From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject R&B and Soul Music (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
WikiProject Music/Music genres task force (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon Jazz-funk is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardize music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good and 1.0 standards.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Jazz (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discussion + Contributions[edit]

All constructive discussions and contributions really welcome! :) --GeeeFlat 10:38, Wikipedia, and also needs sources adding.--Escaper7 08:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have now added a multitude of (too many?) citations. I believe some minor, or widely accepted assertions do not always need backup (1+1=2 does not need a reference to arabic maths) in the interest of the reader (boredom / readability). Citations are now in place. --GeeeFlat 10:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy![edit]

I've started to tidy this up but it's going to be a fiddly job. Here's what I think should be done to tidy this one up:

  • Clean up: I've marked this up for the clean up for the clean-up task force as I don't have the time to pick through this - please don't remove the tags unless you're prepared to add some sources.

Sources added. --GeeeFlat 10:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • There isn't a single source listed in the body of the article

This is incorrect --GeeeFlat 10:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) - who's making the statements included? As we know wiki is not a blog or opinion website - it's an encyclopedia. Thanks for reminding us this;) --GeeeFlat 10:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • What's the article about: If it's about Jazz-funk - a British genre, why all the links to American artists. In other words a clear definition is required. It's full of opinion and tripping over itself with repeated wikilinking, incorrect wikilinking due to inconsistent article names and generally very confused.--Escaper7 09:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your honest and fair opinion, we happen to disagree both on style and content. Jazz-Funk is NOT a British genre and the overwhelming majority of artists are amnerican, it was just quite a popular genre in britain in the mid 70s. --GeeeFlat 10:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

UK vs. US[edit]

After reading up on some of the history of Jazz-funk, I think that it would be best to talk about the genre in regards to the UK and US separately. Although the article right now is sort of divided, a more definite organization and adding references should improve the article. -- Heaven's Wrath   Talk  02:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

HI there. I disagree, this is unfounded/ peremptory. Where have you "read up" about this? a) There is an important overlap between both b) This is precisely why there is a degree of confusion on the genre, the US and the UK need to be in the same article to provide a clarification to the reader. --GeeeFlat 10:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

New Organization? : DEBATE[edit]

I think that this article doesn't need simple cleanup, rather it requires a full organizational change. Here is the breakdown I will be aiming to follow. (Feel free to respond with a different order.) -- Heaven's Wrath   Talk  02:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. Musical Characteristics (might be better in some other place, ie: before 5)
  2. Origins/roots of Jazz-funk
  3. Development in the UK (possible sub-topic breakdown)
  4. Development in the US
  5. Notable musicians and albums
  6. References
  7. See also
  8. External links
Great idea, since its last major rewrite which caused all sorts of problems, (typos, layout, style, content and sources) I've started tweaking it, but I don't have sufficient knowledge to rewrite the whole article. I do however have specific experience of the jazz funk scene in the UK so I've now added some sources to that section. Crucially, ity needs a killer, clear open par that gives a definition - I understand music and I'm confused. But I don't think it need s two pages because it's still a minor genre that has similarities and differences in the US and UK and music tends to cross boundaries with ease. --Escaper7 10:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I am the main contributor fo the article. I think it is quite an unfounded and peremptory statement to say that the last edit caused all sorts of problems, especially in terms of content. It added a lot of information which actually gives a much better vue of what the genre is and improves the article considerably Vs its poor initial state, which simply led to believe that Jazz-funk was something it's not. Happy to help.

More Specifically on the organisation:

A new organization should serve the content, not the otherway around.

a) I disagree on having a main section for the UK (especially if it comes before the US section. the UK should be a sub section, as it is a local (yet important) spin-off of what is essentially an american genre, supported by american artists. It would give an impression that does not correspond to reality. A new organization should serve the content, not the otherway around.

a) The "ambivalence of the genre" section is also key as it is an essential part of the History AND understanding of Jazz-Funk which is why it's become harder to trace, and refered to as several names. I believe I have the knowledge required on the genre. Do not hesitate to contact me on or skype: g_orhant.

Regards,--GeeeFlat 17:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC) --GeeeFlat 10:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, unfortunately, no one person can be "the main contributor" to an article, as that would completely go against the ethos of an online encyclopedia that anyone can access and edit. In any case, if you were the main contributor - and you are not, you would realise that it needs sourcing, and citations throughout. How do we know these things or are they just your opinion, which is also not allowed? Please do not remove the sources boilerplate - it is there to help other editors realise that these must be provided. This article has been referred to the clean up taskforce, at least three users have offered to help edit this article, so the references boilerplate will be re-instated until it is of a sufficient encyclopedic standard. the other alternative is to nominate it for deletion, but that would undo some of the good work done on this article. It is a good article, but it just needs tidying up. --Escaper7 17:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. and welcome to wikipedia too.

