Crossover

[Guest James Trouble]

But if you ask a regular Joe like me for an instant answer to the question "name a funk band of the 70's" I'd probably blurt out "The JB's" or "Kool & The Gang"! It's a question of scratching the surface to find out what's underneath I think.

that's better, innit. But Funkadelic. After all these years, folk like Steve G should know better. It's pathetic.

[Wiggyflat]

It's silly when people talk about 'funk' when quite clearly they don't have a clue about what funk is or what it means.

Ridiculous.

I can think of about 7 off the top of my head,jazz funk ,P-Funk,Punk-Funk (A Certain Ratio etc),Deep Funk,Afro Funk (Fela Kuti),Jazz Funk (in a Ramsey Lewis/Bobby Timmons bag),Latin Funk,Brit Funk (Freeze etc).....any more..what about rock funk (Led Zepp/Grand Funk Railroadetc)..You can find funk in almost all music even Kraftwerk (check out Ruzruck)

[Guest James Trouble]

The term crossover describes records that were between northern and funk tempo wise- slower than trad northern and yet faster than the funk of groups like Ohio Players, Funkadelic etc.....music made in that wonderful late 60s / early 70s period as others have said.

It's silly when people talk about 'funk' when quite clearly they don't have a clue about what it is or what it means.

Funkadelic and Ohio Players As ridiculous as saying that Northern Soul is Skiing In The Snow and Soft Cell.

If your definition of funk is wrong, laughably so, and you are one of the proponents of crossover, it makes crossover seem a bit of a nonsense if you base it's definition on summit you don't understand, or at least can't describe.

Northern is fast and funk is slow, and crossover is somewhere in the middle? No wonder the UK scene is screwed up.

[Guest James Trouble]

if I was promoting Terry I wouldn't allow an hour of crossover. As good as much of it is most you can't dance too and all you see is an almost empty floor. Also think the term is far removed from what it originally meant, it now relates more to a style rather than the era of the recording it originally related too.

EDIT again, weird HTML probelms? Mike any idea what's going on?

Edited March 22, 2010 by James Trouble

[Guest James Trouble]

I do agree with you Jock about most of what you say but not everything the dj's play is crossover but 70s dance music, there is a difference IMO yet everyone these days seems to class everything 70s as crossover.

I've heard some great sets, especially from the likes of Andy Whitmore, Steve G, Dave Rippoles to full dancefloors but they do program plenty of records of the right tempo which I wouldn't necessarily class as crossover.  I've also heard some dj's play an hour of plodders to an empty dancefloor, often quality crossover but not what you want at an allnighter.   As you say venues like Soul Essence is a different experience, those that go there go for crossover, 70s dance and modern.

It's not a linear relationship though. If I say that you play a load of crap that I don't want to hear at an allnighter, and you describe what you play as 'northern soul' it does not mean I do not want to hear 'nortehrn soul' at an allnighter.

You can't dance to crossover? All you see is empty dance floors?

And of course no music has ever been defined by the year it was recorded, unless you can shed some light on this?

I'm pretty sure 'crossover' was first used to describe soul music that crossed over from the black audiences to the whites?

Now it probably should mean a record that has broad appeal between two or more different scenes? It was originally used on the northern scene to describe records that were accepted in the modern soul and traditional northern scene, or perhaps didn't quite fit into either?

I think Baz Atkinson has hit the nail on the head saying that it is a term that is -often kicked about -talked about and definetly ridiculed, but is a broad church that  could fit shed load of genres.

I would add that it's certainly misunderstood, even by it's main proponents and haters who can't quite describe what it is.

Edited March 22, 2010 by James Trouble

[Guest]

No not really.

p.s. which Glen Miller post, there's so many of them.

Very good Smiffo !

[Garethx]

To be honest aren't all of these definitions slightly deranged? They are scene buzzwords placed on records which often have scant relevance to anything other than the type of venue the record can be played in, which in itself is a can of worms. What's a 'Northern' record? The Crow is a Northern Record, so is Charles Sheffield on Excello. New World on Polydor is a Northern Record, as is Jimmy Ricks on Festival. What do they have in common as records: very little other than they have been played at venues which have gone under the moniker "Northern Soul" at some time in the past. They have been played at Northern Soul clubs and a lot of the club-goers have danced to them and liked them.

This has always been the case: the scene has always musically been a broad church style and tempo wise, and if anyone denies that they are denying history and being disingenuous. What does The Players IV on Knoll have in common with Eddie Parker on Aware? Practically nothing save for the fact that they have both been popular at Northern Soul venues. If you were to tell someone with no knowledge of the scene that they were generically the same they would doubtless be very puzzled.

The term 'Crossover' certainly helped record dealers shift some records they previously found difficult to catergorise, but in itself it's actually a nonsense term: the common denominators linking records are often miles apart: the thing which unites them is suitability for playing in a certain environment by certain deejays to particular audiences. Saying these records have no place on the Northern scene is fraught with philosophical difficulty. Think of some of the very biggest 'Northern' records of the last decade: Montclairs on Arch, Joseph Webster on Crow, Vanguards on Lamp, Delegates of Soul on Uplook, Ellipsis on Briarmede, Ascots on American Playboy and so on. All could be termed 'Crossover' and most of those started at 'Crossover' venues played by 'Crossover' deejays. Are they esoteric plodders guaranteed to send nighter-goers to the bar/ the carpark etc. No. Evidence tells us that they are all popular and make a lot of people want to dance. Whether they have all outstayed their welcome and become 'divvies' records' or 'peasants' sounds' is another question for another topic. With hindsight in the decades to come I'm sure all will be looked back on fondly and be seen as the classics they are. Are they materially different to what has gone before: emphatically no. They have much in common with records popular in practically all past phases of the scene.

