There's a great article over on Salon about Parliament: their influence on hip-hop and how today's pop music climate would not allow such a group to form (or survive).
It ends with:
It's almost impossible to imagine P-Funk arising today, says Vincent. "Someone would have to have both the vision and access to the pop industry, which is tough because they're just cycling pop stars in and out," he explains. "By the time you're 22, you're over the hill. It's going to be really tough to pull something together that puts a collective vision out; the industry is usually in control of vision, and it's not democratic in that respect. It's not democratic, period.
"But the idea that there's a transcendent vision for the world we're living in? How are you going to get that when the kids are watching the Disney Channel, the teenagers are watching MTV, and the adults are listening to the oldies stations? No one's trying to get out of their situation, they're trying to cope within it. And the music industry feels like it's losing the battle or its frame of reference. It once was a movement that opened people's eyes. They need to go buy these Parliament albums and understand that it is possible. It can be done."
Read the whole story here.
(First posted on Mark Is Cranky)
Article comments
1 - Jim Carruthers
What's really irritating is that the great early Funkadelic recordings are a prime example of how copyright is in the realm of devoid of the funk. That is, some corporation owns the Funkadelic masters and refuses to pay Clinton and company.
The early Funkadelic records really show what a great rock act they are (Maggot Brain is a prime example). The fact they are owned by evil fucks shows how copyright is corrupt.