Little Willie John - I need a better compilation

[John L]

... 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

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.

Edited December 14, 2007 by John L

[Big Beat Steve]

I tend to agree with John L on the Holly/Crickets debate. The "Crickets" records were tougher than the "Holly" records but this also was - as John says - a chronological thing, and no doubt Buddy Holly would have gotten more and more into producing and arranging if he had lived. Maybe Phil Spector wouldn't have been but a footnote if Buddy holly had evolved into a major producer/arranger of music for the youth (which would not have been totally unlikely).

As for aiming at the black market, I cannot imagine the Crickets were aimed specifically there. They may have looked more into that direction than the more arranged Holly "solo" productions but specifically? I dunno .. Maybe just a case of trying to be present in both places. And yet I think the white pop market became much more open for black artists than vice versa.

BTW, anybody checked the country charts just to see how the Holly/Crickets fared there? Just to see if the door swung every way ...

As for the "British invasion" of the states, MG's statement sums it up, I think:

/Quote:

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.)/unquote

Still beats me how the Americans could have perceived the Beatles as if they just dropped from the Moon...

Actually the Beatles and the other Merseybeat groups initially just carried on playing the U.S. music that had been around before the "Teen Idol" era the way THEY perceived it (hence the "Merseybeat" touch). But basically it was just rock'n'roll. Comparatively unadulterated and undiluted compared to what had been happening in U.S. pop music since 1959. Maybe a bit like those more unrestrained U.S. rockabilly acts of 1955-56-57 (hence the cult status of Gene Vincent in Britain) with a Brit touch added.

So if the Beatles and other bands from Liverpool were perceived as something that unheard of in the U.S., this only goes to show the extent to which the U.S. pop music listening masses had forgotten their own musical heritage of only a few years back. AND most of the U.S. pop music buyers apparently weren't listening to their own incipient "Garage Punk" bands that sprung up in 1963/64 too, either, or else they wouldn't have been that surprised by handmade guitar-led combo music. (Not tame enough for the masses, of course...)

BTW, it was not only the London bands that looked towards R&B - even Merseybeat bands took up part of their inspiration there. Just remember the number of "Walking The Dog" covers done by Merseybeat acts, for instance. And early (pre-Brian Epstein) Beatles demos and recordings have a higher share of R&B tunes too, e.g. their Decca demos where they featured Arthur Alexander covers etc.

But of course the London bands looked more heavily beyond current R&B hits and towards the "older" downhome blues artists in R&B (godfather Alexis Korner still peeking over the shoulder of young Mick Jagger to provide guidance, so to speak ... ).

Edited December 14, 2007 by Big Beat Steve

[John L]

Still beats me how the Americans could have perceived the Beatles as if they just dropped from the Moon...

Actually the Beatles and the other Merseybeat groups initially just carried on playing the U.S. music that had been around before the "Teen Idol" era the way THEY perceived it (hence the "Merseybeat" touch). But basically it was just rock'n'roll. Comparatively unadulterated and undiluted compared to what had been happening in U.S. pop music since 1959. Maybe a bit like those more unrestrained U.S. rockabilly acts of 1955-56-57 (hence the cult status of Gene Vincent in Britain) with a Brit touch added.

So if the Beatles and other bands from Liverpool were perceived as something that unheard of in the U.S., this only goes to show the extent to which the U.S. pop music listening masses had forgotten their own musical heritage of only a few years back. AND most of the U.S. pop music buyers apparently weren't listening to their own incipient "Garage Punk" bands that sprung up in 1963/64 too, either, or else they wouldn't have been that surprised by handmade guitar-led combo music. (Not tame enough for the masses, of course...)

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.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

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.

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

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.

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

[John L]

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.

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

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.

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.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

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.

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

[John L]

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.

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.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

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

Thanks for that clarification on "Buddy Holly" and "the Crickets."

Seeing the list like that makes Charlie Gillette's theory that the Crickets' records were (to an extent) aimed at the black audience rather plausible - though who would admit to this at any time since Holly died? And even the name seems to have been chosen with the black R&B/Doowop groups in mind.

