Talk:Funk/Archive 1

Most famous/typical funky songs

1. Commodores - "Brick House"
2. James Brown - "Sex Machine"
3. Parliament - "Give Up the Funk"
4. Earth, Wind and Fire - "Jupiter"
5. Ohio Players - "Fire"
6. Temptations - "Shakey Ground"
7. Tower of Power - "Love Bug"
8. Tower of Power - "This Is Hip"
9. Lakeside - "Fantastic Voyage"

Should Funk be considered as a genre independent of Soul or Rhythm and Blues, or as a version of either? It does after all combine elements of soul, sycodelia, and true R&B with a unique element of it's own, which makes it confusingly appear as both a bridge between genres, and a new genre formed through this continuing cross polination. ~Jack D. 10:28UTC 8/2/05

I removed the above in the interest of NPOV. Tuf-Kat 04:21, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

I gotta speak up an' add "Soul Finger" by the Bar-Kays to the list!! -- deeceevoice - June 22, 2004

Important Songs

Full ACK to NPOV, but as a part of an encyclopadia IMHO this document should contain a list of important milestones of the funkmusic. For me milestones are songs or albums which mark a important turning point in the development of funk music. I am aware of the fact that this will start a big discussion, but maybe we can can do this at another document and leave this document to NPOV.

--mac_c 10:01, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. My addition was merely a "me too" comment and not a suggestion that the moved item should be restored. I also think the latest comment about JB is, perhaps, not so much unimportant as somewhat clumsy. But I thought I'd leave it alone. Anyone wanna do a slight edit on it? deeceevoice 11:38, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Went back and edited the passage referred to above. Deleted as superfluous the background information on Brown Smash and Fair Deal. More suitable, I think, for the article on James Brown and not essential to an explication of the subject matter at hand. deeceevoice 13:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

He-ey! I like what you've done to the place! The reorganization of the info and the sidebar look good. Much improved from when I first came to this topic -- when "funk" was defined (erroneously) as a "euhpemism" for that otoher four-letter word beginning with an "f". Peace! :-D deeceevoice 14:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why is there a link to punk?

Maybe I've missed the discussion since I'm pretty new to wikipedia, but why is there a link to the punk genre on the funk page?

An excellent question. I see no reason at all, as the genres are unrelated except for having similar-sounding names. There are some bands that combine funk and punk sound but I don't think any of them are especially well-known. I'm going to remove the link.

about "videogame" funk, if that's what it's called

For example, the Final Fight and Pilotwings 64 titles, as well as the non-videogame album Expert Knob Twiddlers by Mike Paradinas and Richard D James (track 1, "Mr. Frosty", and the other track, "The Sound of Beady Eyes" -- go look for said tracks on Soulseek or something). Was this music actually funk, or some 80's-electro-spinoff genre of funk? After all, that kind of (funk?) reminds me more of Isaac Hayes' character in Escape From New York, rather than of James Brown spinning around and screaming" "HEY!" to bouncy quarternote trumpets, like a cyberpunk-funk, if you will. That's the best I can explain what I'm inquiring about. Any more information on this (sub?)genre? I'm very interested --I run like a Welshman 23:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is from memory of one of Charles Chilton's radio programmes so it can not go into the article unless someone confirms it. The early jazz horn player Buddy Bolden performed at 'Funky Butt Hall'and named his theme song after it. At that time funky butt meant 'smelly arse'.

Butt  still means arse but funky seems to mean almost anything you want it to.
   mikeL

The article already says "funky" is related to sexual intercourse. In my first correction of this article (wa-aay back when, when it erroneously characterized "funk" as a "euphemism" for f"**k"), I specifically stated that "funk" literally meant the smell of sexual intercourse. It somehow got edited out over time. If you want to reinstate that info, go for it. deeceevoice 14:05, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I reinserted the reference to the original definition of "funk" for clarity's sake. My comment about "put some stank on it" doesn't make clear sense without it. deeceevoice 14:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Recent additions by 80.221...

Good stuff. Thanks. But it could use a little cleaning up. I don't have the time. Someone else wanna take a crack at it. deeceevoice 14:05, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"once formally defined as the smell of sexual intercourse" --- surprising and difficult to accept! Please give proper references: defined when? by whom? etc. and did it apply just locally somewhere? and what does 'formally' mean in this context? Sexual intercourse in the social sense can have many smells scent, alcohol and so on. In the carnal sense it may have smells in other creatures but given normal hygene it is virtually odourless in humans. The word funk has other, older, meanings associated with fear or depression which are still in common use. Perhaps the connotations with smell have nothing to do with the original 'funk' but developed from the word 'fug'. mikeL

Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. Sexual intercourse does have a particular smell -- and it's got nothing to do with hygiene. Human beings are part of the animal kingdom, too. Why should we be any different? Further, did you even bother to google it? Or are you so certain that you're right, you didn't even bother? Try something like "funk smell of sex" and see what you came up with. My "search" turned up all kinds of stuff immediately. I looked it up sometime in the 1970's in a dictionary and then suddenly came to understand why why mother forbade me using the term when I was younger. deeceevoice 01:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The African-American community, at least, has always been aware of the connection of "funk" w/sex -- something which seems to have been lost by mainstream (read "white") society. The connection no longer appears in the dictionaries of today that I've come across.

From "Give It to Me, Baby" (Rick James): "Give it to me. Give me that stuff, that funk, that sweet, that funky stuff {Say what?) Give it to me. Give it to me. Give it to me."