Whenever I've made this point before people often say that catergorisation is important for promoters to use in their marketing material. It's important for record dealers to use in their sales literature. I've often thought it would be better for record buyers to be given honest sales lists: good records on the one hand; crap on another page. One of the good things about the internet is that you can often hear an 'unknown' record before you buy it: work out whether it works for you and make your decision to purchase based on that. As a younger person it used to infuriate me buying a record blind from a list after being told it was 'blinding crossover/northern/deep' or whatever stylistic argot was then flavour of the month only to actually find it was a piece of crap which no generic classification could or would save. Most records ever made in whatever genre are actually fairly poor. The trick is to concentrate on the ones which aren't: those with a spark of originality or which exhibit excellence or talent in some aspect of their execution.

Promoters shouldn't need to catergorise in terms of their venues: a cursory look at the deejaying lineup should be enough for punters to make up their minds about whether the night is likely to be enjoyable for them personally. If you're unsure then try it, you might just like it. That's the way it used to be: we weren't all born experts. One of the bad things about the internet is that it gives some people the impression they might be an expert or have some moral authority without having gone out there and actually experienced something. Marketing has replaced substance. In that the scene is just a microcosm of the wider world.

I wish people would stop stating 'I hate funk / I hate crossover' or whatever generic term they have an aversion to that week. It's more realistic and more honest to say "that's a bad record" (but if you do that state why you think it's a bad record) or "I don't like the deejay who made that big" or "the promoter of the club where that's a popular sound won't book me." etc.

[Guest James Trouble]

I wish people would stop stating 'I hate funk / I hate crossover' or whatever generic term they have an aversion to that week. It's more realistic and more honest to say "that's a bad record" (but if you do that state why you think it's a bad record) or "I don't like the deejay who made that big" or "the promoter of the club where that's a popular sound won't book me." etc.

+1

[Steve G]

that's better, innit. But Funkadelic. After all these years, folk like Steve G should know better. It's pathetic.

Hey fella, let go of your demons.

I was describing the style of crossover as being the music that came out of the US before you were a twinkle in your Dad's eye - between northern styled records of the 60s and the funk of the 70s - precisely Ohios, JBs, Kool, Funkadelic etc. That style of music became hugely popular in the early 70s. Not funk? You're having a giraffe???

Nothing to do with the "rare / deep funk" scene you were / are on. Of course I know that.

And when I need "correcting" by the guy that single handedly caused 1000% inflation of Buddy Cantrell on Tuska (both sides excellent by the way) by demanding a copy for 10x the then going rate, I'll be the first to let you know.....

Steve

Edited March 22, 2010 by Steve G

[Steve G]

I'm pretty sure 'crossover' was first used to describe soul music that crossed over from the black audiences to the whites?<

Mis-information.

Somebody please post up Rod's article from Voices - it's all explained in there.

Many thanks.

[KevH]

To be honest aren't all of these definitions slightly deranged? They are scene buzzwords placed on records which often have scant relevance to anything other than the type of venue the record can be played in, which in itself is a can of worms. What's a 'Northern' record? The Crow is a Northern Record, so is Charles Sheffield on Excello. New World on Polydor is a Northern Record, as is Jimmy Ricks on Festival. What do they have in common as records: very little other than they have been played at venues which have gone under the moniker "Northern Soul" at some time in the past. They have been played at Northern Soul clubs and a lot of the club-goers have danced to them and liked them.

This has always been the case: the scene has always musically been a broad church style and tempo wise, and if anyone denies that they are denying history and being disingenuous. What does The Players IV on Knoll have in common with Eddie Parker on Aware? Practically nothing save for the fact that they have both been popular at Northern Soul venues. If you were to tell someone with no knowledge of the scene that they were generically the same they would doubtless be very puzzled.

The term 'Crossover' certainly helped record dealers shift some records they previously found difficult to catergorise, but in itself it's actually a nonsense term: the common denominators linking records are often miles apart: the thing which unites them is suitability for playing in a certain environment by certain deejays to particular audiences. Saying these records have no place on the Northern scene is fraught with philosophical difficulty. Think of some of the very biggest 'Northern' records of the last decade: Montclairs on Arch, Joseph Webster on Crow, Vanguards on Lamp, Delegates of Soul on Uplook, Ellipsis on Briarmede, Ascots on American Playboy and so on. All could be termed 'Crossover' and most of those started at 'Crossover' venues played by 'Crossover' deejays. Are they esoteric plodders guaranteed to send nighter-goers to the bar/ the carpark etc. No. Evidence tells us that they are all popular and make a lot of people want to dance. Whether they have all outstayed their welcome and become 'divvies' records' or 'peasants' sounds' is another question for another topic. With hindsight in the decades to come I'm sure all will be looked back on fondly and be seen as the classics they are. Are they materially different to what has gone before: emphatically no. They have much in common with records popular in practically all past phases of the scene.

Whenever I've made this point before people often say that catergorisation is important for promoters to use in their marketing material. It's important for record dealers to use in their sales literature. I've often thought it would be better for record buyers to be given honest sales lists: good records on the one hand; crap on another page. One of the good things about the internet is that you can often hear an 'unknown' record before you buy it: work out whether it works for you and make your decision to purchase based on that. As a younger person it used to infuriate me buying a record blind from a list after being told it was 'blinding crossover/northern/deep' or whatever stylistic argot was then flavour of the month only to actually find it was a piece of crap which no generic classification could or would save. Most records ever made in whatever genre are actually fairly poor. The trick is to concentrate on the ones which aren't: those with a spark of originality or which exhibit excellence or talent in some aspect of their execution.

