Jump to content

Talk:Parliament-Funkadelic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I removed the inappropriate content tag because the article does not have inapproproate content in it. Having dry formalised encyclopaedic language would be inappropriate for a discussion of P Funk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mofoerectus (talk • contribs) 06:50, 17 July 2006

Inappropriate? Not in an encyclopedia, which this is! It does not have to be "dry" (in fact, I think it would be better if it's not), but it certainly has to be factual, well-referenced and cited, and, generally, encyclopedic. If you want a "discussion of P-Funk", you are in the wrong place, and would be better served by finding one of the many fan sites that host such discussions. If you want to contribute to an encylopedia article about P-Funk, however, this is the place.  :) Xtifr tälk 06:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think it should have been moved from "P-Funk", the genre is surely classed as seprate different from its key proponents? I have therefore created a new "P Funk" article which needs adding to, in the context of a musical movement, with details to come of the artists it has inspired, and of its goofy metaphysics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mofoerectus (talk • contribs) 07:22, 17 July 2006

Following the convention of http://www.britannica.com/psychedelic/textonly/pfunk.html, the article has been moved from the more colloquial P-Funk.

While the section headings aren't standard, I believe they are entirely appropriate for this particular topic. That's the only cleanup issue I see without a very close reading, and I don't think they warrant the cleanup tag (in this instance). --Erielhonan 18:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link to Ride On points to an Irish folk singer's album by Christy Moore. Probably not what was meant. I removed the link. I also changed a bunch of links from Parliament to Parliament (band). There's probably other cleanup needed, I didn't check each link. --68.195.209.181 04:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, people. The Prime Minister of New Zealand was never a member of a 1950s doowop group.

Did Eddie Hazel really join Parliament when he was 6 years old?

"Mutiny" doesn't point to the right place. --71.251.5.21 21:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

needs a discography --Andreascary 01:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I question the "Motherpage" link. Who are these guys? What are their qualifications? They not only get "Free Your Mind... And Your Ass Will Follow"'s title wrong but their "analysis" is of dubious value at best i.e. "A third of it is taken up by the annoyingly non-musical title track", etc. Huh? BruceCMcD (talk) 04:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

----

The "Afrofuturism" section is totally full of editorializing and reads like a ninth-grader wrote it. I don't want to take it on myself, but somebody can hopefully iron out all the wrinkles in that section while preserving the relevant information.

I don’t know how to do any of this. The link to P-Funk All Stars redirects back to this article. Revatman (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]

They may be two seperate bands, but they do share members, and they were bothed centered around the vision of one man's vision. If you ever been to a Clinton show then you would understand that it is a mix of both bands and they do songs from both groups. The P-Funk Mythos does stretch between both groups, and really the only reason he had two bands was so Clinton could release as music as he wanted in a time when record companies try to control everything.

Considering that Parliament and Funkadelic ARE two separate bands to begin with, each with their own discographies, I'd have to disagree that all three be merged. If anything, I think Parliament-Funkadelic should be either deleted or redirected to the funk musical genre since, in essence, that's what it is.

Seems like it's overly confusing to have separate articles for Parliament, Funkadelic and Parliament-Funkadelic. We have people here looking for discographies that are hosted in the separate articles, and probably (though I haven't looked closely) a fair amount of duplicated information and work. I added a link at the top of this article so that people will be more aware of the other articles (which already linked here), but I still think that a merge would make more sense. Xtifr tälk 06:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

__________________________________________________________________

Not to mention, distinct articles devoted to both "P-Funk" and "P-Funk mythology". Geez. Sylvain1972 13:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, those are both pretty ugly, and need cleanup even worse than this one does. One thing at a time, though. Xtifr tälk 11:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of merging these three, the usage is almost universal. In fact I came here checking a link I had written in the form "Parliament/Funkadelic" and it's just what the doctor ordered (I didn't have to redirect! Awesome!).--24.183.100.99 20:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

