The best music is entry level. Prove me wrong. (pro tip: you

>>52233533
Louis Armstrong and Kenny G are entry level, Thelonious Monks is not.

>>52233552
ah... yes he is. he's probably the most famous jazz pianist.

(not true by the way)

>>52233533
there is a difference between widely acknowledged as one of the greats and entry level

>>52233571
>art music
Beethoven
Brahms
Bach
Stravinsky
Schoenberg
Mozart
Chopin
Bela Bartok
Vivaldi
Handel
Haydn

>jazz
John Coltrane
Louis Armstrong
Clifford Brown
Monk
Bill Evans
Scott Lafaro
Art Blakey
Lee Morgan
Charles Mingus
Ornette Coleman
Eric Dolphy
Bobby Hutcherson
Charlie Parker
Dizzy Gillespie

>funk/soul
Parliament/Funkadelic
Sly & The Family Stone
James Brown
The Meters
Isley Brothers
Stevie Wonder
Al Green
Gil Scott-Heron
Curtis Mayfield

Show me a list of better artists than these who are not entry level.

Everything is entry-level. You can never escape it.

>>52233640
those arent art music

>>52233657
Obscure stuff are not entry level. I just don't understand why anyone would try to search for some obscure stuff when the entry level shit is clearly better. I swear people who do that only like music for the image and not because they really love it.

>>52233665
what do you mean?

>>52233657
This. Music is entry level art.

>>52233668
you obviously haven't delved deep enough.
finding good obscure music is an art.

>>52233552
Thelonious is extremely entry level. Cecil Taylor is a good example of non-entry level Jazz piano.

>>52233691
I never cared about delving "deep enough" because everytime I listen to "obscure" music it's not near as good as the entry level stuff. Never once did I listen do an obscure funk band better than funkadelic, or an obscure jazz musician better than Mingus, or even an obscure rock band better than The Beatles.

Entry level is just the best, that's why it became entry level.

>>52233710
There are tons of exceptions, though. Hidden gems. Stay pleb.

>>52233710
That's because you're an ordinary man with ordinary taste. Not a bad thing though, this probably means you have a better life than 80% of people here. Though you never get bored of those artists? I have a new favorite artist every couple of month because I want to listen to something new.

(I hope you weren't trolling)

>>52233723
There are Hidden Jams, but they're still not as good. How about you show me instead of talkign about? what are some hidden gem bands better than the artists i mentioned above?

>>52233728
There are enough entry level artists to never get bored with. And it's not like I hate obscure stuff or something like that, it's just that I always preferred the entry level becuase it's better in mose cases.

>>52233710
I presume you listened to thousands of funk comps and LPs before making this assumption out of the blue, same with the others. oh, that's right, you didn't even try to delve deep, and therefore you are disregarding something you don't know anything about, the lowest possible form of criticism

>>52233752
Just saying though; you sound like a stuck up bitch and you can't write for shit.

>>52233752
not better, but different.
ehh top of my head
supersister
bela fleck and the flecktones
the legendary pinkdots
the bahama soul club
the flashbulb
cortex
el michels affair
hidden orchestra
dabrye
ediT

It really depends on the age of the genre. It tends to be true for older types of music, but the same can't be said for newer ones.

>>52233803
I listened to enough funk comps and LPs from different decades to know that funkadelic is still the best funk band of all time. And I have been delving, that's why I know that the most popular/entry level artists are usually the best.

>>52233823
>el michels affair
>bela fleck and the flecktones
I thought I was the only one.

>>52233828
This is true actually.. Obscure music is only better when talking about current music. P4k and Fantano approved albums are generally worse than obscure albums.

>>52233843
so, if one day you go to the Louvre, you will just head directly to Mona Lisa and just get out after seeing it because it is regarded as the best painting of all time?

>>52233710
Although that's true a lot of the time, the stuff that becomes entry level has to both be good and have a wide appeal, so stuff that's good with a very narrow appeal will stay obscure. You haven't found any obscure artists you like because either your tastes magically line up with the most widespread appeal of every genre or you haven't listened to enough to narrow down your taste further.

>>52233886
That's not the same thing though.

>>52233902
>You haven't found any obscure artists you like
I have though. But none of them were as good as those artists.

And I don't like EVERYTHING that's entry level and most popular of a certain genre, it's just that most (most) entry level stuff are better that's all.

>>52233920
yes it's the same thing, Mona Lisa is entry-level painting as Funkadelic is entry-level funk, so the rest of the museum is only good for junkyard, since entry-level is better

>>52233955
There are a lot of other entry level paintings (or paintings in general) that i'll need to se before deciding what I like the most. You said
>you will just head directly to Mona Lisa and just get out after seeing it
Which is completely wrong because I will never call it the best without seeing a lot of other paintings.

