John L

One thought on Oscar Peterson's broad appeal: It is interesting that I have two friends who do not really like jazz, but love Oscar Peterson. One of them must have 10-15 Oscar Peterson records - no Armstrong, Miles, Monk, etc. This person also assures me with total confidence that Oscar Peterson, along with Art Tatum, is the best that jazz has to offer. Both of these people are big 18th and 19th century classical music fans. I think that this may not be a coincidence. Oscar Peterson presents jazz to classical music fans who don't really know jazz in a musical manner that many of them can appreciate: the sheer bravura, virtuosity, and flawless execution can carry the day. They don't want to hear their blues any other way. For some (but unfortunately not for my two friends), Oscar Peterson might, in this fashion, provide a gateway into a more general appreciation of jazz.

If "lost" means "out of print," then 70% would even be an underestimation. Otherwise, it is difficult to understand. If we include all live concerts, then more than 70% of all jazz has also been lost. It is true that there is probably a lot of great unheard stuff in the Peacock and Savoy vaults that is gathering dust. But 70%? When Fantasy bought out the Speciality label and essentially cleaned out the vaults, the net addition of new music was maybe 15-25 percent.

Well, Oscar Peterson was certainly a dominant figure from the point of view of virtuosity in jazz piano. But I would conjecture that there is little question as to who the real dominant figure (dead or alive) was in jazz piano in the second half of the 20th century: BUD POWELL

I think the bottom line is that most Bud Powell is very good. If he hadn't made those incredibly brilliant recordings around 1950, we would be able to listen to almost his whole discography with great enjoyment, and without having to think "decline?, decline!, decline?..." Later Bud Powell is highly enjoyable if taken for what it is, and not as being in some life or death competition with what came earlier.

I couldn't disagree with you more. There is nothing at all obvious about Brother Ali's delivery and flow. His voice is unique, and immediately recognizable whenever it appears. Part of the attraction are the very bluesy rhythmic accents that he uses. I also think that the production on this record is superb, perhaps the crowning achievement to date of the highly talented producer Ant. It is this kind of dynamic Hip Hop that gives me hope about the future of American music. It embodies the past while being unmistakably of now and the future. Those Bomb Squad mixes for Public Enemy are classic, of course. But the grooves are quite different. I would write that no "band of suburban teenagers" could ever create a groove like that. But who knows? I would have never believed that a white boy could rap like that.

(Or is this too white for the supremely hip cognoscenti?) I've seen him live and he's good. Dude is actually albino. Brother Ali is a white albino (as in whiter than white). Using only your eyes, it would look like modern day minstrelsy. Using your ears, however, it is something else entirely: highly original and drenched with uncommon deep blues feeling for 21st century Hip Hop. I couldn't believe it when I found out that Brother Ali is white.

RIP

(Or is this too white for the supremely hip cognoscenti?)

I wonder if Hitler and Stalin danced. Or if Hitler ever danced with Stalin... I hear that they did the Polka together in the middle of Poland.

That's just the point, Clem. The Dap-Kings are not trying to be anything else. They are just trying to make the best booty-shaking funk that they can in the grand tradition, and they are doing a good job at at. What is wrong with that? They can go into anybody's town and do the people to death. Why does there have to be some additional metaphysical baggage with it all? Some bands still play good New Orleans jazz in New Orleans. Thank God for that. Why is it a bad thing that a band in the 21st century is playing what is still the favorite dance music of many of us? I wish that the Sharon and the Dap-Kings were playing New Year's Eve in my town. I would be there for sure.

Incredulous skeptical enthusiasm is more like it, because there should be no way that this stuff feels like it does. You can call it wishful thinking on my part, or projection, or a peculiarly personal congenital blind spot, whatever, but I've heard 80 bajillion people "try" and do something like this, and the Bogus-O-Meter blows a gasket at, at most, 3 songs (or a ballad, whichever comes first). And yet.. And yet. I certainly don't have any problem with bands like this. The kind of retro-funk that they play is great dance music. It was then and it still is now. As you say, the difference between the Dap-Kings and most other bands that play retro funk is that the Dap-Kings are DAMN good at it. Sure, in the Winter of 2007, you can hear good funk coming from some DJs, rappers, drum machines, and computers. Some of that is fine dance music as well. But there is still something special about an all human aggregation like this that all the new technology in the world has yet to replace. This is still my preferred kind of booty-shaking music. It is fantastic that somebody is still playing it with this kind of dedication.

Little Walter was incredible, maybe the greatest blues harpist of them all. But I don't still know about that conjecture, Allen. If it is pure Swing that we are talking about, you have to also consider Sonny Boy "Rice Miller" Williamson. Now he could REALLY swing his ass off. Just he and his harmonica were as much Swing as you could ever ask for.

