Jump to content

Good Article on King Records and James Brown


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, AllenLowe said:

 Very significant error in that article, and more than a little shocking. The King catalog has been extensively reissued on multiple labels, both domestic and foreign; which makes me distrust a lot of what else this guy writes. 

I note the article was published in 2008.  Might the re-issue scene have improved for the King sides since that date?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been a lot of King reissue programs going back to the early part of the century.  The article was fine in general, though that is a weird oversight; and though his writing has a bit too much of that Tosches slickness and exaggeration for my taste.  And, I would say that the relationship of the label to rock and roll is way more complex than in his description.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's little in the article that isn't done rather better in 'Little labels, big sound' by Rick Kennedy & Randy McNutt, which also includes chapters on the not so little labels Gennett and Paramount as well as Dial, Duke-Peacock, Sun, Riverside, Ace (NOLA Ace, not London), Monument and Delmark.

However I DID like the definition of a superstar as having one's own chewing-gum handler :D

MG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, "Little Labels Big Sound" is a nice book, though I remember it (it's been a while since I read it cover to cover after having bought it) as lacking a bit in depth and leaving me a bit hungry for details. So I find the angle of that 2008 article linked above quite interesting and original because it puts things into a smoewhat new perspective.

As for King reissues, yes they have been reissued comprehensively from waaay back in the 90s (or even 80s) but the bulk of this happened on the U.K. ACE label (they bought the King vaults and archives lock stock and barrel) and I've repeatedly found U.S.: scribes (at least those outside the diehard fan circles) being blissfully ignorant of what happened in the reissue world outside the U.S. (unawareness of Bear Family reissues was another of those cases). Who knows ... maybe in the case of King it was a case "cannot be that THEY over there snapped up the deal and we missed out on it?" ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but there's no such thing as a really detailed history of those labels. And almost certainly too late to do them now as most of the people are dead. John Broven's 'Record makers and breakers' gives a very good overview of the indie sector of the industry, but focuses rather too much on R&B and R&R. Gospel music, jazz and country music are barely touched. But it's still a very good read.

Good point, about US perceptions of UK and German reissue programmes. I wonder to what extent firms like Ace and Bear Brothers are generally perceived in the same light as Andorran pirates? Do many Americans know the difference? (I'm not being rude, but I know the education curricula in the US - like the European ones - is very focused on what's relevant to Americans.)

MG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Jim, I led myself into you misunderstanding. I suspect American schools teach European history and geography with the same cursory touch that English schools teach American history and geography. So distinctions between different European nations are lost unless one applies oneself. And how many find it interesting enough to do that?

MG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/6/2016 at 11:33 AM, Big Beat Steve said:

.... I've repeatedly found U.S.: scribes (at least those outside the diehard fan circles) being blissfully ignorant of what happened in the reissue world outside the U.S. (unawareness of Bear Family reissues was another of those cases). Who knows ... maybe in the case of King it was a case "cannot be that THEY over there snapped up the deal and we missed out on it?" ;)

 

dude, you're waaaaay too defensive or whatever. Most jazz fans in general do not even know abut Mosaic. Etc.

The only people who would have an interest in reissues past a "greatest hits" sort type thing are true collectors of musics, of which I assure you there are very, very few relative to the world's total population, much less the "music fan" community.

If it matters to you, though, every hardcore Country/Western Swing collector that I know (total of about 3 people, are VERY aware of Bear Family. Same thing with the jazz/blues hardcore collector, they know where the shit is, and they don't care as long as they can get it, ideally from ethical companies, but if not, oh well.

As for  King, dig what the writer said about Cincinnati's "repressive reputation". Look at what other "musical cities" have done with their heritages, and look at what Cincinnati has not done with theirs. From what I've seen about and around that general area, I doubt that the lack of action is accidental.

1 hour ago, The Magnificent Goldberg said:

Sorry Jim, I led myself into you misunderstanding. I suspect American schools teach European history and geography with the same cursory touch that English schools teach American history and geography. So distinctions between different European nations are lost unless one applies oneself. And how many find it interesting enough to do that?

MG

We took "World History" and "American History" as separate, school year long classes. Of course, it wasn't REALLY "World" history, it was the history of the world as seen through the lens of European growth, expansion, conquest/colonization, etc. and the reactions to it. I would not call it "in-depth" but it was far from "cursory", either. If you wanted really granular detail, you got that in college.

Of course, that was a well-funded public high-school in the early 1970s. What they teach the kids these days, damned if I know, and for that matter, damned if I can tell. All I can tell you is that there are people who think that "Europe" is a county, but they didn't learn that in school, if my kid's homework of 10-ish years ago was any indication. That's not a failure of the schools (at least not ours here), that's just a failure to give a damn about anything.