Still say it's got nothing to do with sex? :p deeceevoice 16:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suppose that 'Funk' is becoming one of those words that can mean whatever you like. It is now being used as a meaningless general-purpose word to get round the censor in the lyrics of pop music, because it almost rhymes with 'F**k'. A recent (Summer 2005) record in the UK charts is called 'Don't Funk With My Heart', but this has now become so 'old hat' that it no longer shocks any more and sounds 'juvenile'. Maybe a genuine word such as 'mess' or indeed 'f**k' itself would have more powerful meaning. But the word 'Funk' goes back further than that. The first occurrence that I can unearth (at least here in the UK) is during WW2, when to 'Funk' was to "wash your hands of" the war, or make a sharp exit when faced with a risky situation not of your choosing. A 'Funk Hole' was a private hotel or guest-house in a remote part of the country largely unaffected by the war, where well-heeled people with the necessary money could stay as long-term guests and safely ride-out the war in relative comfort. Presumably many such people were prepared to 'make their peace' with whoever emerged as the victor. A 'Blue Funk' was the wartime equivalent of a panic attack, among servicemen who faced unfavourable mathematical odds of survival (such as the high death-rate among RAF bomber crews)...not 'cowardice' as such, just a temporary 'stress disorder' or 'nihilistic' mindset (See 'A Wobbler' and 'The Yips') that could sometimes be cured by a stiff drink or three.

Sorry that us Brits have made such a mess of the American language,  :-)

ChrisR, Newbury UK (04 SEP 05)

Transferred from "http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:funk"

Another sexual reference:

Was watching "Scent of a Woman" where Al Pacino's character says he dreams of having a woman wrap her arms around him and wrap her legs around him; of awakening in the morning with her still lying beside him "all funky and warm."

I rest my case. :p deeceevoice 09:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Rio de Janeiro's Funk

Please, let's take this out..

"In Brazil, the word "funk" is used to denote a distinct genre of music called baile funk (also known as rio funk), related to electro."

The Brazilian funk has *NO* relations with this funk.. Not even with electro music..

Brazilian Funk talk about sex, drugs and money with a very poor musicality.

• I vote take it out. It's only Funk in name. Musically it's related to funk only in the same way that any post-funk electronic music is. Dissolve

• If nothing else, it needs a disambig block at the top of the page so people for baile funk can find it. Tuf-Kat 05:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Editorial Note

Hey, there's some confusing language in the origin paragraph. The sentence reads: "At least as early as the 1930s, jazz songs carried titles such as Buddy Bolden's "Funky Butt." Bolden never played a note in public after 1907; this sentence can be read to say that Bolden was playing/recording in the 30s. Don't know the protocol for editing, and don't much feel like stepping on the author's toes. Just figured I would point this out. Thanks, essvee 206.81.102.145 15:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you. I've solved it. --M@rēino 19:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

New Funk/Deep Funk

I've tried to add a section under recent developments on the New Funk scene. This could use its own page and expansion. Also the Deep Funk collectors scene could use a write up and/or page.

Everytime I've added a link related to deep funk, which involves thousands of people around the world, a user named Ezeu edits them out as spam. None of the sites I added are commercial in nature, and are the most relevant sites to this scene.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.128.95.47 (talk • contribs)

I really must agree with the above. The "underground" Deep Funk scene is very significant and is based mainly on artists who recorded on American independant labels. As a result many of these records were often released in very small numbers and the artists never went on to become famous. However their rediscovery and reissue on 45's and compilations have greatly increased the ownership of such tracks. Some of these tracks are now considered classics of the genre. For example "Sexy Cofee Pot" by Tony Avlon and the Belairs, "Iron Leg" By Mickey and the Soul Generation, or "Baby Don't Cry" by The Third Guitar. I would add this section myself but I think it really should be written by somebody who specialises in collecting funk 45's. Philster 16:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Chiptune funk

I removed the chiptune funk section. Chiptunes in general are quite far from funk. Funk is more closely related to Toe Jam & Earl game that was mentioned (that section can be returned in some form). (Also some scenemusicians such as Moby (not that famous Moby) and Nuke made funky MOD-music for Amiga). --128.214.205.5 09:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Dave Thompson's 'Funk'

According to some reviewers this book contains inaccuracies, especially amongst its album and track listings. Should this be mentioned in the 'Further reading' category? Deke42 21:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it seems like he churns books out covering many genres and is an expert on none of them. I say remove it if it's not a reliable source. Dissolve 00:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

h

Go go

Someone should write about go go on here, since it's one of two sub-genres listed, and doesn't even get a sentence. I would do it but don't know much about it. --Awiseman 17:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Another glaring omission is a section on Sly & The Family Stone. I can add Go-go and Sly when I get a chance. Dissolve 17:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

protected

Ok, I semiprotected the article. I'll add it to my watchlist. ---J.S ^(T/C) 23:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've made a case on Talk:Spam blacklist for one of the primary anonymous link spammers on this article (and twenty-some other articles) to be blacklisted. If you or any other admin can speed this along it would probably help the situation a good bit. Dissolve 01:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't realy have any standing on meta. ---J.S ^(T/C) 06:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

Let's try unprotecting--it's been quite a while, and the worst spam culprit is now on the blacklist. Let me know or post to WP:RFPP if it becomes a problem again. Chick Bowen 06:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it lasted 10 days before the idiot crew arrived.... Is this a record? --Deke42 19:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Pod of Funk

The Pod Of Funk is a blog (no: it's a PODCAST, i.e it contains enclosed media files Deekdeekster 08:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC) DD.) and it does not pass the guidelines in WP:EL. Here are the points in the section of "Sites to normally avoid" that I believe apply to this page:

• 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article (it does in fact contain unique resources inasmuch as it researches and interviews modern, practising funk musicians and composers Deekdeekster 08:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)DD.)
• 4. Links mainly intended to promote a website (This is a geniune link to a resource which focusses on Funk. The podcast has been running for 14 months and there is no one website beyond the podcast which this link promotes Deekdeekster 08:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)DD.)
• 12. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority - (Recognised by whom? I was interviewed by BBC radio on the event of James Brown's death Deekdeekster 08:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC) DD.)

