Rare 'Retha

[Alexander]

She's considered to be one of the greatest female voices of the 60s and 70s

so's Barbara Streisand, & Lulu. nice to see the fake apostate getting on board with all the other sheep. not to say john l-- a soulful poster to be sure-- can't have different aesthetic values but hint, hint: some of us listen to music history as it existed, in all its sprawling, sometimes fugituve genius & beauty, not just what fucking Atlantic (who surely did have lotsa quality records in one way or another (leasing)) or goddamn Motown (yawn, mostly) got to the top.

as many here know, i've often declared Michael Nesmith > Gram Parsons: now tell me who sold more records? yr arms too short to box w/a Titan, Alfie, so save us all the apoplexy next time, or at least do some basic crate digging first. or, better yet: tell us who's greater, Anita Carter or Emmylou Harris? (Anita... who?) l@@k it up, chump.

Don't need to, fuckhead. Anita is quite well represented in my collection. "Anita...who?" Yeah, quite likely that a musical moron like myself wouldn't know a member of the FUCKING CARTER FAMILY. Certainly not as famous as sister June, but to my ears by far the best singer in the family. While "Folksongs Old and New" is probably her all around best album, I've always been partial to "So Much Love."

As to who's greater, Anita or Emmylou...I think both women had (have, in Emmylou's case) absolutely heavenly voices. Why choose between them? Ah, but of course...Emmylou is famous and beloved by all, so we know she CAN'T possibly be as good as Anita.

It might surprise you to know that I actually make my choices based on my ears and not on some critic's opinon (I rarely, if ever, read reviews). You say that Michael Nesmith is greater than Gram Parsons...and you may actually be right. But who cares? I love Gram's (very few) albums, just as I love Nesmith's "Magnetic South," "Witchita Train Whistle Sings," "And the Hits Keep on Comin'," "Loose Salute," etc. You seem to make your choices as a kneejerk reaction to consensus: If other people think it's great, it must suck. If no one's ever heard of it, it must be great. To me, it's obvious that your preference for Nesmith (who most people would decry on the basis that he was a Monkee) over Parsons is simply because Parsons was postumously lionized by the rock press.

Sure soul music has tons of obscure figures who made great records. James Carr is one of my all time favorite male vocalists and he recorded on tiny, virtually unknown Goldwax. Strange as I'm sure it sounds, I was once as snobby obscurist myself. I disdained Aretha on the basis that she was popular and well-known. "Natural Woman"? It's a song about depending on a man for happiness. "Respect"? It was a great song...the first ten thousand times I heard it.

But then I woke up, Clem. I came to understand that greatness exists in the obvious places, as well as the unlit corners of the music world. I came to love Elvis just as much as I loved Charlie Feathers. I never got into Babs or Lulu, but you know what? I wouldn't rule them out. I wouldn't rule anything out. I'll leave that to you.

[Dan Gould]

oh man, it's funny you mention Jimmy-- lemme get back to that Dan but get hold of ACE 720, Jimmy McCracklin & His Blues Blasters if you don't already... why "funny"? bc those sides is, very,

I have the latest two Ace compilations, Volumes 1 and 2 of Jimmy and His Blues Blasters, so I assume I've got that one covered ... also found Blast 'Em Dead, an earlier, vinyl only Ace comp of Peacock sides - "She Felt Too Good" has some pretty funny lyrics.

[Alexander]

so when neo-soul & even still extant old soul is such a tough row to hoe... ya'll are probably right to git the most from that what you can, tho' yes, chillun', the Beatles, Paul Simon & Band covers still suck.

I'm gonna stand up and say it: They may not be the best things she recorded, but they do NOT suck. I'm not backing down from this. I am so fucking tired of your patrician manner. You do not know what's best, you fraud.

[John L]

now, there are-- or should be-- arguments that "soul"-- even southern soul-- is one of the most dead-end genres of all & that shit was used up. if Aretha was the voice that used a significant % of it herself, that's not something to be argued. a close look at that William Bell video I posted demands other questions as well.

