Big Beat Steve

The only chumps around in my opinion are those who swallow the bait of believing that in their purported enlightedness they tower sky-high about the "rest" of the lowly beings who are willing to take things at face value. "Taking at face value" meaning in this case that one can very well enjoy the music of somebody who in his private life or in the way he wanted to appear to the world was certainly not beyond reproach. In which case being a nasty prick or being a weakling or being a mentally unhinged paranoid amounts to much the same. Because that's how life is in all its imperfections.

That comment reminds me of the time when I was marching in a counter-protest at the Dallas opening of The Last Temptation Of Christ. Some really....concerned citizen ran up into my face and screamed "I BET YOU'D BE MAD IF THEY MADE THIS MOVIE ABOUT MARTIN LUTHER KING INSTEAD OF JESUS!!!!!!!" In other words, are you serious? Depends on whether you would have been serious in your reply to the above that you WOULD INDEED have been mad. :D But if you REALLY, REALLY want to know ... yes and no. Yes - because if you'd care to compile ANY scale of excesses in the artificialites and phoniness of the pop music business both before and after Elvis, Elvis would rate an also-ran at best on that scale, and No - because I hardly expect anybody who gets soooo worked up about what IMHO essentially are moot points (that deep inside we all take for granted as part of a REALISTIC look at life) will be ready to put things really into perspective. Sorry, no harm meant, but this just had to be said .... possible (transatlantic?) cultural divides 'n all ...

Sorry to insist yet again but this thread was about the MUSIC of Elvis and I still feel you need to see his music (for better or worse) primarily within the context of the history of MUSIC. On the one hand you claim (earlier on in this thread) his societal importance has been acknowledged, on the other you insist that this is NOT about music. So it IS about societal aspects after all?? Or is it a bone you have to pick with Elvis on a PERSONAL or INDIVIDUAL level? Sorry but you still have failed to show conclusively in what way he was such an immensely bigger lie than ALL OTHERS in the pop music business up to and including his time of greatest successes who had achieved a similar status and measure of success. If you mean to show that real, huge, overwhelming success in this business corrupts people, then fine, point taken - so what. Might be said of a thousand others (before and after). Big deal ... Don't we all expect that anyway? In short, the accusations you level at Elvis as a PERSON and what a certain type of his fans want to see in him (or what he or his managers wanted to make them see in him) just don't hold water. Because that might just as well be said about a countless number of other major stars on THIS business, both before and after him. Oh my ... me (at best a moderately fascinated listener of the music of Elvis' early years) defending him to that degree ... what has become of this world and the alleged ills that some project into it??

That we are poor white rednecks with limited skill sets, that we don't have much hope in this world to become anything else, that we are tired of our lot (or not, as the case may be), and that whatever else, we will stand or fail, progress or devolve, engage the rest of the world or disengage from it, from a standpoint of stength, intelligence (native and learned), and integrity towards ourselves and others. Instead, we got the reality that all you gotta do is show up, look pretty, and do what the man says at all times. You'll be taken care of. The message, however, was that The Dream Can Come True. Bullshit. Elvis is a lie. Oh, so the dream world of 30s, 40s or early 50s pop music and all its schmaltzy falseness and artifical imagemaking contrived by shrewd and unscrupulous A&R men was oh so much better? Who are you trying to kid? If making a good living through music (i.e. through the music BUSINESS, of course) is ONE way out and ONE way of making the best of one's (maybe) limited skills, what's wrong with that? The past few decades have shown it has worked for quite a few out there (and reliance on managers, money men and A&R hounds has diminished as time went by), and - like it or not - Elvis was the one who got the ball rolling in the direction where the music and artists who were (adn are) less dependent on the "money men" have sprung up. Tin Pan Alley etc. would have been a dead end for even more aspiring artists and whatever THAT "music" industry produced in phoniness beats ANY "Lies" by Elvis about a zillion to one. One might argue that the way things are now in TODAY'S pop music and its artificiality and lies, the pendulum does swing back to the days of the utter phoniness of Tin Pan Alley etc., but this would mean that Elvis was oh so harmless in BOTH directions of the evolutions that have taken place in music business through the decades. You know what? How about getting worked up about Lady Gaga or whoever of that ilk next time? Just to put things into perspective ...