---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• • "Funk" is too broad a category for individual music programs to be helpful to an encyclopedia article. Linking these podcasts are comparable to linking a portrait photographer's website from Humans. --Dystopos 00:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is the item about a "symmetrical relationship" - but I don't want to try to explain it here... and I don't really like it on WP:EL anyway. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note to Deekdeekster: This talk page is the proper place to make the case for your suggested link. Per the guidelines on Conflicts of Interest (WP:COI), you should let other editors decide whether the link makes sense for the article. If there are specific resources at Pod of Funk which meet the criteria of WP:EL (such as a survey, timeline, grand definition, etc) it might be more kosher to link that resource than to just point people at your site. --Dystopos 15:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• "Linking these podcasts are comparable to linking a portrait photographer's website from" - nice use of english, but not true in the case of Pod of Funk. There's a lot of analysis which is relevant to definition of the modern genre, or I wouldn't have bothered with Wiki. You'd actually have to listen to the content rather than just take a quick peek at the webpage to see that... despite this I am not certain that I will be able to find the time to contribute in this context - too much like pedantic bickering! blessings Deekdeekster 07:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

1970s and P-Funk

"Already, in late 1960s, many jazz musicians — among them Horace Silver, Herbie Hancock (with his Headhunters band), Grover Washington, Jr., and Cannonball Adderley, Les McCann and Eddie Harris — had begun to combine jazz and funk. Sometimes this approach is called "jazz-funk". Additionally, in the late 1960s work of Miles Davis (with girlfriend/wife Betty Davis) and Tony Williams helped to create Jazz fusion and influenced funk."

The Headhunters had not even been assembled until '73- It is erroneous to include the group as "late 1960's" pioneers of jazz funk. Of course, Herbie IS a seminal figure in the movement and his name is synonymous with the word 'funk-' but not with the Headhunters in the 60's.

More should be written here about Jazz-Funk.Wahwahwilliam 05:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

indeed.

Original meaning of word funk

Quoting the article : The word "funk", once defined in dictionaries as body odor or the smell of sexual intercourse, commonly was regarded as coarse or indecent. I found that pretty surprising, as I had never heard that before, so I did some quick research online, and I've seen several different meanings for the word, including cowardly, but never that one. Even the very few websites that seemed to be using the word in that way didn't associate it with body odor. I wish there were sources for that, perhaps saying which dictionary defines funk that way. Alessiasakura 13:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

According to American Heritage, there are two words "funk". We are interested in funk(2): "A type of popular music combining elements of jazz, blues, and soul and characterized by syncopated rhythm and a heavy, repetitive bass line." Etymology: "Back-formation from funky(2)".

Funky(2): "1a Having a moldy or musty smell. b Having a strong, offensive, unwashed odor. Word history: "When asked which words in the English language are the most difficult to define precisely, a lexicographer would surely mention funky. Linguist Geneva Smitherman has tried to capture the meaning of this word in Talkin and Testifyin: The Language of Black America, where she explains that funky means '[related to] the blue notes or blue mood created in jazz, blues, and soul music generally, down-to-earth soulfully expressed sounds; by extension [related to] the real nitty-gritty or fundamental essence of life, soul to the max.' The first recorded use of funky is in 1784 in a reference to musty, old, moldy cheese. Funky then developed the sense 'smelling strong or bad' and could be used to describe body odor. The application of funky to jazz was explained in 1959 by one F. Newton in Jazz Scene: 'Critics are on the search for something a little more like the old, original, passion-laden blues: the trade-name which has been suggested for it is "funky" (literally: "smelly," i.e. symbolizing the return from the upper atmosphere to the physical, down-to-earth reality).'" — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll add it to the article. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

How does funk styles (dance) fit?

I assume the funk styles article relates here. Paul foord (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Herb Bombgarden and the Little Yogurts

Herb Bombgarden and the Little Yogurts should be added to the list of funk bands. They are very popular in Finland but no one knows about them elsewhere. I went back there this summer and watched a show and it took my breath away

That's far better! Since the last time I looked, the New Funk/ Deep Funk addition, plus that of several other users has greatly improved the article which is now looking cosiderably more accurate. It is a good idea to have a separate page for Deep Funk.

There's a host of world class funk bands out of Scandinavia. It's one of the 'secret stash' sources.Deke42 (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate content

As someone who knows very little about this subject and has just stumbled across these pages i can't help noticing the similarity of content between a lot of the pages within this genre. Specifically Funk rock has identical paragraphs. Could do with a good tidy up, but then couldn't everything... :s extraordinary (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. (Uncited Material on Backbeat etc).

"Funk music is characterized by intensely syncopated, danceable rhythms with the emphasis falling heavily on the first beat of every measure". A syncopated rhythm, according to the backbeat article has emphasis on beats 2 and 4, so one wonders why the rhythm would have heavy emphasis on the first beat of every measure. One of these articles is wrong. And would a source kill anybody?--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 19:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe both articles are right and you are just confused. For example, if you are looking for what syncopation is, check syncopation, not back beat. Hyacinth (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"By the mid-1960s Mr. Brown was producing his own recording sessions. In February 1965, with “Papa’s Got a Brand New Bag,” he decided to shift the beat of his band: from the one-two-three-four backbeat to one-two-three-four. “I changed from the upbeat to the downbeat,” Mr. Brown said in 1990. “Simple as that, really.” "[1] This is an assertion in the NYT from James Brown in 1990 saying that a key to his successful sound was the downbeat. The downbeat is the exact opposite of syncopation.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 21:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

He may have said he changed the downbeat for the upbeat but he wasn't speaking specifically about the positioning of the beat, he couldn't have been since you only have to listen to the material to hear the 2/4 emphasis. What he did do was add another beat on 1/3, but it wasn't original, inferior drummers (Dave Clarke, Honey Langtree) had been doing it because they didn't know any better, Roy Orbison did it for special effect on 'Pretty woman', and Otis Redding did it to add to the feeling of urgency on his more uptempo songs. Putting the entire beat on 1/3 sounds completely wrong, if you want to hear what it really sounds like try 'Johnny B. Goode' by Chuck Berry, or 'The royal scam' by Steely Dan.