But it is only a theory. Brunswick wasn't a label that necessarily concentrated on the black market in that period. Here's an extract from the intro to a Brunswick album discography.

By 1957, Brunswick had started issuing newly recorded material. The artists on Brunswick and Coral were often interchangeable. Brunswick was releasing material by the Crickets while Coral was issuing material by Buddy Holly solo, even though both Buddy Holly and the Crickets were usually on all of these recordings no matter how they were billed. Alan Freed had album releases on both Coral and Brunswick. The Brunswick label was used for releases by members of the Lawrence Welk Orchestra (Myron Floren, Big Tiny Little, Jr., and the Lennon Sisters), while Welk himself was recording on Coral. Brunswick was also used for a Buddy Holly protege named Terry Noland ("There Was a Fungus Among Us").

In 1957, Jackie Wilson, ex-lead singer for the Dominoes, was signed to the Brunswick label, and he started a long string of hits in October of that year with "Reet Petite." During the late '50s and early '60s, Jackie Wilson "was" the Brunswick label, accounting for almost all the label's album releases. In order to get Jackie Wilson to re-sign with the label in 1964, Decca gave Wilson's manager, Nat Tarnopol, 50% of the label. After 1964, Len Schneider was President of Brunswick and Nat Tarnopol was Vice President, although Tarnopol was really running the company.

Here's a link to the discography.

http://www.bsnpubs.com/nyc2/brunswick.html

When you look at the late fifties album releases, you do get a rather wider feel for what the label was doing, at least as far as albums were concerned. But R&B was a singles genre in those days. I've never seen a Brunswick singles list.

So, I guess it's a plausible, but unproven, theory.

MG

[JSngry]

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.

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

Again, the only one of these to crack the Top 20 is It's gonna work out fine, which peaked at #14. What I'd really like to see is how many weeks, those songs were on the charts, and at what positions. Having a #14 hit can mean a lot of differnt things, and if you peaked at #14 and then next week were $25, and then #52 the week after that, that's a lot different than staying in the Top 20 for weeks on end. And even if you did have the chart position for a quick minute, that doesn't mean that the records had short-range staying power in terms of airplay or store sales. A crossover hit like that could easy get chart position by a week or two of one-time crossiver guying and a few weeks of airplay, and then, it would be over. But the charts would take note of the activity and respond accordingly.

You gotta also remember that Sue was a Southern-based label, and that non-exclusively-C&W Southern audiences always had (or tended to always have) a little bit more taste for R&B than otehr parts of the country. The sociology behind this is...."interesting", but as late as the mid-1970s, John Fred & His Playboy Band were still a big time regional (i.e. - Gulf Coast) club act playing horn-driven R&B (NOT "jazz-rock" or anything like that). Plus you got the whole Beach Music thing, to say nothing of actual Blues ("real" and otherwise). The radio was segregated, the clubs were segregated (well, the white clubs were anyway, and that's a story unto itself....), but the record stores usually weren't.

All I'm saying is that two Top 40 hits is not necessarily an indication of crossover success. I can state with absolute certainty that although many white Southern music fans had heard of Ike & TIna before their UA years, by no means were they a household name outside of the R&B market. I'd wager dollars to doughnuts that if you went to somplace like Phoenix or Omaha of Racine or Scranton or someplace like that at the time, you'd find next to nobody who knew who they were. America is a large country with (back then anyway) a large # of regional & local quirks which transalted in "markets". To become/have a truly "national" hit was quite a feat.

[paul secor]

Re Buddy Holly:

The Brunswick/Coral thing doesn't hold up entirely. For example, ""Rave On" was issued on Coral and is hard rock n roll - produced by Bob Theile, I believe.

The main thing that happened with Buddy Holly's records (this according to John Goldrosen's The Buddy Holly Story and Goldrosen and John Beecher's later bio, Remembering Buddy - the best Holly bios I know of) is that he decided to move to NYC and to break ties with Norman Petty - primarily for business reasons. The Crickets decided to stay with Norman Petty, even though Holly would have preferred that all of them remained intact as a group.

