Obscurantists and Obscurities
Mark Dintenfass
people, he doesn't know what the word "obscurantist" means.
Obscurantism does NOT mean an interest in obscure items. It means, and
here I will quote the Random House dictionary, "1. opposition to the
increase and spread of knowledge. 2. deliberate obscurity and evasion
of clarity." You can decide who the real obscurantists around here are.
As for being interested in obscurities, well, of course, that's why
people who like 50s music come here. To attack people for liking lesser
known music is truly hilarious. Any real music lover is bound to be
curious about the "obscure" corners of the genre he loves. Heck, even
Scarlotti, for all his faults, has sincerely explored the most obscure
recesses of Frankie Laine-dom, and, without irony, I salute his honest
passion.
And by the way, Dave, if that's your name, it does my heart good to see
a dozen or so of your mindless posts here every morning. I especially
like it when you attack Democrats and liberals. If I were a
conservative, I'd be deeply embarrassed by your posts, but since I am
not a conservative I love the way practically every spiteful, malign,
and ignorant word you post besmirches the "cause" you think you are
aiding. Keep up the good work.
--
--md
Remove xx to respond
Dean F.
in Usenet all the time. Your best bet is to simply ignore him, particularly
since he has proven time and again that his political opinions are every bit
as ignorant and parochial as his musical tastes.
Just my two cents' worth....
--D.F.
brojack
> he has proven time and again that his political opinions are every bit
>as ignorant and parochial as his musical tastes.
Coming from the likes of you, that must mean that this guy you're
talking about doesn't support the share the wealth, peace at any cost,
appease the underclass at any cost, if it feels good do it ideologies.
And he apparently likes something other than urban barbershop harmony
moozik.
BroJack
SHARX.
Uh, that starts to describe it, BroJack! Testing reveals that I am pretty
much Middle of the Road, though, in my economic and political
attitudes..just a TOUCH to the left of centre and towards libertarian.
Jim Colegrove
wrote:
A perfectly logical conclusion here in Wonderland.
Jim Colegrove
SHARX.
Yes, Alice.
BBE
I much appreciate Mark D's comments above. I can only add that people
who constantly use buzzwords like "obscurantist" as verbal crutches
show strong signs of having stereotyped and TRITE minds.
bbe
SHARX.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Hypocrite.
RockinEd1
as well as being a douche bag
SHARX.
>> as ignorant and parochial as his musical tastes.
>
> as well as being a douche bag
Something that your wife should use--I can smell fish from here.
RockinEd1
>
>Something that your wife should use--I can smell fish from here.
That ain't my wife [not married] it's Yo'
Mama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gary Nichols
LOL. Good one.
Gary 'Sharx Annoys Me Now and Then-not always- when he stays on topic
I enjoy some of his posts' Nichols
Scarlotti
> Just for the record, since Sharx's comments seem to be nettling a few
> people, he doesn't know what the word "obscurantist" means.
> Obscurantism does NOT mean an interest in obscure items. It means, and
> here I will quote the Random House dictionary, "1. opposition to the
> increase and spread of knowledge. 2. deliberate obscurity and evasion
> of clarity." You can decide who the real obscurantists around here are.
I've always taken Sharx's use of the term to be a rather witty verbal
pun: the advocates of (obscure) r&b groups continually strive to blur
(obscure) the historical record by claiming that the Spaniels were
more significant than Frank Sinatra, inducting little known groups
into the "Hall of Fame" over Top 40 superstars, etc.
> As for being interested in obscurities, well, of course, that's why
> people who like 50s music come here. To attack people for liking lesser
> known music is truly hilarious. Any real music lover is bound to be
> curious about the "obscure" corners of the genre he loves.
And isn't it even more hilarious to make fun of people for preferring
music by 50s artists who were actually popular in the 1950s?
It isn't that fans of popular music are opposed to seeking out the
"obscure corners" of 50s music -- only the elevation of the corners
(sustaining the metaphor) over the rest of the building.
And when the people who like lesser known music are constantly
attacking those of us with more popular tastes (Dean just "barfed" all
over my Italian artists thread), one can either launch a counter
attack or remain silent and allow the "majority" opinion to
(over)rule.
> Heck, even
> Scarlotti, for all his faults, has sincerely explored the most obscure
> recesses of Frankie Laine-dom, and, without irony, I salute his honest
> passion.
