teaching mark s a *LESSON* response three: FUNKADELIC

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (53 of them)
I didn't know about his involvement with the Process Church. Now I have a Funkadelic-Psychic TV connection. Too bad I'm not too interested in either one these days. Still, it's a nice tidbit. Now I will read what you wrote.

Rockist Scientist, Sunday, 15 June 2003 15:01 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

(Hmmm. P-Funk. P-Orridge. P is for "process." It all makes sense.)

Rockist Scientist, Sunday, 15 June 2003 15:10 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

I thought this was supposed to teach mark a lesson.

dleone (dleone), Sunday, 15 June 2003 15:36 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Mark, I am not familiar with this album. Can you say more about how "on the one" appears? This is funny to me, because there is a sectarian conflict between extremist salseros who dance on the one and extremists who dance on the 2. (It tends to get blown way out of proportion in New York Times articles though, since most of us are liberals who don't think our way is better.) I would have thought "on the one" was less funky, in a way. The "on the 2" extremists tend to think that dancing on the 2 is more "African," more difficult for those raised in an Anglo/White culture. (It's also treated as more authentic, since earlier Latin dances tended to be danced on the 2: mambo, cha cha cha. "This is how they danced it at the Palladium, back in the day." The funniest rebuttal to all of this I've seen is this article: Dancing on the "2": The Western Fluke of History

Best quote: "Mr. Luis Flores, aka Luis Maquina or La Maquina was interviewed by Marla Friedler. He is one of the celebrated great dancers frim the Palladium days. She asked him: 'Did you dance on the 2? His answer: 'don't talk that shit to me, the 2, the 1. I danced on the clave.'"

Rockist Scientist, Sunday, 15 June 2003 15:52 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

good point: erm, i'm not sure if the "on the one" stuff got into gear on america yet (as a catchphrase anyway): it gets made more of a meal of later possibly => the LP is not heavy on salsoid or clave stylings (that stuff all went more into disco, no?)

maybe it's how clinton translates "unusquisque nunc demum eventurus est"!!

mark s (mark s), Sunday, 15 June 2003 15:59 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

I wasn't thinking specifically of a reference to salsa (musically or verbally), but more generally about the possible symbolic significance of dancing "on the one."

Rockist Scientist, Sunday, 15 June 2003 16:18 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

in a little voice: "but isn't it really all just about how Parliament and Funkadelic emphasized the first beat of a measure as the big rhythmic statement as opposed to the others?"

in a bigger voice: "And isn't overhyped analysis of any and all Musical Cosmic Significance exactly what George Clinton sets out to destroy through parody (Sir Nose is, after all, too cool to dance or swim, so he must be thrown in) and downhome funky-ass grooves, so when he says he hits it 'on the One' you better just believe it?"

in a really loud voice: "Holy shit could I, one of the most pretentious P.Funk fans on the planet, have been missing a whole strain of P.-retentiousity all this time and not even KNOWN IT??"

Neudonym, Sunday, 15 June 2003 16:30 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

(Incidentally, that article I linked to is actually very interesting--I think--on the history of mambo and salsa. I hadn't realized that mambo made it big in Mexico before coming to the U.S. from that country, rather than more directly from Cuba. Sorry to inject one of my own pet subjects here, though not sorry enough, obviously.)

Rockist Scientist, Sunday, 15 June 2003 16:49 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Not so much 'big rhythmic statement' so much as the 1 being constant no matter what weird shit happens immediately after the 4

dave q, Sunday, 15 June 2003 17:47 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Excellent essay. I had never heard that stuff about the Process Church before. The way you use that to tease out Clinton's relationship with 60s utopianism is really cool. I think it all hangs together pretty well (of course, I like footnotes and asides that aren't really relevant to the main argument but you just couldn't leave them out...), except maybe the last para could use some more explication, tho on the other hand I think I see how it relates after some thought.

I would like to hear more about what the actual song sounds like. Of course I have heard lots of Funkadelic but never this album or song (ahem please bear that in mind...) and I get more of an idea of the themes/aesthetic that plays into it than the actual material sound (what exactly does "the product of the face-to-face chemistry of dozens (if not hundreds) of minds in immediate or remembered contact" sound like in the song, where do you hear that, what noises represent it?)

Sort of leading on from that, what is "THE ENTIRETY OF THE BASE LEVEL OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATION," really? (I first transcribed this as "BASS LEVEL," heheh.) It's a very amorphous concept. Isn't this really just another type of Lifeforce? Yes, a dirtier, more material Lifeforce, a Lifeforce for Marxists, but a less idealized one? I'm not so sure. However messy the album may be, it is still an album, and "Miss Lucifer" is still a track on the album, and the track still has a beginning and an end and a discrete running time... in other words, it has a form. And some things are included within that form and some things are excluded, presumably. You seem to be saying that the base level of social organization is somehow reproduced on a mimetic level here, and I don't see how that's possible really. You talk about being able to hear all the process of social interaction that went into the making of the track, but still, this is hardly equivalent to the entire base level of social organization; perhaps you mean this micro-version of social organization (or "process"--I assume this is what you meant by "subversion," Clinton's subversion of the Process Church) represents the macro-version (which includes, what, the economic system etc., at least reading into the Marxist undertones of "base"), in which case, again, there is a gap between micro and macro, representation and... some people are in the band, on the bridge of the starship, and some people are not (I mean, if you want to talk process art, there were lots of contemporaries in the quote-unquote "fine art"/"performance" world who took it much further than Clinton.)