Buddy Holly had recorded a couple of records in NYC, both with the Crickets - "Rave On", and without the Crickets - "Early in the Morning", and felt that a successful future in the music business would come there, rather than in Texas and Clovis, N.M.

Buddy Holly was evidently open to many types of music, and even though the last studio tunes he recorded were done with strings, according to his widow, he was planning on recording an album of Ray Charles style material and talked about about asking Ray Charles to help him put it together.

Edited December 14, 2007 by paul secor

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Re Buddy Holly:

The Brunswick/Coral thing doesn't hold up entirely. For example, ""Rave On" was issued on Coral and is hard rock n roll - produced by Bob Theile, I believe.

The main thing that happened with Buddy Holly's records (this according to John Goldrosen's The Buddy Holly Story and Goldrosen and John Beecher's later bio, Remembering Buddy - the best Holly bios I know of) is that he decided to move to NYC and to break ties with Norman Petty - primarily for business reasons. The Crickets decided to stay with Norman Petty, even though Holly would have preferred that all of them remained intact as a group.

Buddy Holly had recorded a couple of records in NYC, both with the Crickets - "Rave On", and without the Crickets - "Early in the Morning", and felt that a successful future in the music business would come there, rather than in Texas and Clovis, N.M.

Buddy Holly was evidently open to many types of music, and even though the last studio tunes he recorded were done with strings, according to his widow, he was planning on recording an album of Ray Charles style material and talked about about asking Ray Charles to help him put it together.

Ah, very interesting. Thanks Paul.

MG

[felser]

Again, the only one of these to crack the Top 20 is It's gonna work out fine, which peaked at #14. What I'd really like to see is how many weeks, those songs were on the charts, and at what positions. Having a #14 hit can mean a lot of differnt things, and if you peaked at #14 and then next week were $25, and then #52 the week after that, that's a lot different than staying in the Top 20 for weeks on end. And even if you did have the chart position for a quick minute, that doesn't mean that the records had short-range staying power in terms of airplay or store sales. A crossover hit like that could easy get chart position by a week or two of one-time crossiver guying and a few weeks of airplay, and then, it would be over. But the charts would take note of the activity and respond accordingly.

You gotta also remember that Sue was a Southern-based label, and that non-exclusively-C&W Southern audiences always had (or tended to always have) a little bit more taste for R&B than otehr parts of the country. The sociology behind this is...."interesting", but as late as the mid-1970s, John Fred & His Playboy Band were still a big time regional (i.e. - Gulf Coast) club act playing horn-driven R&B (NOT "jazz-rock" or anything like that). Plus you got the whole Beach Music thing, to say nothing of actual Blues ("real" and otherwise). The radio was segregated, the clubs were segregated (well, the white clubs were anyway, and that's a story unto itself....), but the record stores usually weren't.

All I'm saying is that two Top 40 hits is not necessarily an indication of crossover success. I can state with absolute certainty that although many white Southern music fans had heard of Ike & TIna before their UA years, by no means were they a household name outside of the R&B market. I'd wager dollars to doughnuts that if you went to somplace like Phoenix or Omaha of Racine or Scranton or someplace like that at the time, you'd find next to nobody who knew who they were. America is a large country with (back then anyway) a large # of regional & local quirks which transalted in "markets". To become/have a truly "national" hit was quite a feat.

"It's Gonna Work Out Fine" was only in the top 40 for five weeks, a short run for a record charting that high. I can get the exact weekly positions at home tonight out of my Joel Whitburn 60's billboard chart book. There were a lot of one-shots on the pop charts by some of those southern acts like John Fred (Judy in Disguise), Robert Parker (Barefootin), etc. Ike Turner also snuck into the top 40 twice with the Ikettes in the 60's (including the divinely annoying good/bad "Peaches and Cream"). When I was growing up listening to top 40 radio from '64 on, Ike and Tina Turner were a distant, peripheral name to me until "Proud Mary", "Come Together" and Altamont.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

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.