I personally think that people are getting confused with "On the one". This was simply a bandleader's hip way of saying "Take it from the top", or even "1 - 2 - 3 - 4" and dates back to the jazz years. When Brown shouted "I want it on the one" he meant "I want you all to come in at the right time", there is no great significance in it. By definition, '1' being the initial digit, all music starts on the one. It seems to me that the confusion began with Bootsy, whose style was to start each bar with a giant plonk on the root note, and then fill the rest of the bar with syncopation. I can well imagine people listening to the Bootsy era and thinking "So that's the 'One'!" Deke42 13:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Often cueing his band with the command, "On the one!" previously associated with West African poly-rhythmic musical forms, diverse rhythms that all came together on one beat". that's obviously idiotic. music isn't polyrhythmic if it "all comes together on one beat". it's the core principle of polyrhythm. "on the one" beat every few bars, maybe.

the wiki should be fixed up by somebody who actually understands musical concepts, not somebody who heard something written by somebody who once heard something from somebody else about west african polyrhythm. listen to early to mid 70's fela kuti: on the one NOTHING.128.119.170.246 23:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that you yourself know what polyrhythm is so I don't think you should be throwing around words like "idiotic". Hyacinth (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I can see I'm going to have to dig my Fela Kuti book out and maybe borrow James Brown's autobiography from the library. We really need to get this sorted out. The whole thing's in danger of becoming an online argument. --Deke42 19:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really. I didn't post the second thing, somebody else did. If you haven't got a source, I'm deleting. And if you have got a source, I really *do* want page numbers.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 21:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have now deleted and replaced the content with reliable sources as I said I would do. Information which contradicts a person widely known as the creator of funk music does not possess verifiability. "You only have to listen to the material to hear the 2/4 emphasis" is original research, Deke. --I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 17:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If you seriously would rather believe the words of a man who has constantly contradicted himself throughout his life rather than the evidence of your own ears then so be it. Personally I think it's taking 'Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons - This policy states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"' one step beyond reality. What is original research anyway? If I get some crazy theory into print and someone else quotes me in Wikipedia does that make it right? I'll take verifiable truth any time. --Deke42 01:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: the dispute above, here are a few relevant passages from some authoritative sources with citations.

Here's the beginning of the genre page on funk from the All Music Guide (with a link at the end):

Named after a slang word for "stink," funk was indeed the rawest, most primal form of R&B, surpassing even Southern soul in terms of earthiness. It was also the least structured, often stretching out into extended jams, and the most Africanized, built on dynamic, highly syncopated polyrhythms.[2]

Here's the first paragraph of the article on funk in Grove Music Online, the online version of the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians:

An African-American popular music style. It features syncopated interlocking rhythm patterns based on straight quaver and semiquaver subdivisions, a vocal style drawn from soul music, extended vamps based on a single and often complex harmony, strong emphasis on the bass line, and lyrics with frequent spiritual themes and social commentary. The use of the term for a musical style inverts the negative colloquial meaning of strong aromas, particularly of a bodily and sexual nature.

(David Brackett: 'Funk', Grove Music Online ed. L. Macy (Accessed 1 March 2007), http://www.grovemusic.com) (This is the citation format the Dictionary specifically requests.)

A few sentences later in the same article:

He [James Brown] refined his approach in Cold Sweat (1967) by substituting open-ended vamps based on a single harmony for harmonic progressions, and by accenting strongly the first beat of every or every other 4/4 bar, freeing the instruments to play any number of syncopated patterns in which the beats are implied rather than stated.

And here's most of the first paragraph from the Grove entry on syncopation:

The regular shifting of each beat in a measured pattern by the same amount ahead of or behind its normal position in that pattern; in polyphonic textures this may occur in some or all of the parts. Syncopation usually occurs in lines in which the strong beats receive no articulation. This means either that they are silent, as in ex.1 (in this connection, see also Off-beat), or that each note is articulated on a weak beat (or between two beats) and tied over to the next beat, as in ex.2. Because any syncopated musical line can be perceived as contrary to the pulse established by the organization of the music into bars, syncopation is related to, and sometimes used as a synonym for, Cross-accent, Agogic accent and Cross-rhythm.

('Syncopation', Grove Music Online ed. L. Macy (Accessed 1 March 2007), http://www.grovemusic.com)

I hope this is helpful in resolving the issue. InnocuousPseudonym 02:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this entire discussion is missing an important point: you can syncopate on a number of different rhythmic levels. Accenting beats 2 and 4 in a 4/4 bar is syncopation on a quarter-note level, and it's usually done by the drums. The syncopation in funk is usually on the sixteenth note level, and it's done by the guitar and bass. (That said, I'm listening to Parliament's "Flash Light" right now, and it uses both types of syncopation!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.98.195 (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think people should avoid literally interpreting things outside of context. Hyacinth (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Funk rock

The first artist to combine funk with psychedelic rock were the Beck/Page era Yardbirds, on Happenings Ten Years Time Ago. Jimi Hendrix's recorded contribution came later. I have not been able to find a source, but I urge anyone who doubts me to listen to the song, which was released in October 1966. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.130.194 (talk) 07:15, June 24, 2008

A good article let down by those so called "funk categories" towards that end which are laden with inaccuracies and of such dubious significance/truth that they undermine the whole article. Why does the the obsession with rock persist to the extent that it even makes an irrelevant apperance in an article about funk music? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.196.229 (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Re my above comment: more specifically I mean "funkcore"/"punkfunk" etc - these are of such miniscule importance/notifiability/significance that what the hellare they doing clogging up a generally good article like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.196.229 (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Definition

Intro says "Funk is an American musical style that originated in the mid- to late-1960s when African American musicians blended soul music, soul jazz and R&B into a rhythmic, danceable new form of music", which suggests that funk is a fusion genre. That's not the case. As we all know funk is simply a harder and more complex version of soul (probably with influenced from jazz and acid rock). And mentioning R&B as on of the sources makes no sense, as funk and soul already are sub-genres of R&B. Netrat_msk (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you need to learn that the term "R&B" was almost exclusively used as a blanket term during the late 1950s to the 1980s, to label any African American sung music. Read R&B article, it clears up the situation, and don't get confused with the statements like "Funk=R&B", they are pretty much the same kind of statements like "Hip hop=Funk". -- 217.21.43.222 (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Drum n bass

The forgotten thing is Drum and bass —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.101.73.105 (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