Promoters shouldn't need to catergorise in terms of their venues: a cursory look at the deejaying lineup should be enough for punters to make up their minds about whether the night is likely to be enjoyable for them personally. If you're unsure then try it, you might just like it. That's the way it used to be: we weren't all born experts. One of the bad things about the internet is that it gives some people the impression they might be an expert or have some moral authority without having gone out there and actually experienced something. Marketing has replaced substance. In that the scene is just a microcosm of the wider world.

I wish people would stop stating 'I hate funk / I hate crossover' or whatever generic term they have an aversion to that week. It's more realistic and more honest to say "that's a bad record" (but if you do that state why you think it's a bad record) or "I don't like the deejay who made that big" or "the promoter of the club where that's a popular sound won't book me." etc.

Good post as usual Gareth.Can i add to it by saying,its all opinons anyway.One person will hear funk in a track,the other not.I've often been told a track is RnB,when in my opinion its nowhere near.Its early funk.Sometimes lyically,sometimes small parts musically.

The trick as you say is not to follow but to listen.First and foremost the record has to grab you.The genre should come 2nd.

Sorry ,didn't understand the highlighted peice tho'?,I take it you mean tailor made at the time to sell?.

[Steve G]

Good post as usual Gareth.Can i add to it by saying,its all opinons anyway.One person will hear funk in a track,the other not.I've often been told a track is RnB,when in my opinion its nowhere near.Its early funk.Sometimes lyically,sometimes small parts musically.

The trick as you say is not to follow but to listen.First and foremost the record has to grab you.The genre should come 2nd.

A good example would be Sag War Fare - originally played years ago for the crossover side, now played for the funkier dance side.

[jocko]

It's silly when people talk about 'funk' when quite clearly they don't have a clue about what it is or what it means.

Funkadelic and Ohio Players As ridiculous as saying that Northern Soul is Skiing In The Snow and Soft Cell.

No its not, and if you really think that then you obviously have little interest in the wider spectrum of Black music outwith your own dance scene, not something I thought would be true of you. As I said to your ex-lover Fryer, re-writing the history of Black America to suit a dance scene populated by mostly middle class white kids, stinks of something very stinky.

If you are meaning the scene invented by Keb now populated by about 4 people all of about 15 years ago, then say so and be clear, although I suspect even then your comparison is very wide of the mark, although am no expert in that stuff, obviously!

I think the Black American culture has had enough revisionism for a number of generations don't you!

You can't dance to crossover? All you see is empty dance floors?

And of course no music has ever been defined by the year it was recorded, unless you can shed some light on this?

I'm pretty sure 'crossover' was first used to describe soul music that crossed over from the black audiences to the whites?

Now it probably should mean a record that has broad appeal between two or more different scenes? It was originally used on the northern scene to describe records that were accepted in the modern soul and traditional northern scene, or perhaps didn't quite fit into either?

I think Baz Atkinson has hit the nail on the head saying that it is a term that is -often kicked about -talked about and definetly ridiculed, but is a broad church that  could fit shed load of genres.

I would add that it's certainly misunderstood, even by it's main proponents and haters who can't quite describe what it is.

Now I am totally lost, as previously said get yourself along to Soul Essence for a great example of people dancing all night, and day, to crossover, if may not have the stimulus as these beat driven parties I assume you are preferring, but it's a celebration with the feet of some wonderful soul music, which if you read enough, seems to be the way much of it was designed to be appreciated.

I am assuming this is a Steve G assassination attempt rather than a serious debate as your attempts to define Crossover (or Xover as it should be obviously known now) are all over the shop, its obviously a question aimed at UK scene so not sure where the Black/White reference comes from, pretty irrelevant to any related UK scene, and the rest are just dictionary definitions. No-one seems to have read Shineheads perfect answer, the classic definition is per Voices from Shadows article, and current definition is now probably Just Soul (© Hampsey/Taylor 2010) and encompasses many styles driven by the vocal as opposed to the beat, and long may that avenue be open, its s a refuge for the much maligned soul fan to retreat to without accusations of being a soul snob for expecting the music described as soul to sound like eh....soul!

I wish people would stop stating 'I hate funk / I hate crossover' or whatever generic term they have an aversion to that week. It's more realistic and more honest to say "that's a bad record" (but if you do that state why you think it's a bad record) or "I don't like the deejay who made that big" or "the promoter of the club where that's a popular sound won't book me." etc.

Excellent post as ever GS, but I do have to disagree with above (nice to be able to disagree with you at last) as I totally understand where people come from on this, I think sometimes as soul fans, its easy to forget people are fans of the dance rather than the music, and therefore there is no reason for Northern fans to like crossover or funk, what I think is wrong when they say it isn't soul music, a far greater crime in my eyes.

[KevH]

No its not, and if you really think that then you obviously have little interest in the wider spectrum of Black music outwith your own dance scene, not something I thought would be true of you. As I said to your ex-lover Fryer, re-writing the history of Black America to suit a dance scene populated by mostly middle class white kids, stinks of something very stinky.

If you are meaning the scene invented by Keb now populated by about 4 people all of about 15 years ago, then say so and be clear, although I suspect even then your comparison is very wide of the mark, although am no expert in that stuff, obviously!

I think the Black American culture has had enough revisionism for a number of generations don't you!

Now I am totally lost, as previously said get yourself along to Soul Essence for a great example of people dancing all night, and day, to crossover, if may not have the stimulus as these beat driven parties I assume you are preferring, but it's a celebration with the feet of some wonderful soul music, which if you read enough, seems to be the way much of it was designed to be appreciated.

