Same here, I threw a grenade at it, when I first heard it. Now, I have to hear it back to back!

2freaky4church1 said:

There's some funky guitar work in this song.

AAAAAOOOO AAAAAOOO AAAAAOOOOO

GNS said:

Could you define Funk for me? Now, I know that at first take, your instinct will be merely to list some songs. But since you have used the phrase, "antithesis of funk," could you provide an actual definition of "funk" 'cause based on my pretty extensive listening of music, "OSC" is funky as hell. So, please, educate me, enlighten me. What constitutes a funk chord or a funk progression or a funk groove? Again, I'm not saying that you don't have a right to your opinion. If you think that the song sucks, then that's cool, but you are making the point as others on this site that Prince ain't funky no more, and I'd like to know what constitutes funk, by empirical definition. Then once you provide the definition, explain how the song, note for note and chord for chord, is the "antithesis of funk" Because if you can't do that, then that makes your statement the "antithesis of objective discourse."
[Edited 5/6/09 21:30pm]

1725topp said:

All language is tautology. Saying OSC is the antithesis of funk is a sufficient definition of funk. Funk = the opposite of OSC.

Define white.

worst song on the album/set

stanleylieber said:

You have been called and your answer shows you in all your hater glory. Next.

Sdldawn said:

Deaf.Next.

stanleylieber said:

What one person calls “tautology” another person calls elaboration or providing sufficient detail because not all discourse is "redundant" if elucidation or clarity is provided. Therefore, saying "OSC" is the antithesis of funk" is not a sufficient definition of funk if one seriously intends on having an objective, if not empirical, discussion of a topic, especially if the two disagree and are earnest in their desire to understand each other.

And not that it relates or pertains to my question about funk, but I will define “white” if you clarify whether you mean "white" as in a color of aesthetics or "white" as in racial category. In the case of aesthetics, "white" is the term used to define or identify an achromatic color of maximum lightness or a color that is most devoid of black or blackness. In the cause of racial classification, "white" is the term used to identify a category of people deemed as Caucasian or Caucasoid. Now, to your point, which is ultimately Derrida's point about the gap between the "sign" and the thing being "signified," it is true that all language, by its very nature of being symbolic, can be deemed arbitrary, but Derrida did not intend for serious thinkers to allow that gap or even arbitrariness of language to keep us from struggling to know the world in which we live. And besides, to say that "OSC is the antithesis of funk is a sufficient definition of funk" is to fall prey to that very basic fallacy of logic/rhetoric--circular reasoning, which is to assert that something is true just because one says it is. The only person allowed to make this argument is our parents, with the almighty "Cause I said so!!! Now do your homework!!!" But, if we are on this site to engage in an objective discussion of Prince's work (which is what all of the folk who do not like Prince's latest efforts claim that they are doing) then those people must be willing to provide some parameters of terminology by which we can all engage in an objective discourse.

So, I ask again. Can you all please define funk since you all asserted that it is the "antithesis of funk?"

SPOOKYGAS said:

How come someone that doesn't feel the same as you about a song is considered "Deaf"


you are one of the most intriguing defensive fans i've seen on this board.

1725topp said:

You assume so much from so little. I think you're trying to use the outrageous character of your assumptions to pry a definition out of me, because your argument can only resolve if I give you something to lever against. In this case, a definition of "funk." You'll note that not even Prince is willing to define "funk," except as it relates to those who are "un-funky" (see the lyrics of songs like 'Illusion, Coma, Pimp and Cirumstance,' or, yes, 'Ol' Skool Company' for examples). Points for citing Derrida, but demerits for thinking it automatically wins the argument. Yes, I've read and understood Heideggar as well.

I don't even agree that OSC is the antithesis of funk. I was defending the notion that citing an opposite can fulfill the requirements of a definition.

Hell is the absence of God's love, and so on.

Sdldawn said:

Fan not Fam? Why?

Anyway, my point still stands: All language is a tautology. Existence precedes essence.

[/quote]

First, you are putting words into my argument to create a straw man for you to pound. I never asserted that Prince was the authority or the definition that I was using. Secondly, I never thought or asserted that citing Derrida would automatically win the argument. (You are making assumptions about me that are not fair. I simply used Derrida to assert that I understood your question about defining white or whiteness, but also to make a point that just because language is, by nature, flawed, it does not mean that we stop trying to make sense of the world in which we live.) I wanted the other person, not you, to provide a definition because asserting the negative does not neccessarily prove the affirmative. Saying that "Hell is the absence of God's love" does not explain how or why the love is absent. If one does not want to be absent from God's love or does want to do anything to cause oneself to be absent from God's love, then one needs to know what takes place for Hell to exist or for one to be absent from God's love. One cannot truly know or understand hell without knowing what caused its existence.

Finally, just because Prince has not presented a definition does not mean that he is not working with or within some type of construct, even if that construct is intuitive or made to be second nature from having exposed himself to enough funk or funky material. Some artists create and wait on critics to pontificate over and classify the art while other artists create and engage in the debate with the critics over the classification of the art. My point is that the other member clearly seems to be making his statement about "OSC" based on some definition of "funk," and I would like to know what it is. I am open to being wrong. So many people on this site assert that Prince ain't funky any more, and I just want to know on what theory or definition are they basing it. If I know their theory or definition, I might be able to say, "Hey, I was drinking the Purple Kool-Aid." However, I don't think that I am because for me it is always about what moves my mind, my body, and my soul. "OSC" as well as Louts and MPLS moves me as much as Prince's 80s work. I'm not saying that I'm right for being moved by his current work,and I'm not saying that others are wrong for not being moved by his current work. But when people start saying that something concretely is not something, then that person has a responsibility to provide parameters of definition so that we, who may disagree with that person, can be enlightened.