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

Again, the only one of these to crack the Top 20 is It's gonna work out fine, which peaked at #14. What I'd really like to see is how many weeks, those songs were on the charts, and at what positions. Having a #14 hit can mean a lot of differnt things, and if you peaked at #14 and then next week were $25, and then #52 the week after that, that's a lot different than staying in the Top 20 for weeks on end. And even if you did have the chart position for a quick minute, that doesn't mean that the records had short-range staying power in terms of airplay or store sales. A crossover hit like that could easy get chart position by a week or two of one-time crossiver guying and a few weeks of airplay, and then, it would be over. But the charts would take note of the activity and respond accordingly.

You gotta also remember that Sue was a Southern-based label, and that non-exclusively-C&W Southern audiences always had (or tended to always have) a little bit more taste for R&B than otehr parts of the country. The sociology behind this is...."interesting", but as late as the mid-1970s, John Fred & His Playboy Band were still a big time regional (i.e. - Gulf Coast) club act playing horn-driven R&B (NOT "jazz-rock" or anything like that). Plus you got the whole Beach Music thing, to say nothing of actual Blues ("real" and otherwise). The radio was segregated, the clubs were segregated (well, the white clubs were anyway, and that's a story unto itself....), but the record stores usually weren't.

All I'm saying is that two Top 40 hits is not necessarily an indication of crossover success. I can state with absolute certainty that although many white Southern music fans had heard of Ike & TIna before their UA years, by no means were they a household name outside of the R&B market. I'd wager dollars to doughnuts that if you went to somplace like Phoenix or Omaha of Racine or Scranton or someplace like that at the time, you'd find next to nobody who knew who they were. America is a large country with (back then anyway) a large # of regional & local quirks which transalted in "markets". To become/have a truly "national" hit was quite a feat.

Thanks Jim. I don't have those details for the Pop charts, only the R&B charts. But I accept what you say.

Except that Sue was a New York label; 1650 Broadway, in the sixties - is that above Colony Records? Or is it the Brill Building? Anyway. In the fifties - the label was set up in 1958 - the address was 125 St, then Riverside Drive. (Don't forget, the label was recording Joe Thomas, Ray Bryant, Jimmy McGriff and Ernestine Anderson a couple of years later.)

MG

[JSngry]

Ok, I'm confusing Sue with Paula & Jewel, two other labels named after women, and both of which were Southern labels.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Ok, I'm confusing Sue with Paula & Jewel, two other labels named after women, and both of which were Southern labels.

Correction, Jewel is a southern label - Shreveport. It distributes Paula. But Paula was operated (and may have been owned or part-owned) by Chicago trumpeter and recording engineer Paul Serrano, (which is how Sonny Stitt and Odell Brown and Mal Waldron etc came to record for the company.) Lately, Jewel has appeared to be using the Paula label to reissue some stuff that first appeared on Jewel. I just looked at one of these, from 1996, and it sez 'ere: "Manufactured and distributed by Jewel, Paula Ronn Records, a division of Sue Records inc, PO box 1125 Shreveport."

Ha ha!!! I wonder if Stan Lewis bought Juggy Murray's company some time?

(His Extreme Nerdship strikes again )

MG

[JSngry]

Again, the only one of these to crack the Top 20 is It's gonna work out fine, which peaked at #14. What I'd really like to see is how many weeks, those songs were on the charts, and at what positions. Having a #14 hit can mean a lot of differnt things, and if you peaked at #14 and then next week were $25, and then #52 the week after that, that's a lot different than staying in the Top 20 for weeks on end. And even if you did have the chart position for a quick minute, that doesn't mean that the records had short-range staying power in terms of airplay or store sales. A crossover hit like that could easy get chart position by a week or two of one-time crossiver guying and a few weeks of airplay, and then, it would be over. But the charts would take note of the activity and respond accordingly.