I am assuming this is a Steve G assassination attempt rather than a serious debate as your attempts to define Crossover (or Xover as it should be obviously known now) are all over the shop, its obviously a question aimed at UK scene so not sure where the Black/White reference comes from, pretty irrelevant to any related UK scene, and the rest are just dictionary definitions. No-one seems to have read Shineheads perfect answer, the classic definition is per Voices from Shadows article, and current definition is now probably Just Soul (© Hampsey/Taylor 2010) and encompasses many styles driven by the vocal as opposed to the beat, and long may that avenue be open, its s a refuge for the much maligned soul fan to retreat to without accusations of being a soul snob for expecting the music described as soul to sound like eh....soul!

Excellent post as ever GS, but I do have to disagree with above (nice to be able to disagree with you at last) as I totally understand where people come from on this, I think sometimes as soul fans, its easy to forget people are fans of the dance rather than the music, and therefore there is no reason for Northern fans to like crossover or funk, what I think is wrong when they say it isn't soul music, a far greater crime in my eyes.

True Jocko.There is no reason for northern fans to like crossover or funk.If they are blinkered.If they choose not to acknowledge what funk or crossover is.Or re-write NS history.

There's been so much souless music on the NS scene to keep the" fans of the dance" happy.

[Guest fryer]

True Jocko.There is no reason for northern fans to like crossover or funk.If they are blinkered.If they choose not to acknowledge what funk or crossover is.Or re-write NS history.

There's been so much souless music on the NS scene to keep the" fans of the dance" happy.

Well after going to prestatyn i can say one thing is for sure, the top northern dj's take the funk collectors very seriously (listening and trading records). Many of the new big northern spins were considered big funk records over the last 15 years at some point. Willie coco / micky and soul gen / black sugar / sweet mixture / willie wright .... the list goes on and top northern guys are tapping the funk scene for new and rare spins, so todays funk is tomorrow northern but only after a big name dj has made it so.

Edited March 22, 2010 by fryer

[Garethx]

Hi Jock. Re-reading my post you're absolutely right. If people dislike Funk or midtempo soul that is, of course, their absolute right. I should have said that I have a problem with those people stating that such sounds 'cannot be Northern Soul' as if that were a musical genre in its own right: it never has been and never will be, which is what I was trying to say in the first couple of paragraphs.

It's also a misrepresentation that all Crossover records are set at a snail's pace. Everyone who has cited Rod's seminal Crossover article in Voices is correct, and re-reading that again it's telling that the records he reviews in it cover a variety of tempos, production styles and flavours. Some were funky, others sultry. Some had strings, many others didn't. Some incorporated jazz chords but that wasn't necessarily typical. Group vocals were there, but also solo singers. Some were decidedly pacey, whereas others were definitely ballads. Like Northern it was a broad church.

One thing to bear in mind with Crossover as defined by Rod was that it was probably more about the then 'Modern' scene embracing the older sounds than the Northern scene discovering records which were texturally different. We must remember that at the time (the late 80s) most soul as played by the modern scene of the time was of the newly released variety, be it on major labels or indies. By '87 I for one had started to question the wisdom of buying new releases which were of a much lower quality than what had been available only three or four years previous to that.

Major label soul had blanded out to infinity, stuck in the rut of churning out endless clones of Luther Vandross and Anita Baker. Independent soul was sounding increasingly cheap and shoddy, plus the seven inch single was dying as a format. When faced with the prospect of buying much of this as cassette or CD singles I said to myself (and I couldn't have been alone): enough is enough. Older-sounding music seemed a lot more attractive than it might have done in 1983-84, which I think of as a small golden age (maybe the last one) for real US soul music.

I think in London we were relatively lucky in that venues there had kind of embraced the Crossover philosophy some years previously anyway: people like Ian Clark and Randy Cozens were very influential on a lot of the younger collectors in that they had long championed an all-encompassing approach as to what you could possibly play at (for want of a better term) Rare Soul Clubs. Steve G. in his capacity as editor of Black Beat was also hugely influential in covering a very wide variety of soul music, new and old. I still tried to buy as many of 'Guy's Goodies' as I did the new releases of the time.

Like a lot of people I went to Modern events and Northern events alike in the capital: increasingly the same kinds of records seemed to be big on both. The newly-coined 'Crossover' records seemed to fit a mood that was there for many of us anyway.

Sean Hampsey is right when he says that we should now be mature enough as collectors and consumers to dispense with these unhelpful labels anyway. I see events like 'Just Soul' or 'Soul Or Nothing' and consider them to be a good way forward. The recent SON in Manchester was musically very diverse, but almost uniformly interesting and (not least) entertaining. It's intriguing to see people like Adam Leaver of George M playing examples of soul music that may have started life being appreciated on another scene to people from a more traditional Northern Soul background. Collector/DJs like these don't seem to have much of the baggage associated with the more traditional NS scene and I think that's healthy. This scene will of necessity be smaller and its natural habitat will not be a dusty ballroom with a vast wooden dancefloor. The latter environment is still valid too. Classic oldies really still make sense in the more traditional setting and you'll never beat the buzz of a heaving allnighter at peak time.

Others will disagree with me and are free to do so.

Edited March 22, 2010 by garethx

[KevH]

Well after going to prestatyn i can say one thing is for sure, the top northern dj's take the funk collectors very seriously (listening and trading records). Many of the new big northern spins were considered big funk records over the last 15 years at some point. Willie coco / micky and soul gen / black sugar / sweet mixture / willie wright .... the list goes on and top northern guys are tapping the funk scene for new and rare spins, so todays funk is tomorrow northern but only after a big name dj has made it so.

