Little Willie John - I need a better compilation

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I was listening to my Little Willie John CD "Fever" issued by Charly in the UK back in 1990. Little Willie John was great! But this comp really doesn't seem to do him justice.

The material from the fifties is classic material - an indispensible record of the development of Soul. But, from about 1959, the backings became rather New York pop. And the material did, too. Yes, there were exceptions, such as "You hurt me", with incredibly poignant singing from John. But I couldn't help thinking about how much more wonderful the best stuff (and probably the mediocre stuff) would have been had Willie done what his sister did and moved to Stax. Those spare backgrounds would have suited his style perfectly (and perhaps meant that Stax wouldn't have bothered to listen to Otis Redding )

But as it is, in the sixties there is all this quite unsatisfactory stuff, enlivened by the occasional unqualified Soul masterpiece. Whereas, the compilation doesn't have enough material from the fifties, which has very effective backings by the likes of Willis Jackson, Hal Singer, the Bill Doggett band and others. I'm not really familiar with Little Willie John's discography, so I don't know how much of that material there is, or what the titles are. So what I'm looking for is a bit of advice on whether there's a compilation available that just focuses on his fifties recordings; preferably including all of them.

Anyone know?

MG

[Stefan Wood]

This one?

[Dan Gould]

I can't confirm myself, but it looks like this Ace compilation would be something close to what you are looking for:

Little Willie John

The Early King Sessions

I was first alerted to the excellence of Little Willie John's early King sides by the 1985 Bill Millar/Cliff White-compiled LP "Grits And Soul". Unfortunately, that album - like all CD reissues to date - only included a selection of these prime Rhythm & Blues cuts, the balance comprising later recordings which tend to be sweeter, more pop-oriented, and which just don't have the same appeal for this listener. Therefore this 24 track CD is more than welcome, as it avoids the syrup and just offers us a straight reissue of Little Willie John's first twelve singles for King. The one minor qualification is I'm Sticking With You Baby where compiler John Broven has chosen the LP version with its gutsy sax solo - the 45rpm version having been much reissued anyway.

Willie John was of course a magnificent singer, and he is well-served here both by the strength of the material, and the first class musicianship of the New York and Cincinnati studio bands. The songs are a mixture of mid-tempo items and stunning blues ballads and it is their sheer strength (and the quality of the song-writing) to which I would draw particular attention. The best known song is Fever, which gave John his biggest R&B hit (#1 R&B in May 1956): it was most famously covered by the late Peggy Lee (what a pity that none of the obituaries I read mentioned Willie's original) and was co-written for John by Otis Blackwell under the pseudonym John Davenport. However, the excellent blues ballad Need Your Love So Bad, penned by Willie's brother, Mertis, and covered in the UK by Fleetwood Mac, runs it close.

Accomplished writers Rose Marie McCoy and Rudy Toombs both feature strongly, and it was particularly interesting to re-acquaint myself with the original of the McCoy and Charlie Singleton Letter From My Darling - another big seller - having become much more familiar with Kip Anderson's later 'deep soul' rendition. There is no doubt that for these early sessions, veteran King producer Henry Glover fed Willie songs which matched and suited his talent.

The nicely presented package is completed by a well researched sleevenote from Bill Dahl who interviewed both Mable and Mertis John before writing it - there are good illustrations too which include some fascinating memorabilia. And full marks to the re-mastering engineer who has really captured that rich King studio ambience. This is a CD of great R&B songs by a great singer.

By Richard Tapp (Juke Blues Magazine)

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Thanks Clem. There is something really strange about Amazon UK and Little Willie John. When you go direct into Amazon and search for LWJ, you get "The early King sessions" - but only from sellers and the cheapest is £49.43 (about $100 !!!!!). And there's no copy of the 1958-1960 sessions available.

But if you use the link from Ace, you get the early compilation from £7.21 ($14) and the later comp from £4.92 ($9).

Oh, by the way, the Ace link you posted didn't work, but I saw what it was and fired it up direct.