A little bit of critique

• "History" section lacks huge portions of information on the 1970s and funk, I mean on how funk was overcome by disco in the early 1970s, how it became less "rock" and more danceable to the mid-70s, how it became popular again to the late 1970s, and how it overcame disco in the early 80s.
• "History" section also lacks information on the formation of hip hop in the early to mid-70s in NY: the introduction of Merry-Go-Round in 1972, first block parties, the application of Jamaican sound system culture to funk etc.
• The article lacks huge portions of information on the subculture that surrounded funk music - afro hair, african wear, beards among African Americans; it lacks the information about connections of funk with The Civil Rights Movements.
• I can hardly find any information about the contribution of Latin American community to the formation of funk, on how boogaloo influenced the creation of funk etc.
• "History" section should be categorised into sub-sections named like "1960s: the formation of funk", "early 1970s: merry-go-round, creation of disco", "mid-1970s: creation of hip hop, funk becomes more danceable" etc., etc., but not into sub-categories like "P-funk", because they make the navigation throught the article more difficult.
• Funk rock history seems over-biased. I have the passage about "the first funk-rock record" being recorded in "1966" (around the time of formation of funk itself), based on the presence of "funky rhythm" in those records, as if funk is only defined by funky rhythms. I was lucky to hear some British blues-rock from the mid to late 1960s, and some of those blues rock tracks had more "funky" rhythms than any funk recordings I've heard. -- 217.21.43.222 (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right. But do you have good sources for these statements? - see WP:V. If you do, we'd welcome your input - either directly into the article, or here on the talk page if you want to get other editors' involvement first. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I can find sources for most of the claims I've made above. -- 217.21.43.222 (talk) 05:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The use of the imperfect tense throughout this article tends to give the impression that funk is defunct (sorry for the bad pun). Surely funk is alive and kicikin'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.33.37 (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Influences

The statement in the subgenre discussion about Earth Wind and Fire being disco-influenced should be questioned since their "funk sound" was prevalent years before disco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freejazzman58 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Mistake in the Notes.tif

In the 2nd line the bar has 5 quarters which doesn't make sense to me. Can anyone explain or is it just wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.214.95 (talk) 07:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect, unsourced statement removed

I deleted this from the article:

"However, according to Billboard Magazine, only Sly & the Family Stone and the Ohio Players had singles which made it to #1 on its U.S. singles chart."

That's totally false. Indeed, if nothing else, Billboard Magazine indicates that Stevie Wonder had the following singles that made it to #1 on the U.S. singles chart from 1974 to 1977 (at least one of which is classic "funk"):

1. You Haven't Done Nothin (Tamla Records); hit the Top 40 on August 17, 1974; was on the chart for 14 weeks, including one week at #1.

2. I Wish (Stevie Wonder song) (Tamla Records); hit the Top 40 on December 4, 1976; was on the chart for 15 weeks, including one week at #1. This record is essential "funk".

3. Sir Duke (Tamla Records); hit the Top 40 on April 16, 1977; was on the chart for 13 weeks, including three weeks at #1.

Yours, Famspear (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hip-Hop

I think it might be a god idea to include hip hop in the list of funk-derivatives. Hip-Hop originated out of MCs not so much rapping but hyping the crowd up for the real star: the DJ, who would play breakbeats from funk songs. Even now funk samples are prevalent in Hip Hop and the drum and bass programming of modern hip hop is often very reminiscent of Funk rhythmically (not too mention the lack of harmonic progression). This is partially adressed in the G-Funk section, but I think it's worth expanding upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.46.79 (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

African American

I've reverted an edit that changed "African Americans" in the opening sentence to "blacks". Being neither black nor American, I'm not intimately familiar with the current connotations of either term - I mostly reverted it for the loss of geographical information. If "black Americans" is more neutral, I'd be happy with that too. Ben Ram 11:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not happy with "African American" at all. Not only is funk very rhythmically similar to LatinAmerican music, but both James Brown and his drummer of the time, Clyde Stubblefield have stated that Brown got the idea from Fela Kuti when they saw him on one of their African tours, and Fela and his drummer, Tony Allen, have both recalled the event because Brown told Stubblefield to "Go and write down what that drummer's doing". You can find reference to it in Brown's autobiography, Kuti's autobiography, several of Allen's albums, and at least 2 interviews that Stubblefield did with the British music press when he came over here to record an album of break-beats.

Furthermore the band of 'First Americans', Redbone, although listed as a rock band, were playing funky rhythms long before Brown, thanks mainly to drummer Pete 'Last Walking Bear' DePoe, which is interesting inasmuch as my father had a Library of Congress' 78 of "North American Indian" Chief Os-ko-mon performing the rain dance, war dance, and sun dance, except the chief obviously had ambitions of stardom and added a brass and rhythm section to 'Sun dance'. The result was, by the standards of 78rpm recordings, an amazingly funky offering with the Indian drummers fighting it out with the kit drummer and the brass section throwing in a glorious riff that I still remember to this day. No doubt tame by today's standards, but immensely exciting to one being raised on the popular orchestral music of the era.

I think the whole intro needs re-researching and writing again. Deke42 23:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it really a good idea to call Funk 'African American'? I take it that this is because most of the people who play Funk music are black. However, I've seen affirmations in other parts of Wiki that music should not be connected to race at all. Wouldn't it be sensible to normalize this with other music articles? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.210.249.9 (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

If you can cite sources for the influences that James Brown's band drew upon, by all means add it! Actually i think the whole article would benefit and increase in quality if facts were specifically cited and less uncited opinions were present. Dissolve 00:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Bands like "Kriss Kross" are misperceived as "rap," or "R&B" when really they are truly funk. It's really just a style difference, but an important one to distinguish between. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.97.171 (talk) 08:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to get technical AFricans in Africa were doing funk before anyone else anyway. European explores even noted the similarities between blues , and negro spirituals back in the 17, and 18 hundreds.