The big name thing always applies.If Joe Bloggs play's East Coast Connection (Ns Oldie?,funk? crossover?),he'd get slated.If a big name drops it in up goes the price and its on a revival.

Nothing wrong for me, for the big guy's dip into the funk scene to supplement their sets and collections.Does it happen the other way around Fryer?.For instance would James Fountain be spun as a funk oldie.?

Heard Detroit sounds of Friction in Soul Intent and Redemption.Is it crossover or Northern?.Or is it more about who spins it?

Edited March 22, 2010 by KevH

[Garethx]

The big name thing always applies.If Joe Bloggs play's East Coast Connection (Ns Oldie?,funk? crossover?),he'd get slated.If a big name drops it in up goes the price and its on a revival.

Nothing wrong for me, for the big guy's dip into the funk scene to supplement their sets and collections.Does it happen the other way around Fryer?.For instance would James Fountain be spun as a funk oldie.?

Heard Detroit sounds of Friction in Soul Intent and Redemption.Is it crossover or Northern?.Or is it more about who spins it?

Good points Kev. I think the price of many big Northern oldies makes them less attractive to other scenes, and the funk collectors likely to dip into the soul scene are well versed in what's 'old hat' anyway. Fryer's point about being listened to by the major players on the soul scene is interesting and maybe taps into a wider point of the funk scene not existing in the real world away from the virtual one.

I hope he can appreciate being listened to by those who are not 'big names' also. One of the great strengths of the rare soul scene in its traditional sense is there are many knowledgeable people outside of the big deejaying names and that traditionally we have not been swayed by the cult of the celebrity deejay.

[Pete S]

True Jocko.There is no reason for northern fans to like crossover or funk.If they are blinkered.If they choose not to acknowledge what funk or crossover is.Or re-write NS history.

There's been so much souless music on the NS scene to keep the" fans of the dance" happy.

Oh for f*cks sake.

Go and join the rest of the special ones, the unblinkered ones.

I hope you'll all be very happy together in your little soul heaven.

I don't dislike something because I'm BLINKERED - I don't like it because IT'S F*CKING CRAP

Edited March 22, 2010 by Pete S

[KevH]

Oh for f*cks sake.

Go and join the rest of the special ones, the unblinkered ones.

I hope you'll all be very happy together in your little soul heaven.

No need for that Pete.

If you disagree,fair enough.Ns consists of many genre's imho.Are you trying to say there's been no souless shite played on the scene we love.?

The blinkered point was about musical styles on the rare/NS scene.Rnb,crossover,funk all being called NS.

Its like the Carstairs Pete.History being re-written to suit.Northern soul? Wigan classic?. More like the first crossover record on the NS scene,(imo)to get back on topic.

[KevH]

Oh for f*cks sake.

Go and join the rest of the special ones, the unblinkered ones.

I hope you'll all be very happy together in your little soul heaven.

I don't dislike something because I'm BLINKERED - I don't like it because IT'S F*CKING CRAP

Pete you should add IMO to the end.

And its not a personal attack on you.

Edited March 22, 2010 by KevH

[Guest fryer]

The big name thing always applies.If Joe Bloggs play's East Coast Connection (Ns Oldie?,funk? crossover?),he'd get slated.If a big name drops it in up goes the price and its on a revival.

Nothing wrong for me, for the big guy's dip into the funk scene to supplement their sets and collections.Does it happen the other way around Fryer?.For instance would James Fountain be spun as a funk oldie.?

Heard Detroit sounds of Friction in Soul Intent and Redemption.Is it crossover or Northern?.Or is it more about who spins it?

I play lots of stuff that would be considered northern in my sets that i heard from djs on the scene, online, other collectors or just find. Ill play northern, funk, deepsoul, disco, R&B, house, boogie. Where i heard it is really not important to me, this only thing that matters to me is if its good or not.

[Pete S]

Pete you should add IMO to the end.

And its not a personal attack on you.

Yeah but it is Kev, it's patronising, I got into this scene because I loved rare uptempo soul, not languid no-beat soul, I don't want to try to immerse myself in the latter, I know what I like and if that means I prefer Chapter 5 to Elipsis, then why can't I be left alone to like hat without being called names?

[Guest Dante]

Don't want to speak for Pete here, but I think what's pissing him off is the patronizing attitude some people have if you don't like every soul record ever released, or every soul genre. Although I've learnead to like more and more american black music from the last 50 years, I also find that attitude absolutely unnecessary...

[Guest Dante]

There you go, Pete beat me to it.

[jocko]

Oh for f*cks sake.

Go and join the rest of the special ones, the unblinkered ones.

I hope you'll all be very happy together in your little soul heaven.

I don't dislike something because I'm BLINKERED - I don't like it because IT'S F*CKING CRAP

Oii you grumpy git, I was sticking up for you, and if you change the end to its not your taste rather than its flicking crap, then it would be easier to do so,

Get over to the house thread and calm down.

[Pete S]

Oii you grumpy git, I was sticking up for you, and if you change the end to its not your taste rather than its flicking crap, then it would be easier to do so,

Get over to the house thread and calm down.

Where does this rumour come from that I am grumpy?

Honestly, I am not grumpy, very rarely anyway. Anyone who's met me will never say I'm grumpy.

I just don't see why I'm talked about like an alien or something for not liking crossover or modern soul. I like *some* of most types of music which is more than can be said about a lot of 'blinkered' soulies.

p.s. I am not grumpy

[KevH]

Yeah but it is Kev, it's patronising, I got into this scene because I loved rare uptempo soul, not languid no-beat soul, I don't want to try to immerse myself in the latter, I know what I like and if that means I prefer Chapter 5 to Elipsis, then why can't I be left alone to like hat without being called names?