Now, here's an interesting point, which Jim may be able to answer. Suppose I go through the Organissimo link onto Amazon UK and establish my presence there linked back to O. But, since the records I want to get won't be available that way, I'll have to back out and go in through the Ace link within 6 hours. That's OK, but I bet Ace is also registered as a partner. So, who's going to get the money from my purchases - Organissimo or Ace?

MG

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

which is why we recommend lwl first & more frequently.

Littlefield? A name on my list to do so far.

(come back Mabel, baby, all is forgiven!)

Indeed!

MG

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Now, here's an interesting point, which Jim may be able to answer. Suppose I go through the Organissimo link onto Amazon UK and establish my presence there linked back to O. But, since the records I want to get won't be available that way, I'll have to back out and go in through the Ace link within 6 hours. That's OK, but I bet Ace is also registered as a partner. So, who's going to get the money from my purchases - Organissimo or Ace?

I think I've cracked it. I go in through the Ace link and save each page into my favourites. Then, the next day, I go in through the Org link and back out again, then call up the two pages direct from favourites. Zap!

MG

[paul secor]

clem has it right. If you want early Little Willie John, the Ace set is the one.

LWJ, like a lot of other early r&b artists, was a voice at the mercy of songwriters, arrangers, and his record company. Not to forget the record buying public, which was always in search of the new. Then throw in a self destructive personality/lifestyle, and it's amazing that he had the success that he had.

[Adam]

I have the Rhino compilation from at least a decade ago. It serves me all right, but the Ace one seems to be better.

A

[JSngry]

Take it from John MAdden, Ace is the place.

But really, so long as you have LOVE, LIFE AND MONEY, you got what you need, and if you don't, keep looking.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Take it from John MAdden, Ace is the place.

But really, so long as you have LOVE, LIFE AND MONEY, you got what you need, and if you don't, keep looking.

Ah well, it's like my younger grandson (6); he comes in and says, "I NEED custard!!!"

And he ain't got any money.

MG

[JSngry]

But that's a helluva song anyways!

[felser]

clem has it right. If you want early Little Willie John, the Ace set is the one.

LWJ, like a lot of other early r&b artists, was a voice at the mercy of songwriters, arrangers, and his record company. Not to forget the record buying public, which was always in search of the new. Then throw in a self destructive personality/lifestyle, and it's amazing that he had the success that he had.

He would also likely have been affected by the 1958 Payola scandal, which to my understanding (I'm a little too young to remember it) pretty well knocked R&R/R&B-related material off the air of pop radio stations until the neo-doowop revival of 1961 and the Art Laboe Oldies but Goodies releases. That caused the record companies to try to have a lot of singers to go "legit" during that period. Elvis was in the army, which further slowed the popular onslaught of R&R.

[BruceH]

I've also long had the Rhino compilation, and should probably look into getting the Ace.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

He would also likely have been affected by the 1958 Payola scandal, which to my understanding (I'm a little too young to remember it) pretty well knocked R&R/R&B-related material off the air of pop radio stations until the neo-doowop revival of 1961 and the Art Laboe Oldies but Goodies releases. That caused the record companies to try to have a lot of singers to go "legit" during that period. Elvis was in the army, which further slowed the popular onslaught of R&R.

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

[John L]

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

[felser]

He would also likely have been affected by the 1958 Payola scandal, which to my understanding (I'm a little too young to remember it) pretty well knocked R&R/R&B-related material off the air of pop radio stations until the neo-doowop revival of 1961 and the Art Laboe Oldies but Goodies releases. That caused the record companies to try to have a lot of singers to go "legit" during that period. Elvis was in the army, which further slowed the popular onslaught of R&R.

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.

[John L]

He would also likely have been affected by the 1958 Payola scandal, which to my understanding (I'm a little too young to remember it) pretty well knocked R&R/R&B-related material off the air of pop radio stations until the neo-doowop revival of 1961 and the Art Laboe Oldies but Goodies releases. That caused the record companies to try to have a lot of singers to go "legit" during that period. Elvis was in the army, which further slowed the popular onslaught of R&R.

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.

Edited December 13, 2007 by John L

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Thanks folks.