I also agree. Early Mozart is a pretty incredible accomplishment for a 10-year old composer. Still, life is much too short for listening to that shit. Go for the great mature works and forget about the rest.

I agree entirely about the last two Bettye Lavette albums. I just don't get it. "A Woman Like Me" was something close to a modern day soul masterpiece, and got no attention at all. Then they drive Bettye down to Fat Possum, take her out of her musical element, feed her a whole lot of fake "nobody's lived as tough a street life as me" lyrics, and presto! Commercial success. Bring back the old Bettye, PLEASE.

These are their Sue hits, John. 1960 A fool in love - Sue 730 - R&B #2, Pop 27 1960 I idolise you - Sue 835 - R&B #5, pop 82 1961 It's gonna work out fine - Sue 749 - R&B #2, Pop 14 1961 Poor fool - Sue 753 - R&B #4, Pop 38 1962 Tra la la la la - Sue 757 - R&B #9, Pop 50 Over a 15 year period, only one of their 25 R&B chart singles didn't make the pop charts (but only 3 others made the top 40). MG Wow! Live and learn. I would have never thought that Ike and Turner Turner reached 14 pop in 1961! Of course, It's Gonna Work Out Fine is one of their tamer numbers. Poor Fool and A Fool in Love are harder. At any rate, I take back my comments to the effect that Ike and Tina Turner were not shooting for the pop charts during that time. Most probably, that is exactly what they were doing. Sorry for the misleading comments, and thanks for the re-education.

Here's a chronological list of Buddy's hits on the Cash Box chart, including catalogue numbers. The Crickets were the name on those issued on Brunswick, Buddy Holly was the name on the Coral issues. The difference was clearly NOT chronological. AUGUST 3, 1957 That'll Be The Day Brunswick 55009 #3 (20 weeks) OCTOBER 26, 1957 Peggy Sue Coral 61885 #2 (20 weeks) NOVEMBER 16, 1957 Oh Boy! Brunswick 55035 #13 (14 weeks) NOVEMBER 30, 1957 Everyday Coral 61885 #51 (3 weeks) FEBRUARY 22, 1958 Maybe Baby Brunswick 55053 #11 (11 weeks) MARCH 15, 1958 I'm Gonna Love You Too Coral 61947 #56 (1 week) MAY 17, 1958 Rave On Coral 61985 #54 (2 weeks) JULY 5, 1958 Think It Over Brunswick 55072 #42 (10 weeks) JULY 5, 1958 Fool's Paradise Brunswick 55072 #73 (1 week) JULY 26, 1958 Early In The Morning Coral 62006 #25 (10 weeks) FEBRUARY 21, 1959 It Doesn't Matter Anymore Coral 62074 #30 (14 weeks) FEBRUARY 21, 1959 Raining In My Heart Coral 62074 #88 (2 weeks) MAY 3, 1969 Love Is Strange Coral 62558 #94 (3 weeks) here's the link http://www.buddyhollyonline.com/charts.html You could well be right. Though probably not at the instigation of the company. After all, Ike & Tina recorded for Sue in this period and the company WAS aiming its other product at the white market. Ditto for King, for whom Brown and John recorded. My guess is whoever was managing these artists at the time was taking the decisions, perhaps in concert with the record company. So it's kind of amazing that Ike & Tina should have managed 3 top 40 hits in '60 and '61, plus another on the Hot 100 in that period, without intending to. MG Thanks for that clarification on "Buddy Holly" and "the Crickets." Did Ike and Tina Turner really break top 40 pop in the US in 60 and 61? I had thought that the Sue singles were only R&B hits.

That is indeed a good question. I imagine that part of the answer has to do with the age cohort of early Beatles fans. They were largely teenagers who missed the Rock and Roll of the early 50s and subsequently had it suppressed away from them, coming up on Fabian et al. As I recall, the initial reaction of older generations in the US, including many in the Rock and Roll generation, to the Beatles was largely negative.

MG: Precious few records by white artists were aimed at the black market at the time of the Crickets. It seems to me that the focus was on the large and lucrative white market. The emergence of Rock and Roll opened up the white market for a lot of black R&B artists as well. I always thought that the difference between the "Crickets" and "Buddy Holly" releases was chronological. The first album and its singles came out under the name of the "Crickets." But once Buddy Holly became a star sensation. they became "Buddy Holly and the Crickets." As felser writes above, the fact that this music was intended for the white pop market meant that it had to become increasingly tame as the 50s winded down. Within R&B, I would like to argue again that the primary disctinction here was not regional, but whether or not the artist (company) was chasing the white or black market. Artists like Bobby Bland and Ike and Tina Turner, like James Brown, were not attempting to cross over at the time, and made records that were not intended for the white pop market.