Factually, at this point I am the main contributor to date in the simple sense that most of the article is written by me (and I hope there will be many contributors and someone will become the main one after me) and this does not go against Wikipedia's ethos, of which I don't believe you are the guardian for. I believe there are plenty of sources and citations throughout, sustaining my points, and therefore not opinions. That's how people will know. But please do not hesitate to be SPECIFIC in designating areas where you strongly feel there is a fundamental and important lack of citations / sources. I couldn't find any major ones, but happy to provide some more, if you feel differently, that is what the discussion section on articles is for. Any constructive help is welcome. Actually if you have the time, finding citations / sources would be great. That's how wikipedia works, by having people conntribute to the writing of articles, isn't it? Also I'm aware that you wrote the UK part of it and that you might have a different opinion about the content of the article. But you should know that articles are there to be edited, enhanced, developped. It's a continuous process and that is what is happening now. Wikipedia is a collective approach, so let's have an inclusive approcah and let's work together on improving the quality of this article.


--GeeeFlat 20:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC) --GeeeFlat 10:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, please stop saying you're the "main contributor" to this article. As you know articles are also edited by other users, and I've spent at least two hours simply correcting typos after the first major edit you made, so does that mean my efforts - including the correctly cited section on UK jazz funk count for nothing or are inferior to yours? No. That was another afternoon's work but it doesn't matter. No one person can take 'ownership' of an article including you! And two other editors have volunteered to tidy this up. --Escaper7 10:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
And on the issue of citing sources, have a look at wikipedia: citing sources

This is a red herring. I am not claiming ownership of the article. Thanks very much for your efforts in claning up the typos and your section on the UK is very good and describes accurately what happened there. It is of a high standard both in its content and form. Now let's carry on expanding on the content and improving the form of the article. Regards, --GeeeFlat 11:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC) --GeeeFlat 10:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


After reading the introduction, I figured that this article needed a clearer and broader beginning. Here is what I came up with: (I used some of the current intro, and then edited it with somethings I found. I plan to switch this with the current one soon.)

Version 1
Jazz-funk is a sub-genre of jazz music characterized by a strong back beat and electrified sounds.[1] The blending of jazz and Southern soul music resulted in the creation of a genre whose spectrum is indeed quite wide and ranges from strong jazz improvisation to soul, funk or disco with jazz arrangements, jazz riffs, and jazz solos, and sometimes soul vocals.[2] Jazz-funk is a mostly American genre, where it was popular throughout the 1970s and the early 1980s, but it also achieved noted appeal on the club-circuit in England during the mid 1970s. Other possible names for this genre include Soul jazz and Jazz fusion, but neither entirely overlap with Jazz-funk.

