“….Even further, the very notion of ‘honky’ itself is a deeply slippery idea. Sometimes it indicates de-quantized drums (as in Flying Lotus, Lukid, and other post Dilla beat-artisans), sometimes pitch-bent synth and bass work, sometimes a maddening rush of 8-bit arpeggios. Honky is not a genre unto itself. Instead it operates as a kind of trans-generic mutational agent, spreading seamlessly between BPM species, liquidating textures, and mixed trainwrecked metaphors, distending rhythmical consistency like so many British adjectives: All that is solid melts into a new electronic psychedelia, as fluid and mellifluous as the [insert trite ‘global capitalism’ reference here] which spreads it.

“Honky in the sense of off-key, out-of-place, misshapen, breaking through an electronic music environment increasingly characterized by myopic microgenre developments and parodic stylistic affectations, as a set of strategies to be jacked by broke-ass Americans.


  1. at least within “dubstep”… i find “wonky” to be more useful than “funky”… which to me is a poor choice of genre-label re-use if there ever was one…

    tangentially. a young rapper i am blessed to work with (j hawk) once made the profound declaration that “funk is factual”… which led me, of course to ask then what soul was… my wife (weeks later) provided the obvious (now) answer.

    “soul is saxual”

  2. aaAAHahhaa! Everything and only each of the above.

    “… the glissandi of spiralling fervour, so like the tensions of so many…”

    and on itself

    “… as a set of forecourts of aspirational premises to be photographed by so many…”

    Theorise. It’s another way to move hamburgers.

Comments are closed.