Roots: Carole King
paramucho
It's well known that Lennon and McCartney wanted to be the Goffin and
King of Britain and that their first wish in the U.S. was to meet
Goffin and King. In the short period between 1960 and 1962, Goffin and
King and the other Brill Building writers produced some legendary
songs. Many of the songs have aged poorly because of the "Bobby"
factor: lyrics were often truly pulp. However the period also produced
some real gems and real innovation.
King became a Brill Building songwriter at age 17 and had her first
hit record, "Will You Love Me Tomorrow" the following year. Shortly
thereafter she and Goffin basically got their own "Apple": the
"Tomorrow" label which recorded and released their songs. They had
very broad artistic control.
There is no doubt that their fortunes would have continued to grow
except for one small problem: in late 1963 the Beatles changed the
nature of the songwriting business and things weren't the same for
another decade or more. Goffin and King *did* get some business out of
the Beatles by writing songs for "Beatle" imitation bands such as the
"Byrds" and the "Monkees". But by and large, the emergence of bands
and singers who wrote their own material decimated the Tin Pan Alley
system.
King moved to California in 1970 and formed her own band. They
recorded an album but never played live because of Carole's chronic
stage fright. James Taylor, back in the U.S. after personal grooming
by Paul McCartney, picked up a song of King's album and released it as
a single: "You've Got A Friend". He then urged King to sing live.
In 1971 King had her triumph with TAPESTRY, a monster album that
stayed in the charts for four years and an album that presented the
"real" Carole King. Well, I think it did: it must be difficult after
many years of projecting yourself into other peoples' musical persona
to actually find "yourself". In any case, TAPESTY established King as
a remarkable performer.
I think one of the amazing things about the sixties was that it turned
almost everyone into an artist. I doubt Carole King would have
produced an album like TAPESTRY without the musical revolution that
the Beatles caused. Even plain commercial copycat groups such as the
Monkees gained control of their product.
But before all this revolution was the Brill Building period and they
wielded the influence. Here are some of the songs Carole King
produced, mainly with her lyricist husband Jerry Goffin, between the
ages of 17 and 19 (which makes me think of some of today's precocious
female talent):
Nov60 J The Shirelles Will You Love Me Tomorrow
May61 Tony Orlando Halfway To Paradise
Aug61 Bobby Vee Take Good Care Of My Baby
Aug61 Gene Pitney Every Breath I Take
61 J Ben E. King Stand By Me
62 G Bobby Vee Sharing You
Jan62 Everly Brothers Crying In The Rain
Feb62 James Darren Her Royal Majesty
Apr62 GP The Crickets Don't Ever Change
Jun62 J Little Eva The Loco-Motion
62 Go Away Little Girl
Aug62 Carole King It Might As Well Rain...
Nov62 The Drifters Up On The Roof
???62 ? The Drifters When My Little Girl Is Smiling
Nov62 J Little Eva Keep Your Hands Off My Baby
Nov62 G The Cookies Chains
Jun63 The Chiffons One Fine Day
Most of these songs were written specifically for other artists. This
is how King described the process:
RF: In 1962, while you were still a very successful songwriter you
actually had a top twenty record with "It Might as Well Rain Until
September". What prompted you to start your career as a singer?
CK: As a songwriter, my job was to communicate the song to another
artist and it still is in many ways. I'd make a demo, and everybody
kept saying that the demos were much better than or certainly equal
to the records. I'll say better cause that's what people said to
me. So Kirshner, no fool, says why don't I just put out the demo.
They started a record company and began putting out the demos that
Gerry and I were making, with me singing. "Loco-motion" with Little
Eva was, I believe, a demo for Dee Dee Sharp. "It Might as Well
Rain Until September" may have been a demo for Bobby Vee and
Kirschner just decided why not make the artist money and record
money too?
RF: Are there people you would like to collaborate with that you
haven't yet?
CK: Yes, John Lennon, but I'll have to wait for that.
The Gavin Report, Issue 1753, April 21, 1989
The Beatles knew their Brill Street Building material and in
particular the Goffin and King songs. They had at least eight King
songs in their repetoire, mostly sung by John and George. Some of the
early Lennon/McCartney songs show direct evidence of the indirect
tutelage they recieved from Carole King.
Here's a bit more detail on some of those songs
WILL YOU LOVE ME TOMORROW (1961) The Shirelles
"Tonight you're mine completely": So begins one of the most important
rock pop songs ever written, This beautiful song, which Lennon sang,
was on the play list for the Decca sessions, but was not recorded.
This verse demonstrates the main elements of one the major forms of
the Beatles' early songs: the classic four clause verse. The first
clause presents a main idea. The second repeats that idea with
modifications. The third clause goes somewhere else, varying the vocal
pattern and often introducing minor chords. The fourth clause has a
line "tag" chorus, usually presenting the name of the song. "Please
Please Me" has this exact verse structure.
Like some early Lennon songs, the tune is based on a chain of
suspensions. Here are some of them.
Verse Bridge
Notes: a-g b-a e-d a-g e-d e-d
Chord: G C D e b C
The bridge alternates the same distinctive C to B minor chords we hear
in Lennon's bridge for "Nowhere Man" (G# minor and A there). It
emphasises one of Lennon's favorite suspensions, the fourth of a minor
chord.
The song was revolutionary in its own way in its own day. We're no
longer talking about the Sanctified Fifties American Model Of Dating:
she's asking her bloke a classic question: will you respect me in the
morning. Smouldering stuff.
TAKE GOOD CARE OF MY BABY (1961)
Carole King was an extraordinarly precocious songwriter. Hired as a
professional songwriter at age 17, all her potential was bent to
being a Tin Pan Alley songwriter. She could do any style. "Take Good
Care Of My Baby", for Bobby Vee, is written in a 1940s "evergreen"
style, similar to songs like "I Can't Give You Anything But Love".
