Stymie said:

That's from the 'Celebration' album,right? I'll have to find that record and listen to it.I have it on vinyl somewhere.My favorite song from that album is "Jones Vs.Jones",a very sad song.It's one of their most underrated singles.

theAudience said:

I didn't know they existed prior to these songs, , and I must admit when I think of Kool & the Gang I automatically think of J.T. He put the Kool in the Gang!

i'm sorry i just dont do j.t. taylor. i hated 'celebrate'. i was so sick of that song-good grief! i don't care how many hits they had in the 80s it just doesnt compare to pre-j.t. sorry. just because some of the songs were hits doesn't make them good. it just means that majority of the people who liked that shit have bad taste
[Edited 10/12/06 11:07am]

1FRO said:

No, Robert "Kool" Bell put the Kool in Kool & The Gang.

And they were way cool before J.T. came on the scene.


tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

theAudience said:

TAWK!!!!

If there wasn't documented proof of it, you'd never convince me that they were the same group, pre and post J.T..

I'm not against all JT-era stuff. 'Ladies Night', 'Get Down On It' and 'Too Hot' immediately come to mind as worthy material. But the more integrated they became to the adult comtemporary scene, the more their music went downhill. And like TA, I couldn't care less if they sold a gazillion records with JT. I'm sure the band feels differently, but I didn't get any of that money so it really doesn't register with me. On a purely musical scale, I never heard anything out of the JT era band that compared with stuff like 'Summer Madness', 'Hollywood Swinging', 'Funky Stuff', or 'Jungle Boogie'. It's almost unfair to compare them because they really are two different groups with entirely seperate agendas. Listen to 'Live At PJ's' and just hear what that band is doing on that album. You aren't going to hear anything remotely similar to that from JT era KATG. It just ain't happening. Would anyone even be interested in a live album from a JT-era KATG?

It's almost like comparing Jefferson Airplane and Starship.
[Edited 10/14/06 6:03am]

Najee said:

If 'competing' means tepid output like 'Misled', 'Cherish' and 'Victory', I'd prefer to hear bands bow out of the running gracefully. No disrespect intended, because it's obvious that you like the material, but they were competing with the Michael Boltons and Bryan Adams of the world.

From where I sit, that ain't much of a race.

in short, they were a better band in the '70's. they made more money (hits) in the '80's

violator said:

Najee said:

this brings up an interesting point.Most funk bands that were popular in the 70s didn't really "survive" into the 80s.Earth Wind and Fire changed their sound drastically,but it didn't really work....The Commodores,Brass Construction,Average White Band,Ohio Players,none of these bands had much success in the 80s.So,it's to Kool and The Gang's credit that they were able to prosper in the 80s,at least until JT taylor left for a solo career in 1987.Being able to survive in the fickle pop world is a talent in itself,imo.

GigaByte said:

you know what's funny about this discussion? Fans say this about nearly every artist or band that was popular in the 70s...

***Stevie Wonder---how many times do we see,on this site and elsewhere,fans arguing that his 70s material is superior to his over-prodcued 80s stuff?

***Chicago---how many times do we see,on this site and elsewhere,fans insisting that their 70s material is superior to their over-produced 80s stuff?

***Elton John,Donna Summer,and so on....

let's face it,the 70s and 80s are two entirely different times.Bands/artists had to adapt to changing trends.If Kool and The Gang had continued into the 80s with the same type of jazz/funk they were playing in the 70s,their career would have died a premature death.

I'm gonna go one further and say that I even love their reunion album (with J.T.) - "State of Affairs"...(1995)

"Salute To The Ladies"
"In The Hood"
and
"Color Line" are awesome!

I have all the CDs from 1979 - 1986, love the JT years, was too young 2 even know about their 70s work.

The 80s was my era, and KOOL & THE GANG with JT were right up there with MJ and PRINCE as far as R&B/pop/soul (whatever u wanna label it) goes.

"MISLED" ROCKS!

you know what's funny about this discussion? Fans say this about nearly every artist or band that was popular in the 70s...

***Stevie Wonder---how many times do we see,on this site and elsewhere,fans arguing that his 70s material is superior to his over-prodcued 80s stuff?

***Chicago---how many times do we see,on this site and elsewhere,fans insisting that their 70s material is superior to their over-produced 80s stuff?