You gotta also remember that Sue was a Southern-based label, and that non-exclusively-C&W Southern audiences always had (or tended to always have) a little bit more taste for R&B than otehr parts of the country. The sociology behind this is...."interesting", but as late as the mid-1970s, John Fred & His Playboy Band were still a big time regional (i.e. - Gulf Coast) club act playing horn-driven R&B (NOT "jazz-rock" or anything like that). Plus you got the whole Beach Music thing, to say nothing of actual Blues ("real" and otherwise). The radio was segregated, the clubs were segregated (well, the white clubs were anyway, and that's a story unto itself....), but the record stores usually weren't.

All I'm saying is that two Top 40 hits is not necessarily an indication of crossover success. I can state with absolute certainty that although many white Southern music fans had heard of Ike & TIna before their UA years, by no means were they a household name outside of the R&B market. I'd wager dollars to doughnuts that if you went to somplace like Phoenix or Omaha of Racine or Scranton or someplace like that at the time, you'd find next to nobody who knew who they were. America is a large country with (back then anyway) a large # of regional & local quirks which transalted in "markets". To become/have a truly "national" hit was quite a feat.

"It's Gonna Work Out Fine" was only in the top 40 for five weeks, a short run for a record charting that high. I can get the exact weekly positions at home tonight out of my Joel Whitburn 60's billboard chart book. There were a lot of one-shots on the pop charts by some of those southern acts like John Fred (Judy in Disguise), Robert Parker (Barefootin), etc. Ike Turner also snuck into the top 40 twice with the Ikettes in the 60's (including the divinely annoying good/bad "Peaches and Cream"). When I was growing up listening to top 40 radio from '64 on, Ike and Tina Turner were a distant, peripheral name to me until "Proud Mary", "Come Together" and Altamont.

That's what I'm saying, that chart position alone is not an indicator of general popularity and/or market penetration.

Take John Fred - his song "Agnes English" was actually a regional hit before "Judy...", & was re-released nationally as a follow-up single. It might have actually made the Top 40 in the aftermath of "Judy...", but by no means was it a true "hit", and today John Fred is considered a "one hit wonder", which he is on a national scale, even if the regional story is quite different.

Anybody remember People? "I Love You"? Big hit #14, and there was a follow-up, "Ooh La La" that probably got onto the Hot 100 for a week or two. But who remembers that one today? Or them?

I could go on - EVERYBODY knows The Box Tops for "The Letter" (#1 - and #30 R&B!) & "Cry Like A Baby" (#2) , maybe "Soul Deep" (#18) if you think hard enough, but only true fans or people like me who have weird Indestructable Top 40 Radio Memory Cells remember "Neon Rainbow" getting airplay - a little. Yet is shows as having peaked at #24.

All I'm saying is that chart positions are ultimately just statistics, and that the same #s for different records do not necessarily mean the same thing.

[Harold_Z]

Sue was owned by Juggy Murray. It was located on 54th street near the corner of 8th ave - across the street from the municiple parking lot on 8th ave between 53rd and 54th. There was a studio on the premises and my presumption is that all or most of his records were cut in that studio. 1650 Broadway is still extant. Today the niteclub Iridium is located in it. In the 50s at least through the 70s it was loaded with independant record labels, publishers and producers. There were at least two recording studios - one in the basement (Aura) and one on the 7th floor (Can't rremember the name). The Colony was located a couple of blocks south on Broadway. I think Broadway and 49th. It moved a block or two north since then.

[Adam]

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.

Is there a good compilation (I don't need completion)(and it's probably on Ace) of these British r 'n r acts before they got tamed?

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Thanks Jim & Felser.

Goes to show how lucky I was over here, just looking at a list of a hundred singles each week, not having to be confused by the facts. It occurs to me that, had I lived over there, I wouldn't have been so experimental with my purchases in those days.

MG

[JSngry]

Ok, I'm confusing Sue with Paula & Jewel, two other labels named after women, and both of which were Southern labels.

