from
>the truth:
>

"rappers delight" was not the beginning of the hip-hop era, friend. it was a novelty. but look back at what was going on on BET by 1988 or so… you can see the older acts struggling to keep their spot on the jukebox.

>1) One of the main components of hip hop's DNA is the usage
>of "old" or previously made records in the music. Sampling.
>Dj's usage of records to make music. So just by it's
>nature, these older artists are far from relevent, they are
>actually essential in the make up of hip hop music.

yeah… their OLD shit. but who wants to hear their NEW stuff? sure, we sample the hell out of Isaac Hayes' "walk on by" and "look of love", but when he dropped Branded, who gave a shit?

To and
>one of your favorite topics in.....I see a lot of the dress
>code styles of the 70's in the likes of grand master flash,
>Africa Bambata, etc....in fact a very concise argument can
>be made that hip hop was the most recent incarnation of the
>evolution of FUNK.

okay… this is getting to a place I don't want to go…

>
>Looking specificlly at P-funk.....The current transidental
>Mothership voyage that has lasted from about 1988 until
>present was made possible by hip hop's usage of Pfunk
>material. Pfunk actually may have died had it not been for
>hip hop increasing intrest in the music, and thus making it
>possible for them to tour. One thing they will never have
>to worry about is being able to sell tickets for tours and
>hip hop helped bring that to a new generation....there are
>young people who weren't even alive when the mothership was
>flying high, that now know albout it and are members of the
>thumpasaurus people....
>
>
>The "demise" of the bands in terms of urban music is a very
>recent thing. So, if one were to say that musicianship is
>irrelevent to the hip hop youth of today, that would be a
>true statement. There are reasons for this that warren
>coolidge has discussed a couple of times..lol. But to
>generalize and say that it became irrelevent as soon as hip
>hop came on the scene...is inaccurate.

whatever, man.

>I changed my mind about my decision to leave the Lesson
>forever, and my first day back THIS is what I get…
>
>morning, Coolidge!

You can't leave man...you may try. But you know you'll be back....I hope warren coolidge's pollitically incorrect attempts to affect your preceptions has not soured you on the lessen....rest assured that warren coolidge means no harm and is generally a rather calm fellow....he just has a lot of "energy" regarding certain things..so, don't take it personal brother...



>

>
>most new music movements are accompanied by cultures and
>styles of dress, and it's interesting to see how some
>veteran acts have gone through appropriating this series of
>cultures, but they have largely been unsuccessful at doing
>so with hip-hop (the Isley Brothers being a notable
>exception)

well, I would make a distinction between "older" acts trying to fit into the current hip hop asthetic....and "older" artists being relevent....

If you're sampling my music...then I'm relevent...

but, I'll agree that brother Ron looks a little silly with the Mr. Big thing.....personally I think its sad that brothers feel like they have to demean, and regress to immature styles...they shouldn't have to do that, and the fact that they do is demonstrative of the larger problem that warren coolidge has addressed on a couple of occasions....on the one hand I'm glad that they can still tour and make money...on the other hand...It's sad that they have to fit into an immature asthetic...to seem "current"......The isley brothers are one of the greatest and most prolific groups in the history of american music..yet in 2002, they have to demean themselves to stay current...If that isn't one of the best examples of what's effed up about todays black/urban music, I don't know what is....



>
>>but once you get to
>>>hip-hop, all artists of the past become persona non grata,
>>>and all the hightop fades Earth Wind and Fire and the
>>>Temptations may adopt do not change the fact that they are
>>>instantly rendered irrelevant.
>>
>>I don't believe that is accurate. The way this is said makes
>>you think that the first time Rappers delight was played on
>>the radio...all of the sudden all the soul/funk/R&B/jazz
>>artists become irrelevent. Nothing could be further from
>>the truth:
>>
>
>"rappers delight" was not the beginning of the hip-hop era,
>friend.

I know that. But rappers delight was the first "blow" that hip hop struck into the popular culture...it was the first rap record played on prime time urban radio....sure hip hop came from a more underground "earthier...(don't know if that's the right word)" place....but regardless...there was a lot less disconnect between the current music r&b/funk state at that time, and hip hop.....it was more of an evolution then a rejection...but, we've agreed to disagree on that before...it's really just semantic......you're more "cinematic" with your style.."kill" "rejected" and all that stuff...lol.


it was a novelty. but look back at what was going on
>on BET by 1988 or so… you can see the older acts struggling
>to keep their spot on the jukebox.

uh....not really...I mean, maybe in an individual level.....certain groups were falling off...but a lot of groups weren't...Cameo sold sold a bunch of records around that time....so did guys like Luther and other "soul"(don't start w/ me about luther not being soul) but those folks sold records...if you look at video soul of that era, you have rap, soul, funk, and jazz elements in "mainstream" urban/black music....it was still there.


>
>>1) One of the main components of hip hop's DNA is the usage
>>of "old" or previously made records in the music. Sampling.
>>Dj's usage of records to make music. So just by it's
>>nature, these older artists are far from relevent, they are
>>actually essential in the make up of hip hop music.
>
>yeah… their OLD shit. but who wants to hear their NEW stuff?
>sure, we sample the hell out of Isaac Hayes' "walk on by"
>and "look of love", but when he dropped Branded, who gave a
>shit?

Certainly Branded may not have been to the quality of black moses, hot buttered soul, shaft, or sahara tahoe....but does that mean that Isaac Hayes is not relevent to black music today? I wouldn't say that. Today's popular music, whether urban or otherwise, is primarily marketed to our young people....and, not to be harsh, but I cannot use todays young people's tastes as a guide to relvency...not even close.

The other thing is that...in a lot of cases, I feel that the perception of "old school" makes folks miss out on a lot of good music...one would assume that a new Isaac Hayes album is not going to be good, but to some maybe it was very good...I mean, you liked Solomon Burke's new one right....how many folks even know who solomon burke is....that certainly didn't alter your openness to liking his latest....on the hip hop side...take Krs one's prophets vs. profits.....some are so hell bent on characterizing and critisizing Krs...but missing the fact that this is a quality album with one of, if not the greatest rapper ever brining fire and brimstone and showing that he's still the boss with the hot sauce....



>
> To and
>>one of your favorite topics in.....I see a lot of the dress
>>code styles of the 70's in the likes of grand master flash,
>>Africa Bambata, etc....in fact a very concise argument can
>>be made that hip hop was the most recent incarnation of the
>>evolution of FUNK.
>
>okay… this is getting to a place I don't want to go…

disagree if you like...but you know the type of Black musical evolution that I find accurate did not come out of the mind of warren coolidge...it's accepted by tons of scholars....none of which by the way have I ever read...it's just a perception that seems pretty obvious to me, and others I guess....I actually wrote a paper on it when I was in the 11th grade...in 198?

>
>>
>>Looking specificlly at P-funk.....The current transidental
>>Mothership voyage that has lasted from about 1988 until
>>present was made possible by hip hop's usage of Pfunk
>>material. Pfunk actually may have died had it not been for
>>hip hop increasing intrest in the music, and thus making it
>>possible for them to tour. One thing they will never have
>>to worry about is being able to sell tickets for tours and
>>hip hop helped bring that to a new generation....there are
>>young people who weren't even alive when the mothership was
>>flying high, that now know albout it and are members of the
>>thumpasaurus people....
>>
>>
>>The "demise" of the bands in terms of urban music is a very
>>recent thing. So, if one were to say that musicianship is
>>irrelevent to the hip hop youth of today, that would be a
>>true statement. There are reasons for this that warren
>>coolidge has discussed a couple of times..lol. But to
>>generalize and say that it became irrelevent as soon as hip
>>hop came on the scene...is inaccurate.
>
>whatever, man.

