funkiness

[dominic]

the thing about black music is that even when it's raw'n'ruff it's supertight

yes

also in re UK soulboyism and jazzfunk fandom, it's as much a white thing as a black thing...

whites participate in and contribute to every area of black music -- but it's still black music -- cf. thread on "urban music"

and when it becomes more of a white thing than a black thing then it's no longer black music -- it's something else -- call it "deracinated" or "gentrified," though these terms are too pejorative -- i.e., there's a lot of deracinated black music that i love

i would say that a more crucial determinant is class, slickness and foregrounded skill connoting 'qualiteee', 'the finer things in life', aspirationalism etc

yes -- this is the connotation

but i don't think that the middling classes prefer the one and the working classes the other

(which is not to deny that early jungle was a working class music movement -- merely that working class people often like slick sounds, and middle class people often like ruff n raw sounds)

i think music's history is all about creative misunderstandings/misreadings by white folk of black music...

certainly the modern history of pop music in the usa and england

and certainly a great deal of the music i like is along the lines of "creative misreadings" of black music by white people

i.e., i'm more of a musical anglophile than a fan of black music as such

i.e., there's a very weird exchange from black america to white britain to white america

or more recently, black atlantic to white britain to white america

and i don't really know if it's possible or desirable to somehow achieve a kind of preconception-free translucence of mind whereby you don't bring anything to the table when you listen to something

it's neither possible nor desirable

w/ language everything is explained in terms of something else

even so, w/ the commercial dominance of hip hop r'n'b in the states for the past 10 years, i wonder if that will allow the younger generation to have a more direct claim over black music -- or if the relationship will always be somehow "appropriative," i.e., trying to figure out and understand that which belongs to someone else

 

[dominic]

i just wanted to say that this idea that being conscious of what youre doing = art and not being conscious of it = accidental, i.e. no intelligence being used, they play by instinct, its all primal, etc etc seems a bit redolent of the age old idea that black art is merely oozed out while white art is 'intelligent' and the result of real thinking going on. im not sure if intent should be such a high factor in how we view the end result . . . . its always assumed isnt it that black musicians dont 'think' about anything they make (other than in jazz), while white artists, its assumed, do.

errrr, i don't think anyone was making this suggestion

rather, i took blissblogger to mean that the ruffness & rawness of early jungle, early house, early hip hop, etc, was mainly a FUNCTION OF THE LIMITED TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS in the hands of the producers

(and of course this point is valid when you compare uk grime w/ us hip hop -- the latter have a lot more $ behind their productions, whereas as the former have much less $ and so have much rawer productions)

whereas i took the position that the ruffness and rawness of these sounds was in fact an aesthetic that was positively pursued and embraced -- i.e., consciously intended

the truth is somewhere in between

but nobody was taking the position that black music is unconscious, instinctive, etc, as compared with white music

 

[dominic]

They weren't meant to be like hyper-convincing, just silly.

yeah -- i can get overly earnest in these discussions

but i still think there's no neat rock analogy for what broken beats is doing

maybe it's just like deep house (except lighter to the touch and more rhythmically inventive) -- a subculture going nowhere but with enough commitment from certain prime movers to remain in existence

 

[blissblogger]

>but i don't think that the middling classes prefer the one and the working classes the other
>(which is not to deny that early jungle was a working class music movement -- merely that working class >people often like slick sounds, and middle class people often like ruff n raw sounds)

no, that's what i meant actually --- that the slick soulful-jazzy stuff had positive association as "classy' for a Southern working class jazz-funk... whereas as you say your more middle class types tend to valorize the raw'n'ruff'n'gritty etc etc

thanks Dom for answering the charge of imputing unselfconscious unreflecting instinctualness to black music, i don't know where that came from, and there's obviously a million examples of hyperconscious black musicians, i'm sure anthony braxton could match green gartside for cerebration (is that actually a noun, and if not why not?) and conceptualism anyday

a good example of these things playing out is blues... however much i know it's a cultural bias i can't help preferring the Stones version of it to say BB King's taut superslick playing