Thank you.
But ... uh ... what's all this about my having "faults"???
> And by the way, Dave, if that's your name, it does my heart good to see
> a dozen or so of your mindless posts here every morning. I especially
> like it when you attack Democrats and liberals. If I were a
> conservative, I'd be deeply embarrassed by your posts, but since I am
> not a conservative I love the way practically every spiteful, malign,
> and ignorant word you post besmirches the "cause" you think you are
> aiding. Keep up the good work.
Politically speaking, I consider myself a "radical" -- radically left
on some issues and radically right on others. And IMO Sharx's
anti-"Dumbocrat" posts are usually dead on the money. As radically
left as I tend to be, I have to admit that after enduring 8 years of
the Slick Willy administration, and 2 years of suicidal tears for a
nation of religious fanatics bent on wiping our country off the face
of the earth, I'd like to see the whole damn party rounded up and
shot.
Okay, I suppose I'm being a bit too radical again. Make that "rounded
up and euthanized." ;)
Jim Colegrove
(Scarlotti) wrote:
>Mark Dintenfass <mdint...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote in message news:<170220041729524842%mdint...@xxnew.rr.com>...
>> Just for the record, since Sharx's comments seem to be nettling a few
>> people, he doesn't know what the word "obscurantist" means.
>> Obscurantism does NOT mean an interest in obscure items. It means, and
>> here I will quote the Random House dictionary, "1. opposition to the
>> increase and spread of knowledge. 2. deliberate obscurity and evasion
>> of clarity." You can decide who the real obscurantists around here are.
>
>I've always taken Sharx's use of the term to be a rather witty verbal
>pun: the advocates of (obscure) r&b groups continually strive to blur
>(obscure) the historical record by claiming that the Spaniels were
>more significant than Frank Sinatra, inducting little known groups
>into the "Hall of Fame" over Top 40 superstars, etc.
>
The only ones here being obscurant are the ones that want to trample
on any discussion of things they know knothing about regardless of
which side they are on. As you and others often point out the group
is called rec.music.rock-pop-r+b. It doesn't say anything about "we
only talk music with which you are familiar." Scarlotti, I grew up on
pop music. My sister was a huge Sinatra fan, still is for that
matter. I listened to all the 78s that all four of my sisters bought
in the late 30s and through the 40s and early 50s. I am not
unfamiliar with pop music nor do I have the aversion to it as some do
here. But I moved on with my education.
The gap that exists here between the factions is something very
similar to what was experienced in the 1950s by the younger generation
who were becoming aware of a new music that was theirs and the older
generation that was hanging on to their music. As you like to
characterize it, it was just more pop. But to the avid rock 'n' roll
fans of then it wasn't. The generation that hooked their wagon to the
old pop were squares. The generations rarely understood each other
then and it seems they rarely understand each other here.
>> As for being interested in obscurities, well, of course, that's why
>> people who like 50s music come here. To attack people for liking lesser
>> known music is truly hilarious. Any real music lover is bound to be
>> curious about the "obscure" corners of the genre he loves.
>
>And isn't it even more hilarious to make fun of people for preferring
>music by 50s artists who were actually popular in the 1950s?
>
Once again, it's just an echo of the hip and square split.
>It isn't that fans of popular music are opposed to seeking out the
>"obscure corners" of 50s music -- only the elevation of the corners
>(sustaining the metaphor) over the rest of the building.
>
So then the mindless attacks made on comments of so-called "obscure
corners" are totally with merit and are not necessarily of an opposite
viewpoint?
>And when the people who like lesser known music are constantly
>attacking those of us with more popular tastes (Dean just "barfed" all
>over my Italian artists thread), one can either launch a counter
>attack or remain silent and allow the "majority" opinion to
>(over)rule.
>
I usually keep out of this crap. To me it's a waste of time. I'm
interested in music and music history. Anyone who knows me knows
that. I don't like the personal characterizations that posters use
here on either side. But then there's downright bullying. Barfing is
one thing, calling someone a dildohead is quite another.
Of course, we just came to an understanding here with one poster that
this group was not a part of the "civilized world" didn't we?
>> Heck, even
>> Scarlotti, for all his faults, has sincerely explored the most obscure
>> recesses of Frankie Laine-dom, and, without irony, I salute his honest
>> passion.
