Great obscure funky tracks to mention

[QUINNY]

I guess it all depends on whether or not you think the Holy Grail exists, or there is an infinite number of great records. Indeed, how great is great or how good is good? Also, are we judging records as a DJ, as a dancer or as a listener? Are we being purely subjective or objective? I tend to judge as a DJ (ex DJ) and rightly or wrongly, assume that my perception will be different to that of a listener. I'd hope that UK dancers might agree with me on more than they disagree, whereas US ones might totally disagree. There are so many factors when you think about it. So no big deal when we disagree, nothing to get hung up about and certainly nothing to be chastised, despised or ostracised for, either.


Generally, as far as I'm concerned, the deeper one delves, the less return one gets, n'est-ce pas? The world is full of forgetable music that's only marginally danceable.

[Funky Dude]

Ok. From my perspective, songs that chart opposed to songs that didn't chart are irrelevant. Yes there's a lot of obscure stuff that doesn't sound too spectacular but at the same time a lot of the chart topping songs don't sound too spectacular too so it works both ways.

For instance the Billboard charts. I borrowed a Billboard book from the library a while back and looking at the 70s, a lot of not so exciting songs made the charts that are rather boring like "Knock Three Times" by Dawn Orlando, and there's really crap songs like "Brand New Key" by Melanie (her singing voice was terrible for the song). And there's a lot of John Denver country songs that made the top charts that I have absolute no interest whatsoever in no offense to him (RIP Johnny). Now there's plenty of obscure stuff that sounds 100 times better than some of these chart topping songs. Looking at rock music it seems poppy bubblegum songs from The Osmonds and The Partridge Family do better on the charts than heavy metal bands like Deep Purple, Yes, Black Sabbath, Uriah Heep, KISS who belt out ultracool hard sounds, no offense to the Osmonds and the Partridge Family as they are alright bands. Looking at disco what has made the charts is pretty good so I can't complain too much there, though funk seems to not make the top 5 as much.

I have a feeling that money, management, record contracters, sponsors and advertisement and commercialism also have bearing on how songs make the top charts. I mean there's obviously shitloads of bands that have far better songs but don't do buggerall on the charts due to lacking the above so their songs become obscure and only so many records are released, correct me if I'm wrong. Also radio stations obviously belt the shit out of certain songs which probably get drummed into listeners heads.

Now Quinny, I've got a lot of 70s Top Of The Pops episodes and there's a lot of great songs on there but some of them crikey they sound really bad, eg "Dippity Day" by Father Abraham which is a Smurf song, I'd hardly want to listen to that over a cool obscure disco or rock song just because it made the charts :lol: :lol: :lol: , and of course there's those symphony orchestras that somehow slip into the charts even though they are for the older generation and also "White Christmas" by Bing Crosby :o . Still it goes to show Britain has a very wide range of music taste which in my opinion is good.

But nonetheless the charts are meaningless as I think a lot of it was to do with money and management.

Also what hit the charts in the last 10 years is bloody crap as. In the mid/late 90s there were a lot of wussy commercial crappy boybands like Hanson and N-Stink hitting the charts, and also there were some real shit songs on the charts like "Milkshake" by Kelis, "Roses" by Outkast, "Barbie Girl" by Aqua, and a lot of Enema Em stuff too, makes you wonder how would such swill hit the charts. Then again that's todays charts and a lot of songs suck plumbers crack today anyways :lol: :lol: :lol: .

Now looking at disco, okay example Village People's "YMCA" was obviously at the top of the Billboard charts whereas "Ten Percent" by Double Exposure was maybe middle of the road say maybe within the top 100 Billboard. Which would you prefer. I myself like "YMCA" but "Ten Percent" wins hands down.

Anyhow I use to be biased more to the obscure stuff but these days I give both the obscure and the chart toppers a fair go as whether a song charts or not is irrelevant to me.

Anyways that's my take on this issue.

Lastly Quinny, if you hear any of those songs at somestage, let me us what you think of them and how they compare to the chart toppers as I'm sure they have just as much potential as the ones that made the charts.

_______________________________________________
AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE!!! OI OI OI!!!

[QUINNY]

Funky: In hindsight and with no historical context, it's soooo easy to say an obscure record deserved better and that a chart record didn't deserve as much. A whole industry has dined out on that myth for years.

What you fail to realise is that major record labels had most of the hits. Why? Well, that's simple to understand.
Back then, a handful of labels ran the show, with a fair number of quality smaller labels.
You must understand two things.
(1). Musicians making dance music were only in it for the money. They made records that they hoped would be commercial enough to appeal to shed loads of people and earn them bucket loads of dosh. Music is all about communication and successful communication by musicians usually resulted in healthy record sales.
(2). Much of the obscure stuff that gets churned over today didn't get released nationwide (or if it did failed miserably) either simply because, yes it wasn't deemed commercial enough by the public, or simply not good enough by the A&R men at the record labels to even warrant a release. It was their job to scout for new talent and scout for individual records that they thought might be worth plugging. In other words, if a record wasn't picked up on BITD, there was a very good chance that it wasn't very good.

I happen to think that the A&R men did a good job and so I'm led to believe that many of the tracks in your list are probably not that special.

BTW: Both 10 Percent and YMCA were both Disco chart toppers. I like neither of them much.
Funk was generally less popular than Soul or Disco and with a Disco top 100, plus R&B (Soul/Funk) charts, there was a hell of a lot of product that got some recognition. However, a record that reached #97 and stayed there or disappeared the next week is unlikely to be a classic. Give us old timers some nous.

Where the hell does The Partridge Family, Deep Purple or John Denver come into a Disco/Funk forum discussion?