You both make some pretty good points about the arrangements - which I'll agree were pretty crummy, with some exceptions. I hadn't realised it was a deliberate policy specifically aimed at getting on the radio. In my earlier post, I was going by number of hits on the Hot 100. I know people talk about top 40, but to me, anything that's in the chart is a hit. When you take into account the whole Hot 100, you do start to get some pretty good records in there. But are you saying that it was easy for a record to get to #42 or #73, even if its arrangement wasn't "tailored", but only exceptions of that non-tailored nature could get onto the top 40? I don't really have a clear picture.

MG

[JSngry]

I know people talk about top 40, but to me, anything that's in the chart is a hit. When you take into account the whole Hot 100, you do start to get some pretty good records in there. But are you saying that it was easy for a record to get to #42 or #73, even if its arrangement wasn't "tailored", but only exceptions of that non-tailored nature could get onto the top 40? I don't really have a clear picture.

If you wanna talk "real" hits, anything that broke the Top 40 but didn't crack the Top 20 would probably considered a "minor" hit. Anything that peaked below #40 was probably a regional hit with a little bit of national exposure, a non-hit record by an artist who had enough of a following for their records to get played/sol often enough to get noticed, but not in masssive quantity, or something like that. Making The Hot 100 was certainly better than not making it, but I guarantee you that an artist whose records regularly peaked in the lower reaches thereof was not going to be seen as "widely popular".

Also, before Soundscan, the Billboard charts were compiled by a formula that included reported sales and airplay. So there was plenty of "wiggle room" for industry manipulations, room which I'm sure did not go unused. In other words, if you put out a record that made a little bit of noise in one or two "important" places, you could probably crack the Hot 100, and that would be ammo for your promo people to maybe stir up some more momentum and bump it up a few notches, etc. But if The People just weren't into it, you'd only reach a certain point. Simialarly, if you put out stuff that enough people liked & bought, and it got a little bit of airplay, you could get on the charts. But if The Industry didn't want to assist you, again you would peak in the lower reaches and that would be that.

Of course, considering all the records that were being made back then, just being in a position to crack the Hot 100 was a sign that you were "in the game", if only on the fringes. But still...

[felser]

Thanks folks.

You both make some pretty good points about the arrangements - which I'll agree were pretty crummy, with some exceptions. I hadn't realised it was a deliberate policy specifically aimed at getting on the radio. In my earlier post, I was going by number of hits on the Hot 100. I know people talk about top 40, but to me, anything that's in the chart is a hit. When you take into account the whole Hot 100, you do start to get some pretty good records in there. But are you saying that it was easy for a record to get to #42 or #73, even if its arrangement wasn't "tailored", but only exceptions of that non-tailored nature could get onto the top 40? I don't really have a clear picture.

MG

MG,

I came to this music slightly after the fact (Like so many millions here, I tuned in after seeing the Beatles on Ed Sullivan in early '64, got a transister radio for my birthday later that year, and it stayed attached to my ear through 1972), but the general tendency was that the companies were tailoring their black artists in those days for Pop radio play that would be acceptable to adults, there was a crackdown on the wilder stuff that brought about the downfall of Alan Freed with the Payola scandal. There was (and continues to be), of course, Payola going on for other types of Pop records, but the enforcement of the prosecution was very selective, pointed toward removing the "unsafe" tendencies from radio and from youth's ears. Musical McCarthyism. Also, it needs to be remembered that rock and roll was not really considered more than a passing fad at the time, and they really thought they were killing it once for all. Even as late as the 60's, Barry Gordy would get his most successful acts to play the dinner club circuit, singing adult pop standards, to expand and extend their careers. There are recordings of several Motown groups (Supremes, Temptations, Four Tops, Marvin Gaye) doing this type of music. In fact, Marvin Gaye longed for this type of recognition early in his career. Sam Cooke, Jackie Wilson, they all were pushed down this path. Little Willie John being taken down that path was the standard misguided modus operandi of the day, not an anomaly. Compare the final, heavily produced recordings of Buddy Holly to the rockabilly he did with the Crickets for another picture of this tendency towards "legitimacy". "There Goes My Baby" is such an important record in the history of music, and a large part of that is that it figured out how to make something soulful and moving and meaningful out of the heavy production, to actually enhance the record with it rather than ruining the record with it.