My arguments are not one bit older than yours. Cf. that thing about them only being part of a circus where only the money men knew what was to be gained. As if that is something all new. And wasn't THIS aspect much worse in the pre-Elvis days? Although I do have to admit I feel slightly baffled about the "The Devil" thing you dwell on. Talking about the music output by Sun, have you been on a Jerry Lee Lewis kick, I wonder? In the end all this is pointless anyway because neither you nor me won't rewrite history, for better or worse. But given the way pop music has evolved ever since 1954 any accusations about what Elvis may or may not have accomplished really are largely irrelevant because whatever his failings and failures were, they pale next to what a HUGE bunch of those who followed him in that music business have racked up since. Yet in the way he at least served as a catalyst to get the train of pop music rolling in a MUCH healthier direction (compared to what had happened pre-1954) he towers sky-high about the majority of those who were there before or after him. Musical dissecting in THIS overall context amounts to nitpicking.

So you mean being unable to sing, being unable to hold a note or carry a tune, knowing only the rudiments of playing an instrument AND not aspiring to make THAT much money but being real, real, real GLAD (given the time and circumstances) to be paid a FLAT session fee makes you an "authentic", "honest" and - a bit later on - "folksy" artist of major lasting importance that TRANSCENDS oh so much more? Ah c'mon. Pop music ain't never worked that way. And in the non-pop field those "arguments" wore thin pretty fast too (see above, except to eternal romanticists). And the decades-old claim that pop music was soooo much better BEFORE Elvis is a myth, too. Much more schlocky and lachrymose it was, yes, but what would THAT have "transcended"? What "honesty" (instead of lies) would that have transmitted?

And that Arthur Crudup did not receive what was due him (especially in his later days) certainly wasm't so much the fault of Elvis but most definitely the fault of Melrose, Hill & Range and probably RCA too. Go blame them in the first place.

The unfortunate truth is that all this needs to be seen - at least to a substantial degree - in the context of its times, like it or not. Otherwise a LOT of black artists who were proud and outspoken in their times would - by TODAY's standards - have to be regarded as irreductible Uncle Toms. The same goes for marketable musical entities such as Elvis. And if he sold a lie, he sold it to a society that would not have been prepared to hear and heed the truth and behave accordingly. Blame it on that society and ALL the individuals who made up that society. Otherwise Chuck Berry would be where Elvis is, Hank Ballard would have been where Chubby Checker was, etc. etc.

No need to. Like it or not - in the case of the impact of Elvis (or in fact of ANYbody who has risen to stardom in music) the societal framework that the artist in question made it to stardom cannot be separated entirely from the strictly musical aspects. And this of course governs the way these "star" artists are being seen and appreciated in hindsight by the majority of music listeners - with the obvious exception of diehard music collectors who explore the music from a given era in REAL depth and consciously disregard what back THEN among other things were the results of marketing ploys. But what use in preaching to the converted? Do you realize (or, in fact, dispute) that the entire debate circling around the question of whether or not other contemporaries of Elvis would have been more worthy of the praise heaped upon him could just as well be carried on (and on and on) on the subject of GLENN MILLER, to name just ONE "star" predecessor of Elvis? (And yes - IMHO it is of very, very little importance in the underlying debate that Glenn Miller actively shaped his musical image and concoctions himself whereas Elvis - like many of his musical successors - let a larger deal of the shaping be done by others) But what for, in the long run? To emphasise - again - that being in the right place at the right time and coming up with the right MIXTURE of all ingredients to satisfy the MASSES' tastes is paramount in POP music? And thereby, to highlight the mediocrity of the masses' tastes in the eyes of the musically enlightened? (Yes, this DOES amount to musical snobism but aren't we all guilty of that in one way or another?)