Not name calling here at all.

If i can't make the point that the NS scene has had diversity along the way,with SOME people not willing to acknowledge it ,then so be it.Its only my opinion anyway.

I'm not asking you or anyone to choose between Chapter 5 and Ellipsis.I like them both.

[KevH]

Where does this rumour come from that I am grumpy?

Honestly, I am not grumpy, very rarely anyway. Anyone who's met me will never say I'm grumpy.

I just don't see why I'm talked about like an alien or something for not liking crossover or modern soul. I like *some* of most types of music which is more than can be said about a lot of 'blinkered' soulies.

p.s. I am not grumpy

You really are grumpy today!!.

[Pete S]

You really are grumpy today!!.

This does not belong to me

[Steve G]

willie wright .... the list goes on and top northern guys are tapping the funk scene for new and rare spins, so todays funk is tomorrow northern but only after a big name dj has made it so.

On Hotel? Did Soul Sam buy this in the end?

Wally Coco is interesting - a great dancer, but equally as good to my ears is the slower Clay Brown (same red label design Florentine) "Why you want to change" which is more like a Jamaican record in it's feel.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Steve G

[Guest]

You really are grumpy today!!.

[Guest fryer]

On Hotel? Did Soul Sam buy this in the end?

Willie Coco is interesting - a great dancer, but equally as good to my ears is the slower Clay Brown (same red label design Florentine) which is more like a Jamaican record in it's feel.

No someone else did though.

[Steve G]

Rod's description in 1990:

"An era that for a decade went largely unnoticed save for a hard core of collectors is the late 60s and early to mid 70s post on-the fours Motown and pre disco. For years these records lay dormant,unable to assert themselves on the old 'traditional' northern soul scene, being either too slow or too obviously 70s in production or, just as sadly, ignored by the early modern scene....once the emphasis was based on uptempo (nearly) new releases like King Tutt, Larry Houston and Tony Fox.

By the of 1967 the basic four beats to the bar formula which HDH had perfected....had failed......The basic trick was to slow down the rhythm and make it more jerky but still retain the atmosphere, vibes,banks of strings......The beat now tended to lurch along but it still had that snappy uptown feel. ....It was as if the music was a desperate man grasping at a crumbling cliff side, not wanting to slide head first into the realms of funk or disco.

The term crossover soul originally referred to the lapping over of 60s flavoured records into the 70s, but as word has seeped out it has taken on different connotations. It is now used to describe the stepping stones being laid down between northern soul and modern soul.........With little fresh blood coming into either scene there seems to be an uneasy truce with early 70s some kind of mist-enshrouded no-mans-land".

So there you go.

[Little-stevie]

Yeah but it is Kev, it's patronising, I got into this scene because I loved rare uptempo soul, not languid no-beat soul, I don't want to try to immerse myself in the latter, I know what I like and if that means I prefer Chapter 5 to Elipsis, then why can't I be left alone to like hat without being called names?

Languid no beat soul

That will keep them coming Pete...

yes: you have made your views very very clear with that description

[dthedrug]

What is your undersanding of the term xover i have asked many people and have had many different replys

Hi All.. The term Xover was invented for those individuals who could never afford to buy Rare Northern Soul? so they invented a way of playing all the cheap crap from the 7ts and would you believe "they got away with it" Xover does not mean 7ts Rare Soul?? YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! Dave

[Little-stevie]

Hi All.. The term Xover was invented for those individuals who could never afford to buy Rare Northern Soul? so they invented a way of playing all the cheap crap from the 7ts and would you believe "they got away with it" Xover does not mean 7ts Rare Soul?? YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! Dave

Don't sit on the fence Dave

What about them folk who could/ can afford to buy rare northern but want to buy/ play and listen to the crossover sound...

[Guest James Trouble]

Now I am totally lost, as previously said get yourself along to Soul Essence for a great example of people dancing all night, and day, to crossover, if may not have the stimulus as these beat driven parties I assume you are preferring, but it's a celebration with the feet of some wonderful soul music, which if you read enough, seems to be the way much of it was designed to be appreciated.

I am assuming this is a Steve G assassination attempt rather than a serious debate as your attempts to define Crossover (or Xover as it should be obviously known now) are all over the shop, its obviously a question aimed at UK scene so not sure where the Black/White reference comes from, pretty irrelevant to any related UK scene, and the rest are just dictionary definitions. No-one seems to have read Shineheads perfect answer, the classic definition is per Voices from Shadows article, and current definition is now probably Just Soul (© Hampsey/Taylor 2010) and encompasses many styles driven by the vocal as opposed to the beat, and long may that avenue be open, its s a refuge for the much maligned soul fan to retreat to without accusations of being a soul snob for expecting the music described as soul to sound like eh....soul!

Hardly.

It seems you are reading my quotes from Chalky as statements from me?

Chalky seems to be saying that crossover clears floors and is undancable. Which is quite plainly wrong. This is from someone who is part of a team promoting a so called 'upfront' allnighter. It's a pathetic attitude at worst, at best totally uninformed. What will he be saying next? That there is too much deepfunk being played on the northern scene and it has no place at allnighters?

I can not believe that this is the attitude of one of the promoters of the only largre progressive 'upfront' allnighters in the UK at the moement. It's a shocking statement.