Sort of leading on from that, I'm not so sure that Clinton did actually avoid hipster/masses politics, and I think he encouraged touchy-feely/metaphysical understandings of the funk more than a teeny bit. After all, he did invent a cosmology at whose heart was a character called Sir Nose D'Void of Funk, basically a white guy who can't dance, who was set in opposition to the liberating force of the funk (this all played into funk vs. disco, too, if I recall correctly... the liberating rhythm of the funk vs. the mechanized robot-control-dance of disco...) Maybe he hadn't quite gotten to that point at the time of this album, but it didn't come out of nowhere. And aren't you giving that sleeve a bit too much credit? I don't know that you really make the case that he's escaping what you call "loser politics" here--this "round and round" short-circuit effect that you see created between the sleeve art and the text is pretty subtle, because the illustration is far more powerful and I don't know that too many people would get the latin or try and think their way out of the riddle... if it's really there.

Ben Williams, Monday, 16 June 2003 15:38 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

re 'what it 'sounds'like = [([Scientology/DeGrimston]/[USA/UK])/("MLL") = (aural analogue) = ( Brit [=BeatleStoneCream....(continuum)...oh i dunno Lou Reed or somebody] vs US [=BerryBrownHendrix...continuum...oh I dunno Bad Company or somebody])] vs the guitar bit sounds a bit like Phil Manzanera on "Amazon" + singer sounds like someone camping up an extreme 'street junkie' timbre like if Eddy Murphy had done Sly Stone in 1971 but then it would've fitted (theme of song tangentially but explainably)/(need for ulterior motive to maintain consistency of 'hustler' motif if manifest connotations of 'hustler' judged collectively to to satisfy musically, satisfy also on levels entirely dependent on certain variables, true, but satisfy, it just wants to satisfy, it just wants to satisfy, no how many ppl or things can you say THAT about?

dave q, Monday, 16 June 2003 16:28 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

(what I mean is I just noticed [Sorry it's actually another song on the album which is kind of crap of me] the voice on "Loose Booty", which is an anti-drug song but the lyrics rhyme and scan really 'badly' [using same word twice, especially when the lines...OK they're "lookin' to score some dope" and "....(pause)...man, was he a dope" now do you believe me] and repeat themselves, whereas the earlier "SuperStupid" [diff. ALB now! Sorry] had them hectoring and haranguing and maybe they thought calling into mind the character on the cover of Donald Goines' 'Dopefiend' [ie the ultimate wretched, far-gone junkie, lying face down on a pavement with that look of [(complete self-consciousness)X(complete self-awareness)]and delivering associated collection of phonemes>>>>>'voice' would consolidate/undermine/etc chronologically previous statement on ostensibly [for these 'purposes'] same 'theme' (which of course makes up variable prcentage of whatever factors are present in the PROCESS of DELIVERING the vocal). However, in what context could they sing that a) lead b) (choral?)('doo-wop'?(Everly>>>Beatle/Presley>>>>Plant?) way considering the words, or in another way, what sort of character/feeling/intention etc could you imagine needing to identify/empathise/etc with what words are present? (Or is it ALL in the PROCESS) (OT - dennis wilson vs valentine michael smith)

dave q, Monday, 16 June 2003 16:45 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

(more american exceptionalism i know, but its OK here becuz THEY brought it up - record title is 'America Eats its Young' and the cover is dollar bill etc ect [did this hit the racks contemporaneously with 'Billion Dollar Babies' and 'E Pluribus Funk'? {by "Grand Flop Railroad" obv ha ha}] so if the topic is the 'US' then it would infer a probability that a global perspective is at least being considered, now if only the fuckin' Americans could do that with other stuff besides pop music [occasionally] )

dave q, Monday, 16 June 2003 16:52 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

(meant 'Grand FRAUD Railroad' obv. arrrrgggghhh)

dave q, Monday, 16 June 2003 16:56 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

(re 'prog' - B Worrell vs, um, Christine McVie or Eminem or somebody?)

dave q, Monday, 16 June 2003 17:29 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

(oh yeah when I said "Amazona" I meant obv. the LEAD break in the middle of the Roxy tune, 'MLL' lead lick more 'creamy' and Manzanera's more chrome-ey tho)

dave q, Tuesday, 17 June 2003 07:26 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

three months pass...
revive! best thread EVER!!!

Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Monday, 6 October 2003 16:37 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

if only we knew how to read it!!

Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Monday, 6 October 2003 17:04 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

You have to read it like it's an album. You know, the same way you listen to "Berlin" like it's a book.

Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Monday, 6 October 2003 21:29 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

A short book. (thankfully)

Sean (Sean), Monday, 6 October 2003 22:04 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Some people have too much spare time.

, Monday, 6 October 2003 22:19 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

no one has enough spare time.

g--ff c-nn-n (gcannon), Monday, 6 October 2003 22:45 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

one year passes...
if he could write in english that would surely help

Concussed Beavis, Saturday, 1 January 2005 17:57 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

help arrived too late i think

mark s (mark s), Saturday, 1 January 2005 18:05 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

two months pass...

Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Friday, 11 March 2005 16:25 (twelve years ago) Permalink


cozen (Cozen), Friday, 11 March 2005 16:30 (twelve years ago) Permalink


Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Friday, 11 March 2005 16:33 (twelve years ago) Permalink

wow this thread is a headache. in a good way of course.

ppp, Friday, 11 March 2005 16:38 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I am reading all of the lesson responses now, thanks amst.

cozen (Cozen), Friday, 11 March 2005 16:42 (twelve years ago) Permalink

since mark s is now BACK, perhaps the long-promised lesson 4 might soon appear, hm?

zebedee (zebedee), Friday, 11 March 2005 17:26 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Lesson 4: The Longpigs

Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Friday, 11 March 2005 17:29 (twelve years ago) Permalink

four wz louis prima zebedee!!

five will be next ("next")

mark s (mark s), Friday, 11 March 2005 17:31 (twelve years ago) Permalink

who's "next"?

t\'\'t (t\'\'t), Friday, 11 March 2005 17:45 (twelve years ago) Permalink

"I don't know."

RS £aRue (rockist_scientist), Friday, 11 March 2005 17:46 (twelve years ago) Permalink

i promised lady di it wd be marc bolan but my laptop dun fkd up and the start of mb is on that

this mean "lesson: supplementary" may yet be salsa!!

(five is not my favourite number)

(i am off up-country to look after my agein ailin parents right now tho, and not back til tue)

mark s (mark s), Friday, 11 March 2005 17:49 (twelve years ago) Permalink

that Prima thread is swell. thanks.

zebedee (zebedee), Friday, 11 March 2005 17:53 (twelve years ago) Permalink

seven years pass...

I think this is due for a revive.

VOTE in the 1980's ROCK POLL PLEASE! (Algerian Goalkeeper), Tuesday, 4 September 2012 20:27 (five years ago) Permalink

Weird. I randomly put on AEIY only last night. First time I'd played it since, well, probably 2005.

Jeff W, Wednesday, 5 September 2012 10:05 (five years ago) Permalink

did it sound any better?

VOTE in the 1980's ROCK POLL PLEASE! (Algerian Goalkeeper), Wednesday, 5 September 2012 12:36 (five years ago) Permalink

Some bits did sound better! But some bits sounded worse. I have grown into some of it and out of other bits maybe.

Jeff W, Wednesday, 5 September 2012 17:29 (five years ago) Permalink

totally forgot I was quoted at the top of this thread lol

I don't think I would subscribe to the sentiment expressed anymore - while it's largely true I'm to big a fan of Dylan's christian period to really think that anymore even if, in general, converts don't have as interesting musical careers as people that were just always straight-up religious.

chicago rap twitter luminary (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 5 September 2012 17:33 (five years ago) Permalink

too big argh

chicago rap twitter luminary (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 5 September 2012 17:33 (five years ago) Permalink

also think it's weird to cast Clinton as a "convert" to the Process Church, which I don't think was really ever the case.

chicago rap twitter luminary (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 5 September 2012 17:34 (five years ago) Permalink

would you say the beatles "converted" to TM?

the late great, Wednesday, 5 September 2012 17:56 (five years ago) Permalink

or would you say they just "flirted" with it

the late great, Wednesday, 5 September 2012 17:56 (five years ago) Permalink

the only Beatle who "converted" to anything was Harrison

chicago rap twitter luminary (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 5 September 2012 18:08 (five years ago) Permalink

I caught an art program on GC last week on Sky Arts. Apparently he's colourblind but still makes pretty cool art. Inspired by his cover artist to go into creating art for sale.

Stevolende, Wednesday, 5 September 2012 18:10 (five years ago) Permalink

Holy shit.

― Nate Patrin (Nate Patrin), Sunday, June 15, 2003 7:11 AM (9 years ago)

i know your nuts hurt! who's laughing? (contenderizer), Wednesday, 5 September 2012 18:54 (five years ago) Permalink

first response hof

i know your nuts hurt! who's laughing? (contenderizer), Wednesday, 5 September 2012 18:54 (five years ago) Permalink

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.