__________________________________________________________________ Parliament and Funkadelic were two separate bands, even if the players were the same (in general). Their styles were different and their albums distinct. I think having three separate categories is proper, but the connection between the three articles needs to be clear. MKil 01:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]


I dont agree with the proposed merger of Parliament-Funkadelic because i believe that its confusing for younger people who werent even born during the time when the record companies, for legal reasons, declared that Parliament and Funkadelic could no longer exist under each respective name. These were in fact two seperate groups with several different members with a different sound (Funkadelic was generally known, particularly in its earlier years, to have more of a rock based grooving funk sound and Parliament was more known for the R&B/Funk sound) although it was not odd to find certain members contributing something for each group. Everyone who is a true fan of both groups and its genre understands that anyone who goes out to any outlet where their cds are sold today to buy an album from either group will NOT be able to find their albums simply clumped together as "Parliament-Funkadelic". Lets also not forget that many people associate Parliament and Funkadelic and George Clinton with the term "'P-Funk'" [ which is widely known, thanks in part to Parliament's single "P. Funk (Wants to Get Funked Up)]" and some people confuse the term "P-Funk" as "Parliament Funkadelic" as opposed to it's true term, "Pure Funk". In my opinion, anyone who is that cool enough to where they want to take time out and really try to understand George Clinton needs to at least have the right to accurate history. Merging these two names only helps further delay any future "Clones" from truly understanding what is the real deal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.144.141.238 (talk • contribs) 28 January 2007 9:37 (UTC).

The merge can go either way (i.e. we could maintain separate articles on Parliament and Funkadelic, rather than one combined article). I don't care either way. The problem I have is that we have three articles for what is, at most, two groups. (And some still might dispute that.) Anyway, all that stuff you mentioned would be stated explicitly in the article, rather than merely being implied by having three articles for one/two groups. Also, this is an encyclopedia entry, not a fan site. Please try to keep that in mind. Anyone who is "that cool" is looking in the wrong place if they're looking for coolness here. From an encyclopedic point of view, what we're dealing with here is redundancy, not "coolness". And as for "P-Funk", I think many people associate it with the P-Funk All-Stars, which is the real name of a real group which also happens to be mostly the same as Parliament and/or Funkadelic (but that's getting more off-topic). Xtifr tälk 22:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't MergeFunkadelic and Parliament should not be linked into this article, although sharing many of the same musicians, their musical differences were many and their success and popularity varied. There is plenty of information to deserve seperate pages and there is no need to erase some info and tie them into together. People need to understand and appreciate their differences and there is no need to merge to make a more robust article because both are already sizable or can easily be made so. - Patman2648 06:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No merge please. Feel free to refer at the head of the article.
Perhaps Xtifr misunderstands "coolness", or perhaps groks it without grokking that he/she groks it ... either way, it is entirely (a) inappropriate to have one article for two bands, and (b) appropriate to have a third article explaining the links between the bands and resulting confusion, and analysing the commonalities, since that is in fact inappropriate material to be cluttering up an article on either band. Furthermore, it is appropriate to have seperate articles discussing things which have a distinct individual life of their own and can exist independentally of the existance of either or both bands, such as the term P-Funk and the various stage-characters. One would be quite disappointed, for instance, to see George Clinton or Bootsy Collins, or indeed simply all black people become absorbed into a single article Parliament-Funkadelic-etc. -- Unlikelynick 04:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that combining bands with *exactly the same members* is the same as lumping all black people into one group is ridiculous. There is a distinct connection between all of these bands, between all forms of these bands. I don't see how it would be confusing to merge the articles, redirect, and put up a nice, clean, concise explanation right at the top. Merge, call the article Parliament-Funkadelic, and then explain the history (with links to the individual articles at the top of the section, as is done with quite a few articles). Simple. 12.10.117.115 16:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Not quite sure how to add my comment (first time adding to a "Discuss" thread). I would be against merger. I have come to the Funkadelic page looking for info about Funkadelic's records and would have been surprised to find a merged article. zbredemear 12:12 2 May 2007

This article seems a little biased

[edit]

[The above heading was moved from an unsigned comment.] Eddie Hazel did not join Funkadelic when he was six years old; however, he and Billy 'Bass' Nelson were not much older then that when they first visited the barbershop in Plainfield, NJ, where Clinton provided the community with 'process' haircuts whilst tending to his and the Parliaments' musical aspirations.