[felser]

Thanks folks.

You both make some pretty good points about the arrangements - which I'll agree were pretty crummy, with some exceptions. I hadn't realised it was a deliberate policy specifically aimed at getting on the radio. In my earlier post, I was going by number of hits on the Hot 100. I know people talk about top 40, but to me, anything that's in the chart is a hit. When you take into account the whole Hot 100, you do start to get some pretty good records in there. But are you saying that it was easy for a record to get to #42 or #73, even if its arrangement wasn't "tailored", but only exceptions of that non-tailored nature could get onto the top 40? I don't really have a clear picture.

MG

MG,

I came to this music slightly after the fact (Like so many millions here, I tuned in after seeing the Beatles on Ed Sullivan in early '64, got a transister radio for my birthday later that year, and it stayed attached to my ear through 1972), but the general tendency was that the companies were tailoring their black artists in those days for Pop radio play that would be acceptable to adults, there was a crackdown on the wilder stuff that brought about the downfall of Alan Freed with the Payola scandal. There was (and continues to be), of course, Payola going on for other types of Pop records, but the enforcement of the prosecution was very selective, pointed toward removing the "unsafe" tendencies from radio and from youth's ears. Musical McCarthyism. Also, it needs to be remembered that rock and roll was not really considered more than a passing fad at the time, and they really thought they were killing it once for all. Even as late as the 60's, Barry Gordy would get his most successful acts to play the dinner club circuit, singing adult pop standards, to expand and extend their careers. There are recordings of several Motown groups (Supremes, Temptations, Four Tops, Marvin Gaye) doing this type of music. In fact, Marvin Gaye longed for this type of recognition early in his career. Sam Cooke, Jackie Wilson, they all were pushed down this path. Little Willie John being taken down that path was the standard misguided modus operandi of the day, not an anomaly. Compare the final, heavily produced recordings of Buddy Holly to the rockabilly he did with the Crickets for another picture of this tendency towards "legitimacy". "There Goes My Baby" is such an important record in the history of music, and a large part of that is that it figured out how to make something soulful and moving and meaningful out of the heavy production, to actually enhance the record with it rather than ruining the record with it.

BTW, the same thing happened in England before the Beatles. Cliff Richard, Billy Fury, Tommy Steele, all those early rock and roll singers who became Caberet singers to have a career. I was stunned when I first heard the early Cliff Richard & the Shadows recordings a couple of years ago, realized that they were the missing link between Buddy Holly/Chuck Berry/Everly Brothers and the Beatles (you have to understand that in the USA the Beatles seemed like they suddenly appeared in 1964 from another planet, doing something utterly without precedent), and that Hank Marvin was a spectacular R&R guitar player. I only knew Richard from some of his later pop slop.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

BTW, the same thing happened in England before the Beatles. Cliff Richard, Billy Fury, Tommy Steele, all those early rock and roll singers who became Caberet singers to have a career. I was stunned when I first heard the early Cliff Richard & the Shadows recordings a couple of years ago, realized that they were the missing link between Buddy Holly/Chuck Berry/Everly Brothers and the Beatles (you have to understand that in the USA the Beatles seemed like they suddenly appeared in 1964 from another planet, doing something utterly without precedent), and that Hank Marvin was a spectacular R&R guitar player. I only knew Richard from some of his later pop slop.

Well, although my grandmother used to call Cliff Richard her boyfriend (in Russian), everyone I knew thought that those guys - and several others like Marty Wilde, Norman Pride and several others with similar invented names tht I forget at present, and who were managed by the same bloke, whose name I've also forgotten - were crap. But we recognised the difference between their 1958 and 1959 records; we just put it down to the BBC (and rival network ITV). And one of the things that may not be apparent over there was how short the period was when they were making the type of record you're referring to before they were "taken in hand", as it were. Some later B sides harked back to the earlier style, if you could call it that. But the thing was, those singers were really doing no more than imitating Americans as well as they could.