I can promise you that I could play an hour of what I would concider crossover and funk that fills the dance floor at his Lifeline club more than than an hour of the northern soul he plays there. That's the truth and that's half the problem with the scene at the moment. Folk in positions of influence getting hung up on definitions and pigeon holeing and not concentrating on quality and excitement.

Although maybe Chalky just means that he thinks so called crossover DJs are crap and he wouldn't book any of them because they are not up to the job? If that is what he means, he should spit it out instead of the smoke and mirrors. Because to tar an entire 'genre', and in relation to the modern day scene it clearly is a genre, is nothing short of ignorant.

And my anoyance with Steve, one of the champions of crossover, is about his definition of 'funk'. He should know better. Language mutates and evolves over time. And in relation to the modern day scene there is no excuse for saying that funk is George Clinton and Funkadelic, none what so ever. Especially as an intelligent and influencial member of the modern day scene. To use that definition to base his description of 'crossover' in the modern scene is a bit silly and lazy and just fuels the fire of those who want to crusify it and exasperates the modern day funk scene, all 17 of them.

Crossover is obviously a very broad church, as is northern soul, RnB, deepfunk and disco/modernsoul. A soul record could be one of, some of or all of those genres (although an RnB/disco crossover might be pushing it a bit). I can't see how anyone on the northern soul scene can tar any of those genres as having no place on the allnighter scene. It's stupid and ignorant.

Edited March 23, 2010 by James Trouble

[Guest James Trouble]

Rod's description in 1990:

"An era that for a decade went largely unnoticed save for a hard core of collectors is the late 60s and early to mid 70s post on-the fours Motown and pre disco. For years these records lay dormant,unable to assert themselves on the old 'traditional' northern soul scene, being either too slow or too obviously 70s in production or, just as sadly, ignored by the early modern scene....once the emphasis was based on uptempo (nearly) new releases like King Tutt, Larry Houston and Tony Fox.

By the of 1967 the basic four beats to the bar formula which HDH had perfected....had failed......The basic trick was to slow down the rhythm and make it more jerky but still retain the atmosphere, vibes,banks of strings......The beat now tended to lurch along but it still had that snappy uptown feel. ....It was as if the music was a desperate man grasping at a crumbling cliff side, not wanting to slide head first into the realms of funk or disco.

The term crossover soul originally referred to the lapping over of 60s flavoured records into the 70s, but as word has seeped out it has taken on different connotations. It is now used to describe the stepping stones being laid down between northern soul and modern soul.........With little fresh blood coming into either scene there seems to be an uneasy truce with early 70s some kind of mist-enshrouded no-mans-land".

So there you go.

That's nice and tidy. 20 years later is it still accurate for the modern day scene?

Edited March 23, 2010 by James Trouble

[Guest fryer]

(although an RnB/disco crossover might be pushing it a bit)

Isonics = r&b, disco, funk, crossover latin

--

As long as they are good who cares, putting them in boxes is fine as long as it does not stop you playing good records.

[Guest James Trouble]

EDIT more HTML problems

Edited March 23, 2010 by James Trouble

[Guest James Trouble]

Isonics = r&b, disco, funk, crossover latin

--

As long as they are good who cares, putting them in boxes is fine as long as it does not stop you playing good records.

+1 here. I'll support that.

And I forgot about adding Latin to the genres.

Mik Parry once argued that The Hard Drivers was RnB with a place on the mod scene as well as being a disco 45, as well as funk. It certainyl is a crossover record, but not crossover by Rod's definition.

This talk of genre clashes makes me want to watch the Soul Power documentary again.

[Steve G]

And my anoyance with Steve, one of the champions of crossover, is about his definition of 'funk'. He should know better. Language mutates and evolves over time. And in relation to the modern day scene there is no excuse for saying that funk is George Clinton and Funkadelic, none what so ever. Especially as an intelligent and influencial member of the modern day scene. To use that definition to base his description of 'crossover' in the modern scene is a bit silly and lazy and just fuels the fire of those who want to crusify it and exasperates the modern day funk scene, all 17 of them.

No you still don't get it do you James? As you well know there is a rich history in this music long before you came along. And when you have entire runs of Meters, Kool, Parliament, JB, Ohio Players etc albums and 45s maybe I might take you more seriously.

What I said was:

"The term crossover describes records that were between northern and funk tempo wise- slower than trad northern and yet faster than the funk of groups like Ohio Players, Funkadelic etc.....music made in that wonderful late 60s / early 70s period as others have said"

That is a perfectly valid description of what was happening musically in the late 60s / early 70s, as to most people funk is precisely that type of sound I described. I was not comparing it to the UK rare / deep funk "scene" but "funk" in it's broader context - I know lots of people that would laugh at anyone who describes the likes of Clinton / Funkadelic etc as anything other than "funk".

Of course I wasn't describing crossover as being between northern and shall we for the sake of clarity call it "deep funk", the scene you are referring to, cos clearly that isn't what crossover is. Any dummy knows that and the fact that you are trying to make an issue of it says more about you than anything else.

Language evolves over time? The meaning of funk has changed? Try telling that to Bootsy Collins next time you see him.

It's nonsense and you know it is.

[Guest James Trouble]

No you still don't get it do you James? As you well know there is a rich history in this music long before you came along. And when you have entire runs of Meters, Kool, Parliament, JB, Ohio Players etc albums and 45s maybe I might take you more seriously.

What I said was:

"The term crossover describes records that were between northern and funk tempo wise- slower than trad northern and yet faster than the funk of groups like Ohio Players, Funkadelic etc.....music made in that wonderful late 60s / early 70s period as others have said"

That is a perfectly valid description of what was happening musically in the late 60s / early 70s, as to most people funk is precisely that type of sound I described. I was not comparing it to the UK rare / deep funk "scene" but "funk" in it's broader context - I know lots of people that would laugh at anyone who describes the likes of Clinton / Funkadelic etc as anything other than "funk".