Shouldn't be merged

[edit]

Images

[edit]

This article needs images --AW 14:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger and re-organization

[edit]

I've given this quite a bit of thought, and I think the articles should be merged and re-organized. Here are my ideas:

  • Parliament-Funkadelic would have two sections. First it would tell the history of the Funk Mob, including the spin-off groups. Then it would describe the different musical styles of Parliament, Funkadelic, and the P-Funk All-Stars. (The musical styles of the smaller groups could be dealt with either in the history section or the second section.)

I've read the comments from other editors who feel that the articles shouldn't merge. To be honest, I don't understand their objections. The bands were all part of a single collective. For the most part, the line-up of Parliament and Funkadelic at any given time were identical. You can't tell the Funkadelic story without telling the Parliament story. In addition, every "solo" project featured contributions by other members of P-Funk. Even spin-off groups like Bootsy's Rubber Band had contributions by P-Funk members who weren't "officially" members of the band. It's ridiculous to pretend that there were bright lines between the bands.

On the other hand, the various groups did have different musical styles (for the most part). That's why I think the article should have a section that describes the bands' musical styles.

I'd appreciate other editors' thoughts about my suggestion. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for a WikiProject

[edit]

Has anyone every considered starting a WikiProject for Parliament-Funkadelic and the whole P-Funk universe? It would be a nice way to coordinate the quality of articles and build a community of knowledgeable funksmen and funkswomen. As we know, there are literally hundreds of Wiki articles associated with P-Funk. Many musical artists with far less history and information have special projects. (See here: [[1]])

I am a member of a few other special projects (e.g. Led Zeppelin), and it can be a fair amount of work to set up but it's great for coordination of effort. A Portal would be pretty hip too. I could get started on this with a few other willing volunteers, and if there is a critical mass of funky enthusiasm for such a project. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 10:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd participate in a P-Funk WikiProject. In fact, in the past I've thought of proposing one but I didn't know how to get the ball rolling. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I can look into the procedure for getting a Project started, but if we get one going we will need some serious community participation. It will be an intense long-term endeavor. The marathon. Not your average 50-yard dash of funk. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 08:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving the articles the way they are

[edit]

While I can appreciate this discourse regarding separate P-Funk articles, I really don't think it's necessary. Parliament and Funkadelic are separate only in the conceptual sense.

Anytime P-Funk goes into the studio, they record tracks, not albums. Any song that they record can end up any George Clinton-related project, whether it be Parliament, Funkadelic, Bootsy's Rubber Band, etc.. A couple of examples would be the following:

  • Oh I - a track that was originally intended for inclusion on the last Parliament album, but later ended up on the last Funkadelic album (sans horns).
  • Flash Light - a song that was originally recorded by Bootsy's Rubber Band, but for various reasons ended up with Parliament.
  • Disco To Go - a track by the Brides of Funkenstein that was supposed to serve as the backing track for the song "Ahh...the Name Is Bootsy, Baby!"

I can cite other examples, but I think you can get the point. George's approach of signing essentially the same band to several different labels may have derived from the record industry's despicable treatment of African-American artists for decades. He's basically beating the record companies at their own game. So to make editorial separations like the ones being proposed would, at this late date, seem gratuitous.

That being said, I personally don't mind that there two separate articles for Parliament and Funkadelic, in that each article can focus on the discography with greater detail. I also feel that a greater analysis of the evolving concept behind the Parliament albums should be featured in the Parliament page.