Does it need something else? Is it too wikified? Other comments/criticisms? -- Heaven's Wrath   Talk  21:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks a lot better to me, much clearer and more concise--Escaper7 11:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi there,
Thanks for helping wikifying it all and clean it up. Sounds good to me. it will split up the big first block and therefore ease the reading. However, let's make sure that this summary will not lead to the deletion of other important point in the body of the article, but it's a very good start and clarifies very much the role of the UK vs the US, so thanks for that.
Now Regarding content: we need to delete the reference to "southern soul", as there is no immediate connection between the 2 genres. We could reference "Soul" and "funk") but rather than use the term "blend", we need to give the reader the understanding that the JAZZ part is the strong element of this music, with elements of sould and funk added. "Blend" gives the impression of a blanced mix which it is not, for most of the production. How does that sound? --GeeeFlat 11:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I checked the source for the sentence "The blending of jazz and Southern soul music..." and that claim came from allmusic. I could change the word choice a little (for blending) and continue the idea by talking about the other genres that had an impact on Jazz-funk later in its life. Thoughts? -- Heaven's Wrath   Talk  16:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, thanks for that,
There are some good elements in this article indeed. However I don't believe it's a good reference just because it's out there and says so. this is a verifiable source, but not a reliable one (and doesnot contain any sources either). And it's the first time in 25 years that I have heard this theory about southern soul, and jazz-funk coming from stax or volt which is really not very serious / credible). It does not correspond to reality. The artists quoted like Jack Mc Duff and Lonnie liston smith maybe have been coming from the hammond organ indeed, but the boogaloo / jazz side, not the southern soul part. In any case their jazz-funk period has little / nothing to do with southern soul (see/hear expansions from Lonnie liston Smith) nor are they the most representative artists of the genre at all.
Overall, a) Quoting the writer of the article itself: "... the crucial R&B component of jazz-funk shifted with the times. Artists like trumpeter Donald Byrd, flautist Bobbi Humphrey, and keyboardist Ronnie Foster crafted a sunny, breezy style by performing compositions which often simply resembled jazzy R&B, and drew from Philly soul as well as funk... " These artists are confirmed jazz musicians and their productions are in no way related to southern soul (and they are far from all being sunny\breezy)
b) the vast majority of the Jazz-funk genre has got nothing to do with southern soul, so referencing it in the intro would just confuse people, or worse, give them an incorrect idea of what the music actually sounds like, which, content wise, seems to be the the core of what we are trying to achieve here.
c) It is highly debatable that the genre's origin is 1) Southern soul itself 2) One R&B source only 3) not Jazz
I also believe that this article must come from a UK resident with UK background as the soul element is very dominant throughout (jazz-funk describes a UK DJ / Club Scene movement as well, there. It is an enthusiastic response to the genere, which creeped in after the british danced to northern soul and moved to jazz-funk. While the audience followed this path, that does not mean that the music creation did), in other parts of the world such as the US, or France, or Germany, this part is much less dominant, and jazz-funk is perceived as a musical jazz arm /exploration and really starts with jazzmen coming from jazz-FUSION such as Herbie Hancock's headhunters for instance, which is far more representative of the genre than jack mc duff. There is little influence from soul in HH's HH, but there is an influence of funk (rythmically). It seems quite key to make the article a global one, not a local one.
Anyway, to be constructive and propose a consensus, I suggest we just reference the "integration: or "inclusion" of SOME [funk], [soul] or more generally [R&B] elements into jazz. That is much less specific (and therfore much less debatable) than southern soul and will still gives a (correct) flavour of what the music could be like (from a global perspective)
Would you agree with this less specific approach?
--GeeeFlat 10:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying and agree with you. Here is a new revised introduction that better incorporates the different inspirations of Jazz-funk.
Version 2
Jazz-funk is a sub-genre of jazz music characterized by a strong back beat and electrified sounds.[3] The integration of funk, soul, and R&B music and styles into jazz resulted in the creation of a genre whose spectrum is indeed quite wide and ranges from strong jazz improvisation to soul, funk or disco with jazz arrangements, jazz riffs, and jazz solos, and sometimes soul vocals.[2] Jazz-funk is a mostly American genre, where it was popular throughout the 1970s and the early 1980s, but it also achieved noted appeal on the club-circuit in England during the mid 1970s. Other possible names for this genre include Soul jazz and Jazz fusion, but neither entirely overlap with Jazz-funk.
Comments? (Sorry it took so long.) -- Heaven's Wrath   Talk  13:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I am going to add it to the article now. -- Heaven's Wrath   Talk  16:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, Sounds really good to me. Captures it. Well done. Just added the analog electronic synthesizers. (important point, yet minor edit) --GeeeFlat 10:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I have a question about the analog synthesizers. Did you mean that Jazz-funk was characterized by the first constructed analog synthesizers, or that the first thing that Jazz-funk was characterized by was the analog synthesizers. -- Heaven's Wrath   Talk  13:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello there, subtle question indeed. What I meant exactly was that Jazz-Funk immediately embraced the early analog synthesizers, such as moog, arp, clavinet et-al. These provided new sounds for jazz, which was very keen to explore in a lot of directions at the time. Jazz-Funk, was particularly keen on theses sounds. Another reason for that, is that Funk and especially P-Funk (with the likes of George Clinton and Funkadelic, were simultaneously on an aesthetical trip regarding cosmos and space (as many things were in the 70's, see star wars, cosmos 99 etc.)" the first analog synthesizers provided them with great spacey sounds , unheard of before. Jazz-funk being also influenced by funk, this fueled their liking of analogs S even further. I left this part on the side as this is more of a digression and would not help readability. The simple point I wanted to make to the reader, is to give him a flavour of the music: if he listens to jazz-funk, he will hear a lot of analogs S, as the Jazz-funk community was extremely fond of it when they were released. Feel free to re-edit if that didn't come accross this way.
I have a picture of herbie hancock (on the back of the "sunlight" the album sleeve) who is surrounded by al lof these. which sould provide great illustrative material but I can't scan an LP size, nor have I got the right for the picture, and not sure it would fall under the "Fair Use" charter. I left this part
Hope this helps.
--GeeeFlat 10:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. The intro is a little incorrect syntax-wise, so I was making sure that I would not edit it to a different meaning from when you added the information. -- Heaven's Wrath   Talk  03:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


I just added a genrebox to the article. It needs more information. I also am thinking that it should be pink, not orange.