Again this is just another white washing of history. Any time a black person or African creates something, people try to find ways to take the credit away. The same can be said for any music creation by black people. Blacks start it, everyone gets mad, and wants to find a way to say they created it. The first drums were in africa, the first music was in africa. No historian would even dispute that. So it all goes back to Africa anyway. We can go that rout if there are more people like this poster above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkman1984 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC) ~Darkman1984~

Why bring race into it at all? Anyone who views a picture of James Brown can see the tint of his skin. Does the Wikipedia entry on Opera say it was pioneered by white people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jive Dadson (talk • contribs) 03:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Blue Note type funk

I strongly suggest that a section be devoted to "Blue Note" style funk. I knew "funk" to be the music of Gene Ammons, Jimmy Smith, Blue Mitchell, Lee Morgan, Horace Silver, Lou Donaldson, et al, decades before I ever heard the term applied to James Brown and cohort. I was a disc jockey in the late 60's, early 70's. I played lots of music by James Brown et al, but I never heard "funk" applied to it. The Blue Note compendium of "Funk and Blues" begins with music recorded in 1954. The Wikipedia disambiguation page does have a link to the 1957 Gene Ammons album "Funky," but that's all there is. Jive Dadson (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Funk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110524234641/http://www.cheebadesign.com/legends/articleX.html to http://www.cheebadesign.com/legends/articleX.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060220104429/http://www.musicstrands.com:80/artist/6599/biography to http://www.musicstrands.com/artist/6599/biography

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Too much personal opinion

I'm probably as guilty as everyone else here, but this article is becoming farcical. It's been written by so many people, none of whom can even agree on exactly what 'funk' is, that it no longer makes any kind of logical sense.

Apparently funk is based upon Motown and one of its major practitioners was Curtis Mayfield? Illogical Captain, since the careers of Mayfield and the Motown label ran concurrently. Furthermore some later Motown artists cite Mayfield as an influence. It's also polyrhythmic and another major practitioner is Prince. Can anyone point me to a single Prince song with polyrhythmic accompaniment? Didn't think so. Funkadelic aren't that hot on the polyrhythm front either. Ah, but of course you have to listen to the records to hear that and under the rules listening to the records isn't allowed, you have to find a book written by someone else who's listened to them...

Maybe someone should put a disclaimer on all musical entries stating that the article, almost by default, will contain opinion, since there's very little else written about the subject. Deke42 (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a great deal of garbage, self-promotion, and lists of editors' favorite musicians in the article. Still, there's a core of useful information buried in there among the crap.

Regarding Curtis Mayfield and Motown: contemporary musicians frequently influence one another so there's no inconsistency there, but neither is a particularly good example of funk. James Brown invented funk practically single-handedly, and more than anything it's the emphasis on "The One" that marked early funk. The article gets that right.

It's a stretch to describe much of Prince's music as funk, but when he did/does play funk, it's notable for incorporating new elements into the music.

Rickey Vincent's book is an excellent treatment of funk by a serious fan of the music. I haven't read much of Dave Thompson's book, but I heard it's pretty good too. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure James Brown was a major influence in the development of funk. But it did surprise me to read the article and not find a mention of Bobby Byrd anywhere. Remember, many of the signature "James Brown" songs where co-written together with Byrd. Indeed, if Byrd never would have given Brown a spot on his band, poor James would probably still be in jail. But seriously, IF this article has the pretention to discuss the origins of funk, Bobby Byrd should have a mention. Braab —Preceding undated comment added 18:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Even James Brown gave up claiming to have invented funk. Go and read his autobiography. He may have popularised it to a large degree but the list of founding funksters that predated him is enormous, including the gentleman that Brown claims was his influence, Fela Kuti, and if you want proof of that go and listen to some of Kuti's recordings from around Brown's 'On the one' period... Oh wait, you can't. Listening to records is original research.

Sheesh. Some of the rules of this place are bollocks. If someone with the loggin 'shawkins' tried to make an entry about time would it be disallowed because he wrote the book? Groo. Deke42 (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Should the article be re-written and strictly sourced with inline citations to reliable sources to establish a neutral point-of-view and eliminate all the original research? Yes. Who has the time to do it? <shrug> A pretty accurate article could be written using Vincent Rickey's and Dave Thompson's books as the primary sources. They are very well researched. dissolve^talk 19:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would resist any temptation to use Thompson's book, as mentioned above it's full of inaccuracies which throw considerable doubt upon the validity of the man's research. Deke42 (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to get technical AFricans in Africa were doing funk before anyone else anyway. European explores even noted the similarities between blues , and negro spirituals back in the 17, and 18 hundreds.

Again this is just another white washing of history. Any time a black person or African creates something, people try to find ways to take the credit away. The same can be said for any music creation by black people. Blacks start it, everyone gets mad, and wants to find a way to say they created it. The first drums were in africa, the first music was in africa. No historian would even dispute that. So it all goes back to Africa anyway. We can go that rout if there are more people like this poster above.

Spare your black supremacist comments for another audience please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.33.37 (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Funk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060220104429/http://www.musicstrands.com:80/artist/6599/biography to http://www.musicstrands.com/artist/6599/biography

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force/Colours

There is a discussion taking place about whether templates (primarily infoboxes) for funk and closely related genres should use a different color than the orange currently used for soul music, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force/Colours#Should Funk be a different colour than Soul? LifeofTau 20:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion for my edits to Funk

Hi. Sorry for not discussing this with you further. The reason why I edited the info box was because Funk was not borne from psychedelia. When it was created, it was soul music heavily rooted in jazz with some rhythm and blues influences. The psychedelia part came as a secondary influence later on. There are pages that deal with psychedelia's influence on funk, such as psychedelic funk and P-funk. Another edit I made was adding a major part that you guys left out when it comes to the funk guitar. Jimmy Nolen's technique known as the "chicken scratch" (if you don't know what that is, then listen to Papa's Got a Brand New Bag) is an important ingredient to funk. The "wah-wah" guitar is more prominent in psychedelic rock than it is funk. So that's the bold edit that I made. My apologies that it caused a big fuss. Thank you! StephenCezar15 (talk)

Just to add to my note I wasn't going to take out the "wah-wah" note. It's an important technique to funk, but the chicken scratch was overlooked so I added it in. StephenCezar15 (talk)

Hi StephenCezar15. Thank you for the explanation. I think what you added is right, but I wanted to put the brakes on an edit war between you and another editor. If you can find them, I think the new material could use better sources.