The song begins with the same slow ad lib recitive ("My tears are
fallin', 'cause you've taken her away..") Lennon used this style in
his blissfully Pretty-Boy pop song "Don't Be Bad".
The verse's third clause ("Just tell her that you love her") has same
sequence of falling suspensions ending on a chromatic turn that we
hear Lennon using in "Starting Over" (). It's a strong Tin Pan Alley
tradition.
The bridge is the classic "inverted" doo wop that we discussed
recently. Here it has the eight bar form that the Beatles preferred to
the commonly used 16 bar form.
CRYING IN THE RAIN (1961) Everly Brothers
Carole King wrote this song for the Everly Brothers. Her demo has
survived revealing the harmony parts designed impeccably for the
Everly Brothers unique "intimate" style.
The end of the verse is possibly the best model available for the
early Lennon songs that end on A minor when playing in C major (the
famous Aeolian cadence). "Do You Want To Know A Secret" uses the same
close in the verse and like this Carole King song, repeats the
sequence in a loop for the outro.
STAND BY ME (1961) Ben E. King (John)
King wrote this song with Leiber and Stoller for Ben E. King (after he
left the Drifters and went solo I think). The verse structure truly
deserves the title "seminal": I hear it repeated in songs such as
"When A Man Loves A Woman", which in turn (IMO) influenced songs such
as "A Whiter Shade Of Pale", "A Day In The Life" and others.
Lennon's version of this classic has turned into perhaps his most
successful cover. He covered the song in 1961/1962 as well.
THE LOCO-MOTION (1962) Little Eva (John)
One of the few songs to make #1 twice in Billboard by different
artists this is "perfect" doo wop and a great example of a "dance
craze" song. The Beatles covered the song in 1962/1963. Lewisohn is
not sure who sang it, but a Cavern fan has reported John as vocalist.
That makes sense.
IT MIGHT AS WELL RAIN UNTIL SEPTEMBER (1961) Carole King
Another in the "evergreen" style. King's demo was released as a
single. The bridge has some amazing modulations. Like "Please Please
Me" the bridge also has the chameleon ability to masquerade as an
additional verse.
CHAINS (1962) The Cookies (George)
Between 1960 and sometime in 1962 the Beatles were picking up an
average of two or three songs a week. I sometimes wonder how they felt
when that process terminated. "Chains" was released late in 1962 and
must have been one of the last songs they picked up. They put quite a
lot of work into getting the backing figures the same as the original.
DON'T EVER CHANGE (1962) The Crickets (George/Paul)
The Crickets tried to keep their career going after the loss of Buddy
Holly. This song was written for them by Goffin and King. The Beatles
picked the song up with George and Paul singing the duet. Again, the
band goes to a lot of trouble to get the details of the original
arrangement down. This is where they served that apprenticeship.
The Beatles nicked the introduction of "Don't Ever Change", without
modification, to serve as the intro of "I'll Be On My Way".
KEEP YOUR HANDS OF MY BABY (1962) (John)
A song Lennon used to sing, it was written for Little Eva as a follow
up to "Loco-motion". It provided Lennon with yet another classic rock
pop song in the Arthur Alexander style.
UP ON THE ROOF (1962) The Drifters
A Paradise in Brooklyn song written perfectly for the Drifters style
and sharing some of those fourties figures in the melody.
ONE FINE DAY (June 1963) Chiffons
One of many songs that gets to that same "That's It" chord in "I Want
To Hold Your Hand", recorded a few months after the Chiffon's hit with
this song. Here's a comparison of the verse:
G D e c G e C D G e C D G... I Want To...
G D e b ] C D G e C D G... One Fine Day
Like "From Me To You" and "I Want To Hold Your Hand", the bridge
begins on the dominant minor. However "One Fine Day" was recorded
between the two Beatle songs. Carole King would not have heard the
earlier Beatle song. Donz has recently made me aware of an earlier
model for both: the Elvis Presely doo wop classic "I Want You, I Need
You, I Love You".
HEY GIRL (1963)
Another crooner song in the style of "Go Away Little Girl". The second
clause of the verse drops to the subtonic (although I don't think the
Beatles noticed). The song has some remarkable chord progressions for
a pop song.
OH NO, NOT MY BABY (1964)
It's remarkable to see how easily Carole King can slip into a Motown
feel. Incidentally, the song has an odd bar in 3/4.
Ian
Copyright (c) Ian Hammond 2000. This article will be updated at my
website www.beathoven.com
--
All follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup rec.music.beatles.moderated.
If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup, please
change your headers appropriately. -- the moderators
robertandrews
>I doubt Carole King would have produced an album like TAPESTRY without the
musical revolution that the Beatles caused.
Good point. I'd give Dylan some credit as well. I guess it was the idea
that one could sing & write their own material, though this has not always
produced great music. I think Carole was always known as a good singer, &
she released songs on her own very early in her career (e.g. "Oh Neil").
>Goffin and King *did* get some business out of the Beatles by writing songs
for "Beatle" imitation bands such as the "Byrds" and the "Monkees".
Natural Woman was '68, I'd say it anticipated the Tapestry album.
>THE LOCO-MOTION (1962) Little Eva (John) One of the few songs to make #1
twice in Billboard by different artists this is "perfect" doo wop and a
great example of a "dance craze" song.
Little Eva & Grand Funk Railroad, and also Kyle Minogue (I don't know how
high it charted).
>UP ON THE ROOF (1962) The Drifters A Paradise in Brooklyn song written
perfectly for the Drifters style and sharing some of those fourties figures
in the melody.