Correction, Jewel is a southern label - Shreveport. It distributes Paula. But Paula was operated (and may have been owned or part-owned) by Chicago trumpeter and recording engineer Paul Serrano, (which is how Sonny Stitt and Odell Brown and Mal Waldron etc came to record for the company.) Lately, Jewel has appeared to be using the Paula label to reissue some stuff that first appeared on Jewel. I just looked at one of these, from 1996, and it sez 'ere: "Manufactured and distributed by Jewel, Paula Ronn Records, a division of Sue Records inc, PO box 1125 Shreveport."

Ha ha!!! I wonder if Stan Lewis bought Juggy Murray's company some time?

(His Extreme Nerdship strikes again )

MG

I don't think so. Paula was Stan Lewis' label from the git-go. Paul Serrano produced some sessions on spec (thanks to Mr. Nessa for this info) and leased them to Jewel/Paula. John Fred was on Paula, and "Judy..." gave the label a big influx of cash there for a while. But I have some Jewel/Paula/Ronn stuff with that info on there, which is why I guess I confused Sue w/a southern label.

I grew up about 60 miles from Shreveport, and we would go into that city a few times a year, our "trip to the big city". The downtown Stan's Record Shop was always a stop for me, and the Jewel/Paula offices were right next door, so this is something I know firsthand. I saw Stan a few times, but actually got causally familiar with his brother Ace, who ran another store out in the Shreveport 'burbs. Ace was a big jazz fan, btw, and always had the latest stuff playing in the store that he ran. It was him who hipped me to Jim Hall's Concierto album, it had just been released that week, and he was going all apeshit over it. You'd walk in there an hear anything from Gene Ammons to Oscar Peterson to Coltrane - as long as ace was in there by himself or with friends. When "regular" folks walked in, it changed to rock and soul. But once they left...

Stan's downtown was a totally different trip - totally R&B, and later, funk. Hardcore, as befitted the neighborhood, and as the 70s evolved, the city as a whole. But even there, you could buy jazz of quality.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I don't think so. Paula was Stan Lewis' label from the git-go. Paul Serrano produced some sessions on spec (thanks to Mr. Nessa for this info) and leased them to Jewel/Paula. John Fred was on Paula, and "Judy..." gave the label a big influx of cash there for a while. But I have some Jewel/Paula/Ronn stuff with that info on there, which is why I guess I confused Sue w/a southern label.

I grew up about 60 miles from Shreveport, and we would go into that city a few times a year, our "trip to the big city". The downtown Stan's Record Shop was always a stop for me, and the Jewel/Paula offices were right next door, so this is something I know firsthand. I saw Stan a few times, but actually got causally familiar with his brother Ace, who ran another store out in the Shreveport 'burbs. Ace was a big jazz fan, btw, and always had the latest stuff playing in the store that he ran. It was him who hipped me to Jim Hall's Concierto album, it had just been released that week, and he was going all apeshit over it. You'd walk in there an hear anything from Gene Ammons to Oscar Peterson to Coltrane - as long as ace was in there by himself or with friends. When "regular" folks walked in, it changed to rock and soul. But once they left...

Stan's downtown was a totally different trip - totally R&B, and later, funk. Hardcore, as befitted the neighborhood, and as the 70s evolved, the city as a whole. But even there, you could buy jazz of quality.

Oh gee! Thanks to both you and Chuck. I always assumed "Paula" was named after Serrano. Looks like a slam dunk.

MG

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Sue was owned by Juggy Murray. It was located on 54th street near the corner of 8th ave - across the street from the municiple parking lot on 8th ave between 53rd and 54th. There was a studio on the premises and my presumption is that all or most of his records were cut in that studio. 1650 Broadway is still extant. Today the niteclub Iridium is located in it. In the 50s at least through the 70s it was loaded with independant record labels, publishers and producers. There were at least two recording studios - one in the basement (Aura) and one on the 7th floor (Can't rremember the name). The Colony was located a couple of blocks south on Broadway. I think Broadway and 49th. It moved a block or two north since then.

