Posted on

Joe Farrell & Animal

From Canned Funk (1975).

One of those masterpiece albums from CTI Records in the 70s, and one of the more unsettling album covers I know. Euuwwwwwwuh! Joe Farrell (saxophones), Herb Bushler (bass), Ray Mantilla (congas, percussion), Jim Madison (drums), Joe Beck (guitar). Courtesy of 327v8Malibu. Thanks, 327!


5 responses to “Joe Farrell & Animal

  1. wdydfae

    A panicked afterthought: how’s Liz going to react to the eyeball in the canned peaches?

  2. Liz

    was just logging on to ask if I dare say this is “easy listening” and now you’ve pointed out those are canned peaches? Wouldn’t have noticed if you would’ve kept quiet about it. haha. I think I saw the eyeball and mentally decided I didn’t need to look any closer. Why would someone put an eyeball in canned peaches? That’s just weird.

    The song is good. Another one of those jazzy numbers. Canned funk is a good name, though yes, the image is gross. Good thing I don’t like canned peaches. Fresh is best 🙂

  3. wdydfae

    Thanks, Liz!

    You didn’t notice the eyeball that much? Me and my big mouth.

    This “easy listening” thing is purely a matter of semantics. In principle, you should just call music whatever you want. But in practice, certain phrases are “charged” to music maniacs devoted to a particular genre (in this case, jazz fusion).

    So, with that in mind, for you, easy listening means “pleasant and comfortable to listen to.” But to the music maniac devoted to a particular genre “easy listening” means “schlock.” There’s no way around this.

    It shouldn’t matter, but for the sake of accurate reporting, I mention that it does. Though not to me.

    Further complication: Joe Farrell calls the album “Canned Funk” meaning he’s consciously going for mass appeal and a pop sound (but trying to be ironic about it enough for the music snobs to forgive him). Joe Farrell also does a Stevie Wonder cover on another album. [Edit: So, it is somewhat close to the truth to call it “easy listening” of a sort, though still probably charged and feather ruffling to any Joe Farrell maniacs.]

    [Additional edit: This semantic parsing is exhausting. Can I go now?]

  4. wdydfae

    Liz, don’t look now, but not only is there a gross eyeball sitting amongst the peaches, you’ve also got a manbot sitting next to you up there on the likes bar.

    I guess I should be glad to see balance emerging with respect to my fembots, yet somehow I feel no joy about this development.

    Anyway, the white lab coat is more like amb’s kind of thing, isn’t it?

    • Liz

      yes, way too much parsing–semantic and otherwise. I hear what you’re saying about “easy listening”–that phrase means something to me other than it does to music maniacs. I don’t have the music vocab that a true music manic (mm from here on) does, so have to fall back on a basic phrase, which could be insulting to those who do have a stronger music vocab.

      Maybe parallel to “delicious” (not deLizious, haha) which is an overused food descriptor. To non-food writers, it means something tastes good; to me and others of my ilk it’s an easy way out and a lazy word to use. Though if you called something delicious, it’s a compliment. If I called something delicious, it’s hollow praise.

      And the man ‘bot appears to be a fatspecialist. Is he targeting you because your readers need nutrition information? Now this is something to be outraged about. Never mind the semantics. Yes, you can go now. (and maybe the good Dr. just liked your post?)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s