>
>Thank you.
>
>But ... uh ... what's all this about my having "faults"???
>
>> And by the way, Dave, if that's your name, it does my heart good to see
>> a dozen or so of your mindless posts here every morning. I especially
>> like it when you attack Democrats and liberals. If I were a
>> conservative, I'd be deeply embarrassed by your posts, but since I am
>> not a conservative I love the way practically every spiteful, malign,
>> and ignorant word you post besmirches the "cause" you think you are
>> aiding. Keep up the good work.
>
>Politically speaking, I consider myself a "radical" -- radically left
>on some issues and radically right on others. And IMO Sharx's
>anti-"Dumbocrat" posts are usually dead on the money. As radically
>left as I tend to be, I have to admit that after enduring 8 years of
>the Slick Willy administration, and 2 years of suicidal tears for a
>nation of religious fanatics bent on wiping our country off the face
>of the earth, I'd like to see the whole damn party rounded up and
>shot.
>
After that last sentence I have to wonder what ground you have on
which you could place any "radical" left postions
Jim Colegrove
RockinEd1
He and Scarlotti always annoy me--so I just pee right back at 'em!!!!
Ed
SHARX.
No problem.
SHARX.
Well, to be honest, both the right and the left are not without fault. Many
here assume I am some right-wing fascist. People who actually know me, see
me as a leftie on issues like health care but, perhaps a "social
conservative" who supports an aggressive stance on foreign affairs. Of
course, as a Canadian with a country having just a few thousand in the
military, we aren't about to launch any invasions, sanctioned by the UN or
otherwise. Yeah, we are in Bosnia, Afghanistan..but are outshadowed by the
major players, understandably. Our former Prime Minister Chretien was
virulently anti-American. His replacement, Paul Martin, is much more subtle
about it, trying to play both sides of the fence.
SHARX.
Ah, so now I am labelled as being "square" for preferring Pop music, while
you people who dig R & B are "hip". Yeah, right. Generation gap? WE ARE
BOOMERS. Resistance is futile. Fifties and early 60's rule...for eternity.
Scarlotti
> >I've always taken Sharx's use of the term to be a rather witty verbal
> >pun: the advocates of (obscure) r&b groups continually strive to blur
> >(obscure) the historical record by claiming that the Spaniels were
> >more significant than Frank Sinatra, inducting little known groups
> >into the "Hall of Fame" over Top 40 superstars, etc.
> >
>
> The only ones here being obscurant are the ones that want to trample
> on any discussion of things they know knothing about regardless of
> which side they are on.
Agreed.
> As you and others often point out the group
> is called rec.music.rock-pop-r+b. It doesn't say anything about "we
> only talk music with which you are familiar." Scarlotti, I grew up on
> pop music. My sister was a huge Sinatra fan, still is for that
> matter. I listened to all the 78s that all four of my sisters bought
> in the late 30s and through the 40s and early 50s. I am not
> unfamiliar with pop music nor do I have the aversion to it as some do
> here. But I moved on with my education.
I feel similarly -- but from the opposite end: growing up, I always
had an easier time finding oldies rock and r&b stations/programs than
I did classic pop, so my current education (and interest) is now
focused mainly on pop, much of which is still brand new to me. For
instance, I got another Georgia Gibbs cd yesterday and am hearing many
of the songs on it for the first time in my life (a second GG cd with
even more "new" songs is on its way).
> The gap that exists here between the factions is something very
> similar to what was experienced in the 1950s by the younger generation
> who were becoming aware of a new music that was theirs and the older
> generation that was hanging on to their music. As you like to
> characterize it, it was just more pop. But to the avid rock 'n' roll
> fans of then it wasn't. The generation that hooked their wagon to the
> old pop were squares. The generations rarely understood each other
> then and it seems they rarely understand each other here.
Yes, I've also felt that the old pop/rock battle from the 50s was
replicating itself here to some extent. Only this time the battle
isn't necessarily btw cats and squares (assuming that we don't all
just qualify as "geeks," I'd say there's an equal portion of each on
each "side").
Nor do I consider old pop to be square -- okay, some of it is. But a
great deal of it isn't -- especially not the stuff I listen to.