A masterpiece. To me, a truer NY song than Hound Dog.
>STAND BY ME (1961) Ben E. King (John) King wrote this song with Leiber and
Stoller for Ben E. King (after he left the Drifters and went solo I think).
Apparently The Drifters refused to cut it. It was a throwaway that Ben E.
King wouldn't throw away! I think Leiber & Stoller came up with the opening
lick, not sure about the rest. Spector took credit for the strings, I don't
know if this has been proven.
I'd love to hear John's version in '62. It's hard to top those classic
records & I don't thing John did with Stand By Me on R&R (but many John fans
love it).
Thanks for a great post. Don't give away all the secrets!!!
paramucho
>ROOTS: CAROLE KING
>
>
>
> 61 J Ben E. King Stand By Me
>
>STAND BY ME (1961) Ben E. King (John)
>King wrote this song with Leiber and Stoller for Ben E. King (after he
>left the Drifters and went solo I think). The verse structure truly
>deserves the title "seminal": I hear it repeated in songs such as
>"When A Man Loves A Woman", which in turn (IMO) influenced songs such
>as "A Whiter Shade Of Pale", "A Day In The Life" and others.
Memo To Self: don't post when tired and/or stoned.
The "King" in this song was "Ben E. King" and not Carole King.
Many thanks to the e-mail correspondent who pointed out my silly
mistake.
Ian
paramucho
wrote:
>paramucho <i...@beathoven.com> wrote:
>>I doubt Carole King would have produced an album like TAPESTRY without the
>musical revolution that the Beatles caused.
>
>Good point. I'd give Dylan some credit as well. I guess it was the idea
>that one could sing & write their own material, though this has not always
>produced great music. I think Carole was always known as a good singer, &
>she released songs on her own very early in her career (e.g. "Oh Neil").
Folk singers like Dylan were nothing particularly new (e.g. Pete
Seeger). I'm not sure Dylan would have made superstar status without
the Beatles' revolution either. Like King, Dylan was having hits
through other people at the start of the sixties.
The point I was trying to make was that the sixties (not just the
Beatles) changed some of the fundamental rules and provided an
environment in which people like King felt that pop was a vehicle with
which she could reveal something of herself. Without those changes she
may not have done that.
>Thanks for a great post. Don't give away all the secrets!!!
I seem to have been inventing them lately :-)
Ian
Tom
> I'd love to hear John's version in '62. It's hard to top those classic
> records & I don't thing John did with Stand By Me on R&R (but many John
fans
> love it).
>
Beatles' version would have sounded: Guitar, Bass, Drums arrangement, no
strings, and Chris Curtis does some Lennonish emoting towards the end (think
"Anna"), though in a deeper voice.
Tom
> >>I doubt Carole King would have produced an album like TAPESTRY without
the
> >musical revolution that the Beatles caused.
> >
> >that one could sing & write their own material, though this has not
always
> >produced great music. I think Carole was always known as a good singer,
&
> >she released songs on her own very early in her career (e.g. "Oh Neil").
>
> Folk singers like Dylan were nothing particularly new (e.g. Pete
> Seeger). I'm not sure Dylan would have made superstar status without
> the Beatles' revolution either. Like King, Dylan was having hits
> through other people at the start of the sixties.
>
people. A better comparison would be P.F Sloan who was a staff songwriter
first, had hits under pseudonyms (The Grassroots first couple of hits were
actually him and Steve Barr), and then tried recording under his own name.
He has talked about how Dunhill tried to prevent that, not promoting his
records and insisting the Grassroots name be taken over by another band.
Even more than King, Sloan was one of the few professional songwriters to
have continued success after The Beatles appeared, being recorded by The
Searchers, The Turtles, and Herman's Hermits. (not to forget The Grassroots
continuing to record his material, "Secret Agent Man," or "Eve of
Destruction.")
He also had something to do with getting The Beatles signed to Vee Jay. He
may be exaggerating his own part, but the way he tells the story is that
while working at the label, he heard The Beatles demo and raved about it to
anyone who'd listen.
Another question would be, has Dylan achieved superstar status? He certainly
has a respectable level of success, but he never was someone who
consistantly hit the top 40. I'd guess that he's known for his association
with and influence on others more than he is for his own music.
robertandrews
>The difference is that, unlike King, Dylan was writing for those other
people.
Don't you have this reversed? Dylan almost exclusively wrote for himself, &
other bands took the songs from his records or from pre-released acetates &
demos. I almost always prefer Dylan's versions.
Dylan was never really a true folk singer like Pete Seeger. I agree that
the Beatles inspired him to electrify & expand his sound, & maybe they
helped him achieve greater success. I think he's indisputably reached
"superstar" status: he's considered the pre-eminent singer/songwriter of the
60's (the Beatles being a group), & one of the greatest American songwriters
of all time. He's played concert halls & larger venues for 35+ years.
Jimi Hendrix had precious few hits, but you can't say he wasn't a huge force
in music.
>I'd guess that he's known for his association with and influence on others
more than he is for his own music.
I don't know what you mean by being known for his association with others.
Joan Baez & Robbie Robertson are probably more known for their association
with Dylan than vice-versa. He's written almost all the songs himself, &
usually plays with a backing band. If he's had a huge influence on other
musicians, it's because they love his music & respect his ability.
Bob Gill
> Another question would be, has Dylan achieved superstar status? He certainly
> has a respectable level of success, but he never was someone who
> consistantly hit the top 40. I'd guess that he's known for his association
> with and influence on others more than he is for his own music.