It's true though.....forget the Pfunk since you don't respect it....but ask some young crate diggers....if not for hip hop, they wouldn't dig...the music would be left to be appreciated by old foggies like warren coolidge....hip hop helped keep it alive..

and relevent.

>>most new music movements are accompanied by cultures and
>>styles of dress, and it's interesting to see how some
>>veteran acts have gone through appropriating this series of
>>cultures, but they have largely been unsuccessful at doing
>>so with hip-hop (the Isley Brothers being a notable
>>exception)
>
>well, I would make a distinction between "older" acts trying
>to fit into the current hip hop asthetic....and "older"
>artists being relevent....
>
>If you're sampling my music...then I'm relevent...

see #27


>>"rappers delight" was not the beginning of the hip-hop era,
>>friend.
>
>I know that. But rappers delight was the first "blow" that
>hip hop struck into the popular culture...it was the first
>rap record played on prime time urban radio....sure hip hop
>came from a more underground "earthier...(don't know if
>that's the right word)" place....but regardless...there was
>a lot less disconnect between the current music r&b/funk
>state at that time, and hip hop.....it was more of an
>evolution then a rejection...but, we've agreed to disagree
>on that before...it's really just semantic......you're more
>"cinematic" with your style.."kill" "rejected" and all that
>stuff...lol.
>

despite the fact that it is celebrated as the first rap record, "rappers delight" actually fit in more with the disco culture than it did with hip-hop. there was not yet a clear disconnect between hip-hop and r&b… it was simply rappers rhyming over what was essentially an R&B record. by the time you get to something like "sucker MCs," however… THEN you have to really decide whether you are down with this new music or not.

>it was a novelty. but look back at what was going on
>>on BET by 1988 or so… you can see the older acts struggling
>>to keep their spot on the jukebox.
>
>uh....not really...I mean, maybe in an individual
>level.....certain groups were falling off...but a lot of
>groups weren't...Cameo sold sold a bunch of records around
>that time....

yeah…. what was Cameo's biggest record of the 80s? the hip-hop-styled "word up"

so did guys like Luther and other "soul"(don't
>start w/ me about luther not being soul)

Luther was in the "quiet storm" subgenre. they were safe from the hip-hop invasion because when people wanna hear slow jams, they wanna hear slow jams. but as for those artists who trafficked in "funk" or any contemporary uptempo dance music… they seriously had to worry about being supplanted by rap. and they tried their darnedest to ride the wave (see for example Midnight Star's "don't rock the boat")

but those folks
>sold records...if you look at video soul of that era, you
>have rap, soul, funk, and jazz elements in "mainstream"
>urban/black music....it was still there.
>

of course… I still have tapes. you can see it fading, losing its luster and vitality… slowly trying to parasite off hip-hop's burgeoning energy

>>sure, we sample the hell out of Isaac Hayes' "walk on by"
>>and "look of love", but when he dropped Branded, who gave a
>>shit?
>
>Certainly Branded may not have been to the quality of black
>moses, hot buttered soul, shaft, or sahara tahoe....but does
>that mean that Isaac Hayes is not relevent to black music
>today? I wouldn't say that. Today's popular music, whether
>urban or otherwise, is primarily marketed to our young
>people....and, not to be harsh, but I cannot use todays
>young people's tastes as a guide to relvency...not even
>close.

right there you start to show how irrelevant YOU are

>The other thing is that...in a lot of cases, I feel that the
>perception of "old school" makes folks miss out on a lot of
>good music...one would assume that a new Isaac Hayes album
>is not going to be good, but to some maybe it was very
>good...I mean, you liked Solomon Burke's new one
>right....how many folks even know who solomon burke
>is....that certainly didn't alter your openness to liking
>his latest....

but **I** know who he is. and even though I liked his new album, it wasn't lost on me that the (white) songwriters tried their best to pattern all the songs on old soul classics to some degree or another. the message seems to be: "Solomon, you can't really move forward with music, so let's just try our best to relive that classic period of your career"

on the hip hop side...take Krs one's prophets
>vs. profits.....some are so hell bent on characterizing and
>critisizing Krs...but missing the fact that this is a
>quality album with one of, if not the greatest rapper ever
>brining fire and brimstone and showing that he's still the
>boss with the hot sauce....

the Nelly shit proved that KRS is irrelevant and he knows it



>It's true though.....forget the Pfunk since you don't
>respect it....but ask some young crate diggers....if not for
>hip hop, they wouldn't dig...


the music would be left to be
>appreciated by old foggies like warren coolidge....hip hop
>helped keep it alive..
>
>and relevent.

not the artists, though,…. just their music. their OLD music

>
>but those folks
>>sold records...if you look at video soul of that era, you
>>have rap, soul, funk, and jazz elements in "mainstream"
>>urban/black music....it was still there.
>>
>
>of course… I still have tapes. you can see it fading, losing
>its luster and vitality… slowly trying to parasite off
>hip-hop's burgeoning energy

not true....hip hop took a back seat to other black forms of music...for quite a while.....The host does not parasite the parasite...never happens...

>
>>>sure, we sample the hell out of Isaac Hayes' "walk on by"
>>>and "look of love", but when he dropped Branded, who gave a
>>>shit?
>>
>>Certainly Branded may not have been to the quality of black
>>moses, hot buttered soul, shaft, or sahara tahoe....but does
>>that mean that Isaac Hayes is not relevent to black music
>>today? I wouldn't say that. Today's popular music, whether
>>urban or otherwise, is primarily marketed to our young
>>people....and, not to be harsh, but I cannot use todays
>>young people's tastes as a guide to relvency...not even
>>close.
>
>right there you start to show how irrelevant YOU are

uh....no, warren coolidge is just a grown azz man...who could care less about what's popular....nor does he care about the tastes of young people, who are increasingly illiterate, and certainly not in any position to make intelligent decisions regarding artistic quality....they are submerged in their lower nature...their "Ka" and their "Ba" are out of sync...so, the best I can do in their regards is try and help them....an endeavor which will commence in the next few months, God willing...

106th and park....Trl....clear channel...don't do a damn thing for warren coolidge...I'd rather watch C-Span...while my Jacob Miller CD is playing in the back round.


>
>>The other thing is that...in a lot of cases, I feel that the
>>perception of "old school" makes folks miss out on a lot of
>>good music...one would assume that a new Isaac Hayes album
>>is not going to be good, but to some maybe it was very
>>good...I mean, you liked Solomon Burke's new one
>>right....how many folks even know who solomon burke
>>is....that certainly didn't alter your openness to liking
>>his latest....
>
>
>
>on the hip hop side...take Krs one's prophets
>>vs. profits.....some are so hell bent on characterizing and
>>critisizing Krs...but missing the fact that this is a
>>quality album with one of, if not the greatest rapper ever
>>brining fire and brimstone and showing that he's still the
>>boss with the hot sauce....
>
>the Nelly shit proved that KRS is irrelevant and he knows it

If you think that KRS is irrelevant.....that's a problem...fortunately...and I'm confident about this....10 years from now...nobody's gonna remember the kid...but 50 years from now KRS and his music will still be influential in hip hop....

pop fads die ....and thats a good thing.