>>52233941
I still don't agree with you. A lot of the most entry level music is also the shittiest music out there.
One Direction, Justin Bieber, All these boybands, popular trance, dirty house. Some might say you have to dig a little deeper than entry level to get to the good stuff.

>>52233861
And it is very likely, that the obscure music will one day become entry-level.

>>52234005
I guess I meant that a genre's entry level artists are usually are the best (jazz, funk, art music for example). I'm trying to claim that top 40 pop is good or anything like that.

>>52233977
then come on and tell me how these are not funkadelic level while being obscure

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoiflmflmD4

http://www.wat.tv/audio/standing-room-only-universal-3ejfz_2fqq3_.html (sorry for the link but only one I found)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GgVaTGbk8U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcKCbpP_ljE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJPRkJ0INKI

>>52234069
>>52234069
okay okay. i do get what you mean. It just would be a shame to exclude all the other good shit out there. It's just an easy way to find indeed some of the best music out there. There is this kind of talent that's really hard to go around, a guy like James Brown or pianist like Thelonious. They're almost unanimously and immediately praised. Thelonious' playing style was so unique yet impeccable, James Brown's power as an entertainer. Things that almost every human, not even music lover gets. But there's a lot of artists that are more introverted, work on a smaller scale, are too complex, too ahead of their time or simply really bad businessmen. To find these you often have to dig a little deeper... And imo there's a difference between not entry level and obscure. Inbetween there's a lot of really good shit to be found. And I think a lot of subtleties a trained ear does hear, go beyond the casual listener. We live in a society where obviousness often comes before subtlety.

>>52234081
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoiflmflmD4
Awful bass tone, that bassist's groove is not close to Bootsy's. This sounds too much affected by synthpop and disco, as it lacks that nasty, groovie feeling that funkadelic gives you. I don't understand all of these synths either they sound so out of place and only there because it was a trend to use futiristic sounds in the 80's.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GgVaTGbk8U
Much better bassist than the previous song, I dig it. It feels a bit empty though because of the lack of a proper soloist (bernie for example would've played this song so much better). Still a good song though.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcKCbpP_ljE
This just sounds like it could've been a James Brown song, only without James Brown. The sax player even tries to play like Maceo.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJPRkJ0INKI
This is alright actually, but then again, it's too clean and lacks that nasty feeling that a good funk song gives you. This is basically like taking funkadelic and sucking out it's funkiness.

Most of these songs are good, but please don't tell me anything of them are close to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQFYJXMVxTc

>>52234200
>there's a lot of artists that are more introverted, work on a smaller scale, are too complex, too ahead of their time or simply really bad businessmen.
can you show me some of them?

>>52234231
i posted some here: >>52233823

and here's some examples:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byR1cxcI0s0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWrG2EL_GU8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwTiQXK_dkw&list=PLhQU6_unycRd4NuX8A6Rh2j_BEMLQLfUI&index=2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddA10Kgl-q0&list=PLDs5Xt0BjT5XlOmn1_wkpCzk0RgJR_PXX

Some of them are arguably entry level i guess

>>52234204
well, maybe your problem is that you have too high standards when it comes to funk
as far as I'm concerned, when I listen to funk I am not looking for the perfectly well-oiled groove or anything, just for good music to get down to

>>52234304
I was comparing your links to Funkadelic. They're decent funk songs but not close to the level of Funkadelic.

>>52234367
hence my thought about you having too high funk standards, and expecting all funk to be like Funkadelic

>>52234428
I don't expect every funk to be as good as funkadelic, but quoting you "then come on and tell me how these are not funkadelic level while being obscure"

>>52234428
Why were you posting then? The guy asked for stuff that is better than entry level stuff like Funkadelic and you posted stuff that isn't. Now you're saying his standards are too high but the premise of you posting them was to prove that there was obscure stuff that would meet his high standard.

>>52234446
well, for me, they are as good as Funkadelic can be
I think we can conclude that our feelings towards funk are just of different kinds, and shake hands before minding our own business

>>52234560
*tips fedora*

>>52234543
I tried to answer his first post, and then we discussed what came out of it to reach further conclusions, what's the big deal about this ?

>>52234586
that's one hell of an enlightened and constructive answer my good man

File: 721998010.jpg (24KB, 479x720px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 479x720px

>>52234601

>>52234630
the meme's on you

>>52234588
You're first post was about how the songs you posted were at the same level that funkadelic was at.

Op explained how each one wasn't and would have been done better by funkadelic.

You claimed that his standards were too high and that he shouldn't be expecting everything to be of the same standard as funkadelic.

Do you see a problem here?

>>52234652
maybe I used the wrong words to say it because english is not my first language, but when I was talking about op's too high expectations, I was trying to figure out what could lead to me thinking the songs I posted were good enough to be compared to Funkadelic and him thinking they were not (kind of trying to think with op's mind)