I definitely understand your point. When Catfish Collins died, a friend of mine said that he had played the most important—and least recognized—part on two of the greatest songs: "Super Bad" and "Flash Light". Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your understanding. I'll definitely find better sources for my edits. StephenCezar15 (talk)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• The Definition of Funk.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Women in funk section appears to contain advertising

At least one artist listed is not noteworthy and appears to have vandalized the page to advertise for herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.93.161.94 (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Chaka Khan in Chris March 01.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Vocals and lyrics

This section relies almost entirely on a single source, and in any case I am skeptical of Wikpedia copying the conclusions of such litcritty work. You'd get the impre≥≥ssion from the section that funk could only be concerned with politics! --Eldomtom2 (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Stylistic origins

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"Soul music with a greater emphasis on the beats and rhythms of an arrangement, influences from rhythm and blues and jazz"

Please add the source. Isebito (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The source has been added. Change the description again, and you will be reported. I'm sick of this. StephenCezar15 (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The article has been reverted to the version before the edit war. But the administrator recognizes that "Encyclopedia of African American Music" I initially added is a perfectly good textbook, while your source is shitty. I have no intention of rejecting to build a consensus with you. Please prove that your editing is based on a proper source that outweights "Encyclopedia of African American Music". I give you a week to seek a proper source. If you don't prove it, I'll re-edit the article, based on "Encyclopedia of African American Music".Isebito (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

You haven't shown the reason for deleting "Encyclopedia of African American music". In addition, no basis for your description of the stylistic origins are found in " Kill 'Em and Leave: Searching for James Brown and the American Soul, p. 132-150". Your sourcing is vague or inappropriate.Isebito (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems like you haven't read the source. Plus I don't think sourcing other encyclopedias is appropriate either. StephenCezar15 (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

You also seem to be confused about the usage of the stylistic origins section. I've read the source you're using and there's no evidence that the author said that Funk evolved from "black rock" , gospel and jazz fusion. She's saying it's a mixture of those genres. We're stating where Funk came from not what it's a mixture of. StephenCezar15 (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The word "mixture" can also refer to the origin. Now I remeber, Ricky Vincent has also referred to jazz fusion, gospel, and black rock, making the lineage tree of funk. Frankly speaking, the argument about "mixture" is barren. Of course, your view should be also respected. You have freedom of speech. But wikipedia doesn't need your personal view. On wikipedia, you cannot personally judge whether contents of academic books are right. Naturally, I cannot also judge. As long as other academic persons point out mistakes, the source could be deleted. I asked you to show the reason for deleting the source. The thing I want isn't your personal view, but other academic person's one. Isebito (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, it's not my personal view. The source looks very flawed and it seems like these academics do not know anything about music. If you wish, I can find an academic expert and dispute your source. I'll leave it alone until then. Deal? StephenCezar15 (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't oppose your suggestion. But the academic expert's view couldn't be immediately reflected in the article, even if it's right. The reason is that Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The sources require publishing. The expert cannot demonstrate the mistake on Wikipedia. Of course, if the expert shows sources which directly indicate the description of the encyclopedia is wrong, the view would be immediately reflected.Isebito (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

BTW, for those of you unfamiliar with the term's origins, "edit war" shares common roots with the expression "get a life". Just saying. 😁 – AndyFielding (talk) 05:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disputing new edits.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am reverting the stylistic origins section to the original. The genres in question (which is jazz fusion and "black rock") are considered redundant and inaccurate. Reading the source of these edits "Encyclopedia of African American Music", these genres were suggested as being influenced by funk AFTER the genre's conception. Jazz fusion was conceived way after Funk was conceived, and later on evolved into JAZZ FUNK. In addition, "black rock" is not only an inaccurate term, but a derogatory term used to discriminate sounds of music played by musicians such as Jimi Hendrix and The Chalmers Brothers. The term itself is another term used for Psychedelic Soul, and is thus a disambiguous term. I have multiple sources (including the original source used to support the claim, which is "Presence and pleasure: the funk grooves of James Brown and Parliament") that claims that Funk solely derived from Soul, rhythm and blues and jazz.

1. https://www.musicplus.in/the-origin-of-funk/ - The genre essentially evolved from the African-American soul, rhythm and blues, and jazz music of the mid-60s. It was characterised by a slower but strong rhythmic and percussive beat with a prominent, repetitive electric bassline and drum patterns. It gave more importance to the bass and less to the melody and chord progression, giving the music a hypnotic and danceable feel that went down well with audiences.

2. https://www.ops.org/Page/1830 (A scholarly article!) - "Funk is a type of music that originated in African American culture during the second half of the 20th century and mixed elements of soul, R&B, jazz and blues into a new rhythmic, danceable genre."

3. https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/james-brown-origins-of-funk/ (Coming from the creator of Funk himself, James Brown.) - "While sitting down with SPIN magazine in 1988, Brown shed some light on how his electric style of R&B eventually morphed into the bare bones sounds of funk that we know and love today. “Funk is the root of the blues,” Brown explains. “It’s soul, jazz, and gospel. Funk is coming down on the one. If it’s on the one, then it’s funky. But it’s hard for me to get people to understand that”."

4. https://www.scmp.com/yp/discover/entertainment/music/article/3072624/beginners-guide-funk-music-how-it-was-different - "The 1960s was a melting pot of musical innovation, with multiple genres forming, growing and progressing simultaneously in often completely different directions. Funk music started to emerge in black American communities, combining elements of established genres – such as soul, jazz and R’n’B – in a more rhythmic and dance-orientated way."

5. https://www.jazzhistorytree.com/funk/ (from music scholar Dakota Pippins) - "Funk is a music genre that originated in African American communities in the mid-1960s when African American musicians created a rhythmic, danceable new form of music through a mixture of soul, bebop/hard bop, and R & B."