>
>
>
>>It's true though.....forget the Pfunk since you don't
>>respect it....but ask some young crate diggers....if not for
>>hip hop, they wouldn't dig...
>
>
>the music would be left to be
>>appreciated by old foggies like warren coolidge....hip hop
>>helped keep it alive..
>>
>>and relevent.
>
>not the artists, though,…. just their music. their OLD music

Fortunatley.....most folks see the relevence in black artistry...I mean, rock and roll wouldn't be what it is today if not for the ability to tap into the rich nuturing juices of black music....the one's that know will utilize it for the benefit...the ones that follow trends designed to market to illiterate young people will continue to be lost....

>uh....no, warren coolidge is just a grown azz man...who
>could care less about what's popular....nor does he care
>about the tastes of young people, who are increasingly
>illiterate, and certainly not in any position to make
>intelligent decisions regarding artistic quality....they are
>submerged in their lower nature...their "Ka" and their "Ba"
>are out of sync...so, the best I can do in their regards is
>try and help them....an endeavor which will commence in the
>next few months, God willing...
>
>106th and park....Trl....clear channel...don't do a damn
>thing for warren coolidge...I'd rather watch C-Span...while
>my Jacob Miller CD is playing in the back round.

in other words, you're irrelevant to the contemporary pop culture. you don't need it and it doesn't need you. so leave it alone and go listen to the Smooth Jazz station.


>If you think that KRS is irrelevant.....that's a
>problem...fortunately...and I'm confident about this....10
>years from now...nobody's gonna remember the kid...but 50
>years from now KRS and his music will still be influential
>in hip hop....
>

he WILL still be influential, and he will definitely be remembered. but I bet (and hope) that he'll be remembered more for "stop the violence" and "you must learn" than for his embarrassing, senile rants against Nelly

>>uh....no, warren coolidge is just a grown azz man...who
>>could care less about what's popular....nor does he care
>>about the tastes of young people, who are increasingly
>>illiterate, and certainly not in any position to make
>>intelligent decisions regarding artistic quality....they are
>>submerged in their lower nature...their "Ka" and their "Ba"
>>are out of sync...so, the best I can do in their regards is
>>try and help them....an endeavor which will commence in the
>>next few months, God willing...
>>
>>106th and park....Trl....clear channel...don't do a damn
>>thing for warren coolidge...I'd rather watch C-Span...while
>>my Jacob Miller CD is playing in the back round.
>
>in other words, you're irrelevant to the contemporary pop
>culture. you don't need it and it doesn't need you. so leave
>it alone and go listen to the Smooth Jazz station.

I almost forgot about this one...couldn't let it pass..

Now...I'm sure you're aware that warren coolidge doesn't listen to smooth jazz.....the "stupid" stuff is one thing...but saying warren coolidge listen's to Dave Koz, and Kenny G...that's going too far.....If I never turned on the radio for the rest of my life...there is very little I'd miss.....see, that's the problem...folks have been affected by the limitations in their music outlets....they jump from urban/hip hop ....to smooth jazz...to quote the intro from GZA's liquid swords.."minds have been infected by devils"

break the grip of shame folks...


>
>
>>If you think that KRS is irrelevant.....that's a
>>problem...fortunately...and I'm confident about this....10
>>years from now...nobody's gonna remember the kid...but 50
>>years from now KRS and his music will still be influential
>>in hip hop....


but I bet (and hope) that he'll be remembered
>more for "stop the violence" and "you must learn" than for
>his embarrassing, senile rants against Nelly

So instead of hoping that a man is remembered with respect...a man who risked his life to advance hip hop ...will be remembered negatively....

that speaks volumes....shhhhhhh!!!

I think what he meant by relevance is actual music. Back in the day each generation expanded the playing styles of the previous generation. Prince copied Jimi, who copied Robert Johnson, who copied Son House etc.

NOTE: I used this tree as an example! IT IS NOT TO BE DISPUTED! YAWL KNOW WHAT I MEAN!

In Hip Hop, noboday played instruments, so nobody style was taken forward.

Affy, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I understood your thoughts.

Peace

Wendell

Before the edit, I had Lightnin Hopkins for Son House.

thank you.

also, i was referring to the fact that while the youngsters may have smpled old records by the artists, NOBODY (young OR old) was much interested in hearing any of their new material.

that "if they're sampling me, then I'm relevant" argument is the kind of thing that made Roy Ayers and Ike Hayes make comebacks that failed.

Ike, in particular, speaks of his trouble at finding a record deal. he'd walk into labels and they'd be like "Isaac Hayes! Black Moses! yeah… I still love that Shaft soundtrack, man… but, uh… what have you done lately?"

and he'd say "listen to the radio. listen to Public Enemy. listen to that 'no guns no murder" song. THAT'S what I've done lately."

and they'd balk, gently suggesting that perhaps his music was no longer relevant… he'd get mad and say "ask Mary J. Blige if I was relevant when she sampled my record!"

in the end, Pointblank Records gave him a deal and simultaneously released two new Isaac Hayes records, Branded and Raw & Refined, Vol. 1.

they went lead.

why? because Isaac Hayes is not relevant.

you said....

and you're wrong...

but I'll let it go...


don't want anyone running away for ever....

what he actually said:

"I find it interesting that when you look at black music history, you find that there are groups that made the transition from gospel to doo wop to soul to funk to…. to whatever you want to call the black music of the 80s. you just look at their history and it's a journey through various hairstyles and trouser cuts. but once you get to hip-hop, all artists of the past become persona non grata, and all the hightop fades Earth Wind and Fire and the Temptations may adopt do not change the fact that they are instantly rendered irrelevant."

Isn't referencing the music at all...it's referencing dress codes...and saying that "older" were instantly irrelevant when hip hip came around....

his statement is actually real consistent with what he's said about this in the past....Af has a rejectionist point of view regarding hip hop, as do many others.....while others, like myself..hold a more evolutionist view of it...

2 different schools of thought....

what we say and what we mean aren't the same.

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt, this time...

Peace

Wendell

>Isn't referencing the music at all...it's referencing dress
>codes...and saying that "older" were instantly irrelevant
>when hip hip came around....
>

you just don't understand what a metaphor is, do you?

you're so obsessed with me an this whole "dress code" issue... never mind that you also criticized Living Colour's clothing (and several other people's) but rather than fixating on that point, i made an effort to understand what you were trying to say.

>his statement is actually real consistent with what he's
>said about this in the past....Af has a rejectionist point
>of view regarding hip hop, as do many others.....while
>others, like myself..hold a more evolutionist view of it...
>

bullshit.
>2 different schools of thought....

Wendell tried to help you out by throwing a mucial element into your post that wasn't there....if you wanted to talk about musical changes you would have said it....If you stop referencing dress codes...I'll stop copy and pasting them...

so If it sounds stupid..look in the mirror...I didn't say it...I right clicked it.....

i had to go search for signs of intelligent life.

(now watch WC jump up and say that I'm calling him "unintelligent," that I am saying it because he is black, that I praise white folks and questions blacks' intelligence, that I am a self-hating "nigro"…)

(that's the REAL reason I left… it's just TOO damn predictable!)