(although there's obviously an artfully concealed technique behind that sloppy-sounding stonesy style, e.g. something like 'start me up' doesn't just stumble into being, even if it sounds like like it's stumbling and drunkenly staggering)

there's a debate on ILM, an umpteenth go-round w/ rockism (the "It's Only Rock'n'Roll" of Rockism threads perhaps). one of the ideas being mooted is the idea of anti-rockism's project being to empty your mind of constructs and preconceptions in order to understand each form of music "on its own terms"... what does this mean? music doesn't come with readymade terms, those are endlessly renegotiable... that's what a creative response is isn't it, whether it's critical or musical in the form of being influenced or inspired....

or at least perhaps it is possible to do this, but the result is that kind of utterly self-effaced and humble 'curator/custodial' type approach to black/world/Other-sourced music, diligently researched and annotated but in the end too respectful to actually do anything ...

 

[bassnation]

but nobody was taking the position that black music is unconscious, instinctive, etc, as compared with white music

you lot keep going on about how white music is like this, and black music like that. is it really that simple that we can just chop the music up and drop it into little pigeon holes?

what, these days is "white music" for fucks sake? screwdriver???

someone was going on about the jam as an example - a group that plays rock music ultimately coming from rnb which was mostly created by black musicians. or jungle, which despite djs like doc scott and lots of others, apparently is completely under the black banner. so where do we draw this illusory and exclusive line in the sand under your scheme of things? surely its more a complex web of influences. it just seems to ghettoise music and i'm not sure i want to buy into that.

everything seems to be divided by class, or if not class then race - or if we're really lucky, both. but as long as it allows us to connect it all in some grand overarching theory, then thats ok. or am i being overly cynical?

 

[gumdrops]

errrr, i don't think anyone was making this suggestion

rather, i took blissblogger to mean that the ruffness & rawness of early jungle, early house, early hip hop, etc, was mainly a FUNCTION OF THE LIMITED TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS in the hands of the producers

(and of course this point is valid when you compare uk grime w/ us hip hop -- the latter have a lot more $ behind their productions, whereas as the former have much less $ and so have much rawer productions)

whereas i took the position that the ruffness and rawness of these sounds was in fact an aesthetic that was positively pursued and embraced -- i.e., consciously intended

the truth is somewhere in between

but nobody was taking the position that black music is unconscious, instinctive, etc, as compared with white music

i didnt say blissblogger said that explicitly, nor am i saying hes some musical right winger or anything, i was just saying that the whole argument ties into that, quite easily.

 

[Pearsall]

you lot keep going on about how white music is like this, and black music like that. is it really that simple that we can just chop the music up and drop it into little pigeon holes?

what, these days is "white music" for fucks sake? screwdriver???

someone was going on about the jam as an example - a group that plays rock music ultimately coming from rnb which was mostly created by black musicians. or jungle, which despite djs like doc scott and lots of others, apparently is completely under the black banner. so where do we draw this illusory and exclusive line in the sand under your scheme of things? surely its more a complex web of influences. it just seems to ghettoise music and i'm not sure i want to buy into that.

everything seems to be divided by class, or if not class then race - or if we're really lucky, both. but as long as it allows us to connect it all in some grand overarching theory, then thats ok. or am i being overly cynical?

Yes, yes, and thrice yes!

Plus there seems to be this idea that black music is completely autonomous, that the communication is only one way (black->white). I've always found this a bit chin-scratching...as if in an America where blacks are outnumbered by whites 7 to 1 black musicians are never influenced by cultural things coming from the white majority! In the West, 'black' and 'white' styles of music are heavily heavily interrelated...shit is deeply connected on both sides of the line.