That's sort of like asking if Shakespeare has achieved superstar status,
because Tom Clancy has had more books on the best-seller lists. It's true that
he (Dylan, not Shakespeare) hasn't had as many big hit singles as, let's say,
the Dave Clark Five or Three Dog Night, but he has something like 30 gold
albums, and maybe a dozen of those are platinum. He's obviously never been as
popular by most measures as the Beatles or the Rolling Stones, but his albums
sell like Beatles albums do: They ring up steady sales year after year, and are
very lucrative for his record company and for Dylan himself. I imagine his
songwriting royalties are the largest in the music industry except for the
Lennon-McCartney songbook. I guess no one will ever mistake him for Britney
Spears, but I think we can all live with that.
-- Bob G.
Tom
> >The difference is that, unlike King, Dylan was writing for those other
> people.
>
> Don't you have this reversed?
Yes
> >I'd guess that he's known for his association with and influence on
others
> more than he is for his own music.
>
> I don't know what you mean by being known for his association with others.
Travelling Wilburys, writing Mr. Tamborine Man and All Along The Watchtower,
hanging out with George Harrison.
> Joan Baez & Robbie Robertson are probably more known for their association
> with Dylan than vice-versa.
Neither of whom are exactly household names right now.
He's written almost all the songs himself, &
> usually plays with a backing band. If he's had a huge influence on other
> musicians, it's because they love his music & respect his ability.
>
That doesn't change my point. More people know Dylan's name than his music.
He had four top ten hits in the sixties and a handful of FM radio hits
afterwards. Most artists with that resume would be forgotten by now. The
reason he's remembered is that he was an influence on the people who came
after him. This isn't to take anything away from him. He WAS a huge
influence and made some great records.
Tom
"Bob Gill" <bob...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3990A7A6...@erols.com...
> Tom wrote:
>
> > Another question would be, has Dylan achieved superstar status? He
certainly
> > has a respectable level of success, but he never was someone who
association
> > with and influence on others more than he is for his own music.
>
> because Tom Clancy has had more books on the best-seller lists. It's true
that
> he (Dylan, not Shakespeare) hasn't had as many big hit singles as, let's
say,
> the Dave Clark Five or Three Dog Night, but he has something like 30 gold
> albums, and maybe a dozen of those are platinum. He's obviously never been
as
> popular by most measures as the Beatles or the Rolling Stones, but his
albums
> sell like Beatles albums do: They ring up steady sales year after year,
That's my question. Is that superstar status?
and are
> very lucrative for his record company and for Dylan himself. I imagine his
> songwriting royalties are the largest in the music industry except for the
> Lennon-McCartney songbook.
Why would his songwriting royalties be larger than Bruce Springsteen's?
Springsteen sells better than him, he gets more airplay, and no one's having
hit singles with either of their material right now.
The Lennon-McCartney songbook isn't lucrative because of their artistic
achievement or because of their influence, it's lucrative because their
records still sell in large quantities. Dylan's catalog still sells and
there'll always be some audience for him, but that doesn't make him a
superstar. If anything, it puts him firmly in the catagory of cult artist,
someone who doesn't make the top of the charts, but has the ability to
consistantly get a level of sales.
If you told me I could own the catalog of either Captain Beefheart or The
Backstreet Boys, starting 5 years from now, I'd take Beefheart. Why, when
the BB's sell so much more? Because once their original audience is gone, no
one will be particularly interested in their old hits, but there'll always
be people who want to hear Captain Beefheart.
To go back to my original point though, which one is closer to being a
superstar?
Bob Gill
> Why would (Bob Dylan's) songwriting royalties be larger than Bruce
> Springsteen's?
> Springsteen sells better than him, he gets more airplay, and no one's having
> hit singles with either of their material right now.
Because far, far more people record Dylan songs than Springsteen songs, or just
about anybody else's songs. That's the biggest source of songwriting income,
after sales on your original records.
> The Lennon-McCartney songbook isn't lucrative because of their artistic
> achievement or because of their influence, it's lucrative because their
> records still sell in large quantities. Dylan's catalog still sells and
> there'll always be some audience for him, but that doesn't make him a
> superstar. If anything, it puts him firmly in the catagory of cult artist,
> someone who doesn't make the top of the charts, but has the ability to
> consistantly get a level of sales.
A cult artist is, as you suggested, Captain Beefheart. Comparing Bob Dylan's
status, commercial or otherwise, to that of Beefheart is ludicrous at best.
Also, you're only considering Dylan today, but in the '60s and '70s he was most
definitely a superstar. I imagine he's been on the cover of Time, Newsweek and
Rolling Stone more than just about anybody. He was without doubt a superstar in
1966, when he was on his world tour. He was without doubt a superstar in 1974,
when his "comeback tour" with the Band was front-page (and front-cover) news
across the country. He was without doubt a superstar in 1975 when the Rolling
Thunder Revue was front-page news. Since then, you could probably say he hasn't
been a superstar. But then again, he may have one more gold album in the 1990s
than Paul McCartney does. They're both still major cultural icons.
-- Bob G.
Bob Gill
> > >I'd guess that (Bob Dylan is) known for his association with and influence
> on others
> > more than he is for his own music.
> >
> > I don't know what you mean by being known for his association with others.
>
> Travelling Wilburys, writing Mr. Tamborine Man and All Along The Watchtower,
> hanging out with George Harrison.
That's the funniest thing I've heard in weeks. Bob Dylan is mainly known for
hanging around with George Harrison! That's really hilarious. George Harrison
will be happy if they mention on his tombstone that he was a member of the
Beatles and was accepted as a friend by Bob Dylan. Go on, ask George and see if
he doesn't say the same thing.
-- Bob G.
Tom
> > Why would (Bob Dylan's) songwriting royalties be larger than Bruce
> > Springsteen's?
> > Springsteen sells better than him, he gets more airplay, and no one's
having
> > hit singles with either of their material right now.