>i had to go search for signs of intelligent life.
>
>(now watch WC jump up and say that I'm calling him
>"unintelligent," that I am saying it because he is black,
>that I praise white folks and questions blacks'
>intelligence, that I am a self-hating "nigro"…)

please.....It's pretty obvious that unintelligent and warren coolidge have ZERO to do with each other...that's silly..

The reason you get all sensitive about this stuff is because you know that you cannot handle warren coolidge's intellect....that's why you resort to using profanity and name calling...

notice, I've done none of that here...

any movement towards piss contest type of debate in this post has been initiated by you.....not me.

If anyone should be pissy about this it should be me...I intelligent challenge a lot of your miguided and incorrect assertations....then you make personal attacks....then I respond, albeit slightly mean-sprited...and everyone gets mad at me for beating up on poor Afkap...

that's pretty much the direction things go with warren coolidge on here nowadays....

but hey...that's why I love the boards....

I can fire of my warren coolidge-isms on 3 boards, multiple topics, all in a days work...it's beautiful....

and bottom line is....

I know you respect warren coolidge's intellect and style...just as much as most people on here...and you'll miss warren coolidge when he's gone....because he's the chin-checker....he's the alpha with no omega.....he's the transientdental transmorgrifier....he's just simply warren coolidge...he's the boss with the hot sauce...and y'all love it.....lol.

just remember....it's not about the x's and o's....its about the jimmy's and joe's....


>
>(that's the REAL reason I left… it's just TOO damn
>predictable!)

if it's predictable...then change ya style bro.....I actually find it very unpredictable and enlightening...everyone here has info that's intereseting...brandard, wendell, the lovely Malice, Anastazia, my man Scorp, my road dog the wally champ, my inter-planetary brother Jeflee and yes...even Alek and you Af...and everybody else....

If you don't feel up to my challenging.....if you must resort to name calling instead of intellectual debate....then tell me, and I'll stop all card pulling...

but if not....

when you diss the funk....

expect a bolo or two or three.....lol

I enjoy your posts… I like your lighthearted style…

but I don't think I "respect" your content.

for it is often biased and just plain WRONG

but I don't let that taint my perception in terms of speaking in absolutes..

yeah, warren coolidge is a bright guy...but he really knows very little...

listening a good thing..

try it.

time and time again.

and i've made my judgment.

are you that literal?

I'm not the great Kreskin....

and no not what people are thinking...

I listen/read what they say....

and especially in this case.....if it's majorly consistent with one's normally expressed view...that's what I refer to.

Y'all are acting like I'm making stuff up....

Was it a different person named Afkap that has denounced soul/funk music of the 80's and early 90's multiple times?

Considering that, how much more analyzation would one need to use if he states that said music became irrelevant "immediately" when hip hop came around?

he stays consistent...

at least until warren coolidge confronts him on it...then he reverses fields and I'm the one who's off base...

go back and look at what he said and what I responded to...it was simple...I'm purposely not making any personal attacks or anything like that...and dude starts with the "you sound stupid" and "you're irrelevant" stuff....

the problem lies not w/ Mr. coolidge...

uh-huh...

>Neo Soul - They seem to take inspiration from something
>other than the Church. (Again I could be wrong)

i'd say it's primarily inspired by jazz and old Soul/R&B records. you can hear the jazz influence in the scatting Erykah & D'Angelo pull every now & then. and it's definitely in those horn arrangements and the generalized "laid-back" "loungy" sound many of the neo-soulers put forth. (see: Remy Shand's "Take A Message" & Erykah Badu's "Otherside Of The Game")

more and more gospel is being influenced by pop R&B...

I still listen to gospel records because some of the better vocalists you'll ever hear refuse to do mainstream music - and it just feels good to listen to - but it's becoming more of a trend to have hip hop grooves and modern R&B dance beats put to gospel. Not to say it's bad, because I think it can bring new audiences to gospel and keep younger people interested, but it also takes some of the inspiration out of it for me.

...what I'm going to say?

>It's pretty well established that the Black music tradition
>traces its way back to the church.

And the fields, hills, barns, shanty-towns.

>Now the question is black music from a 'strictly' secular
>nature different than black music that comes from the
>church?

>If it is different, in what ways?

Content - As you said, imagery, message, emotional expression.

(though a lot of people have pointed out that the common theme of "struggle" runs broad and wide through all categories of Black American music -- course, it's also the common theme in the music of every group that's ever faced persecution)

Also there are obvious differences in stylistic material, and often the performance setting has a reflexive impact on the form (i.e. a ceremonial setting allows less structural freedom).

>How about the Blues or Jazz?

Blues and gospel circled each other forever, and they're still doing it.

But I've always felt that jazz was a street music, then a dance music, then an art music.

Never a sacred music, and only really served a ceremonial purpose in New Orleans, where any debauched craziness can become ceremony.

NOW FOR MY RANT:

Blues is a folk form. It's a FOLK FORM.

It comes out of the hills and fields, and it shares purity and heritage with Appalachian songs, Native American circle music, and Shaker hymns.

So yes, there were people like Blind Willie Johnson that slid all over the gospel/blues line, but really he's just a folk singer with a religious repertoire.

Alek
____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

>
>It comes out of the hills and fields, and it shares purity
>and heritage with Appalachian songs, Native American circle
>music, and Shaker hymns.

If many of the torch bearers of the music did not come from the heritage of Apalachia, were not Native American...nor did they reside in hills and fields....then it is NOT a direct off-shoot of folk music...

folk music is an element...but blues and gospel music are DIRECTLY birthed from the actualy EXPERIENCES of black people in America....and although the elements of their oppressor are certainly in the genre....that's NOT where it CAME FROM....

there' really no need to discuss the smaller elements of something...when the main components are tangible, tied to the socio-cultural history...and there for all to see...
>

but rather, 'the blues is _A_ folk music.'

Big difference.

And I don't mean this as an insult, but Warren is not big on semantic subtlety.

Alek


____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

now class....let Alek answer the question...

it's not sarcastic, seriously...maybe I'm missing something...

If the black people who formulated the blueprint for gospel and blues being that they were NOT from the hills, they were NOT from Appalachia....but were from the church.....

please briefly explain to me how one can put the same value on the influence of the music from the hills, as with the influence of the church...

again...considering that the framers...were NOT in the hills....but were, very much in the church....

or, is it that it's more of a comparison between folk and the blues....the musics are basiclly coming from the same artistic place more then the are coming from the same tangible place...

>If the black people who formulated the blueprint for gospel
>and blues being that they were NOT from the hills, they were
>NOT from Appalachia....but were from the church.....

Really?

All the black people in the south went to church?

How about Tommy Johnson?

Charlie Patton?

The many Blind Willie's?

>please briefly explain to me how one can put the same value
>on the influence of the music from the hills, as with the
>influence of the church...

I said fields, hills, shanty-towns.

I don't believe that blues came from the church. I see early blues and early gospel as two sides of the same coin -- but opposite sides.

Now - Which "framers" are you talking about, professor?

Maybe you should school us on the "framers" of the blues.

And tell us which of the psalms was their favorite.

Alek
____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

you seem to insinuate often that Blues descended from the hills, shanty towns and Apalachia...

then other times you just simply draw the comparsion between folk and Blues...

now, there is a very valid comparison to be made between the musical forms..

but Blues is not Folk music....

Blues is Blues...