When even the man who created it himself tells you what it is, it's time to change it back. StephenCezar15 (talk) 04:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your investigation. However, you haven't fully answered my demand. Your sources don't DIRECTLY indicate the description of the encyclopedia is wrong. I won't deny your view that the two genres in question are considered redundant and inaccurate. But it's nothing more than your personal view. As I wrote before, you cannot demonstrate the mistake on Wikipedia. In addition, I also wrote that the argument about "mixture" is barren, because the "stylistic origin" could refer to genres which were fused with funk in the evolutional process. You reverted the article before our agreement. But I would like to give priority to our agreement. Therefore, I give you a week to seek academic sources which directly deny the description of the encyclopedia. Isebito (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Once again, this is not my personal view. As I demonstrated, I used multiple sources to support my edits to the article, while it seems like you're only using one. Not only are you being stubborn about my contributions to the article, and continuing to insult my intelligence by saying the same thing over and over, but it appears that you are grandstanding and creating your own rules in regards to the edits. Stylistic origins are where it came from, not an evolutionary process. Being that English isn't your first language, I'm not surprised that you're confused by this. If multiple sources disputing your edits doesn't convince you, then I don't know what will. Continuing to fall back to your one source while I have multiple sources disputing it is a declaration of war. I will not continue to waste my time with you. StephenCezar15 (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Your sources merely indicate that funk is derived from soul, jazz, R&B and so on, which doesn't necessarily means the descrption of the encyclopedia is wrong. I wrote that you should show sources which DIRECTLY deny the description. But you couldn't show it, repeating your own insistence.　In addition, it seems that you haven't still got the reason why the argument about "mixture" is barren. In fact, your sources also use the obscure word "mixture", "combining" or "lineage", which suggests that it's difficult accurately to identify "the origin" you mean. You may be free to discontinue the talk with me. I hope that you express your own view outside Wikipedia. Isebito (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I submitted a request to obtain a second opinion from an administrator regarding this situation. Your vandalism stops here. StephenCezar15 (talk) 06:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

"Your sources don't DIRECTLY indicate the description of the encyclopedia is wrong." Isebito, this isn't how Wikipedia works. One of the core policies of this site (per WP:RS) is that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources." If a bit of information cannot be attested to with a source, it generally shouldn't be included. This is NOT to an affirmation of the converse - that information that cannot be refuted by sources SHOULD be included.

In this case, StephenCezar15 has provided a preponderance of sources attesting to the genres of jazz, rhythm and blues, soul, etc. being considered influencing musical genres, whereas the genres that appear to be in question - "jazz fusion" and "black rock" - are not represented in those sources. If you believe these should be included in the infobox, you should provide sources that back up this view. Otherwise, accept the new edit as an improvement to Wikipedia in removing unsourced content. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

EDIT: I've since realized that by "the encyclopedia", you were referring to The Encyclopedia of African American Music, a source cited on the page, and not this Wikipedia article. Looking into this source, I confirmed that this phrase does come from this reputable-looking textbook published by apparently knowledgeable folks: "An amalgam of gospel, soul, jazz fusion, rhythm and blues, and black rock..." However, I still don't think it's appropriate to include jazz fusion or black rock in the infobox for two reasons: 1) "Black rock" is an ambiguous term, and can't be definitively substituted for Psychedelic Soul (the only good source I found for this was Wikipedia itself, which shouldn't be used to source other Wikipedia articles). Most sources using the phrase "Black rock" use it to describe rock music played by black musicians, or to describe the linked history between black musicians and Rock-n-Roll; not as a genre unto itself. And Jazz Fusion seems interchangeable with Jazz for the purposes of fleshing out an infobox on this genre. 2) Any content on Wikipedia should reflect what the majority of reliable sources say, proportional to how often it's said. This textbook is the one source I've seen that mentions "black rock" as an influence on funk; most other descriptions of funk's origins are limited to soul, rhythm and blues, and jazz. Since the textbook seems like a reliable source, its description of funk could still be included somewhere in the article; however, I don't think it has enough WP:WEIGHT to be considered for the top of the article (lead and/or infobox). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Certainly not "black rock" which is not a widely accepted musical genre. I see gospel listed in the source but after mentioning it, the source says nothing more about it. The source does not go into any kind of detail about how gospel might have informed funk, or talk about notional musicians who might have more of a gospel-inflected sense of funk. I would lean toward removing gospel from the infobox, and demoting it to the article body, attributing the source. Binksternet (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

In StephenCezar15's source 3 above, James Brown, "the central progenitor of funk", says "it's soul, jazz, and gospel." I think there's enough here to say funk was influenced by gospel, and keep that in the infobox. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

This dispute sucks. Nobody is wrong, and nobody is perfectly 100% right. We have different sources saying much the same thing but you folks are concentrating on the differences. Binksternet (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

It shouldn't have come to this, if we're being honest. We should leave everything as is for now. StephenCezar15 (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Wow. I've never seen so many split hairs before. How embarrassing for this musical style. A loose necktie (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, all this niggly conflict is especially cringy considering the topic—which isn't about argument, rigidity or vindictiveness, but looseness, finding the groove, and getting down with reach other in positive, joyous ways.

Perhaps if some of y'all het-up word-splitters would let a bit of the great James Brown's giant-hearted, all-inclusive spirit influence you, you'd realize such a competitive, over-cerebral approach was not only counterproductive, but singularly antithetical to comprehending and expressing this wonderful, soul-affirming (in both meanings) genre.

Before youse guys resume pointlessly ragging on each other, won't you please take a moment to contemplate the fantastic photo of Brown accompanying this article? Notice not just his incredible expression and artistry, but his compassion, his humanity. Ultimately, that's the point of funk: its heart. Then consider how Brown would've had us approach this piece, could he be with us here today.

To do justice to this great music, we must give it the best of ourselves. And the best way to do that, IMHO, is to let the music inspire us to find, feel and trust our musicological groove, together.

As Brother James would say: Oww! – AndyFielding (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

This was settled almost a year ago. Please take your unsolicited commentary somewhere else. StephenCezar15 (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.