Andy I didn't see your post before I wrote mine - for what it's worth I'm not responding to you there.
Cheers for clarifying but I wasn't too worried.

I dunno, I don't think eclecticism should be compulsory, and obv I really rate people Mak 10 and Marcus Nasty who make themselves distinctive by consistently mining the core funky vein. I also think it's important that a certain number of people keep doing that sort of thing, to encourage enough good new funky productions to keep getting made (I think a similar way with grime).
But on the other hand, I understand why it's very tempting to do a mixed set, and I think they often can work very well, because there are real musical links and similarities between the styles. I also think there's a difference between someone doing a set that's half dubstep and half funky, or half grime and funky, or 1/3 each garage, dubstep and funky (etc etc), and an otherwise straightforward UKF dj dropping something like Badman Riddim or Kickdrum or Sunglasses. Even though I don't much like that latter two tunes, they're all obviously mainstream/international house tunes that happen to sound a lot like UKF ideas.
Martin's right that some people still do the 'anyhouse' thing and it does sound like a bit of an annoying mish-mash, but there's a slight difference between 'anyhouse' and, erm, 'any house that sounds a bit like funky'. The latter approach I quite like because on the one hand it gives people freedom to range across different styles and periods of house, and on the other the fact that there has to be some connection, esp in the beats, helps narrow down the choice and make it more specific. The fact that some of the djs involved don't seem to be long-term experts on house in general is also quite healthy because it means that they're liberated from any historical reverence.
Right, that's enough hair-splitting from me for one afternoon.