Blues is not a variation of folk music...they do share the a similar artistic purpose in a sense...but to say Blues is folk music connotates that it came from folk....

they are comparable, but the foundation of the blues in terms of coming from the experience of black people in America can stand on its own as a musical form...

that's pretty obvious

>but Blues is not Folk music....

the way the rest of us are perceiving the term 'folk music'.

>you seem to insinuate often that Blues descended from the
>hills, shanty towns and Apalachia...

Blues came and comes from all over. The Piedmont hills, upstate Mississippi, Texas, Virginia. By describing blues as a folk form, he's not trying to limit it...

joni mitchell and bob dylan but folk as in a music of the people.

but the topic of the original post is referencing the "black music tradition" is it not?

Alek's contribution to it is to reference this as a "folk form" and mentions...shanty towns and hills and Appalachia...

I know you all....well at least most of you...aren't trying to diss....but, one thing warren coolidge can do is read, and comprehend...quite well actually..

so, my only purpose in this my questioning to Alek was show me some tangible evidence of this connection...or is it merely a comparison.

In terms of comparison...I would agree with that totally. I just think that referecing the hills of appalachia in a post about the tradition of black music...is simply misplaced...and I left it open to my lack of knowledge on the topic, asking Alek if I'm missing something...

thats all...

I mentioned Piedmont in an earlier post.. that is a region of the Appalachians.

>In terms of comparison...I would agree with that totally. I
>just think that referecing the hills of appalachia in a post
>about the tradition of black music...is simply
>misplaced...and I left it open to my lack of knowledge on
>the topic, asking Alek if I'm missing something...

This is from Allmusic. Be sure to note that the guitar style "...connects closely with an earlier string band tradition...":
----
Piedmont Blues refers to a regional substyle characteristic of black musicians of the southeastern United States. Geographically, the Piedmont means the foothills of the Appalachians west of the tidewater region and Atlantic coastal plain stretching roughly from Richmond, VA, to Atlanta, GA. Musically, Piedmont blues describes the shared style of musicians from Georgia, the Carolinas, and Virginia, as well as others from as far afield as Florida, West Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. It refers to a wide assortment of aesthetic values, performance techniques, and shared repertoire rooted in common geographical, historical, and sociological circumstances; to put it more simply, Piedmont blues means a constellation of musical preferences typical of the Piedmont region. The Piedmont guitar style employs a complex fingerpicking method in which a regular, alternating-thumb bass pattern supports a melody on treble strings. The guitar style is highly syncopated and connects closely with an earlier string-band tradition, integrating ragtime, blues, and country dance songs. It's excellent party music with a full, rock-solid sound.
------
For musical examples, be sure to listen to records by Cephas & Wiggins or the late great National Heritage Fellow John Jackson, who describes some of his music as "old folk songs."

it just that, and Alek knows his stuff, I'm not questioning that at all....

I'm just saying that on a couple of occasions....let me give an example...

The Elvis thing....people made some statements regarding Elvis gospel influence...or whatever Black form of music one may think influenced Elvis...Alek's response seemed to "minimize" that influence.....and even getting to the point where because of some obscure song,(that Elvis didn't write BTW) referencing the "Ghetto"...that "EVERY" song that came after that...whether it was Donnie Hathaway's, Rick James, Mos Def's...all of those people (who actually wrote those songs)...all of those people were influenced by Elvis....that was a major major reach...one can understand defending Mr. Presley against some of the people who denounce him unfairly....but let's at least be realistic...

I'm merely trying to see if there is something I'm missing about the folk/blues/gospel connection...because to me...Folk music is folk music...blues is blues...jazz is jazz...gospel is gospel....

One, could easily say...and I believe this....Reggae is many people's gospel music...the same reason my pops would have listened to Rev. James Cleveland is the same reason why I listen to Peter Tosh or the Mighty Diamonds....both referencing the bible...one could make a pretty good comparison....

but Reggae is not gospel music...

rock and funk...one could make the same comparison...yet...they are different genres...

I'm just thinking that there is a "uniqueness" that is inherent in folk...in gospel...in the blues....and although we can make some tangible comparisons....even some linear comparisons....

but, I just think that, if we're speaking about any sort of evolution within a specific musical genre...then let's make give some tangible linear examples of this evolution instead of generalized comparison's that may not accurate depict the evolution...

>
>>
>>It comes out of the hills and fields, and it shares purity
>>and heritage with Appalachian songs, Native American circle
>>music, and Shaker hymns.
>
>If many of the torch bearers of the music did not come from
>the heritage of Apalachia, were not Native American...nor
>did they reside in hills and fields....then it is NOT a
>direct off-shoot of folk music...

1) "It shares a purity and heritage with..."

Not "It came from..."

2) "Blues is a FOLK FORM"

Not "Blues came from folk music."

Blues in its original form IS folk music.

It changed during and after the Great Migration, but that's how it started.

They didn't play blues in church.

Not in dance halls, even village ones.

No one taught it, and not too many people with two good eyes played it in public.

Blues was played on streets and porches. Those streets were dirt, and those porches had a few generations of dead dogs under 'em.

Blues is folk music.

>folk music is an element...but blues and gospel music are
>DIRECTLY birthed from the actualy EXPERIENCES of black
>people in America....and although the elements of their
>oppressor are certainly in the genre....that's NOT where it
>CAME FROM....

You get so tied up and self-righteous.

Blues came from experience...but gospel came from tradition.

No one saw the actual light of Jesus's face every day.

Gospel was a deliberate (though heartfelt) empowering mechanism, one that created community and reinforced tradition. Gospel is an expression of God through the self.

Blues is an expression of the actual self, through song and speech.

Of course it has broader implications, nothing but, and that's where the blues/gospel overlap lies, but I at least see distinct differences of intent, function, and performance.

Forget how much you think I'm a racist cultural cat-burglar for two seconds and have this discussion.

Alek
____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

No. 1 Yawl GOTS to get off my boy. WC don't deserve yawl ganging up on him.

No 2. This is VERY WELL stated.

>Blues came from experience...but gospel came from tradition.
>
>No one saw the actual light of Jesus's face every day.
>
>Gospel was a deliberate (though heartfelt) empowering
>mechanism, one that created community and reinforced
>tradition. Gospel is an expression of God through the self.
>
>Blues is an expression of the actual self, through song and
>speech.

Peace

Wendell

Wow, I guess it's a good thing I sent Satan that parka.

Alek

____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

give credit when credit is due...

Peace

Wendell

It's no secret you're the only grown man on the lesson.

Kinda makes you wonder, though...

Alek


____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

I DO have other shit I SHOULD be doing...

Peace

Wendell

to hold warren coolidge back.....wendell..

They got to do it...

But the attacks are comforting in the fact that folks are listening because they are adjusting what they are saying after I clown them....

"the greatness of a man can be measured by the pettiness of his enemies...." (c) Mr. Warren coolidge.

but we can correct that
Teach and learn what it is to be Black
Cause their teaching birds to be a cat
but ask yourself homeboy/why is that?

(c) The irrelavent one

Peace

Wendell

>Now the question is black music from a 'strictly' secular
>nature different than black music that comes from the
>church?

"Strictly secular nature" is such a tricky label nowadays. Hip hop is arguably strictly secular (and Kirk and Hezekiah are going towards hip hop, not the other way around). That has been the single biggest influence on Black non-secular music in recent years, actually. There is a long tradition of Black gospel music taking influence from other styles, blues in the days of Tommy Dorsey, classical, jazz, and now hip hop. There is an undeniable quality to the gospel-ized versions of these styles that is lacking in the originals. Is this the Holy Ghost, or something else? Depends on who you ask, I guess.