Now, if you want to talk about institutionalized taught-in ignorance of African history, or Asian history, or, especially, South/Central American history, hey, point that finger, please do.

As for bootlegs/pirate/etc...I recall when all that shit came from Italy, and then, for a quick minute, Israel. Andorra was a sweater or some shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎10‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 0:33 PM, Big Beat Steve said:

Yes, "Little Labels Big Sound" is a nice book, though I remember it (it's been a while since I read it cover to cover after having bought it) as lacking a bit in depth and leaving me a bit hungry for details. So I find the angle of that 2008 article linked above quite interesting and original because it puts things into a smoewhat new perspective.

As for King reissues, yes they have been reissued comprehensively from waaay back in the 90s (or even 80s) but the bulk of this happened on the U.K. ACE label (they bought the King vaults and archives lock stock and barrel) and I've repeatedly found U.S.: scribes (at least those outside the diehard fan circles) being blissfully ignorant of what happened in the reissue world outside the U.S. (unawareness of Bear Family reissues was another of those cases). Who knows ... maybe in the case of King it was a case "cannot be that THEY over there snapped up the deal and we missed out on it?" ;)

 

Did Ace (U.K.) buy the King archives? I know they bought the RPM/Kent archives, but didn't know that they bought King. I could just be misinformed about them buying King. I know they've leased material from the King Archives.

Edited by paul secor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the local perspective on Cincinnati in the article is pretty valuable and interesting.

But that attitude isn't actually terribly unreasonable. King, like almost all of the black music indies, deliberately didn't go for the mainstream US audience; it went for the sectors of US society who weren't being catered for by the majors - poor people, black and white, and recorded the music they found useful and interesting. The only King artist who really made a big splash with the mainstream audience was James Brown. Well, sorry, one monkey don't stop no show.

Detroit has done stuff with Motown, which wasn't mentioned in the article, I think. But Berry Gordy avowedly targeted the mainstream audience and was trying, with phenomenal success, to sell black music to white folks. There's no suggestion in anything I've read that King tried that. And could that have been done? Dunno.

MG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were Dictator of the World, I would make every CD state front and center "Made from authorized master tapes" or "Made from public domain sources."

I understand why the PD companies don't want the shoppers to know, but I don't understand why the owners of the masters don't brag about it in big letters.

*****

MG, I think that King was originally a country label aimed at a white market.

Edited by GA Russell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how King overall was a "black music indie". They certainly covered that market, and extensively, but they covered other markets as well. I went for years thinking that King was an R&B label, because in the R&B bins was where you found the stock, especially for 45s. But hell, that's the only place I was looking, so talk about expectations determining results, hey. Their beginnings as a hillbilly/country label were unknown to me for a long, long time. And after the catalog got sold to Starday, that's the stuff that started showing up in beaucoup quantity in all the truck stops.

As for Cincinnati R&B, yes, JB was the real "name" King artist, but there's enough Memphis-ish flood plains from the label with people like Roy Brown, Wynonie Harris, Hank Ballard, etcetcetc, to say nothing of the Bootsy legacy and all the gravitational pulls that generates, that, yeah Cincinnati could do something with that if they wanted to, so the only way I find their attitude to be unreasonable is if they don't want to attract the types of people who would be attracted to "that kind of thing". And from what I've seen in and about that area, the assumption that they do not want that, that's what's not unreasonable. Just sayin'...

I drove through the city one time and caught a sports radio call in show that was full of callers bashing Barry Larkin for being lazy and shit. There were more than a few "you know how they are..." comments which could have just meant high-priced athletes in general, but...that part of the US is, as I read in one recent article, older, whiter, and less-educated than is the trend elsewhere in America. In a lot of ways, it's like East Texas, where I grew up, and I can tell you that anything in East Texas that would encourage large quantities of anything other than more of the same is not going to get off the ground as far as a concerted push by the municipalities. Maybe in the next 20-50 years, but by then, who will care enough to want anybody to remember?

"Repressive reputation"...not too many lines to read between there.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I stand by what I said. There were relatively few black music indies that ONLY dealt with black music. Duke/Peacock, certainly, is big league indie I can think of that never issued anything else. Nor, I believe, did any of Bobby Robinson's labels or Joe Von Battle's. Miracle, Delmark, Trilon and Sittin' in With are pretty minor (though very respectable) names in the black music business. Even Specialty and Aladdin issued C&W records. (Source, 'The American record label directory & dating guide 19401959 - Galen Gart)

Sure King issued a lot of C&W material, but white consumers were the target for it; black consumers the target for the R&B, gospel and jazz. King also issued a lot of lounge music albums.