[Funky Dude]

QUINNY wrote:

Where the hell does The Partridge Family, Deep Purple or John Denver come into a Disco/Funk forum discussion?

I was using those as an example of how the charts are to me a bit on the commercial side. Then again I'm being biased as I also like rock music and think that heavy rock songs of the 70s win over bubble-gum pop songs anyday and there are hordes and hordes of hard rocker fans out there as there are fans for bubblegum pop bands, so it makes me wonder why softer pop songs are preferred over the harder stuff? I felt I had to mention these.

I guess the obscure disco/funk stuff is more people who acquire a taste for it, also same goes with rock. Whereas pop music is obviously would be of what the majority of people would acquire a taste for no matter what their tastes are. Then again it's hard to say as a lot of pop songs people say are "crap" and wonder how they get into the charts, like I ask how would a STUPID song like "Milkshake" by Kelis become popular when it sounds so dumb, is it because blokes like the boobshake or something :lol: :lol: :lol: ??? I love bagging that song as it's one of the shittest songs I've heard this year next to "Roses" by Outkast.

Anyways not to continue arguing about obscure over pop, you have your opinions and I have mine and whilst I don't fully agree I respect your opinion all the same. I love me obscure stuff as well as pop and it makes me happy and that's all that matters :D !

_______________________________________________
AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE!!! OI OI OI!!!

[buckaroo]

Originally Posted by markydefad

...I've given up on today's music for the most part. :evil: Now, I'm fascinated by all the obscure stuff I missed back in tha day. I'd buy a compilation with all those titles on it. I've never heard of most of 'em. :o

:-?
Come come now...Don't be so defeatist!!! Good music didn't stop being produced in 1986 tha-knows!! :lol: :lol:
There's some great deep house (disco, basically) around on the airwaves. Just listen out for it...You'll agree with me I'm sure.

[buckaroo]

Originally Posted by markydefad

...I've given up on today's music for the most part. :evil: Now, I'm fascinated by all the obscure stuff I missed back in tha day. I'd buy a compilation with all those titles on it. I've never heard of most of 'em. :o

:-?
Come come now...Don't be so defeatist!!! Good music didn't stop being produced in 1986 tha-knows!! :lol: :lol:
There's some great deep house (disco, basically) around on the airwaves. Just listen out for it...You'll agree with me I'm sure.

[efunk_adelic]

Think about this everyone....

The general public can only like a few songs at a time... don'tcha agree... or can afford to buy 1 or 2 a month... hardcore music fans like us bought maybe 2 or 3 a week.


at the clubs.... you can only keep a crowd interested by playing hits... with just a few new songs a week. Cramming way too much music down one's throat never worked for me... how 'bout any other jocks?


I rarely played over 30 tracks or 40 tracks in one night at the club.... because if I played something popular earlier in the night... a few got double play on the turntables.

[QUINNY]

EFunk: I mainly agree with your sentiments and that's why I get upset by fanatics.

BTW: I'd manage about 90 - 100 records a night. Never could play anything for more than about 4 minutes without dying of boredom. Maybe it was because I started DJing when only 7" 45s existed and my internal DJ clock was forever set to 3' 15" (the average length of a 45).

[SandraDee]

Originally Posted by QUINNY

Maybe it was because I started DJing when only 7" 45s existed and my internal DJ clock was forever set to 3' 15" (the average length of a 45).

I thought you started DJing when only 78s existed. :lol:

[markydefad]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I thought you started DJing when only 78s existed. :lol:

I thought you used a bird's beak as your needle.... like the Flintstones did...waaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in da day.

[SandraDee]

I think I heard that the first ever disco was in Bedrock. The DJs were David Mancuso & Quinny. :-?

[markydefad]

Yeah I heard the Birds of Bedrock got awful pissed cause Quinny was whipping their beaks off the vinyl every 3 minutes or so.

A veteran Bird told me "Christ, the the vocals hadn't begun and he was slamming my beak unto the next record!!!!!""

Ouch!!!! Crimey!!!! :oops: :oops: :oops:

:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P

[QUINNY]

Yeah, those 4 minute intros soon became outros for moi. Was I on speed or something?

[zeca azevedo]

Some things never change :lol: :lol: ,

well, since I had some time to waste, I read all the answers on this topic. This discussion "obscure is cool - obscure is shit" is kinda sticky, isn' it? I remember seeing this topic being discussed here when I was a regular (40 year ago, :lol: ). Anyway, the topic GREAT OBSCURE TRACKS TO MENTION... began with a list of songs and it seems nobody cared for the list. For me, some of the songs on the list are well known, other are really obscure, but hey, I'm a music digga too :lol: . And for my money, BURNING SPEAR by S.O.U.L. is great. WATERBED was well known in Brasil in the 70's because it was included on the soundtrack of a very popular TV soap opera (CORRIDA DO OURO, anyone here remembers SANDRA BRÉA? :lol: :lol: )

When it comes to pop music, I don't give a damn if the song is rare or not. I need to hear it to believe it (or like it). That's enough for me. 8)

Peace, Love and Togetherness (hey, there's a band...),

zeca azevedo, a very obscure fella

[Nano]

Quinny... just think about this: maybe people of other generations (i.e. 90s youngmen) look for different things in disco or any other thing, than people of your age or my age. So to quote Billy Paul, "one man's trash is another man's treasure".

About supposed wisdom by the great labels... come ooooonnnnnn! Most big music trends started in small, independent labels. Rock and roll is a good example, as was punk or house, and of course disco. What the biggies do is to copy in blow-up proportions the work of the indies that make money, buying their artists (or the entire labels) or making imitations.
Even The Beatles were rejected by Decca before signing to EMI! Then Decca hurried to sign Mick & Keith. :)