I hope that I can be of further assistance to all who share in the mission of giving proper documentation to this invaluable musical legacy. I've been archiving this music for 31 years, so if anyone would like to bounce off some ideas, please feel free to do so.-Groovemaneuvers 21 November 2009.

I'm not sure what the issue is, at least at the present time. Are you referencing the above discussion about merger and reorganization? That discussion took place more than two years ago. As for separate articles, I and several others spruced up Funkadelic, Parliament, Parliament-Funkadelic, and The Parliaments back in 2008 with hotlinks between the articles for anyone trying to follow the history. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 08:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time to Trim the Funk

[edit]

A few funkateer editors have been cleaning up the WP articles for the whole P-Funk universe for a couple of years now. In particular, I have been trying to reduce the repetition among the articles for Parliament-Funkadelic, The Parliaments, Parliament, and Funkadelic. When information in multiple articles is similar but written by different people in different ways, I believe strongly that this can cause confusion among readers who are new to the funk. So today I cut back this article fairly significantly, removing some historical details and album info that is already covered extensively at the other group articles. I then added some easy bluelinks to help the reader jump around among these four articles. Also, the Key Members section of Parliament-Funkadelic is full of unencyclopedic fancruft and puffery that makes the whole section very inconsistent. So I am cutting down that section as well and will also add bluelinks to each person's specific article. I don't think I've removed anything crucial overall during this whole process, but I have made some effort to organize info that the interested funkateer can locate with some skillful Wikipedia navigation. Hope this helps. Sincerely, --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've made some nice progress. Good work! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Key Member section

[edit]

Is there a definition of a "key member" of Parliament-Funkadelic? I have trimmed down this section of the article but I'm not sure if the section itself is useful or informative. Much of information in the various entries repeats stuff that is in the main history section of the article. Any thoughts? --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I for one wouldn't miss it if it went away. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Key Member section is useful and should contain the Hall of Fame members (as I believe it does as of this writing). The band achieved success to a great extent as a collective of individuals as opposed to a "band" where each member appeared on every song. (e.g. there were multiple bassists, producers, vocalists, etc. on any given album.) With regard to newer members, I do not believe their inclusion would be appropriate as (in all due respect to their talent) none of them contributed in any meaningful way to the development or success of P-Funk and in fact some current tour members were not yet born during that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTSongsmith (talk • contribs) 06:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert "P-Nut" Johnson

[edit]

Robert "P-Nut" Johnson (born 1947) died on March 12, 2017. Details here, here, here, etc. He doesn't seem to gain much of a mention in this article, or any other article. Perhaps he should? I'm no expert in the world of P-Funk, so I'd like it if other more knowledgeable editors contributed... but, I'll return to see if anything is done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghmyrtle. Johnson made significant musical contributions to Bootsy's Rubber Band, which deserves but does not yet have an article of its own (it redirects to Bootsy Collins, which has two short paragraphs about the band). His contributions to Parliament and Funkadelic mostly came after 1979 or so, when the Rubber Band lost its name (it was sued successfully by a little-known country band that claimed it had used the name first), and were not as significant to those groups (which were in their death throes) as his contributions to the Rubber Band had been. (Beside Collins, Johnson and Gary "Mudbone" Cooper were the only singers in Bootsy's Rubber Band; Parliament and Funkadelic had dozens of singers.) My guess (and it's only a guess) is that he probably is not sufficiently notable for an article of his own, but he would certainly merit discussion in an article about Bootsy's Rubber Band. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Parliament-Funkadelic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Not to be confused with" confusion.

[edit]

The article opens with "Not to be confused with Parliament (band), Funkadelic, or P-Funk", but then the next sentence begins "Parliament-Funkadelic (abbreviated as P-Funk) is ...". So, despite being told not to be confused, I am. - Hyperlynx2 (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Parliament-Funkadelic&oldid=1252179394"