Post Number: 237
Posted From: 184.108.40.206
|Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 7:51 am: ��||���|
Hi this is Kev-Lo you know most of us that's been around for a long time know that the 60's was full of great music from soul to pop we loved it and it had a great impact on us.The 70's music was great as well.Although the music was beginning to chance.Now this may be a bit odd or even complicated to answer,so I was just wondering if whether or not we can compare the 60's artists and their music to the 70's artists.Like for instance let's take a group like EARTH,WIND AND FIRE.now we all know that they were by far they were the most powerful,soulful,and funkiest bands of the entire 70's,and I for one totally agree.Their music combined of soul,pop and even jazz and that definitely made them a super band.But can you compare them to all of the great artists of the 60's.The reason why I ask this question is because there was once a guy on my job several years ago that was a huge Earth,Wind and Fire fan,And he tried to tell me that they were the best group ever.Now yes indeed they were the best of the 70's.But I cannot say that they were better or compare them to the groups of the 60's.I don't think they can be compared to such icons as THE TEMPTATIONS,SMOKEY ROBINSON AND THE MIRACLES,IMPRESSIONS,THE FIVE STAIRSTEPS,JACKIE WILSON,JAMES BROWN,SAM COOKE,OTIS REDDING etc.So Please tell me SD'S what is your input on this.
Post Number: 855
Posted From: 220.127.116.11
|Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 8:02 am: ��||���|
Kevlo, when you try to compare the 60's & 70's because both era's we're two entities that's one with one another, And set the standard musically for what was to come.
Post Number: 157
Posted From: 18.104.22.168
|Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 8:47 am: ��||���|
....Don's point was the first thing that came to mind when I read your question, but your friend also has a point. Try it this way. 60's and early 70's soul were similar in style, but with the national arrival of Sly And The Family Stone in 1968, the texture of soul began to change, away from the vocal with backing of the groups you mentioned, and more towards the integrated band sound. So I guess the question might be something like...
.....does Earth Wind and Fire best represent the more self contained sound of mid-70's soul music?
I may be mistaken in my assumption (I usually am), but comparing EWF, or Sly, or War, or George Clinton's Parlafunkadelic Thang with the Temptations is like comparing apples and turnips.
Post Number: 238
Posted From: 22.214.171.124
|Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 9:47 am: ��||���|
Hi this is Kev-Lo hey douglasm I guess you are right and thank's for your input. And don you are right to.There was a big change from the 60's going in to the 70's.Once again thank's guy's.
Post Number: 2377
Posted From: 126.96.36.199
|Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 12:56 pm: ��||���|
Actually, it started before Sly. Sly borrowed liberally from the funk of James Brown & the "Make Love Not War" sentiment of the flower power rockers, with the heavy emphasis on the electric guitar. However, it always comes back to James!
The changing the the guard started when James turned the beat around, from the two to the ONE on Out Of Sight & Papa's Got A Brand New Bag. He also used his horns & guitars, as though they were percussion instruments. Melody was nothing, the groove & rhythm was everything! He featured his band members, calling them out on wax for solos. He kicked it up 10 notches higher with Cold Sweat And....nothing was ever the same again!
James set the stage for 70s Soul & Funk, though I would never compare eras. The best of the 70's Soul & Funksters borrowed liberally from James & Slys' work of the late 60's. For my money, from '60 to '64, Soul music/R&B was just too schizoid. Too many disjointed parts of a collective whole. Too many Soulsters suffered from identity crisis.
One year, they were playing Samba music with strings, trying to copy The Drifters. The next week, they were trying to sound like Pop crooners. The month after that, they were trying to sound like Motown. The month after that, they were trying to appeal to the Supper crowd. Add to that mix, were the folks who were still doing '50's style R&B.
To me, from '60 to '64, R&B seemed to be stumbling along. THEN..... Motown, James, Stax, Aretha, Atlantic & Sly showed them their true direction! Then, they were cooking with grease!!!
So Kev, it's extremely hard to compare the eras. The 70s artists built on the foundation that the 60s artists laid out. The 70s artists picked up the baton & added their own 12 herbs & spices. The 70s had some great, great music & is underrated in my opinion.
(Message edited by juicefree20 on September 14, 2004)
Post Number: 598
Posted From: 188.8.131.52
|Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 1:06 pm: ��||���|
Hey Juice, check your email!!!!
Post Number: 537
Posted From: 184.108.40.206
|Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 5:02 pm: ��||���|
You can compare and contrast '60s soul to '70s soul to see what things were similar, and what things were different. You can compare artists from the '60s to those of the '70s, or even the same artist through time. But I doubt that saying that artists or musicians ffom a certain time were better than those of another time has any meaning. I doubt that saying that the music from one time is better than another has any meaning. What people were doing changed. Whether it's good or bad, is up to the listener (matter of taste). When you compare musicians to one another you might compare how accomplished one is on that instrument compared to another. Even THAT might be up to debate.
It's like Hockey. Was Wayne Gretzky the greatest scorer in NHL history because he scored the most points during a period ridiculously loose defences and little checking? No! Gordie Howe was 10 times the player!
It's the same in music. Could Robert Cray have stood up to the best blues men during the '40s? You bet!
Could Whitney Houston have been a Motown star in the early '60s? Without a doubt!
People that have good range in their voices, and know how to use them as an instrument, have feeling for their songs, etc., etc. would do well at any time, but they are likely to be singing in the particular popular style going on at that time.
It's reasonable to compare the styles at different times with one another, and say who was good at this or that. And one might say that overall, the group harmony wasn't so good during the 1990s, but any omparisons should be heavily qualified. I wouldn't make statements like: "People sung better (or played their instruments better) in the 1960s than they did in the 1970s, or '80s, or '90s.