MG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to be a difference of interpretation in senantics. I view them as an indie label that serviced many markets, not just the black music market. 

Where this could have impact is in the arena of municipal branding, of attracting disparate markets to make some kind of a viable product out of it. If the focus is on King Records, Black Music Legend, well, Cincinnati is not going to embrace that. Nor will they get by with King Records, Seminal Country Label.

They could get by with King Records, Look At EVERYTHING That Happened Here, but, really, that's probably not what Cincinatti wants for itself.

I mean, hell, Nashville has finally begun to include it's Black Music history. If Nashville sees the business sense of the at least token and definitely belated optics of inclusion, then it's a breed headed for extinction that dynamically rejects it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7.10.2016 at 8:14 PM, JSngry said:

dude, you're waaaaay too defensive or whatever. Most jazz fans in general do not even know abut Mosaic. Etc.

The only people who would have an interest in reissues past a "greatest hits" sort type thing are true collectors of musics, of which I assure you there are very, very few relative to the world's total population, much less the "music fan" community.

If it matters to you, though, every hardcore Country/Western Swing collector that I know (total of about 3 people, are VERY aware of Bear Family. Same thing with the jazz/blues hardcore collector, they know where the shit is, and they don't care as long as they can get it, ideally from ethical companies, but if not, oh well.

 

Dude, I was just being a bit tactful (in a way ...). And I was NOT referring to music fans or even more or less serious collectors (who am I to judge the collector community AT LARGE?) but what music SCRIBES (who ought to have known better if they had done their homework) failed to know. ONE case in point:  "Music Hound  SWING - The Essential Album Guide", edited by Steve Knopper, Visible Ink Press.

 

Edited by Big Beat Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a purely clueless question. In '45, Mezz Mezzrow "started" King Jazz Records. I was just reading Chris Albertson's excellent liners on the "King Jazz Records Story" box set on Storyville, and there's no mention of King Records, so I assume they were completely separate labels (I don't think Mezzrow ever visited Cincinnati in his life). It seems odd that Mezzrow could have gotten away with starting a label with the same--or nearly the same?--name as one already established, assuming the article is right, and King Records had been in business since '43?  Or have I missed something? It sure as hell wouldn't be the first time!

 

 

gregmo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gmonahan said:

I have a purely clueless question. In '45, Mezz Mezzrow "started" King Jazz Records. I was just reading Chris Albertson's excellent liners on the "King Jazz Records Story" box set on Storyville, and there's no mention of King Records, so I assume they were completely separate labels (I don't think Mezzrow ever visited Cincinnati in his life). It seems odd that Mezzrow could have gotten away with starting a label with the same--or nearly the same?--name as one already established, assuming the article is right, and King Records had been in business since '43?  Or have I missed something? It sure as hell wouldn't be the first time!

 

 

gregmo

Yes, King Jazz IS totally separate.

According to Randy McNutt's "King Jazz of Cincinnati" pictorial history (a volume in the "Images of America" paperback book series), Syd Nathan founded King in 1943.

I must admit I am too lazy to look details up now but in those years of the indie label boom there were quite a few labels with identical names but based in different cities that did operate in parallel (often in somewhat different areas of popular music too, which might have helped keeping them under the radar of anybody out for a lawsuit, or maybe the labels really didn't bother in many cases )

Edited by Big Beat Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎10‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 0:33 PM, Big Beat Steve said:

Yes, "Little Labels Big Sound" is a nice book, though I remember it (it's been a while since I read it cover to cover after having bought it) as lacking a bit in depth and leaving me a bit hungry for details. So I find the angle of that 2008 article linked above quite interesting and original because it puts things into a smoewhat new perspective.

As for King reissues, yes they have been reissued comprehensively from waaay back in the 90s (or even 80s) but the bulk of this happened on the U.K. ACE label (they bought the King vaults and archives lock stock and barrel) and I've repeatedly found U.S.: scribes (at least those outside the diehard fan circles) being blissfully ignorant of what happened in the reissue world outside the U.S. (unawareness of Bear Family reissues was another of those cases). Who knows ... maybe in the case of King it was a case "cannot be that THEY over there snapped up the deal and we missed out on it?" ;)

 

Steve, I'm still waiting for some info on Ace (U.K.) buying the King archives. A good friend of mine who is more knowledgeable than I has no knowledge of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...