Finally, I want to add, so that you do know me better, that for me critical thinking is not about being right or wrong but about knowing or understanding the world better so that we can all collectively solve problems. I don't ask questions to prove people wrong. I ask questions to know from where someone is coming so that I can gain a better understanding of their point of view. And yes, "existence may precede essence" depending on one's ideological view of the create or existence of the word, but man does not live by existence alone. At some point, we all ask, "What the hell are we doing here?" which proves that even existentialist need meaning (essence) even if the meaning is an arbitrary construct.
[Edited 5/6/09 23:06pm]

1725topp said:

First of all, I like you.

I have to apologize. I have no problem with what you wrote above. I am (truly) happy that you are getting enjoyment out of the new albums. For me, Elixer is the one I have been waiting for.

Since you went to great trouble to explain yourself above I think I owe you the courtesy of answering your question. The problem is, I don't think I could define what constitutes "funk." For me it's a real Justice Potter Stewart kind of a situation: I know the funk when I hear it. I realize this utterly fails the test you proposed above. Falsification is impossible! Er, unless we put on one of Prince's new...

I think Prince himself did a great job describing what's missing from his new funk. It's that "dark energy." The opposite, if you will, of what Prince describes as the "blue aura" that supposedly surrounds his present work.

stanleylieber said:

blah blah blah. oh but he likes you.

1725topp said:

WTF do I look like DEFINING funk for YOU? :confused:

That'll be like me defining god for someone else.

But for my money...

1. A cheesy, by-the-numbers, plodding, recycled groove atop plastic drums delivered with a too slow tempo along with

2. Pointless, quasi-political, passive-aggressive, contradictory lyrics equals

3. TRES UNFUNKY!

Take it how you wanna.

And next time you feel the need to speak for me in saying I'm speaking for everybody else, at least org.note me first.

stanleylieber said:

And then there's that.

I didn't

It is as blatant and predictable as 'Come on' on New Power soul.

To be more precise: MPLsound ranks among the worst Prince albums, together with New Power Soul.

GNS said:

First, by defining funk for anyone on "this" thread, you look like someone who can clarify their position, especially if that position is founded on a vague assertion. However, since you were not able to define funk, I'm just glad that you said, "for my money," because I can accept that it's your opinion--half-baked and under-articulated as it is. I just found it interesting that you speak as if you have the holy book of funk that the rest of us have as of yet to read.

Of course, my real issue is people hi-jacking other people's threads, especially people who spend most of the time telling those of us who dig Prince's work since 2000 that we are somehow drinking the Purple Kool-Aid and that we are somehow not objective or informed. What makes you think that you know what funk is more than anyone else? Of course, you are going to say that you were not asserting that, but when one says that something is the antithesis of funk, one is saying that he has the holy funk bible with the commandments right there. But, you were not able to produce those commandments.

Also, "pointless" is relative, meaning subjective, and what you deem contradictory I call natural human dichotomy. See we can go back and forth all day, but I readily admit that these are my opinions with which I do not wish to beat over the head because they do not think like me, which is why I don't have the need to hi-jack threads and tell people how lame they are.

stanleylieber said:

I can accept Justice Potter Stewart's rationale, but I do also understand that it creates a great deal of gray area, which allows for debate, which is one of the things that I like about the U. S. Constitution and about being a Prince fan, but that gray area also makes it difficult for someone to claim that something is the "antithesis" of something else if there is no real or concrete measuring point or tool. Having something be intuitive means, by nature, that what is intuitive to one person may not be intuitive to another, which means that one can only assert that it is the antithesis of funk to him, which is the only point that I was making. The folks who mostly claim that Prince has lost it over the past eight to ten years seem to speak as if they are speaking from the objective and that those of us who think that Prince is still cranking out good music are somehow blind. I just want to point out that one person's antithesis is another person's classic, which means that folk should stop hi-jacking other folks threads just because they don't like what someone is saying. If I read a thread with which I don't agree, I simply ignore it. My goal in life is not to piss people off because somebody pissed me off, which seems to be the goal of many of the folks who think that Prince has lost it. And, I readily admit that my perception can be wrong.

Revolution said:

Funky like some doo doo

1725topp said:

So, no org.note to advise me that you're indeed speaking for me again?

But on the real? I don't recall writing, or thinking about writing, ANY of the things you just did.

As far as "thread jacking" Well, I had different opionion than that of the thread author and wrote a sentence or two about it. Happens all the time.

And as far as THAT being your "real issue", well that just makes you like a fool. Even worse still is yer forced use of cocktail party words to discuss something so trivial. That just makes you look like a pretentious fool.


Go get laid.

1725topp said:

OMG, 1725, LMAO!! Can I get you to come verbally spank some of the hard-headed, opinionated people I work with? Basically, you have stated everything that I was thinking, minus the use of dictionary, thesaurus, and what ever other book of vocabulary you have been studing!! Bravo!!

1725topp said:

1725topp U r much 2 heavy 4 them. They cannot give u an answer because they do not know themselves. They r constantly hi-jacking every thread they can with nothing 2 back it up with other than their opinion and we all have one. I totally enjoyed reading your comments. It is like seeing a Mohammed Ali fight. Every time his opponent tries to get up he knocks them right back down

1725topp said:

I agree with this but you have to admit it should go both ways.

pennylover said:

See what I mean? It should go both ways.

I've heard funkier shit from Shitney Houston.

GNS said:[quote]

1725topp said:

"Go get laid???" Really??? That's real...mature??? I have had disagreements with others on this site and Housequake that did not devolve into crap talk. My bad for thinking that you wanted to do something other than rant and insult people.