  • Pink = Jazz
  • Orange = Funk

-- Heaven's Wrath   Talk  17:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Pink it should be indeed, then! :) would love to help and dio that but don't know how to... (!) --GeeeFlat 10:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The Genrebox is looking good, thanks for fixing the instruments and other information. I was a little lost when it came to that. -- Heaven's Wrath   Talk  13:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Anytime. What else should we do for the article to be officially "cleaned up" to a Wiki standard and we can remove the boiler plates? --GeeeFlat 10:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
There are things in the body of the article that still need work. The list of musicians in "Ambivalence of the genre" section should probably be worked into the prose. When I get a little extra time, I would like to read through the article, just to fix minor grammatical and other errors. To answer your question, hopefully soon. -- Heaven's Wrath   Talk  04:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Clean up complete?[edit]

It's now starting to look much more coherent. Still a bit too wordy in places but it makes much more sense now. Because it's quite long, I've moved one of the images and split the long lists into columns. Any thoughts? Also still checking for some sources on the UK stuff - but I don't think we need to Wikilink to everything: ie America, and Caister Weekender. There's a website with loads of info about that. So at what point, how and who makes the decision to remove the clean-up tag? Escaper7 19:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC) ps: I think sub heading 5 is too long - and also there's a bug in Wikipedia that's currently duplicating the list of references.

I agree that it is almost complete, but the article seems to have many new paragraphs. (America is linked to disambiguate the reference.) I think a grammar/syntax edit of the article also still needs to be done. -- Heaven's Wrath   Talk  19:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I have started general editing, and there are spelling & grammar errors, and unnecessary abbreviations. Although the article has good information, (currently) it is not of the higher standard that the cleanup is meant to achieve. -- Heaven's Wrath   Talk  20:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

my tuppence' worth - for what it's worth[edit]

As a latecomer to the article under debate - i.e. I have not yet had any vested interest in changing or maintaining any of the content, I must say that I have been unable to finish reading the page, and my first reaction was that I should just copy and paste the whole thing onto this discussion page, delete the article and leave a note stating that the content is currently undergoing major surgery. The idea is for all editors to take a cold, objective look at it and ask themselves whether it belongs on Wikipedia. Second thoughts prevailed, and I disciplined myself to reading the content of the ongoing discussion on this page and on the Cleanup Taskforce page. Result: I agree almost totally with almost all of the negative criticism made so far, and almost totally disagree with almost all of the opinions stating that the creature is beginning to look a bit better - I dread to think what it may have looked like before. Suffice to say that it contravenes just about every guideline, recommendation or whatever you like to call it, agreed on and laid down over the years by Wikipedians (as indeed do my comments here - but they appear on the discussion page, not on the main article page). Sorry to be so negative about it - but that is the reaction the article page has provoked in me and I need to get it off my chest. Wikipedia deserves better. Technopat 00:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Who the heck is The Hitcher?[edit]

"The Hitcher" is mentioned several times in this article. Never heard of'em. I don't think it belongs here... (It's the title of a 1986 horror movie/2007 remake)

It's vandalism and has been removed.Escaper7 15:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


The old list of Latin and funk jazz standards was just merged&redirected to (the now fully-referenced) List of jazz standards (per discussion at talk). You may wish to incorporate a small/referenced part of the old/new lists in this article. Just a note. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

UK Jazz Funk[edit]

Another excellent British band of that era that arguably fits the genre (and thus and could be considered the UK list) is Loose Ends. Davagh (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

And the rest!?[edit]

No mention of the huge Japanese jazz-funk/fusion representation and following? Artists like Casiopea, T-Square, Masayoshi Takanaka, Cosmos, Kangaroo, Prism, Nayoa Matsuoka...?

What about Shakatak, Fruitcake, Mezzoforte, Uzeb, Bob Mintzer and The Yellowjackets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I can think of scores of missing bands too (I played in one of them), but I think the problem is that it would make the article into a list. In my opinion there are already too many artists mentioned in the article, it could do with a few of the 'me too' artists removing. Deke42 (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)