Where did you post a William Bell video?

I love his new album:

That's from the musical dead end where I want to buy my house and live out the rest of my life.

[danasgoodstuff]

My what a shit storm this stirred up, but at least y'all care enough to get worked up about it. Alexander, you know I think you shouldn't let Clem get to you so much but I think that's the best job you've done of saying just what your aesthetic differences are. I love the first three Ree did after coming to Atlantic, but they are a dead end if only 'cause Tommy Cogbill and Roger Hawkins do that particular shit as good as it can be. She was right to move on, but I'm sure glad she went there first. As far as her doing the Beatles, Paul Simon and the Band...well, to me she was just doing in her time what Dinah Washington did in hers to Hank Snow, among others. and you know 'Retha loved her some Dinah Washington. The only good example I can think of someone doing Ree before Ree did it right is Fontella Bass' "Rescue Me" - great record, great band, so what. Parting shot: to me the fact that Ms. Franklin was more 'pop' than some others who had equally good church trained voices is mostly a good thing 'cause to it is all about singing, and songs. Carry on...

[JSngry]

so when neo-soul & even still extant old soul is such a tough row to hoe... ya'll are probably right to git the most from that what you can, tho' yes, chillun', the Beatles, Paul Simon & Band covers still suck.

I'm gonna stand up and say it: They may not be the best things she recorded, but they do NOT suck.

Relative to life at large, no, they don't.

Relative to life as Areatha, yeah, I think they kinda do. "The Weight" just a little less than the other. But throw "I Say A Little Prayer" in there and we're back even.

HArdly a new observation on my part, but you could say that Aretha = Ray Charles in terms of musiacl/social evolutionary and musical stylistic force and not be too far off the mark, I think. And that means that there's some impossible highs as well as some depressing lows.

Now here's a question - where would Tina Turner have been by 1967-8 or so if "The Industry" hadn't fucked Spector on "River Deep...."? And what kind of Pop field would those first Atlantic Aretha sides be playing on? The mind reels at Ike & Tina actually becoming mega-stars under Spector's guidance, just as it does about Aretha stepping up/into the American PopTop Dick40Clark arena with a Primal Soul Woman Tina already beaming down from on high. I don't think America could have handled it.

But that's not how it happened, so hey.

[Harold_Z]

My 2 cents -

Aretha is a singer I really loved at one point, but (and I wish it were otherwise) I've gotten bored with her over the years. Really bored. To my ears her "bag of licks" just got smaller and smaller and she became predictable. For me the Columbias and first few Atlantic lps were my favorites. Probably I lose interest somewhere after Live At the Fillmore. As Soul morphed in many respects into Disco or Dance Music Aretha went with it. I saw her live sometime around 1978. the rhythm section with her was ininspired and she was uninspired. I was really disappointed. It wasn't at all what I expected and nowhere's NEAR the fillmore lp in terms of feeling AND a smokin' band.

For a long time I hoped that sometime in the 80s or 90s she would reunite with a good rhythm section (Rainey, Purdie, etc) and get some good tunes, let the musicians blow, and cut a great album, but there was never anything but the most commercial of efforts from her. Couldn't someone of her stature done ONE album not catering to the most commercial interest?

Regarding the Rare 'Retha - it piques my interest. There IS a lot with the rhythm section I dug most with her, but that begs another question - are the alternates just Aretha over the same track that was released or are they alternate rhythm tracks as well?

[mikeweil]

While we're at it: What would be the best way, sound-wise, to get Ree's early Atlantic stuff - the single CD reissues or the 4-CD box? Thanks a lot for recommendations!