I don't think there was a British missing link between Holly/Berry etc and the Beatles in the sense I think you mean it. Though I wasn't in Liverpool then, I was in London. In London, there was a bunch of pub bands who got better and got more into Blues, R&B & Soul in the period 1960-1962. I have the impression that the Beatles went more or less straight from American R&R to their thing, while London bands like the Stones, Manfred Mann, Yardbirds etc hung around doing better and better imitations of US black music of different types and THEN developed their styles. I wasn't there, so I can't be sure, but I think the Beatles wouldn't have been so original had they had the same sort of development as the London bands. (I'm not saying the Beatles weren't aware of or indeed affected a bit by early sixties American black music. They were, but it just doesn't seem to have been central to their ideas in the way it was to the Stones, say. I get a strong feeling that it was just another element that went towards the ultimate creation.)

MG

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I know people talk about top 40, but to me, anything that's in the chart is a hit. When you take into account the whole Hot 100, you do start to get some pretty good records in there. But are you saying that it was easy for a record to get to #42 or #73, even if its arrangement wasn't "tailored", but only exceptions of that non-tailored nature could get onto the top 40? I don't really have a clear picture.

If you wanna talk "real" hits, anything that broke the Top 40 but didn't crack the Top 20 would probably considered a "minor" hit. Anything that peaked below #40 was probably a regional hit with a little bit of national exposure, a non-hit record by an artist who had enough of a following for their records to get played/sol often enough to get noticed, but not in masssive quantity, or something like that. Making The Hot 100 was certainly better than not making it, but I guarantee you that an artist whose records regularly peaked in the lower reaches thereof was not going to be seen as "widely popular".

Also, before Soundscan, the Billboard charts were compiled by a formula that included reported sales and airplay. So there was plenty of "wiggle room" for industry manipulations, room which I'm sure did not go unused. In other words, if you put out a record that made a little bit of noise in one or two "important" places, you could probably crack the Hot 100, and that would be ammo for your promo people to maybe stir up some more momentum and bump it up a few notches, etc. But if The People just weren't into it, you'd only reach a certain point. Simialarly, if you put out stuff that enough people liked & bought, and it got a little bit of airplay, you could get on the charts. But if The Industry didn't want to assist you, again you would peak in the lower reaches and that would be that.

Of course, considering all the records that were being made back then, just being in a position to crack the Hot 100 was a sign that you were "in the game", if only on the fringes. But still...

Thanks a lot! This really shows that Einstein was right! Perception does depend on where you are.

Over here, I relied on the US top 100 which, from 1960, I used to see in a record shop on Bond Street where there was a pretty blonde girl who was happy to let me listen to jazz albums I wouldn't buy at lunchtime, because I bought loads of R&B singles. This was a single sheet of the Cash Box chart, not Billboard, and why the shop actually had it every week, I can't begin to imagine, because they didn't import singles. But that was my buying guide since the US R&B charts weren't available here in any shape or form - in fact, we didn't know there was such a thing as an R&B chart until a few years later. So, in that context, it seemed that if it was there at all, it was as big as a top 30 hit in Britain (given the population difference). And everything on the British top 30 was getting radio exposure. Of course, it was as fixed as the US charts were, but I know from conversations with people I chatted to behind counters, that a lot of it was fixed by personal idiosyncrasy, rather than industry machinations, which also existed.

MG

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Thanks folks.

You both make some pretty good points about the arrangements - which I'll agree were pretty crummy, with some exceptions. I hadn't realised it was a deliberate policy specifically aimed at getting on the radio. In my earlier post, I was going by number of hits on the Hot 100. I know people talk about top 40, but to me, anything that's in the chart is a hit. When you take into account the whole Hot 100, you do start to get some pretty good records in there. But are you saying that it was easy for a record to get to #42 or #73, even if its arrangement wasn't "tailored", but only exceptions of that non-tailored nature could get onto the top 40? I don't really have a clear picture.