>
> Because far, far more people record Dylan songs than Springsteen songs, or
just
> about anybody else's songs. That's the biggest source of songwriting
income,
> after sales on your original records.
>
the last, say, 10 years. Dylan's songs were covered in the Sixties and there
was a time in the late 70s/early80s when Springsteen's songs were popular,
but in the early 90s I saw more people covering Lyle Lovett than either.
There was a time in the mid sixties when covering Dylan songs was common,
there was also a time in the late seventies when it seemed like Springsteen
was involved in writing half the songs you heard on the radio, but both
those moments are long gone. (Probably most covers of both artists are out
of print by now.)
In fact, Springsteen's vogue was very similar to the early years of The
Beatles' popularity. In both cases, there were waves of people signed
because they came from the same area and had a similar sound, both spawned a
lot of imitators who had one hit, then vanished into obscurity, and both
dominated the radio both as artists in their own right and as writers for
other artists. For The Beatles, it was Cilla Black, Billy J Kramer and
Peter and Gordon. For Springsteen, it was Gary Bonds, Patti Smith, and The
Pointer Sisters. (Yes, I know that song was recorded by Robert Gorden
first.)
paramucho
>The difference is that, unlike King, Dylan was writing for those other
>people.
A late reflection (after you corrected your post above to reverse the
names above).
I'm not sure that Dylan *wasn't* trying to write for other artists at
the time. I recall Dylan once saying that the song he was most proud
of was an early song that Elvis Presley covered (it was a lovely song
too, but I forget the title -- one of his spanish things I think).
Now, I'm not trying to suggest that Dylan was trying to be a staff
writer at the Brill Building. However, I've never felt that Dylan
wrote those early songs for the same reasons as a bona fide folk
singer. He went to New York to make his fortune. He arrived singing
pop songs and cowboy songs (you can hear them on his 1968 SELF
PORTRAIT double album). In Greenwich Village he found that the songs
that were selling were folk songs, so he wrote folk songs and became a
folk singer. A very good folk singer/songwriter.
His early hits were, of course, sung by other artists such as Peter,
Paul and Mary (singing a doo wop influenced song like "Blowing In The
Wind").
Following down the same vein, he *did* once write for other artists in
a sense. At one point when he was out of action he recorded a set of
demos and sent them out to various artists (I believe). Among these
was "Quinn The Eskimo" which Manfred Mann picked up.
Now I haven't studiously double checked my facts above, but I don't
think it's unwarranted to speculate that in a world without the
enormous creative explosion of the sixties Dylan may have remained a
cult figure and a supplier of songs to other artists, such as was the
case with Paul Siebel.
So, to summarise my initial point: I think the cultural revolution
that the Beatles sparked in the sixties led to environment where
people were willing to listen to a much broader range of art. We see
this in the extraordinary and fully justified success of artists such
as Dylan who might otherwise have remainded cult figures.
I think it was the depth of this cultural environment which led
artists like King to stop writing songs for others and to start
expressing herself in song. Go back twenty years and she probably
would have spent her whole life writing for others. Randy Newman is
another in this category.
While it's true that the industry has regained control of the process
(if, in fact, it ever lost control), the "art" thing has survived and
become a permanent part of "pop". Unthinkable before the Beatles.
The whole Indian thing, sparked by Harrison, is another illustration
of the same process. It too has survived in various forms.
Ian
Donz5
was "off-topic."
i...@beathoven.com (paramucho wrote:
>I recall Dylan once saying that the song he was most proud
>of was an early song that Elvis Presley covered (it was a lovely song
>too, but I forget the title -- one of his spanish things I think).
I just looked through a book devoted to Elvis's recordings (_Presleyana Price
Guide_), and found only two Dylan songs: "Don't Look Twice, It's All Right"
(first released on his 1973 LP "Elvis") and "Tomorrow Is a Long Time" (first
released on his 1966 LP "Spinout"). Both Dylan songs were written within a
month of each other in 1962 (according to Heylin's _Behind the Shades_
biography, p. 70).
Either one ring a bell?
No way of telling in this book, however, whether Elvis performed any Dylan
songs that he (Elvis) didn't record.
saki
> I was prohibited from having this post included in rmb.moderated. I was told it
> was "off-topic."
Yes, whenever there's a post submitted to rec.music.beatles.moderated that has no
mention of the Beatles, one of the moderators will contact you and offer to let you
resubmit with some Beatles content or will return the post to you so you can
redirect it to another forums (rmb is unmoderated and has no charter restrictions
on topicality as rmbm/rmbi both do).
If you want to change the headers yourself before submitting an article, you can
edit the Newsgroup line to redirect to any group you choose: rec.music.beatles,
rec.music.dylan, rec.music.rock-pop-r&b.1960s---your choice.
If you'd like to target your article to rmbm, please review it and make sure
there's some Beatles content. We're grateful for your cooperation.
----
sa...@ucla.edu
RollingTheRock
Well, I submitted what I considered a valuable post about Carole King
recently, and it too was not posted, which doesn't really bother me, except
that I did NOT make a copy for myself, so I was unable to submit it to the RMB.
I was given no such opportunity to revise it for resubmission, and I had put a
lot of time, thought and effort into the piece.
The submission did have Beatle content.
One point I'll briefly make here once again is that Carole King is indeed the
singer on "Locomotion". One need only listen to the tune. It is Carole King's
voice, and she is no more likely to admit it now than the three remaining
Beatles are going to admit to planting the "Paul is dead" clues in their
recordings. It's a part of her legend that she sang the tune, and "everyone"
thinks that it was she and Gerry Goffin's baby-sitter. And yes, I know there
is a real Little Eva.