Edited October 27, 2007 by mikeweil

[John L]

Mike: The box is well done, sounds good to my ears, and contains the majority of Aretha's best Atlantic material except most of Soul '69, Amazing Grace, and Live at the Filmore. So one approach would be to get the box, Soul '69, the recent 2-disc Live at the Filmore, Amazing Grace, and (probably) the new 2-disc set being discussed here. That would give a rather comprehensive collection of Aretha's Atlantic prime. Picking up all of the individual albums would also be a fine alternative. Some of the discs do have more recent, and probably superior, remasterings to the box. "Never Loved a Man" and "Lady Soul" came out in deluxe editions a while back.

Harold Z: I agree that Aretha got less consistent after Live at the Filmore. But she still did drop a few masterpieces for the ages, for example "Angel." I find Aretha's vocals on the final verse of that song (which is a sort a sort of bridge): "I know there must be someone, somewhere for me..." to be one of the most transcendent passages on record. It sounds like her voice is coming from somewhere high in soul heaven. As many times as I've heard that verse, it still puts tears in my eyes every time. That is as good an example as anything of pure Aretha magic. I would probably give up my entire collections of a number of fine soul artists before I would part with that single passage.

As far as your question is concerned, the new release contains some of both. Yet the number of genuine full outtakes well outnumber the alternative vocal tracks or alternative mixes. There are also demos and tracks that have never been released before, period. This is all pre-disco stuff. It may be just what you need to revitalize your affair with Aretha.

Edited October 27, 2007 by John L

[Tom Storer]

I'm not an Aretha completist, but if I didn't have at least a greatest hits compilation on the desert island, I would attempt to swim back for it. I don't see any point in making philosophico-moral fine judgments on her career. As far as I'm concerned she was supremely great on many, many songs, and if, as a popular music star, she also recorded some lame covers and ended up past her peak at a relatively young age, well, that's not unusual, given the territory. It seems ungenerous to stick up one's nose at her failures when her successes were such wonderful triumphs. I mean hell, edc, what have you done for humanity that compares to even a minor Aretha hit?

[Alexander]

I'm not an Aretha completist, but if I didn't have at least a greatest hits compilation on the desert island, I would attempt to swim back for it. I don't see any point in making philosophico-moral fine judgments on her career. As far as I'm concerned she was supremely great on many, many songs, and if, as a popular music star, she also recorded some lame covers and ended up past her peak at a relatively young age, well, that's not unusual, given the territory. It seems ungenerous to stick up one's nose at her failures when her successes were such wonderful triumphs. I mean hell, edc, what have you done for humanity that compares to even a minor Aretha hit?

Exactly! I don't think I have a single Aretha recording past...what? 1974? But so what? What she did while she was on her game is fantastic. So she fell off. Stevie Wonder fell off too, y'know. "I Just Called To Say I Love You" does not negate "Talking Book" or "Innvervisions," who why complain about it?

[Dan Gould]

Not to derail this but don't forget to get back to me re McCracklin, Clem. I am curious as to your view of the breadth of his career and his soul period specifically.

[Alexander]

Not to derail this but don't forget to get back to me re McCracklin, Clem. I am curious as to your view of the breadth of his career and his soul period specifically.

I'm curious as to why you care what the phoney-baloney asshole thinks about anything.

[danasgoodstuff]

Clem's talked a lot of shit, but I don't think he's ever tried to tell other members who they could talk to...

[alocispepraluger102]

has columbia ever rereleased 'yeah'?

one of my fav vinyls.

[John L]

Clem: It is not completely clear to me what you are looking for here.

As you write, taste is taste. You and MG don't seem to like Aretha as much as most of the rest of us, and that's fine.

There seems to be a virtual consensus here that Aretha has made recordings during her career that are far from stellar. We might disagree about exactly which recordings belong in this category, but that is a side point.

Aretha has certainly had her share of personal problems during her life, some of which probably interfered with her artistry at what time or another. OK, she is human, maybe even emotionally "fragile," as you put it. You probably also know the rumors about her childhood that don't bear repeating here. So what?

As I see it, this leaves us with one fundamental disagreement that we might try to discuss in one way or another. You and MG do not seem to acknowledge what the rest of us do, namely that Aretha made a large number of absolutely brilliant records that place her in the handful of greatest soul singers.