Agree on ALL counts. And I am NOT that big an Elvis fan and find most of his post-Army stuff extremely expendable (so hats off to Alexander's daughter for developing such good taste in starting with his 50s stuff - which hopefully will lead her to explore more - not necessarily Elvis - in the RIGHT (musical) direction ). Like Danasgoodstuff said - JSngrys ramblings sound like a LOT of sour grapes about not the right people being given credit for what there was to be given credit for in music of the mid-50s. Pointless, VERY pointless - UNLESS, JSngry, you are willing to face the issue how what the U.S society at large (i.e. the WASP society, primarily ) was like at that time. And then you can go on and blame a LOT of peopole (starting maybe with the musical and societal awareness of your own elders) for being neither willing nor able to give credit to muscial achievements by singers and musicians who may very well have been more worthy of receiving that credit but unfortunately did not have the right hue of their skins. Willing to tackle that issue? Bcause - like Allen Lowe said, part of the Elvis phenomenon just HAS to be seen in the context of the times. Speaking from a strictly musical point of view, there were a lot of artists who I for one would rate higher than Elvis too (like I said, I certainly am not one of the biggest Elvis fans of all times) but I am quite willing to concede he was in the right place at the right time and had that certain something that made him a MARKETABLE musical entity within the societal framework he grew up in and came along at. Even though "marketable" was a criterion of far less importance back then than it is today it was a factor not to be neglected in 1954 either. So being marketable or not is something that DID play a role. Or why would you think was it that Joe Turner just did not cut it with the teens in the mid-50s, much less so than Bill Haley (although we all prefer Joe Turner's versions of the songs we all know), and Bill Haley eventually was less marketable than Elvis and his ilk too? And all this goes not only for the skin color issue but also for the comparison of Elvis and his Louisiana Hayride appearances with the performances of LOTS of aspiring young country singers who'd have LOVED to go the same way but just were too awkward, too contrived, too much country-ish, in short, too much of a "hick from the sticks" to make things jell with a pop-oriented TEEN audience. Call it unjust - OK, but just face the realities that the importance of some artists goes a bit beyond strictly musical aspects in POP music (note: POP, not jazz, not even R&B or C&W). And if you're still not satisfied why it was so that things turned out this way even on musical grounds then why not grab your copy of Steve Propes' "What Was The First Rock'n'Roll Record" and read it all over again? IMHO this does NOT detract from the musical qualities of some of those who did not reach Elvis' star status (and whose music therefore remained unjustly underrated) but it does not rewrite history either (sour grapes or not).

Not wanting to pour too much water into the wine, but some time ago I sought out "Bird Call" myself, found an LP in a local secondhand record store but decided to give it a listen in the store first. Instrumental-wise quite interesting but - sorry to say - her singing not only left me unimpressed but decidely marred the record for me so I decided to pass it up at the not quite so cheap price tag for this record (later repress/reissue of the original with B/W cover). Tastes may vary and one man's meat is another one's poison, of course (which is a fact of life and GOT to be accepted), but that one just turned out not to be my cup of tea.

Thanks very much for the words of caution, Brownie! No unseen purchase through Amazon.fr, then. Will wait for may next trip to Strasbourg to have a look at it (hopefully) at the FNAC.

Yes, this is sad. RIP. Will try to get his "Portrait Jazz" book ASAP. His pictures are all over the place anyway, even if you do not own a book credited specifically to him alone you are likely to have come across them quite often. For example, the illustrations in my 8mid-80s) copy of the "Nouvelle Encyclopédie du Blues" by Gerard Herzhaft are by J.P. Leloir throughout. A bit skewed because this largely rules out really old "period" photographs (most of Leloir's pictures seem to be from the late 60s and 70s) but the pictures as such are fine.

I suppose you wouldn't go for the 77nd Sunset Strip soundtrack as recorded by Aaron Bell? Otherwise, Miles Davis' music for Louis Malle's "Ascenseur Pour L'Echafaud" would be hard to beat for atmospheric intensity, though maybe a bit too "modern" jazz-wise if you want to have a 40s atmosphere.