Here's an interesting story. At the church I play for, last Sunday an mc came in to do a special selection during the service. I could tell he had been an mc before he was saved, and his "gospel rap" sounded like normal rap with religious lyrics, as opposed to Kirk Franklin, which sounds like gospel with an mc in it. The point is, his music didn't have that "Holy Ghost feeling".

Mary Mary might try as hard as they can, but they will never sound like an R&B group... they are straight church. Jodeci was mentioned... they sound church influenced, but they don't sound like church.

Aretha always sounds church, but she manages to get that pop/secular flavor happening, somehow.

>If it is different, in what ways?

It's too difficult to describe in words... they will always be inadequate... which is one reason I've been avoiding the lesson lately. I can play the difference for you, but I can't tell you what it is. The tao that can be told is not the eternal tao.

Here's a hint for finding it... listen to uptempo swing... straight ahead jazz. Then listen to the gospel shout... same tempo, similar basslines (quarter notes), swung feel... totally different in overall feeling. Modern R&B, Hip hop, neosoul, whatever, follows the jazz, and gospel follows that shout.

Peace

T

they can be similar in the music and vocal arrangement. the subject matter will differ.

needle droppin on: erykah badu-"love of my life"
spinnin in my cd playa: lalah hathaway-a moment

jawjuh man
dutty south native
supreme jedi!

You sure do think a lot.


"I always thought it would be interesting if there was no such thing as gold and platinum records or record deals, and people were just making music. What would the music sound like?"
--Beck

aim: cflartey

Folk music is not a genre.

It's not a style of music with quantifiable or qualifiable _musical_ characteristics...
...except perhaps economy of materials and performance, in all ways.

But really, the word "folk" describes the way a music lives in a society.

Where/how it is performed, what it means to people.

Blues is a folk music just like klezmer is a folk music.

Bob Dylan actually is a very infrequent folk singer - he's a neo-classicist with lots of romance and irony, so he sings Woody Guthrie.

Joni Mitchell, Nick Drake...they're not really folk singers.

But that's not the point.

Warren, you keep addressing this as if I was comparing "blues" to "folk."

And beyond that, it's pretty clear what you're really saying:

"Alek, you're trying to compare a 'black' music with a 'white' music so you can take some credit for your race, or at least take credit away from mine."

MISSING THE POINT.

B.B. King still plays the blues, but it's not folk music anymore.

Even Muddy didn't sing folk music for very long. Why do you think they had to call that album what they did?

Blues moved north (and city-ward) and stopped being a folk music.

That's my belief.

And you still haven't answered anything about the church, so, as I said before, stop bitching about what you think _I_ am trying to say or do, and tell us what you think.

Alek

(As for the Elvis thing, if you want to be lame enough to drudge up old shit to try and discredit me, I'd like nothing better than to quote your previous blatherings until the end of time -- but it doesn't do much good, and you'll come out looking as stupid as you did before)


____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

so the blues BB King played isnt rooted in folk music anymore

but what about somebody like Otha Turner, is that still folk music?

ciphers?

or to rephrase, can the folk/roots component of a genre still exist even after the music has progressed past that point?

BB aint.

yeah... i definitely agree with that.

>so the blues BB King played isnt rooted in folk music
>anymore

Sure it's _rooted_ in folk music.

And it's still blues. It's just not folk music when it's played under blue lights for a bunch of swaying 40-year old housewives.

"The Thri-i-ill is Goooooone...."

>but what about somebody like Otha Turner, is that still folk
>music?

Yeah.

>ciphers?

For sure.

>or to rephrase, can the folk/roots component of a genre
>still exist even after the music has progressed past that
>point?

Well, I feel like the gestures and the vocabulary of an original folk form can still be there (like with early-mid Bela Fleck), but folk (to me) is not about musical characteristics.

It's about context and (also) intent.

Alek
____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

>>so the blues BB King played isnt rooted in folk music
>>anymore
>
>Sure it's _rooted_ in folk music.

Now if you clarified that Blues is more or less folk music in that they both serve the same purpose..they function the same...

To me that seems to contradict you saying it's "rooted" in folk music....

reason I say that is, stating that something is rooted in something else ....it would mean that B.B.'s purpose for making his blues was "birthed" from a desire to make folk music....I would disagree with that because I believe his purpose was solely to make the blues...

now, after the fact...in hindsight...we could look at BB's music, in association with Blues in general...is quite comparable to Folk music....but that is AFTER the fact...that's coming during an analyzation process of the music.....not in BB's individual created process which using the term "rooted" conotes...

I'm not trying to get in to a semantical pissing contest, but I'm with you after you clarify and make your statements more IMO accurate and contextual.....but then you'll make statements that show that you actually believe that blues came from folk..."rooted" insinuates that...

you even specified rooted in Folk music....not rooted in the same asthetic as folk...but rooted in the music itself...it insinuates that Blues artists got their music from folk music...

to me to utilize anything outside of the African American experience in a real sense...giving these outside abbstract after-the-fact comparable influences the same or even remotely similar relevance as the real life experiences and cultural mores that evolved within a certain communites socialization...seems misguided to me...

there are degrees of influence.....not all influences should be held in the same stature....especially when what's being analyzed is so "rooted" in the actual experience of a particular group....unique experience....totally unique while they are occuring...post-analyzing is where the similarities lie...not in the creative process

>Now if you clarified that Blues is more or less folk music
>in that they both serve the same purpose..they function the
>same...

>To me that seems to contradict you saying it's "rooted" in
>folk music....

This was in response to Joe. B.B. King still plays blues, but not in its folk form.

He plays it in its urban form. So the music itself is rooted in earlier blues (country blues, folk blues, rural blues, whatever you want to call it), and that's the distinction I was going for.

Nothing more, nothing less.

>reason I say that is, stating that something is rooted in
>something else ....it would mean that B.B.'s purpose for
>making his blues was "birthed" from a desire to make folk
>music....I would disagree with that because I believe his
>purpose was solely to make the blues...

Well, Corey Harris makes "the blues" and so does Miles and so does Captain Beefheart.

Different kinds of blues, but the consistant, true strain remains in there. It's in the musical structure, and the emotional response...everything.

But it's not all folk music.

Anyway, I'm not going to speculate about what's in B.B.'s head. Puffy thinks he invented the remix.
McCartney thinks he invented heavy metal.

Warren - YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE ON THIS POST WHO SEPARATES BLUES AND FOLK INTO TWO SEPARATE MUSICAL GENRES.

I'm trying to put forward folk as a descriptive term that applies to many genres of music, that crosses cultural, geographic, and temporal boundaries.

You're still acting (or writing) salty because you think I'm trying to graft two distinct genres together, and you don't agree with it.

Doc - "Folk" is not really a genre. In record stores it's a catch-all, like "Rock/Pop/Soul," or "Jazz."

Or worse, "Worldbeat."

>you even specified rooted in Folk music....not rooted in the
>same asthetic as folk...but rooted in the music itself...it
>insinuates that Blues artists got their music from folk
>music...

I don't even understand what you mean here.

Maybe you can tell me what you refer to when you say "folk music" or "folk musicians."