Discussing that disagreement from the objective point of view is not easy. Aretha's music is so much a part of me that I can't help but feel emotional about it. So what should we discuss? Maybe her historical importance in American music and influence on her peers?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I really can't think of a female singer who came before Aretha who sang R&B with complete "sanctified" abandon in the same sort of manner. In that sense, Jim's citation of Ray Charles may make a lot of sense.

There were certainly female R&B singers who came before Aretha who had strong backgrounds in gospel, and made use of those backgrounds in their R&B singing: Dinah Washington, Maxine Brown, Dionne Warwick. But those singers used a different approach than Aretha. They didn't really try to integrate fully the harder sanctified side of gospel with their R&B singing. They are to Aretha in gospel-based R&B singing something like what Clyde McPhatter and Sonny Til are to Ray Charles and Sam Cooke.

There were female singers before Aretha who sang "hard," but more in a blues/R&B than sanctified sense: Ruth Brown, Big Maybelle, Tina Turner, Etta James.

Then there were female singers who sang hard and sanctified, but strictly within gospel: Bessie Griffin, Inez Andrews, Marion Brown, Clara Ward.

There was Mavis Staples, of course, who sang sanctified hard gospel and then crossed over. But Mavis didn't really break out into her "soul music with sanctified abandon" style until after Aretha arrived.

Maybe Faye Adams comes the closest to fitting the bill of hard and sanctified R&B. But her mix of these elements is completely different to that of Aretha.

To me, something like Dr. Feelgood sounds revolutionary relative to what came before it. On the one hand, it is deep blues, more solidly blues than what other female gospel singers were doing. Yet it is hard and sanctified in a manner that is different than what other female R&B singers were doing. Most importantly, it all fit together seamlessly, as if it had always been together. Perhaps it sounds so natural today, and has been copied by so many other singers, that it is hard to imagine its previous absence. Yet name another record like Dr. Feelgood that came before Dr. Feelgood.

Sure, there were quite a number of male singers who came before Aretha who sang hard sanctified soul. But their approach was rooted in male gospel singing of the likes of R.H. Harris, Sam Cooke, June Cheeks, Claude Jeter, Archie Brownlee, which was very different than the female hard gospel singing tradition that Aretha came from. Thus, I would argue that Aretha's particular integration of gospel and R&B was unique and innovative, as well as highly influential.

I don't know if this is the type of discussion you are looking for or not. If not, please clarify exactly what it is that you want to discuss.

Edited October 28, 2007 by John L

[Tom Storer]

tho' i don't "like" her all that much or think her "winning streak" THAT much more significant than others' more fleeting peaks, edc do respect her potential as an artist. Mr. Tom Storer, as a fan espectially, you need to address these issues more seriously or else you risk appearing another douchebag fanboy like Alfie.

Actually, I don't need to address anything at all, let alone more seriously, but I thank you for your concern. I guess you've outed me as a potential douchebag fanboy, but so be it.

[mikeweil]

Mike: The box is well done, sounds good to my ears, and contains the majority of Aretha's best Atlantic material except most of Soul '69, Amazing Grace, and Live at the Filmore. So one approach would be to get the box, Soul '69, the recent 2-disc Live at the Filmore, Amazing Grace, and (probably) the new 2-disc set being discussed here. That would give a rather comprehensive collection of Aretha's Atlantic prime. Picking up all of the individual albums would also be a fine alternative. Some of the discs do have more recent, and probably superior, remasterings to the box. "Never Loved a Man" and "Lady Soul" came out in deluxe editions a while back.

Thanks - just what I wanted to know!

[Dan Gould]

***

Dan: just got my r&B/soul vinyl out of the basement, back here tomorrow I hope on Jimmy; like our mutual friend Lowell, he's an interesting case, tho' he moved more naturally into the cosmopolitan soul melange than the always bluesy Fulson I think. another dude to consider if we're going this way is Johnny Guitar Watson.