Interestingly, there was a character in the novel _Uncle Tom's Cabin_ called
Little Eva, and an illustration in the novel of Little Eva turned upside down
became another of the novel's characters.
saki
> Well, I submitted what I considered a valuable post about Carole King
> recently, and it too was not posted, which doesn't really bother me, except
> that I did NOT make a copy for myself, so I was unable to submit it to the RMB.
> I was given no such opportunity to revise it for resubmission, and I had put a
> lot of time, thought and effort into the piece.
I see a short three-paragraph article from you in the queue on the subject of Carol King
and Little Eva, which arrived on Tuesday August 8. I emailed you on that date to let you
know that the post was off-topic and offered to either return it to you for resubmission
elsewhere or to return it to you so that you could insert something relevant to the Fabs
and resubmit. I was waiting to hear back from you but haven't yet.
Did you get my mail?
This topic seems to have excited lots of comment, but a number of posts on this subject
have wandered far away from the Beatles...who, as we note, liked Little Eva too!
----
"Please Mr. Postman, can't you see?"
--------------------------------------------
sa...@ucla.edu
robertandrews
>He arrived singing pop songs and cowboy songs (you can hear them on his
1968 SELF PORTRAIT double album). In Greenwich Village he found that the
songs
that were selling were folk songs, so he wrote folk songs and became a folk
singer. A very good folk singer/songwriter.
When he arrived in NY he was heavily influenced by Woody Guthrie -- in his
own words, he was a Woody Guthrie jukebox. His primary goal was to meet
Woody Guthrie, & play folk & folk-blues song. He fell in with the crowd of
NY folkies.
He sang no pop songs on his early records. Many of the songs on
Self-Portrait were not part of his early repertoire; quite a few were
written in the mid-60's. Dylan initially liked folk, delta blues & country.
He had little in common with the Brill Building approach (aside from the
craft of songwriting which spans all styles).
>Now I haven't studiously double checked my facts above, but I don't think
it's unwarranted to speculate that in a world without the enormous creative
explosion of the sixties Dylan may have remained a cult figure and a
supplier of songs to other artists, such as was the case with Paul Siebel.
Since Dylan was in a great way responsible for the enormous creative
explosion, I guess I don't know how to respond. We could say the same for
the Beatles.
RollingTheRock
I never received the letter. Dad gum it! Oh, well. This particular subject
of who's singing "Locomotion" just happens to be one of my Rock n' Roll
favorites, but the topic of The Beatles, I know, should never be strayed to
very far from on the RMB.
I didn't want to sound complaining, and certainly appreciate the need for what
you and Mr. Chen (and perhaps others?) do so wonderfully in moderating the
RMBM. I just wanted to make that particular point about Carole King's
"legend". You never know when some comment might stimulate further
investigation by someone.
The Beatles loved Little Eva? We all did! Of course, we loved her! Who
knew? It was the unmistakable voice of a musical genius - Carole King. Ha!
paramucho
wrote:
> I never received the letter. Dad gum it! Oh, well. This particular subject
>of who's singing "Locomotion" just happens to be one of my Rock n' Roll
>favorites, but the topic of The Beatles, I know, should never be strayed to
>very far from on the RMB.
> I didn't want to sound complaining, and certainly appreciate the need for what
>you and Mr. Chen (and perhaps others?) do so wonderfully in moderating the
>RMBM. I just wanted to make that particular point about Carole King's
>"legend". You never know when some comment might stimulate further
>investigation by someone.
> The Beatles loved Little Eva? We all did! Of course, we loved her! Who
>knew? It was the unmistakable voice of a musical genius - Carole King. Ha!
Well, I'm fascinated by the idea. There's no doubt about that. I
sometimes listen to that song ten times over and I love Carole King's
voice. It sounds like her: but the ear can deceive.
What I read are reports from two camps: those who *say* it's Carole
and those who *say* it's Little Eva.
Is there any evidence?
Ian
CBunch1070
>songs that he (Elvis) didn't record.
>
>
There is a recording on one of Elvis' box sets in which he sings Blowin' in the
Wind. He sings it as low (bass) as he possibly can; it's not a serious
performance attempt.
Chuck
robertandrews
>Either one ring a bell?
I'm almost positive it's "Tomorrow Is A Long Time." "Don't Think Twice" is
a little more obscure, & I don't think Elvis did it as well as Dylan or Jack
Elliot. Elvis did a nice job with "Tomorrow," very familiar to most Dylan
fans. He captured the sentimental mood, & I'm guessing Dylan has a soft
spot for pretty ballads sung with pretty voices. "Don't Think Twice" wasn't
as pretty, & sounds a little hokey. Dylan doesn't do many hokey renditions
of folk or country-folk songs, he's usually more serious (or outlandishly
funny).
Elvis also covered Dylan's "I Shall Be Released." Rod Stewart covered
"Tomorrow" on Every Picture Tells A Story (a nice album if you don't know
it). Earlier versions of "Tomorrow" were by Judy Collins, Odetta, a lot of
folk groups -- it's been covered over 50 times.
Although Dylan wrote the song '62-'63, it didn't appear on an album of his
till '71: Bob Dylan's Greatest Hits, Vol. 2.
paramucho
<robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Donz5 <do...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Either one ring a bell?
>
>I'm almost positive it's "Tomorrow Is A Long Time."
That sounds like a possibility. It certainly wasn't "Don't Think
Twice".
Ian
Daniel Caccavo
robert...@hotmail.com wrote on 8/8/00 10:14 AM:
>> STAND BY ME (1961) Ben E. King (John) King wrote this song with Leiber and
> Stoller for Ben E. King (after he left the Drifters and went solo I think).
>
> Apparently The Drifters refused to cut it. It was a throwaway that Ben E.