Of course I wasn't describing crossover as being between northern and shall we for the sake of clarity call it "deep funk", the scene you are referring to, cos clearly that isn't what crossover is. Any dummy knows that and the fact that you are trying to make an issue of it says more about you than anything else.

Language evolves over time? The meaning of funk has changed? Try telling that to Bootsy Collins next time you see him.

It's nonsense and you know it is.

I don't like the meters, or parliament or most ohio players, and the fact you only take people seriosuly who have geeky complete runs of albums says a lot about you.

And as for Bootsy Collins, I doubt very much if he has a clue about what the modern day funk and soul scenes mean, I assume he'd bang on about 'on the four' and slap his bass guitar a bit. Whoop whoop.

And as for describing Funkadelic as funk, in the modern day soul scene, don't be an ignoramus. I'm sure it's possible to find a load of people who think that peodophillia is a legitimate passtime and acceptable sexual release.

[Steve G]

That's nice and tidy. 20 years later is it still accurate for the modern day scene?

The quote was trying to explain the type of sound that was crossover - how it evolved in the context of changing styles of music-exactly what I was trying to do in my description which you took a dislike to. It's got nothing to do with "the scene", it's a description of a type of music that evolved in the USA.

The modern scene today is Y2k+10 so no relevance for crossover there. WHy would the modern scene look back 40 years?

Back in 1990 a lot of "crossover" and 70s sounds were played at places like Southport. In the same magazine there is a playlist and people like Graeme Ellis are reviwing things like LaShawn Collins.

[Steve G]

I don't like the meters, or parliament or most ohio players, and the fact you only take people seriosuly who have geeky complete runs of albums says a lot about you.

And as for Bootsy Collins, I doubt very much if he has a clue about what the modern day funk and soul scenes mean, I assume he'd bang on about 'on the four' and slap his bass guitar a bit. Whoop whoop.

Oh yeah, forgot you're a hot boxer aren't you?

See subsequent post James - still trying to explain to you that the descriptions are around the evolution of the music - not around UK soul clan and however it badges it's various groups.

[Guest Dante]

I don't like the meters, or parliament or most ohio players, and the fact you only take people seriosuly who have geeky complete runs of albums says a lot about you.

And as for Bootsy Collins, I doubt very much if he has a clue about what the modern day funk and soul scenes mean, I assume he'd bang on about 'on the four' and slap his bass guitar a bit. Whoop whoop.

And as for describing Funkadelic as funk, in the modern day soul scene, don't be an ignoramus. I'm sure it's possible to find a load of people who think that peodophillia is a legitimate passtime and acceptable sexual release.

Please tell me you're not saying an argue about Funkadelic is the same that an argument about paedophillia. A little perspective would be nice.

A question James:

Can Marvin Gaye be described as soul in modern day scene?

Or, for that matter, a carriage is no longer a mean of tranport because there's cars??

[Guest James Trouble]

Oh yeah, forgot you're a hot boxer aren't you?

See subsequent post James - still trying to explain to you that the descriptions are around the evolution of the music - not around UK soul clan and however it badges it's various groups.

Shall we all start speaking Galic or Roman or whatever it is that is our father tongue? Of course language evolves and meanings change over time.

You're fooling yourself if you are trying to argue that the definition of music in the modern day soul scene is only defined by it's origin. I think Gareth's earlier post highlights this very well and doesn't need to be requoted again.

Do you think that you and Chalky are talking about the same 'genre' of music?

Edited March 23, 2010 by James Trouble

[Chalky]

James, your living up to your name again, causing trouble :-) ....What I'm trying to say (although not very easy on the iPhone) is that an hour of crossover is out of place at a predominately northern soul all-nighter, which most allnighters are. You go to an allnighter and see how busy the floor is to an hour of midtempo crossover? I'm not saying crossover dj's are crap either and don't recall writing words to that effect either. I collect and love crossover and have always listened to all types of soul, but at a venue the type of promotion has to be taken into account. A good dj should be able to play all types and keep everyone happy with music the ordinary punters can dance too, after all that is what they go for. What I wad trying to say is that I have seen on quite a few occasions a promoter program a dj who plays nothing but crossover to a largly empty dancefloor, maybe half a dozen records getting a decent reaction. It's like booking rare upfront dj to play all his unknowns at an oldies night, he ain't going to go down very well.

You are right I am involved with an allnighter that promotes crossover amongst the 60s etc but you don't hear an hour of crossover, it's all a question of getting the balance right.

Edited March 23, 2010 by chalky

[Garethx]

One thing strikes me about Rod's piece above and it reinforces my belief that the term itself came from the modern arm of the scene and that looking for that type of sound sprung from on the one hand the paucity of genuinely soulful new releases and the rise of the nascent House music phenomenon on the other.

The Northern scene of the time was playing the 'Crossover' type of record quite seamlessly in the more upfront sets quite a while before the 'Xover' term was coined by folks on the modern scene. Think of late Stafford and its immediate aftermath: stuff like "Pyramid", the various Johnny Gilliam sides being played, Wilson Love, Margie Joseph "One More Chance", The Appointments on De-lite and Red Coach, and dozens more like them were all at least pretty popular and some were downright monsters. No-one seemed to question whether they were appropriate to play at allnighters.

Crossover type sounds were always accepted anyway in my view. Returnees and revisionists would have us believe they were something grafted onto the Northern scene from outside but that was never really the case.

Edited March 23, 2010 by garethx