 

[dominic]

this is the same issue as "urban music" versus "black music"

so i'm not sure if there's any point in rehashing the arguments that were made in that thread

yes, there are plenty of white people who participate in and contribute to black music

and yes, there are all sorts of debts owed on all sides via all kinds of pathways

but at the end of the day, these are the facts:

(1) there is black music as such -- hip hop, reggae, r'n'b, funk, soul, early jungle, early house

(2) music heavily influenced by black music = "creative misappropriation" by whites

(3) white music as such = classical music, country & western music, trance, gabba

and you could probably draw a chart of all kinds of genres moving from position 2 to position 3

e.g., heavy metal begins as white misappropriation of the blues, but it quickly moves to position 3

e.g., happy hardcore is position 3 music that has its origin in breakbeat hardcore -- and breakbeat hardcore was the ultimate creole music positioned somewhere b/w 1 and 2

e.g., drum n bass is position 3 music that developed out of positon 1 music, i.e., early jungle as position 1 music that owed debts to creole music and position 2 music

and yes, i realize that such a scheme is way too simplistic

but if you refuse to be simplistic, then at what price?

the price is that you end up expropriating blacks of their ownership of black music

so you end up replacing one kind of falsehood with an even worse falsehood

the new falsehood consisting in society's failure to recognize the qualitative difference b/w black and white contributions to modern popular music

b/c certainly black music and black artists have been the well spring, not white music

(it's the equivalent of forgetting that it was the russians who defeated nazi germany)

 

[dominic]

Plus there seems to be this idea that black music is completely autonomous, that the communication is only one way (black->white)

lest we all have short memories, this is the position that blissblogger took in his debate with kirk degiorgio regarding detroit techno

In the West, 'black' and 'white' styles of music are heavily heavily interrelated...shit is deeply connected on both sides of the line.

isn't this really a "don't lose the forest for the trees" issue?

if you look at the trees, there's always going to be white musicians involved, white artists, etc

and if you look at still more trees, there's this guitar lick from this white rock song or this melody line from bacharach

and yet the forest is black

and certainly the preponderance of influence has run from black music to white music, and not vice versa

 

[dominic]

no, that's what i meant actually --- that the slick soulful-jazzy stuff had positive association as "classy' for a Southern working class jazz-funk... whereas as you say your more middle class types tend to valorize the raw'n'ruff'n'gritty etc etc

actually i had it the other way around

such that jazz-funk is middle class

and rough n raw is working class

but fact that we're not even clear on which classes prefer which sounds goes to show that's it's more about connotation than constituency

a good example of these things playing out is blues... however much i know it's a cultural bias i can't help preferring the Stones version of it to say BB King's taut superslick playing

my sentiments exactly

or at least perhaps it is possible to do this, but the result is that kind of utterly self-effaced and humble 'curator/custodial' type approach to black/world/Other-sourced music, diligently researched and annotated but in the end too respectful to actually do anything ...

that's imitation from a distance

i suppose i'm waiting for the day that bassnation and pearsall evidently believe has arrived already

the day when it's no longer black music but the music of everyone who lives here or lives there

the day when distance is eliminated

i'm not sure that day will come any time soon

 

[bassnation]

but at the end of the day, these are the facts:

(1) there is black music as such -- hip hop, reggae, r'n'b, funk, soul, early jungle, early house

(2) music heavily influenced by black music = "creative misappropriation" by whites

(3) white music as such = classical music, country & western music, trance, gabba

dominic, even country and western was influenced by music made by black musicians. even gabba is not as pure and as segregated as you appear to want it to be. hardcore was as white as it was black, and definitely more working class than anything else. there is nothing original under the sun.

so under your scheme of little boxes, when house arrived in the uk and you had people like 808 state creating british house music, was it still "black"? or did they bring something to do with the colour of their skin to the music? or did house suddenly become "white" because white musicains were involved? were they misappropriating "black music" by daring to love house? what about when gerald was with them? does that tip the scales one way or another? please enlighten me, because i'm getting confused.

this whole thing stinks of orientalism, people are coming across like old school anthropologists - its the worst kind of patronisation.

no-one wants to take anything away from anyone, but i'm not accepting something so deceptively simple and divisive. these little boxes help no-one but the music industry who can find it a whole lot easier to commodify and package it for consumers.