Sounds familiar. I brought my kids up on mostly jazz, blues, gospel, and classic R&B. They are now 24 and 18, and have no use for any of that music at all. Most disturbing of all, they are convinced that this music has lost its relevance in today's world, and only has value for old farts like me. That idea scares the shit out of me.

The other day, I was trying to persuade a female jazz fan to come here. She replied, "Oh, yea, Organissimo: the mens' jazz club. No thanks."

That's an interesting point - I hadn't made the connection before, perhaps because the payola scandal didn't resonate greatly over here - as a point demanding action. But R&R still virtually disappeared from the BBC in 1959 anyway; and from the British pop charts. Perhaps this was a reflection of what was going on in America. But plenty of R&B was getting onto the US pop charts in 1959; The Drifters had three hits that year; Ray Charles had three; Hank Ballard had three; Lloyd Price had five; Brook Benton had six; Wilbert Harrison's "Kansas City" was annother big hit; Jackie Wilson had four; and so on. From my perspective, what I was hearing over here, or NOT hearing rather, was a local phenomenon, because the US pop charts (the US R&B charts weren't published over here in those days) were still showing lots of R&B (and R&R artists like Fats Domino, Bo Diddley, Clyde McPhatter & the Coasters, too) and everything appeared to be normal there. I thought at the time that it was the wicked evil BBC that was causing me not to hear any music I liked. So, if it wasn't being played on the radio, how did all this stuff get on the pop charts? In other words, what was happening in America, to bridge the gap between no radio plays and the pop charts, that wasn't happening in Britain? MG Some good points indeed, though a look under the covers at the charts that year may temper it a bit. No denying the Coasters success, a tribute to both the quality of their records and the ability of Atlantic Records to weather the payola storm. Domino was considered a "safe" artist at that time - parents liked him. Charles had massive success with "What I Say" that year, but nothing else on the pop top 40 charts except one C&W song for a week. Diddley snuck "Say Man" onto the charts, but nothing else, and Chuck Berry didn't get above #32 on the charts that year. McPhatter had the carryover of "a Lover's Question" from '58, but not much else. Brook Benton was considered a "proper" pop singer by many, though he charted R&B. Ballard didn't make the top 40 until '60. Jackie Wilson was largely a pop singer with very "white" arrangements in those days, as was Lloyd Price post-Stagger Lee. The Drifters, following the classic "there Goes My Baby", were very proper and sophisticated with "Dance With Me", "This Magic Moment", and "Save The Last Dance For Me", etc. Glorious stuff, but not to be mistaken for the music of rebellious youth. "Kansas City" was undeniable, and ended up being covered by every Frank Sinatra wannabe in that era. The teen idol era began in '58, and was massive on the charts. Frankie Avalon, Paul Anka, Fabian, Bobby Rydell, etc. Dreadful stuff. Sam Cooke sang heavily arranged pop in that era, though he sang it beautifully. It's not a case where that (or any other) era was without some noteworthy artists and performances, but the pendulum was definitely shifted toward bland pop stuff compared to what came just before it in '56-'57 and what came just after it starting around '61 (Phil Spector, Girl Groups, Motown, Surf, soul on Sceptor/Wand label etc. ). And a lot of Black singers had their careers impacted by it. Yes. Very good post. There was certainly a deliberate and strong attempt to put the lid on "wild" R&B influences in American pop music in the late 50s and early 60s, and American pop music suffered greatly from it. It was still possible, like James Brown, to make the hard stuff. But that would confine you to the chitlin' circuit. Since the mid-1950s, many R&B artists were intent on chasing the real dough in crossover pop. To realize that strategy in the late 50s and early 60s, however, you had to dumb it down a lot. A few exceptions got through, most notably "What I Say." But those were indeed exceptional cases.

I agree completely. Another incredible Marvin Gaye collection that is often overlooked is "Romantically Yours." Some of the tracks were subsequently issued with Gaye's additional overdubs that, for the most part, made them even more powerful (on the 4-disc Box Set, and then "Vulnerable."). But many of the other songs on Romantically Yours are no less incredible: "Just Like," "Walking in the Rain," "Happy Go Lucky," "I Live For You," ... Classic and timeless!

Not all that thrilled w/the former, but very much so w/the latter, if only to be able to trace-in-reverse the evolution of "To Keep You Satisfied". Were those cuts in that 4-disc box? No. That set passed over "Here, My Dear" completely.

A comprehensive reissue of Little Willie John' recordings is long overdue. That would be a great project for Rhino or some other such label.

Ike has never really gotten his due. That is not doubt related to all the negative publicity surrounding his relationship with Tina and the motion picutre. His contributions to American music are formidable. He was a primary mover in the development of R&B and Rock and Roll. His guitar playing was highly innovative. I have a feeling that Jimi Hendrix, for example, would have sounded very different without the trail that Ike blazed.