danasgoodstuff

Now which one of our resident crumudgeons was it who said "Booker only has two solos, one fast and one slow"? There's some truth to that, but I don't care 'cause the're really good solos and, more importantly, the're his. (Kinda the way I feel about Muddy Waters, who really did only have one solo, but it was really great & his.) The rhythm section, with or without subs, consistently outplays him but that's OK w/me too.

Does this impact when the Cellar Door material will be out?

Brownie: Perhaps you thought/wrote "silver Salvation" under the influence of Williams Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech? (I think it was recorded in a recreation by Bryon years later.)

Thanks

The Armstrong/Oliver recordings were done 'acoustically', i.e. without electricity, like a gramaphone in reverse. Then the masters were lost, so you're getting someone's beat up 78....So, yes, they all sound a lot worse than the Hot 5's & 7's. etc. But it's a miricle they survive at all (some in single known copies). Can't speak to which digitalizations are better or worse, but there's only so much you can do with the source material being what it is.

I can see/hear it now: nice tight Jackie O/Kennedy skirt, hair piled up on top, bored studio musicians swingin' lightly & politely, "I don't mind, another girl dancin' with my guy..."

Albert Ayler - various Lefty frizzell - complete (on Bear FAmily) Ray Charles - various Rolling Stones No. 2 - mono CD Beatles - antho 1 & BBC on tape Whadaya mean, I'm stuck in the past?! (Oops, whoulda put this in the other 'what are you listening to' thread, but SOME of it is on vinyl, some other I own both ways)

I've only heard parts of it, but in terms of style and quality this is kinda all over the map. At least they lead with Stanley T., one of the stronger tracks. And they miss 'real Blue Note' stuff like Lonnie Smith's "Elanore Rigby"... I guess it depends how much you like Beatles covers; not for Lon A. in any case.

I first heard this at my late uncle's place near Corvalis, OR years ago when it was fairly new. I think it was my ex-wife who dubbed it "rain music"; I'm not much for mood/programatic music generally, but this works for me, in part no doubt because of the personal associations. Don't have anything else much like it, don't play all the time, but I do like it.

GregK - um, yer right of course. Bev - The 'oo do, of course, have their 'power trio + singer' side, but they also have a side much closer to mid-period Kinks or Ogdens-periods Small Faces. And both they and the VU insisted on singing harmony (albiet ragged) at a time when many white rock bands were dispensing with it entirely, or more nearly so. VU could be loud/raw and rather monochromatic, but not always, and even then they were hardly typical hard rockers, at one point you could be fined for playing any blues-based cliches in that band. Not to say YOU WULL LIKE THEM, just something to consider... Clem - OK, Gene Clark, I'll have to check him out further, preferably w/out spending any $! And what did Dave Marsh do to anger you? He is, among other things, a huge fan of Stax in general and Sam & Dave in particular...

BFrank, You're aware, no doubt, that's there's lots more where that came from re the first two QMS albums? No such thing as too much Bo Diddley? Dana

Bev, In principle, I couldn't agree more that the hard/wild/raw/etc = good/'bad' equation is in need of questioning, if not outright fallacious. Some critics think so too, e.g. Dave Marsh, at least insofar as it applies to his liking for doo wop and girl groups. In practise, I find the Byrds to be 3 (pre-, Gram, post-) kinda interesting bands that don't quite add up. I've never owned a non-hits album, except Sweetheart, and don't have any great desire to - trolling through the library's copy of the box pretty much satisfied my curiousity. Love the hit singles (Marsh hates "So You Want to be a R 'n R Star" but that's his hangup), Dylan covers, and Miles' cover of "guinivere" but overall "precious" pretty much sums up my feelings (which is what it comes down to) about all eras. Townsend on the other hand was more deeply funcked up (don't we know now, and how could anyone have missed it?) in a way that translated into compelling music, not necessarily most so when at it's hardest (I love Sell Out, particularly "Tattoo"). That and they were more of a band (the original 4) whereas the Byrds (& CSNY & so many others) strike me as a bunch of wouldbe solo artists temporarily alligned in a marriage of convenience. Nonetheless, IN PRINCIPLE, you're right...

Clem, Perhaps I read too much into "skip Motown", etc., perhaps not. Other readers can judge for themselves. I have no personal thing for Motown. I just think that to understand R&B of any era you need to see the big picture and that Motown is an important part of that picture. i'm sure others are as tired of this exchange as I am by now... Hopefully, given the opportunity, we could find some music to enjoy together. dana

Clem, Thanks for saving me some work: your posts above pretty neatly illustrate just what I find so obnoxious and wrongheaded about reductionist purism as (mis)applied to R&B... couldn't have put it better myself. Hope you don't get so hip that no one can talk to you. Dana

I was (over)reacting to Clem's post, which I still find quite objectionable for, oh, so many reasons...but to try to stay on topic and not troll, I do think that understanding Motown throws as much light backwards as forwards, or sideways. (See T.S Eliiot's "Tradition & the Individual Talent" re how this chronilogically paradoxical phenomina can be possible) As for writing dealing with the earlier period of R&B, I would suggest looking not so much to stand alone books (although the rec's above are all good, just not great), but to the liner notes for various box sets, e.g. anthologies for labels like Specialty, Alladin, King, Swingtime, etc. and stylistic collections like Rhino's Doo Wop I & II. The late '40s & v. early '50s are an interesting, and somewhat forgotten, period - not just in music but otherwise too, but y'all probably don't need to hear my rant on the demise of the American independant auto makers (Hudson, Packard, Kaiser, etc.). Love, Dana

Good selection of tunes, but you could probably get the same effect as Rush playing 'em if you just took the originals on LP and played 'em back at 45rpm (cheap shot, but someone had to say it!).

Gato Barbereri & Dollar Brand - Confluence "I do not scream," says Gato "for the same reasons Pharoah Sanders screams." Scream on, cat.

jazz has been the (non-exclusive) focal point of my listening since the early '70s (when I went to college). Before that it was mostly rock 'n blues.

No one who actually wants to understand R&B should ignore Motown; it simply don't make any sense without the monetary, social and musical ambition that fueled Motown. Motown and Stax were like ying and yang...

I too have (re)learned that I don't know as much as I thought I did, nor am I nearly as good at expressing what I do know as well as I ;thought I could. Most of all, I have (re)learned that partisanship in all its myriad forms is just poison...

Lewis is on the Edmond Hall Celestial Quartet stuff (4 tunes + 1 alt, I believe) on BN, playing Celeste (he had a foundness for pre-piano keyboards). Not t0o mention, it's Charlie Christian's only acoustic guitar wession. All the MLL I've heard is good, but he did have a habit of rerecording set pieces like Honky Tonk Train... Besides more Lewis and Ammons, you might want to check out Pete Johnson, on BN and elsewhere.

Here's two off the top of my head: The Death of Rhythm & Blues Sweet Soul Music

Yes, but how were the records?

I, too, am deeply sadened by this loss. I was at the concert here in Portland that produced the album The Rent. Fine as that is, I don't think it, or any other I've heard, fully captured his sound.

Perhaps Pee Wee was a hermaphrodite, which would make Lester's "half a motherfucker" comment exceptionally perceptive, even for him!