Originally Posted by unique:
“disco was mainly a studio based genre. key elements of disco are strings and horns, thus large numbers of people performed on those tracks. the salsoul orchestra was made up of about 50 members and they were salsouls version of the funk brothers or the wrecking crew. even putting expense aside, the logistics of getting that number of people together in the same place at the same time for a number of dates to make a tour made things difficult. however as disco music was based primarily about going out and listening in clubs, and the records still sold in great numbers, there wasn't any need to put on live gigs.
as such, unlike many other types of music, such as rock and pop, a handful of people couldn't just get together and make a convincing disco band that could compare favourably to existing disco music. consider the most popular bands of the 70s for example and they are mainly 4 or 5 peice bands comprising of bass, drums, keyboards, guitar and vocals, and the most popular bands retained the same or similar lineup of those instruments at least in the 70s, thus the beatles, the stones, floyd, zep, who, queen. it was relatively easy to get 3 or 4 people to join you in a garage or rehearsal space and get those basic instruments etc together to jam, and even move to putting on a gig or cutting a demo”
but the beegees did, they hadnt that much backing, and disco sold so why didnt record labels invest in acts? would it be really too much for say trevor horne to create a disco sound?
Quote:
“if you consider the same acts i mentioned above, they gained enough success to be able to afford to add strings and horns to recordings, but in most cases they still toured without adding to the key lineup
thus whilst so many artists of so many genres across the uk and the world jumped onto the disco bandwagon and created disco tracks, it was because they could do this in the studio. the live performances wouldn't normally include strings and horns. later once keyboard and sampler technology had advanced it was easier to more realistically emulate that level of instrumentation in a live setting, and similarly disco dj's used technology to make their own music on a budget which was the start of dance music as we know it today, and those disco influences have continued throughout to today and will do for a long time”
what about 'liquid gold'? what about the nolans? (lol), kelly marie? they all had big hits in 1980 and what backing did they have? tbh i think the mood just changed, i think we went 'anti disco' because as someone posted previously, it was seen as cheesy and escapist whilst the buzz word on the ground was creativity. jazz funk and latin were popular by 82. personally i liked jazz funk and lating elements in music, i wasnt as keen on disco.
Quote:
“so to put it simply, it was easy to start a rock or pop band, it was easier to start a punk band as musical expectations were considerably lower, for example the bass player of one of the most famous punk bands was barely able to play at all, but it wasn't within the reach of most people who wanted to start a band to be able to play disco for logistical reasons. even synths in the 70s were beyond the affordability of most people. skip to the early 80s and they became much more capable and affordable, thus the rise of synthpop, and by the mid 80s you could buy cheap keyboards in high street stores like wh smiths”
but id say that this argument holds water IF the american market/industry had access to these synths and we didnt. otherwise its down to (as previously suggested) fashion. disco went out of fashion in favour of funk.
Quote:
“but even with all those considerations disco was a hugely influential and chart dominating genre across the uk and the world
what is more interesting is to consider is why music of black origin, in particular soul, funk, jazz and not rock based, has never been anywhere near as successful for UK artists as non uk artists. of course there will be some of the same logistic issues, but soul/funk/jazz acts can still have small and smallish lineups from jazz trios to quartets and quintets, and a soul or funk band need only add a sax and maybe a horn, but then again there have still been very succesful soul/funk acts that had no brass at all and used keyboards instead. think of the time, cameo, zapp who's main sound is that of sythns, or even prince who's first 6 albums had no brass, just keys, and when he did add horns to his live set, such as the soul revue styled 86 parade hit and run tour, he only had 2 brass players, sax/flute and horn, for a sellout international tour. so if well known succesful funk/soul groups can do it, oviously any band could
even to date there have been hardly any succesful uk soul/funk/jazz acts. sade is very much an exception. terrence trent d'arby another (Or sanandra maitreya as he prefers to be known by know - which is his real name). apart from that, there are just a few others that had any notable succes, but little outside the uk, such as beverley knight, david lynden hall, brand new heavies. not exactly the same type of household names as american soul/funk/jazz acts
so whilst disco had a huge influence on all sorts of bands from rock to pop and even country and reggae, it's influenced lasted well into the 80s with acts such as wham (and both as wham and solo george has covered a number of disco tracks from jive talking to ain't no stopping us now, love machine etc - he's also covered a fair few stevie wonder tracks as his vocal range was the same as stevies in his classic early 70s period - altho not disco), duran (using nile rogers from chic to produce hits like wild boys and reflex), kylie, pet shop boys, etc, and then in the dance grenres from the 80s to today, handbag house and garage in particular, and of course the late 80s disco revival that boomed in the 90s, with many clubs in the uk at least putting on disco themed nights. and of course next weekend there is the world famous "worlds largest disco" event being held in new york, based on a huge event in 1979 that had 13,000 people and still around 7,000 attend in recent years. those numbers rival raves in peak times
so with disco being so succesful and influential in the uk and accross the globe, why hasn't the uk been very successful with soul, funk and jazz genres? why haven't we been able to find anyone else in the last 30 years to rival the success of sade in those genres? anyone who does come along that sounds promising like craig david, has a bit hit and then just can't keep it up. whereas in the states usually an artist has a hit with a first album/single and then comes back a year or two later and has a real boost in success, such as rihanna or alicia keys
it surely can't simply be down to better writing and production can it? i mean we had some of the best writers in the world with lennon macartney? floyd, stones, zep, who had great songs covered by many. so why can the uk make disco a huge success, but not soul, funk, jazz?”
touche! lol... indeed we have produced no one who has created a funk track/album to rival the beegees disco ones.
and when 'we' went off funk and jazz funk in favour of house around the mid 80's, it went and didnt return, unlike disco, who disappeared from our charts in the early 80's but which did revive and influence later on. the disco revival of the mid 90's though was pretty dire tbh, thats when the rainbow coloured afro wigs came in and it all became (and still is) karaoke in fancy dress.
its a shame that today disco is remembered as such, its the poor end of that genre thats remembered, the good stuff you aluded to (in the other thread) that was found in clubs is largely forgotten
its a pity that jazz funk died out, i like abit of that.
time for a revival anyone? lol.