Yes, just checked the Joe Thomas/Bill Elliott LP - that one, from 1964, a bit later than the Ray Bryant I looked at earlier, has a 265 W 54 Street address.

Juggy was moving about a bit, wasn't he - 4 addresses in 6 years?

MG

[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.

Is there a good compilation (I don't need completion)(and it's probably on Ace) of these British r 'n r acts before they got tamed?

I don't remember ever seeing anything like that on Ace. It would be a bit unlikely, because the three main artists all recorded for different major labels. EMI and Universal are issuing plenty of product by the main artists who were around in the late fifties/early sixties - but you wouldn't want any of it because it generally doesn't focus on the type of material you're interested in - just the hits or LP reissues.

The period before these singers got "tamed" was pretty short. With a lot of them, all you really get are a few B sides where they were able to do something like what they may have wanted - not prime stuff for a general compilation aimed at the nostalgia market. Cliff Richard made one whole LP like that, which was kind of OK. But it's sunk without trace - Amazon UK lists 174 of his albums, and it isn't among them. If you want to find the vinyl, the title was "Cliff" - so it's not a good thing to try to Google for.

MG

MG

[Big Beat Steve]

@Adam:

Re- early British r'n'r acts (before they got tamed):

A few nice vinyl reissues with early Brit r'n'r by Tommy Steele, Don Lang and Tony Crombie were out in the 80s/90s on the SEE FOR MILES label and might still be around as secondhand items.

Billy Fury's arguably best early album "The Sound of Fury" on Decca has been reissued several times over as a facsimile of the original 10in release.

Also check the ROLLER COASTER label (website should be traceable via Google) for reissues of early British R'n'R.

[felser]

I don't remember ever seeing anything like that on Ace. It would be a bit unlikely, because the three main artists all recorded for different major labels. EMI eissues.

The period before these singers got "tamed" was pretty short. With a lot of them, all you really get are a few B sides where they were able to do something like what they may have wanted - not prime stuff for a general compilation aimed at the nostalgia market. Cliff Richard made one whole LP like that, which was kind of OK. But it's sunk without trace - Amazon UK lists 174 of his albums, and it isn't among them. If you want to find the vinyl, the title was "Cliff" - so it's not a good thing to try to Google for.

MG

There's a spectacular 4CD Cliff Richard box set on EMI called "The Rock 'n Roll Years 1958-1963" which focuses on the good stuff. Great sound, great package, and I got mine for about $30 on Amazon Marketplace. I'm telling you, to my ears, that box and the Beatles BBC sessions were like the Rosetta Stone for getting from the 50's rockers to the Beatles. I'm sorry, but the Beatles, Searchers, and other Liverpool groups were not just the logical continuation of USA 50's R&R to me, or to a hundred million other kids in the USA in '64. I may have seen it differently in England, if "Love Me Do" and "Sweets For My Sweet" wre my introduction to this stuff, but I was here, and it was "I Want To Hold Your Hand", "She Loves You", "Bad To Me", and "Needles and Pins". Maybe that's the better question - how did the Liverpool groups come so far in 12 months from some of their really early, much cruder stuff? And it happend in London a year later. How did the the Yardbirds get from "Good Morning Little Schoolgirl" to "Heart Full of Soul" (I know part of the answer is Jeff Beck, but he wasn't the writer), how did the Stones get from "It's All Over Now" to "Satisfaction", how did the Hollies get from "Poison Ivy" to "I'm Alive", each in 12 months? Is it just that they learned how to write, or is something else involved? Where do groups like Cliff Richard and the Shadows (especially Hank Marvin), or Johnny Kidd and the Pirates ("Shakin' All Over") fit into the equation. Where do Americans like Jackie DeShannon (the originals of "Needles and Pins" and "When You Want Into The Room") fit in? Weren't the Searchers really doing a form of folk rock a year prior to the Byrds and Dylan? America wants to know! (or at least this American does).

Edited December 14, 2007 by felser