>that until 1977 Parliament and Funkadelic,
>even though it was the
>same bunch of people, were
>two different musical entities.
>Funkadelic were the acid funk rock
>revolutionaries who challenged your way
>of thinking.
>Parliament was a way to get
>George and co. burn on
>the radio because he knew
>DAMN well that Funkadelic didnt
>stand a chance on black
>radio. So he took out
>the wild guitar shit, added
>horns, song structure and a
>storyline infused with silliness, to
>disguise the deep shit he
>was saying...
>Example: Funkentelechy-on the surface it sounds
>like George high in front
>of the TV, but what
>it REALLY is is a
>tirade on mot letting the
>corporate world corrupt your thought
>process and make you a
>SUPERconsumer-sheep. To question what is
>presented to you. there was
>a message woven itno the
>whole Parliament storyline, but you
>know this already, right?.
>
>Prince wanted to wild otu but
>he knew he could not,
>so GRADUALLY he unleashed his
>freakiness until he built himself
>and audience.
>
>I'm saying there are ways to
>get around the system, and
>these cats figured that out.
>

I see you're point. The way you stated it before seemed like a slight on them or a critisim. Folks know I'm sensative about Pfunk. Absolutly I understand the Parliment, Funkadelic differences and the reasons behind such differences. Always thought that it was a brillant way to get as much variety out in the movement with out over saturation. Interestingly their most successful song radio wise was put out under Funkadelic. The other thing is that IMO some of the Parliment records were far more experimental than the Funkadelic albums. Funkadelic was pretty much a straight ahead Acid Funk band where Parliment took a few more chances, especially vocally.