Reads like an entertaining story here (middle-class version upon a theme à la American Graffiti, in a way - my recollections of the entire movie are a bit hazy): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083833/ Though, among that really long list of goofs they missed the incongruity (pointed out in the Youtube comments) that hearing a blues recording released on Chess doesn't quite make sense when visibly a Capitol disc spins on the turntable ... (Thankfully when asking about the flip side of that Little Richard tune, Ellen Barkin is really holding a Specialty 45)

I dimly remember seeing that movie quite a while ago (hey, Ellen Barkin actually looked - and was - that much younger then ...) and having a good laugh about that scene. Because it strikes a chord with any record collector, though it would be sooo easy to avoid misplacing those beloved items. But of course that would not have made such a nice plot. In those rare cases where my better half pulls out any of my records even she knows the trick of leaving the adjacent record a few inches out so everything can go back where it (more or less) belongs. Or just leave the record and its cover on the table for me to file it later. No big deal ... Anyway ... like JSngry said, if you cannot keep track of where your records are with that measly little collection (o.k., it may have been substantial by late 50s standards) then you're done anyway.

Or, worse still ... what if that lady was real, real "big" ("big", what an euphemism to end all euphemisms...) and saw that on this forum historical music such as "Big FAT Mamas Are Back In Style Again" or "I Want A Big FAT Mama (with the meat shaking on her bones)" were discussed here in all earnest and with nary a trace of salivating? Horror of horrors! Outcry of rage about violating the p.c. use of words!

Worse than Slim Whitman bursting the heads of the aliens in "Mars Attacks", then? (No, I did NOT dare to listen to the clip )

I've been intrigued by Otis Ferguson ever since reading a piece by him in Ralph J. Gleason's "Jam Session" anthology. Really a tragedy he did not survive WWII. In case anybody knows - what's the approximate percentage of jazz writings in the "Otis Ferguson Reader" book?

Not that rare. Those swing era big band reissue LPs from the 70s such as Sounds of Swing, Bandstand, Golden Era, etc. have been relatively common fare in the secondhand bins for quite some time even over here so i figure this must be the case even more so in the U.S.

Take a guess. Trane has always had a superhuman stature in jazz circles (and certainly so in the early years after his untimely death) whereas Elmo Hope would more fall into the "in-crowd awareness" category. Trying to pitch a sale ... unless my impressions were all skewed this kind of "mis-billing" wasn't exactly uncommon in 70s reissues, even in jazz.

Oh come on ... really now. You know others might think it terribly lame to wield camera equipment around, hopping to and fro in front of the stage and flashing away like mad. (Not me, I've done my fair share of image taking too, but there are moments when I understand each and everyone who thinks this is lame because every now and then there are events where the bunch of "self-appointed pro" photographers who get into the (seated) audience's way just is too numerous). To each his own, then, O.K.?

Thought you'd ask. Have started off with CD2 (Bob Dunn's Vagabonds are comparatively uncharted reissue territory). The tracks sound very clean to me but not unnaturally so as they have a warmth that makes me feel that they indeed did not overdo it with the cleaning up. As I write this, "Stomping At The Honky Tonk" is playing, and it DOES have some very slight background hiss (makes for authenticity, and unobtrusive to me anyway). Might make an aural comparison with the fidelity of the same track on the STR805 LP later on.

Received my shipping today. The Bob Dunn set is presented in a very appealing way indeed. The booklet alone is worth part of the price of admission. While I still regret the duplications of a good deal of the tracks (M. Brown etc.), as a Bob Dunn showcase it all does make sense so no regrets about the purchase itself (neither about that of the other CDs from that series). And order processing and shipping directly from OJL worked a treat, so order with confidence, you overseas buyers!

When the occasion presented itself (or may even have been encouraged by the promoters), I did ask for autographs after the end of concerts that I attended. Usually I brought along LP covers to be signed by the artists, and this made for some nice interchages because some of these long out-of-print LPs brought back memories (or even some measure of bewilderment) to the artists. Not the worst way to start a brief dialogue with your heroes. So this yielded me autographs by Lionel Hampton, Slim Gaillard, Big Jay McNeely, Hal Singer, Sam Butera, Doctor Ross, Benny Waters (who insisted on signing as best as he could despite having gone blind), Claude Trenier, Bo Diddley, and a few more. Like Brownie, occasionally I was able to pick up autographed LPs myself; to me the masterpiece among those is a Verve LP signed by Tal Farlow. I still regret never having made it to any concert by Charlie Mariano (who lived in the area for a long time). I'd have loved to get those 50s LPs signed by him.