***Elton John,Donna Summer,and so on....

let's face it,the 70s and 80s are two entirely different times.Bands/artists had to adapt to changing trends.If Kool and The Gang had continued into the 80s with the same type of jazz/funk they were playing in the 70s,their career would have died a premature death.[/quote]


you're right - they were entirely different times....
we saw a shift from the "music" industry to the "entertainment" industry. and the mentality that says you must have a 'visual association' to what you hear thrives today like mold in a truck stop bathroom.
look at every act you see that doesn't depend on a million-dollar video to promote their music - they either get lumped into one of those 'smooth jazz' formats, or they get labeled some crap like "neo-soul" (which basically means that there's no 'hoochie-hustler' video tied to it).
sad as it is, songs are to be SEEN nowadays, not just heard.

Najee said:

I understand what you are trying to get across. Ironically,EWF biggest hit
let's groove came from their 1982 album Raise. They followed that up with
Powerlight in 1983 spawning the hits if you fall in love with me and
side by side. After the disappointing follow up electric universe in 1984, ewf
took a few years off with phillip bailey and maurice white doing solo albums
in between they bounced back strong with touch the world in 1987 with the
hit system of survival.
The isleys also didn't fade that much because in 1983 they had one of
their biggest selling album between the sheets. And even when the brothers
split up and 3 formed isley jasper isley and the ronald,rudolph,and o'kelly
before his death carried the isley tradition on throughout the 80's with
smooth sailing and spend the night.
I would have to disagree with you because the isleys and ewf were right
there towards the end of the 80's with kool and the gang. The difference
is kool and the gang were making a splash on pop radio while the isleys
and ewf were primarily subjected to r&b stations which wasn't a bad thing.

Not a knock on kool and the gang. Their pop success was cool but
they paid the price when they had to share the stage with other
r&b acts such as the barkays,dazz band,and even evelyn"champagne"king.
Kool would headline the show but they had to follow these acts especially
the barkays funk drenched show and kool would follow and their show would
be lukewarm and the crowd would leave early not because they weren't good
but their sound had become to pop in the 80's for r&b crowds. Get down on
it was just stale compared to freakshow, let it whip,and love come down.

As with Commodores I see two totally different groups: funk & non-funk. K&tG added a great vocalist, but became less of a funk band. Lionel Ritchie asserted his penchant for pop flavorings and created a less funky band (which spun off into a very successful career. This is not a negative, but a dividing line.

Hits are what they are; nothing wrong with being a pop success. However, in true armchair quarterback fashion, you can pick up any interview and hear members talk about getting back to their roots. They're talking about their old funk style, not the pop hits. Unfortunately, the hardcore funk fans have moved on, so they stick to the pop stuff

violator said:

Wassup dawg?
Hadn't read your response until after I posted.
Good to see We on the exact same page in the same book and chapter and verse.

I guess you could say the same for the Doobie Brothers - when Tom Johnston was the main vocalist, their sound had a more rock edge. When Michael McDonald joined, his r&b influences totally changed their sound - they reached the height of their popularity. In their last few tours, they reverted back to their pre-McDonald days for the most part, with the occasional sit-in by Michael McDonald.

Same goes for Journey. Neil Schon, Jonathan Cain, et.al, were awesome musicians, especially prodigy Schon, who was fresh from Santana's band when he formed Journey. They released a few albums that were experimental with occasional vocals, but they weren't selling that well. Their manager had heard Steve Perry awhile back and basically dictated the Schon and company that a change was needed and Steve Perry HAD to join the band. At first, Neil Schon was against it until he got with Perry and they clicked. Thus, started the beginning (or the end, depending on how one sees it) of Journey as most people know it today.

Of course, as someone stated earlier, the Commodores were the same way. From bands playing small clubs (including my old band) to the big boys, decisions like this happen all the time...

(the Commodores were a FUNKY band - just wanted to say that)

It happens with a lot of bands. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and fams can post and debate and such, but those bands are the ones who live the lives and play the music. They do have to make a living AND they have to live with the decisions they make...

PFunkjazz said:

I recall in the late 80s after J.T. left,there was alot of talk that Kool and The Gang were gonna get back to their "funk roots".They hired two(!) lead singers and released an album in 1988 that was billed as a return to their past.The album flopped.Sometimes you really can't go home.

RONNYRON said:

Hell yeah! that's a perfect pop song.One of their best 80s singles.