 

[bassnation]

lest we all have short memories, this is the position that blissblogger took in his debate with kirk degiorgio regarding detroit techno

thanks for the pointer, but i'll make up my own mind.

and certainly the preponderance of influence has run from black music to white music, and not vice versa

if we accept this statement without question, there has to be a reason for it. so why do think that is? you've already denied that theres any kind of genetic aspect to this (i'm sure no-one wants to back a "black men got the funk" kind of viewpoint). so it has to be cultural. and if its cultural, why can't there be a free exchange of ideas? if its purely cultural, surely any race can become adept at the form.

i grew up listening to hardcore, it was pretty much the first music i truly fell in love with. it feels as natural to me, part of me really as it does to anyone else, no matter their race, class, gender etc. i really don't understand how you are looking at this to be perfectly honest.

 

[Pearsall]

and yes, i realize that such a scheme is way too simplistic

but if you refuse to be simplistic, then at what price?

the price is that you end up expropriating blacks of their ownership of black music

so you end up replacing one kind of falsehood with an even worse falsehood

the new falsehood consisting in society's failure to recognize the qualitative difference b/w black and white contributions to modern popular music

b/c certainly black music and black artists have been the well spring, not white music

(it's the equivalent of forgetting that it was the russians who defeated nazi germany)

This is pretty silly stuff. You're putting words on my keyboard.

I'm not taking anything away from black music (in the 'black' versus 'urban' argument, I came down on the side of 'black music' for American forms like hip-hop, soul, etc, fwiw); it's not like acknowledging complexities means you are 'expropriating', that's ridiculous.

Saying hip-hop is, at core, black (as I said in the 'black versus urban' thread) doesn't mean that you are excluding other people from doing whatever with it.

Saying that these black cultural forms have been influenced by white cultural forms at various points doesn't mean you are trying to steal them.

Come on.

 

[bassnation]

Saying that these black cultural forms have been influenced by white cultural forms at various points doesn't mean you are trying to steal them.
.

yeah, and why is it "influence" when it goes from white to black and "misappropriation" when its the other way round? like i said, this sounds suspiciously like orientalism to me.

 

[Grievous Angel]

no, that's what i meant actually --- that the slick soulful-jazzy stuff had positive association as "classy' for a Southern working class jazz-funk... whereas as you say your more middle class types tend to valorize the raw'n'ruff'n'gritty etc etc

Yeah. I'm from Essex. A big part of what I grew up listening to was stuff like Mtume's Jiucy Fruit and obviously Maze and Earth Wind and Fire was huge, and stuff like Ashford and Simpson and (yes!) Tom Brown's Funkin' for Jamaica (one of THE GREATEST RECORDS EVER MADE) were smoooooooooth and sweet and tight in ways that would make Bassnation vomit. So I personally don't have a problem with 4Hero's worshipping at the altar of fusion. (That's not to say I didn't grow up listening to middle class grit-valorization post-punk too, course I did.) Mind you in Essex it's difficult to draw clear distinctions between working and middle class.

This is another reason why I never bought into the denigration of MJ Cole and the criticism of early Grime people who wanted to do "proper records like MJ Cole". I mean, if you like "black" music, or at least the kind of music a lot of real black people listen to, you're going to like a few smooth grooves.

a good example of these things playing out is blues... however much i know it's a cultural bias i can't help preferring the Stones version of it to say BB King's taut superslick playing

It's not BB you want, it's John Lee Hooker: you need to have Tupelo, Boom Boom Boom, and Whiskey and Women seared on your brain to put the Stones in context, though I like the way your affection for the Stones' mongrelisation presages jungle. Oh, and Muddy Waters too. (And before you ask, yes I did get pissed with Charles Shaar Murray once, but it was before he did the JLH book.)