MG

MG,

I came to this music slightly after the fact (Like so many millions here, I tuned in after seeing the Beatles on Ed Sullivan in early '64, got a transister radio for my birthday later that year, and it stayed attached to my ear through 1972), but the general tendency was that the companies were tailoring their black artists in those days for Pop radio play that would be acceptable to adults, there was a crackdown on the wilder stuff that brought about the downfall of Alan Freed with the Payola scandal. There was (and continues to be), of course, Payola going on for other types of Pop records, but the enforcement of the prosecution was very selective, pointed toward removing the "unsafe" tendencies from radio and from youth's ears. Musical McCarthyism. Also, it needs to be remembered that rock and roll was not really considered more than a passing fad at the time, and they really thought they were killing it once for all. Even as late as the 60's, Barry Gordy would get his most successful acts to play the dinner club circuit, singing adult pop standards, to expand and extend their careers. There are recordings of several Motown groups (Supremes, Temptations, Four Tops, Marvin Gaye) doing this type of music. In fact, Marvin Gaye longed for this type of recognition early in his career. Sam Cooke, Jackie Wilson, they all were pushed down this path. Little Willie John being taken down that path was the standard misguided modus operandi of the day, not an anomaly. Compare the final, heavily produced recordings of Buddy Holly to the rockabilly he did with the Crickets for another picture of this tendency towards "legitimacy". "There Goes My Baby" is such an important record in the history of music, and a large part of that is that it figured out how to make something soulful and moving and meaningful out of the heavy production, to actually enhance the record with it rather than ruining the record with it.

Actually Motown was a good bit different to the other indies in the sixties. Berry Gordy's business plan was definitely and explicitly to aim his product at the white teenage market, which was not to say to ignore the black market - he thought he could have both, and did. That's why early Motown singles had "The sound of young America" on the label and sleeve. Then later, he went for the Vegas stuff (as the target audience grew older?)

Charlie Gillette wrote an interesting piece on Buddy Holly on the tenth anniversary of his death, noting the difference between the records with Buddy Holly on the label and those with The Crickets on the label. What wasn't apparent over here, because they all came out on the same label, was that Buddy Holly's singles were on Coral, the Crickets were on Brunswick - which was an R&B label. And the Crickets' singles were a good deal tougher than Holly's.

Russian off

Later.

MG

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

... continued after super-fast delivery of local cards in freezing cold

So it seems very much as if Holly's records were primarily aimed at the white market and The Crickets' at the black market. The ruse seems to have had some effect - only one Holly single ("Peggy Sue") got into the R&B charts, but three Crickets singles; "That'll be the day" (#2), "Oh boy" (#13) & "Maybe baby" (#4). It's interesting that "Maybe baby" was a bigger R&B hit than "Oh boy" - the reverse was true in the pop charts. So, as far as Buddy Holly was concerned, it looks as if this "tendency towards 'legitimacy'" was always part of the business plan.

I think Holly was a bit of an exception and, perhaps, a bad example to use. I think you're right in perceiving a "legitimation" trend going on. But I wonder whether it wasn't yet another example of regional style coming through - in this case, the region being New York. Because I don't see that kind of thing happening in early sixties Memphis - the Stax and Hi (and the Ike & Tina Turner) singles from this period don't show any evidence of "legitimation". Nor do the records that were coming out of New Orleans by people like Lee Dorsey, Jessie Hill, Chris Kenner, the Showmen, and Ernie K Doe. And Bobby Bland's singles show no evidence of it, though it wasn't until "Turn on your love light", in 1961, that he had a top 40 hit.

Actually, thinking about it, I guess this is the real division between what we over here refer to as "Northern Soul" and "Southern Soul" - though the definitions are a bit flexible and get flexed to support whatever argument is being made "There goes my baby" was the crucial single for the development of "Northern Soul", but not, I think, of "Southern Soul".

And looking at that over a time frame, I think it's probably true to say that Southern Soul took a bit longer to "cross over" and didn't really start to do so until 1960 (though there may be some earlier exceptions I haven't picked up on a cursory shufti).

MG