And how they're separate from early "blues music" and early "blues musicians."

>to me to utilize anything outside of the African American
>experience in a real sense...

Folk music is not "outside" African-American experience. It's at the core.

And in Africa, where they (as a rule) don't split things up so much, it's all folk music.

That's what makes it "folk music." It IS the lived experience of people. If it's real folk, it should be the music lying CLOSEST to our lifeblood.

So, for the last time. This is _not_ a comparison.

I don't know how many times I can say it. It's not a comparison between genres.

It's a description of early blues, call it what you want, as a folk form.

And it's made in an effort to ensure that blues is treated as a secular music, because I (and most folks) believe that it is one.

Stop being so concerned with influence (which is a moot point when you're talking about folk forms, since they spring from and resonate with the collective unconscious), and consider context.

That's it. My last word on this (I hope).

If you come back still puzzled because I put "folk" and "blues" in the same basket, I don't know what else I can do.

Alek

____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

I just wanted to up this thread...

Peace

Wendell

>Folk music is not a genre.
>
>It's not a style of music with quantifiable or qualifiable
>_musical_ characteristics...
>...except perhaps economy of materials and performance, in
>all ways.
>
>But really, the word "folk" describes the way a music lives
>in a society.
>
>Where/how it is performed, what it means to people.

That's all very nice....but the context in which you brought "folk" into this discussion had a very different conotation then the one you specify above....very different



>
>Blues is a folk music just like klezmer is a folk music.

The purpose of the original post was referencing "soul" "gospel" "blues" to paraphrase...the connection between secular and non-secular music's...

categorizing blues as folk music really isn't too relevent to the discussion....considering that the concept of gospel music was introduced by the original poster...that pretty much makes the blues-folk connection irrelevant....There is really no need to discuss black music in terms of being folk music because discussing in it in terms of the secular/non-secular dynamic...and relating it to the ACTUAL experiences of black people in america is sufficient.....what purpose does it serve to say that the blues functions as folk like "Klezmers" or whatever the hell that is.....lol.
>
>Bob Dylan actually is a very infrequent folk singer - he's a
>neo-classicist with lots of romance and irony, so he sings
>Woody Guthrie.
>
>Joni Mitchell, Nick Drake...they're not really folk singers.
>
>But that's not the point.

The splitting musical categories and stylings into the super-sub-genres is really not necessary....Bob Dylan is very much a pioneer in folk music....personally I'ver never heard the term neo-classist before...lol.



>
>Warren, you keep addressing this as if I was comparing
>"blues" to "folk."
>
>And beyond that, it's pretty clear what you're really
>saying:

well, let's look at what you actually said:

you titled your response #28 "who wants to guess what I'm gonna say".....so obviously my assumptions about your point of view aren't too far fetched since even you recognize the "consistency" of your ideas...

>It's pretty well established that the Black music tradition
>traces its way back to the church.

And the fields, hills, barns, shanty-towns."(c) Alek post #28....

Since I notice that below, you insinuate that I'm saying that you're always trying to throw an aspect of white influence into discussions of black music...well you're right...the reason I've pointed that out is because it's absolutely true...read what I copied and pasted above from your post...this was a dialouge about black music and again you want to remind us that your folks influenced too.....

that's fine...

but at least let's be accurate...let's not over-state.....because some of the "reaching" (i.e. elvis..the king of ghetto songs) and the unwarranted and misplaced so-called "influences" comes off as insincere....

sure the blues could be looked at as a type of folk music...but to introduce that in the way you introduced it in this post makes an insinuation that is "consistent" with some of your previous "rants"...





>"Alek, you're trying to compare a 'black' music with a
>'white' music so you can take some credit for your race, or
>at least take credit away from mine."
>
>MISSING THE POINT.
>
dont' think so


>B.B. King still plays the blues, but it's not folk music
>anymore.
>
>Even Muddy didn't sing folk music for very long. Why do you
>think they had to call that album what they did?
>
>Blues moved north (and city-ward) and stopped being a folk
>music.
>
>That's my belief.
>
>And you still haven't answered anything about the church,
>so, as I said before, stop bitching about what you think _I_
>am trying to say or do, and tell us what you think.
>
my point about the church is...

why look at black music in terms of folk when looking at the influence of gospel and the church is so much more accurate and relevant....looking at it as folk is a hindsighted comparison that, although true, is really a moot point....look at the gospel aspect within black music is a more tangible and practical endeavor that will look at the real life experiences...how secular music came about etc...





>Alek
>
>(As for the Elvis thing, if you want to be lame enough to
>drudge up old shit to try and discredit me, I'd like nothing
>better than to quote your previous blatherings until the end
>of time -- but it doesn't do much good, and you'll come out
>looking as stupid as you did before)

no one's trying to discredit you...if you feel that your words will be used in an attempt to discredit you...then think before you type....and be a little more realistic...and less sensitive...

nobody is standing in front of their computer with wearing a beret and holding a black gloved fist in the air typing about black music....your defensiveness is unecessary...lol.


>
>
>____________________________
>LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
>What? What?

>The splitting musical categories and stylings into the
>super-sub-genres is really not necessary....Bob Dylan is
>very much a pioneer in folk music....personally I'ver never
>heard the term neo-classist before...lol.

no, Dylan was NOT a "pioneer" in folk music. the folk music movement had existed for almost two decades before he came onto the scene. in fact, by the time Dylan started recording, folk was sort of starting to fracture under the competing pressures of authenticity and commercialism. if anything, Dylan's often been deemed a folk-pretender, a Johnny-Come-Lately who jumped onto the sound when it was hot, then once his career was going, he went electric and dissed all his old homies, calling folk "music by fat old people"

and are you serious that you've never heard the term "neo-classicist" before?

>
>>The splitting musical categories and stylings into the
>>super-sub-genres is really not necessary....Bob Dylan is
>>very much a pioneer in folk music....personally I'ver never
>>heard the term neo-classist before...lol.
>
>no, Dylan was NOT a "pioneer" in folk music. the folk music
>movement had existed for almost two decades before he came
>onto the scene. in fact, by the time Dylan started
>recording, folk was sort of starting to fracture under the
>competing pressures of authenticity and commercialism. if
>anything, Dylan's often been deemed a folk-pretender, a
>Johnny-Come-Lately who jumped onto the sound when it was
>hot, then once his career was going, he went electric and
>dissed all his old homies, calling folk "music by fat old
>people"

Bob Dylan brought the folks asthetic to rock/pop music....in my book that makes him a pioneer....he wasn't the first, he wasn't the best...but he did bring folk to the dinner table...

sugar hill gang weren't the first..they weren't the best...but their song broght rap/hip hop into the popular culture...so they were a pioneer....

being a pioneer doesn't have to mean the first..or the best...they pioneered into an area where their particular genre either hadn't been before...or hadn't garnered the respect.



and are you serious that you've never heard the term
>"neo-classicist" before?

I have selective hearing when it comes to these hyper-syllabled terms....I just don't hear them...I'm more into direct and specific categorizing without limiting.....bob dylan to me has been a folk/rock..songwriting singer...one of my favorites in fact...

neo- whatever the hell....

>
>

i address falsehood wherever i encounter it.