> King wouldn't throw away! I think Leiber & Stoller came up with the opening
> lick, not sure about the rest. Spector took credit for the strings, I don't
> know if this has been proven.
Interestingly enough, on the "Rock n Roll" album, the songwriter credit is
"King-Glick". Anyone?
--
Danny Caccavo
dcac...@bellatlantic.net
"for your information, it IS a baby eagle...."
paramucho
<robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>paramucho <i...@beathoven.com> wrote:
>>He arrived singing pop songs and cowboy songs (you can hear them on his
>1968 SELF PORTRAIT double album). In Greenwich Village he found that the
>songs
>that were selling were folk songs, so he wrote folk songs and became a folk
>singer. A very good folk singer/songwriter.
>
>When he arrived in NY he was heavily influenced by Woody Guthrie -- in his
>own words, he was a Woody Guthrie jukebox. His primary goal was to meet
>Woody Guthrie, & play folk & folk-blues song. He fell in with the crowd of
>NY folkies.
>
>He sang no pop songs on his early records. Many of the songs on
>Self-Portrait were not part of his early repertoire; quite a few were
>written in the mid-60's. Dylan initially liked folk, delta blues & country.
>He had little in common with the Brill Building approach (aside from the
>craft of songwriting which spans all styles).
Here is how SING OUT summarised his entry into the folk scene in
February 1962:
Bob Dylan blew into New York just a year ago. He came from the
midwest where he sang sentimental cowboy songs, jazz songs and
top forty Hit Parade stuff at Carnivals and whereever he was.
He hardly knew the word 'folk music' until he began to appear
in Village coffee houses where the patrons especially liked
his own songs.
You can read that passage a number of ways, but you can't read that he
"initially liked folk, delta blues".
>>Now I haven't studiously double checked my facts above, but I don't think
>it's unwarranted to speculate that in a world without the enormous creative
>explosion of the sixties Dylan may have remained a cult figure and a
>supplier of songs to other artists, such as was the case with Paul Siebel.
>
>Since Dylan was in a great way responsible for the enormous creative
>explosion, I guess I don't know how to respond. We could say the same for
>the Beatles.
If you're saying that another possible outcome in the sixties was that
Dylan could have sparked Dylanmania and that that would have led to
the Beatles becoming megastars, then I must disagree.
Yes, Dylan is an enornmous creative force. I've said that. But would
have become as popular as he has done in the pre-Beatles environment.
I doubt that seriously. I think he would have remained a cult figure.
There were elements of Dylan's style that were fundamentally
incompatible with pop success in the pre-Beatles environment. The same
can be said for many of the giants of the sixties.
The doorway to those broader possibilities could only be opened by a
force that was fundamentally pop-compatible. That was the Beatles.
IMO.
Ian
Donz5
>Elvis also covered Dylan's "I Shall Be Released."
Tells you how reliable this Elvis discography is. I just checked again, and the
song wasn't listed.
Do you recall if this was on record or only performed live?
robertandrews
>Do you recall if this was on record or only performed live?
According to a Dylan site, it's on Elvis' "Walk A Mile In My Shoes" - the
essential 70's masters, BMG Entertainment, 1995
Donz5
>Donz5 <do...@aol.com> wrote:
>Do you recall if this was on record or only performed live?
>According to a Dylan site, it's on Elvis' "Walk A Mile In My Shoes" - the
>essential 70's masters, BMG Entertainment, 1995
Aha -- there's the answer -- this Elvis discography I'm using was published in
1980. Thanks for the info.
R.A.G. Seely
>The doorway to those broader possibilities could only be opened by a
>force that was fundamentally pop-compatible. That was the Beatles.
I think I'd support Ian here - one of the really striking things about the
Beatles (striking especially from today's standpoint, perhaps less striking
from the perspective of British popular culture out of WWII) is the breadth
of musical experience they were acquainted with, and the wide spectrum into
which they fitted. This had two consequences: (1) they were familiar with,
and so reflected in their output, a wide range of styles and conventions,
and (2) their audience was thus introduced to this wide spectrum
(especially overseas, where the background that the Beatles may have taken
for granted was less familiar to their fans), and so became open to
different musical experiences. One silly example of this: I know a number
of folks who found the Morecambe and Wise skit that was shown on Anthology
really bizarre - they couldn't imagine a group like the Beatles on such a
show - but I think that at the time it would not have seemed so odd in
Britain, at least - and if you think of the links with the goons that our
boys had, it is even more understandable. But the point I'm making is that
they were part of the world of "entertainment" - and then that world wasn't
as compartmentalised as it is today - even on our side of the ocean, and
certainly not in the UK.
Of course, I then see as a corollary that once wider horizons were opened,
anything was possible. The singer-songwriter was just a part of this.
OTOH, I have to confess that there was a well-developed trend in "folk"
going back to the late 50s at least (and with the Weavers, one might even
see the trend starting in the 40s) that may well have electrified Dylan,
and others, by the mid 60s even without the Fabs. With "alternate
history", who knows?...
-= rags =-
--
<ra...@math.mcgill.ca>
<http://www.math.mcgill.ca/rags>
robertandrews
>You can read that passage a number of ways, but you can't read that he
"initially liked folk, delta blues".
I believe that SING OUT article is inaccurate. There are many Dylan
bootlegs circulating from that period, & I don't hear much jazz & top forty
(if you find any examples, please let me know). I doubt Dylan is a big fan
of jazz, though he's been influenced by writers like Kerouac & Ginsberg. He
may not have been too familiar with the label "folk music," because Woody
Guthrie was considered western music. His biggest influence, by far, was
Guthrie -- he'd been singing his songs for years. He'd also been covering
older blues, delta blues, and some rootsy country music.