Oh and just to join the dots, one of the reasons why jungle did not sound entirely rough was that there was so much sampling of some of the best-produced music ever made, i.e. classic soul, funk and fusion records. Tom & Jerry's Maximum Style comes to mind. Perfect productions crudely cut up into sixteenths in an S1000 -- that's jungle.

Top Stones track still played by the baggier end of house DJs: Emotional Rescue.

Top funk track with the term "funk" in the title: I don't know what it is (but it sure is funky)

Or the long version of Funky Drummer.

BTW, I class funk as religious music.

that kind of utterly self-effaced and humble 'curator/custodial' type approach to black/world/Other-sourced music, diligently researched and annotated but in the end too respectful to actually do anything ...

Compare and contrast with Parliament / Funkadelic four-CD live box sets. They're staying with me forever...

 

[bassnation]

Yeah. I'm from Essex. A big part of what I grew up listening to was stuff like Mtume's Jiucy Fruit and obviously Maze and Earth Wind and Fire was huge, and stuff like Ashford and Simpson and (yes!) Tom Brown's Funkin' for Jamaica (one of THE GREATEST RECORDS EVER MADE) were smoooooooooth and sweet and tight in ways that would make Bassnation vomit. So I personally don't have a problem with 4Hero's worshipping at the altar of fusion. (That's not to say I didn't grow up listening to middle class grit-valorization post-punk too, course I did.) Mind you in Essex it's difficult to draw clear distinctions between working and middle class.

yeah, my missus grew up in southend, total soul and funk girl. we have a real mash up of music going on in my house from nutty hardcore all the way through to sly & the family stone, herbie hancock and even some galliano (prime exponents of a genre that i've roundly slagged off earlier in the thread)

but i'm not sure that working class = smooth sounds. from what i remember, heavy metal was huge amongst working class youth where i grew up. and no-one could accuse that genre of being smooth, could they? aren't we just crudely stereotyping once again?

 

[Grievous Angel]

but i'm not sure that working class = smooth sounds. from what i remember, heavy metal was huge amongst working class youth where i grew up. aren't we just crudely stereotyping once again?

Just speaking from experience: most poor neighbourhoods in Essex didn't have rough music playing through windows, let alone metal, but smoooove r'n'b, or, where I was growing up, jazz funk and soul.

 

[bassnation]

Just speaking from experience: most poor neighbourhoods in Essex didn't have rough music playing through windows, let alone metal, but smoooove r'n'b, or, where I was growing up, jazz funk and soul.

anyway, nice to see you crashing into this thread, wondered when you were going to arrive

 

[borderpolice]

this thread is peculiar and paradigmatic: music is evaluated according to its (purported) audience, and to a lesser degree regarding other non-musical facts about creators, in this case skin-colour.

in my experience, just about every discussion of musical aesthetics ends up this way. popism vs rockism could also be understood along these line, in that this distinction is at heart about the role of teenage girls in music. I have often asked myself why this would be the case, why are we NOT talking about rhythms or chroma or other sonic qualities? Isn't it odd?

I take the ubiquity of this way of relating to music as an indication that music is fundamentally about social possibilities (especially sexual) though not exclusively. musical phrases, signs, encode audience. I mentioned this several times in the pop-music thread, but nobody picked up on this.

 

[simon silverdollar]

it does get quite wearing how often threads on here turn back to the debate over race and class in music.

when i started this thread i was really thinking about ninja tune and the red hot cunting chili peppers, but almost inevitably a hatred of 'funkiness' gets interpreted as a dislike of black music that's 'smooth' or 'slick', or- worse- the view that black musicians can only really make ruff and raw music if they want to make good music.

over-fussy, emotionally dead, music with a certain archness (or worse- wackiness) = bad music.

and this has nothing to do with race or class. that's why i dislike ninja tune as much as a lot on 'intelligent' drum and bass, or acid jazz.