>Bob Dylan brought the folks asthetic to rock/pop music....in
>my book that makes him a pioneer....he wasn't the first, he
>wasn't the best...but he did bring folk to the dinner
>table...
>

perhaps it make him a pioneer of the folk aesthetic in rock/pop, but it sure as hell doesn't make him a pioneer in FOLK MUSIC. that's like saying that because Elvis was one of the first people to bring Afro-American rhythms into the living rooms of white America, that means he was a pioneer in R&B.

un-muddy your reasoning.

>sugar hill gang weren't the first..they weren't the
>best...but their song broght rap/hip hop into the popular
>culture...so they were a pioneer....
>

they were pioneers because they actually did something before anybody else: cut a rap record. (yeah, yeah, yeah… the Fatback Band's "king tim III (personality jock)" was kinda lame, so I aint even gonna talk about it). they were pioneers in hip-hop as a recorded form, but that doesn't change the fact that they weren't out in the park in the Bronx back in 1972.

>being a pioneer doesn't have to mean the first..or the
>best...they pioneered into an area where their particular
>genre either hadn't been before...or hadn't garnered the
>respect.

un-muddy your reasoning.

>and are you serious that you've never heard the term
>>"neo-classicist" before?
>
>I have selective hearing when it comes to these
>hyper-syllabled terms....I just don't hear them...I'm more
>into direct and specific categorizing without
>limiting....

WTF does that mean?

>i address falsehood wherever i encounter it.
>
>>Bob Dylan brought the folks asthetic to rock/pop music....in
>>my book that makes him a pioneer....he wasn't the first, he
>>wasn't the best...but he did bring folk to the dinner
>>table...
>>
>
>perhaps it make him a pioneer of the folk aesthetic in
>rock/pop,

That was all that I was talking about nothing more then that. So thus it was not false hood...

just another weak attempt to unsuccesfully challenge a warren coolidge statement....nice try.




but it sure as hell doesn't make him a pioneer in
>FOLK MUSIC.

to me it does....I'm sure it does to many others.

>

>
>>being a pioneer doesn't have to mean the first..or the
>>best...they pioneered into an area where their particular
>>genre either hadn't been before...or hadn't garnered the
>>respect.
>
>un-muddy your reasoning.
>
>>and are you serious that you've never heard the term
>>>"neo-classicist" before?
>>
>>I have selective hearing when it comes to these
>>hyper-syllabled terms....I just don't hear them...I'm more
>>into direct and specific categorizing without
>>limiting....
>
>WTF does that mean?

folks looking at things from a euro-centric perspective are always trying to re-invent the wheel...re-categorize things to come up with some new evolution of something....I reject that....

folks just do what they do...you can call it what you want to....

it's not necessary to explain ever point down to it's last bit of DNA....not necessary at all..

especially when it has nothing to do with the topic, or the purpose of the poster...

some of y'all seem to be forgetting that...

explanation of every point, including all aspects whether they're relevent or not....thus the trek away from a concise discussion begins...

the only thing muddy about my resoning is muddy waters....because warren coolidge IS a hoochie coochie man....

a MAAAAAAAN

a rolling stone...

a MAAAAAAN!!!!

sitting on the outside....just me and my mate....you know I'll make the sun honey.....come up 2 hours late...

ain't that a Man???

I said M.......

A...child...

N......

no B's....

O.....child...

Y!!!!!!!!!!!

im talking about folk the genre here (though this post would seem to have renounced such a thing), not necessarily the word as a societal description. what are they to be called if they are not folk artists? i dont necesarily think that just because he rose within that scene, that inadvertently makes him a folk artist. dylan might have brought other styles into his music but wasnt his folk aesthetic the common thread? bob didnt turn his sound into out and out rock and roll.

I mean maybe you could call it folk/rock...

but I'm with you.

>That's all very nice....but the context in which you brought
>"folk" into this discussion had a very different conotation
>then the one you specify above....very different

Maybe for you. I believed that you were trying to argue blues and gospel as both being rooted in the church.

I think that's false, and I tried to identify the difference between sacred and secular forms -- to me, folk music in America lies decidedly outside the domain of the church.

And apart from your argument that every black person grew up in church, I haven't seen you prove anything to the contrary.


And doc, if you don't want to talk about blues as folk music stop responding to my threads about blues as folk music.

>what purpose does it serve to say that the
>blues functions as folk like "Klezmers" or whatever the hell
>that is.....lol.

I was trying to demonstrate (to _you_, because everyone else on this post gets it) that "folk" is not a genre classification.

It's a context, so very VERY different musics (like blues and klezmer) can both be referred to as "folk" musics because of their social position.

(incidentally, klezmer is Eastern European instrumental music played within the Jewish and Gypsy communities, and was brought here and modernized at the beginning of the 20th cent.)

>The splitting musical categories and stylings into the
>super-sub-genres is really not necessary....Bob Dylan is
>very much a pioneer in folk music....personally I'ver never
>heard the term neo-classist before...lol.

Then I'm not surprised you call Bob Dylan a "pioneer."

That's kind of like calling Stevie Ray Vaughan a pioneer in blues.

>Since I notice that below, you insinuate that I'm saying
>that you're always trying to throw an aspect of white
>influence into discussions of black music...well you're
>right...the reason I've pointed that out is because it's
>absolutely true...read what I copied and pasted above from
>your post...this was a dialouge about black music and again
>you want to remind us that your folks influenced too.....

Actually, look at famous post #28. See if you can find some mention of race.

I was just talking about geography.

Because the fields/church connection is strong, but the hills/church connection is much weaker.

I was pointing out that the blues was a "people's" music, not music for God.

I think you just flipped out because I used the word "Appalachia."

It's a mountain range, man. That's what they CALL those hills and mountains.

>sure the blues could be looked at as a type of folk
>music...but to introduce that in the way you introduced it
>in this post makes an insinuation that is "consistent" with
>some of your previous "rants"...

Not really. You've just got a real jerk in that right knee.

>why look at black music in terms of folk when looking at the
>influence of gospel and the church is so much more accurate
>and relevant....

It's the purpose of this POST!!!!

To figure out if this "gospel and the church is so much more accurate and relevant" really represents the truth or not.

I think it's overstated because the popular music and musicians that have gone REALLY mainstream in America have romanticized the personal shift from church to "somewhere else."

Hence Aretha, Ben King, Whitney, God knows who else. Even our favorite subject Elvis talked about church and gospel all the time -- as a frictional counterpoint to his hips.

Let me ask you this:

What exactly about blues and jazz say "church" to you?

What is it in the music?

Alek
_________________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

Sepcifically, I'm interested in the latter half of this thread.

I spent much of yesterday listening carefully to Big Bill Broonzy's _The Bill Broonzy Story_, about 3 1/2 hours of Big Bill talking about his life & music and singing. Fantastic record, and Bill's discourse incorporates many of the themes involved here - work songs, church songs, blues, commercialism, migration.

So now I'm looking for other recommendations, especially books, on the topic. CDs would be welcome too.

...worthwhile in this post?

It has content, so I was considering recommending an archive, but unless someone else chimes in I don't think it's worth it.

Anyone?

Alek

____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

Affy came back home???

I understood what Affy meant for the first time...

I agreed with YOU...

No real reason to archive. I don't want evidence of the last example. :-)

Peace

Wendell

[]well the "It Takes a Board of Millions To Hold Warren_Coolidge Back" makes this an archivable thread no matter what else there is in it

funky music.....funky baby...

afkap....not funky music.....not funky baby...

Alek....folk music.....everbody's baby..

lol.