As a teenager, he may have "initially" liked Presley & Little Richard. He
concentrated on western/folk, folk-blues & mixed in some country &
bluegrass. By '63 he'd developed his own voice as a songwriter.
>But would have become as popular as he has done in the pre-Beatles
environment. I doubt that seriously. I think he would have remained a cult
figure.
I guess that's your essential point. You might be right, but if not for
Dylan, perhaps the Beatles never would have taken an introspective turn in
their music (or maybe it would have come out differently). After all, Dylan
was writing "Hard Rain" & "Tambourine Man" while the Beatles were singing
"She Loves You." Of course I love both, I see no reason to put one above
the other. In terms of mass popularity, there's no doubt the Beatles were
by far the leaders.
I rarely speculate on what could have happened, but if you like, I'll
indulge myself:
Without the Beatles, Dylan would have been the biggest star in rock. He
would have been viewed as genius songwriter & poet, almost the second
coming. There would be no Liverpool scene, probably no Stones either -- all
lovers of great music would buy Dylan records & become Dylan fanatics. At
the height of his popularity, Dylan would run for President. He'd be shot
in the head by a lunatic like Mr. Serafino.
Thank God for the Beatles.
paramucho
<robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>paramucho <i...@beathoven.com> wrote:
>>You can read that passage a number of ways, but you can't read that he
>"initially liked folk, delta blues".
>
>I believe that SING OUT article is inaccurate. There are many Dylan
>bootlegs circulating from that period, & I don't hear much jazz & top forty
>(if you find any examples, please let me know).
When are the bootlegs from? I'm talking about before he got known to
any degree.
> I doubt Dylan is a big fan
>of jazz, though he's been influenced by writers like Kerouac & Ginsberg. He
>may not have been too familiar with the label "folk music," because Woody
>Guthrie was considered western music. His biggest influence, by far, was
>Guthrie -- he'd been singing his songs for years. He'd also been covering
>older blues, delta blues, and some rootsy country music.
For "years"? I'm not sure if I buy that. I've always found early Dylan
history to be a bit inpenetrable (and I've read lots of them).
>As a teenager, he may have "initially" liked Presley & Little Richard. He
>concentrated on western/folk, folk-blues & mixed in some country &
>bluegrass. By '63 he'd developed his own voice as a songwriter.
1962/1963 is crystal clear. I'm talking 1961.
>>But would have become as popular as he has done in the pre-Beatles
>environment. I doubt that seriously. I think he would have remained a cult
>figure.
>
>I guess that's your essential point. You might be right, but if not for
>Dylan, perhaps the Beatles never would have taken an introspective turn in
>their music (or maybe it would have come out differently). After all, Dylan
>was writing "Hard Rain" & "Tambourine Man" while the Beatles were singing
>"She Loves You." Of course I love both, I see no reason to put one above
>the other. In terms of mass popularity, there's no doubt the Beatles were
>by far the leaders.
My question is pretty specific: would Dylan have achieved mass
popularity without the pop revolution?
>I rarely speculate on what could have happened, but if you like, I'll
>indulge myself:
>
>Without the Beatles, Dylan would have been the biggest star in rock. He
>would have been viewed as genius songwriter & poet, almost the second
>coming. There would be no Liverpool scene, probably no Stones either -- all
>lovers of great music would buy Dylan records & become Dylan fanatics.
Okay, okay. I get your point.
Now, about the Monkees.
Ian
fabella
was deeply influenced by Guthrie as well as Leadbelly. My husband
and I also bought a Leadbelly record at the same time. We were
married in 62... in 63 I let him have the magic stereo console
with the dual diamond needle tone arms and the swiveling rubber
wheels that let you play a record top and bottom etc... I also
let
him have the Dylan and Leadbelly records. But I took the
Brubeck, Horowitz Moonlight Sonata etc - Andre Previn and Shelly
Manne were doing hot stuff like My Fair Lady and Born Yesterday
tunes - Leroy Vinnegar was their bass player and he was about
6'5" very very dark skinned, and he handled a standup better
than anyone around in those days. Also we were seeing Paul
Desmond's trio, and I still have the vinyl in pretty fair shape.
I have vinyl *and* CD of Brubeck's Time Further Out with bonus
track on
the waltz in 5/4... and I acquired a CD of Errol Garner's
Masterpiece Live in Monterey which also has bonus tracks. I
played the
vinyl to death, and scratched it up as a rabid teen...
franny
PS Quit my job during Hill's pitch. Felt so much better and
fully enjoyed the President's farewell to the party, which ended
with the
three little words we all wanted to hear: I LOVE YOU.
One of the striking differences between
a cat and a lie is that the cat has only nine lives.
~ Mark Twain ~
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
paramucho
<waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>Ian, in 1961 Bob put out the lp "Freewheelin' Bob Dylan" and it
>was deeply influenced by Guthrie as well as Leadbelly.
Dylans first recordings were released in March 1962 (a single) and
June 1962 (BOB DYLAN album).
THE FREEWHEELING BOB DYLAN album was released in November 1963.
I acquired each of the early Dylan albums as they came out, with the
exception of the first.
I'm not saying that Dylan ever released pop stuff before the folk
stuff. I'm talking about what he was singing before directly before he
invented himself as a folk singer.
>My husband and I also bought a Leadbelly record at the same time.
I inherited a Library Of Congress Leadbelly album set (2 or 3). It was
the first of two albums I owned (Django Rheinhardt and The Hot Club of
France being the other). I still have both, although I seem to have
lost thousands that came in between.
Leadbelly was the father of it all I guess.
>PS Quit my job during Hill's pitch. Felt so much better and
>fully enjoyed the President's farewell to the party, which ended
>with the three little words we all wanted to hear: I LOVE YOU.
The end of yet another career. You're quite incorrigible :-)
Ian