***

I think you're right that Jimmy moved into the soul bag more naturally than Lowell; I know Watson's evolution but I have stuck with the early Modern sides and not gone deeper. I think its the covers of some of those albums that have scared me off.

[Alexander]

Grow up, Tom or get lost-- how does a singer lose it? A fucking singer-- like I said, sing a simple song. Nobody's asking her to write anything.

Singers are often only as good as the songs they sing and the producers they work with. You can have a magnificent voice (as Aretha clearly does) and you can have technique up the ying-yang, but if you sing lousy material, you're not going to sound all that good.

Aretha had a history of being dominated by the men in her life, both personally and professionally. Before being signed to Atlantic, she made a go of being a jazz (influenced) vocalist on Columbia. I know that phase of her career has its partisans (and I think those recordings are quite good at times), but I don't think anyone would disagree that Aretha didn't really hit her stride until she came under the influence of Jerry Wexler. Certainly, her best performances were produced by Wexler and performed with the Muscle Shoals musicans. Did she have peaks after leaving Atlantic? Sure. But they were few and far between (for the record Clem, I said that I didn't think I OWNED any of her albums after 1974 (and I was wrong, btw. "Sparkle" is from '76, so forgive me for being off by two years), but that doesn't mean that I haven't heard/owned such material in the past). It would not be unfair to say that her later career was marred by poor song choices and poor production (her '80s albums, in particular, suffer from trendy (for the time) production that didn't suit Aretha's voice/style). The same thing happend to both Elvis and Sinatra, btw (unless you think that Sinatra's collaboration with Rod McKuen was an example of good judgement on Frank's part).

Btw, Clem, I really don't care if you think that I'm a "fanboy douchebag." Once upon a time, I was of the opinion (as you clearly are) that you have to be completely familiar with an artist's particular oeuvre before you were allowed to hold an opinon on that artist. I considered people who listened broadly to be dilettantes. I was more interested in depth. I found, however, that I got burned out on an artist after spending months, sometimes, collecting his or her recordings. I began to cast a wider net, so to speak, and started listening to a little bit of a lot of different artists, delving deeper when I was particularly interested in someone. The reason you piss me off so much is because I used to be a lot like you, and held very similar opinions to the ones you express. In that sense, mine is the zealotry of the convert. I'm the ex-smoker trying to convince everyone else that they need to quit, while you're the poor schmuck still puffing away. The funny thing is that you seem to think that I chafe at your insults, but the fact is that I think I'm a much better person since I loosened up and stopped judging everybody. Maybe you'll come around to that opinion someday, too.

What it comes down to is this: I'm interested in POP music (popular in the sense of "from the people" rather than "well-liked," although obviously the two become hard to separate at times). I'm interested in jazz as pop, soul as pop, blues as pop, country as pop, etc, etc. So yes, sometimes that drives me to check things out that more "serious" listeners avoid like the plague. I don't really care. I likes what I likes when I likes it, as I've said before.

[Harold_Z]

This is some great latter day Johnny Guitar! It's probably those albums with the covers you didn't like....

[JSngry]

Those later Johnny Quitar Watson sides are full of gems.

Go ahead, let him ta-ta ya'.

[JSngry]

-- how does a singer lose it? A fucking singer-- like I said, sing a simple song.

Hell dude, how does anybody lose it?

FWIW, I've found singers to be at least as erratic and "fragile" as anybody, possibly/probably even moreso.

If you're looking for "consistency", look elsewhere, or at least for a "craftsman".

Hell, even JB "lost it" for a little bit - check out Mutha's Nature and ca.

[jlhoots]

Are fanboy douchebag, vainglorious turd, twat, etc., etc., etc. supposed to represent well reasoned criticism.

I just don't get it. Please elucidate.

[Alexander]

Are fanboy douchebag, vainglorious turd, twat, etc., etc., etc. supposed to represent well reasoned criticism.

I just don't get it. Please elucidate.

Been beating my head against this wall for sometime now...