> >> As for being interested in obscurities, well, of course, that's why
> >> people who like 50s music come here. To attack people for liking lesser
> >> known music is truly hilarious. Any real music lover is bound to be
> >> curious about the "obscure" corners of the genre he loves.
> >
> >And isn't it even more hilarious to make fun of people for preferring
> >music by 50s artists who were actually popular in the 1950s?
> >
>
> Once again, it's just an echo of the hip and square split.
In part, perhaps. But I see it as more of an historical issue.
I mean, I could say that Johnnie Ray rocks at least as much as Fats
Domino and you could say that I'm nuts. That would be more along the
lines you're talking about, as it's based upon our personal reaction
to their music.
But if I say that Johnnie Ray was bigger than Screamin' Jay, that's
simply a statement of fact -- Johnnie Ray had 3 of the top 10 singles
at one point, whereas Screamin' Jay had ... no charting singles at
all.
To claim that Screamin' Jay was more influential than Johnnie Ray (who
reached an infinitely bigger audience) strikes me as a form of
obscurantism -- blurring history. Not that it can be proven one way
or the other, as it ultimately depends upon the unique reactions of
the various individuals who listen to them.
On the one side you've got the fact that current (and post-50s)
rockers often think that music didn't exist before Elvis (as witnessed
by a ROLLING STONE article last year which cited Elvis as the first
white singer to "sound black"), so naturally more post-50s rockers
will say they were influenced by other rockers. Those who've heard
Howlin' Wolf, may very well cite him as an influence over Johnnie Ray.
But on the other side, Johnnie Ray was a HUGE pre-rock superstar, and
must have had some degree of influence on the first generation of
pioneer rockers (and even some later ones like Bob Dylan and Ringo
Starr) who all the current rockers claim.
It can't be proven, as I've said, either way -- but from my
perspective the odds are in favor of Ray (who sang r&b songs -- and
even mixed r&b and country, and who all the early rockers must have
heard) having far more influence than Jay (who only reached a limited
audience).
Anyway, to write him off as a "freak" who had no appreciable influence
on anyone (as some here have claimed) is, IMO a form of (historical)
obscurantism.
> >It isn't that fans of popular music are opposed to seeking out the
> >"obscure corners" of 50s music -- only the elevation of the corners
> >(sustaining the metaphor) over the rest of the building.
>
> So then the mindless attacks made on comments of so-called "obscure
> corners" are totally with merit and are not necessarily of an opposite
> viewpoint?
Mindless attacks are never merited.
I'm just saying that people need to keep things in perspective. Elvis
Presley was bigger than Johnny Cash. You can prefer Johnny's music
over Elvis,' but you can't claim that Johnny was more
important/significant.
> >And when the people who like lesser known music are constantly
> >attacking those of us with more popular tastes (Dean just "barfed" all
> >over my Italian artists thread), one can either launch a counter
> >attack or remain silent and allow the "majority" opinion to
> >(over)rule.
> >
>
> I usually keep out of this crap. To me it's a waste of time. I'm
> interested in music and music history. Anyone who knows me knows
> that. I don't like the personal characterizations that posters use
> here on either side. But then there's downright bullying. Barfing is
> one thing, calling someone a dildohead is quite another.
I once called Bruce a "dodohead" -- but I consider that a "soft" (and
quasi-friendly) put-down. I don't know if your bullying remark is
directed at me, but I certainly don't consider myself a bully. I've
been labeled an "asshole," "idiot," "racist" and branded with
countless other personal insults, yet responded only by poking fun at
the names of said posters (and other "harmless" fare). Most of the
time, anyway.
>
> Of course, we just came to an understanding here with one poster that
> this group was not a part of the "civilized world" didn't we?
:)
>
>> >Politically speaking, I consider myself a "radical" -- radically
left
> >on some issues and radically right on others. And IMO Sharx's
> >anti-"Dumbocrat" posts are usually dead on the money. As radically
> >left as I tend to be, I have to admit that after enduring 8 years of
> >the Slick Willy administration, and 2 years of suicidal tears for a
> >nation of religious fanatics bent on wiping our country off the face
> >of the earth, I'd like to see the whole damn party rounded up and
> >shot.
> >
>
> After that last sentence I have to wonder what ground you have on
> which you could place any "radical" left postions
Well that last sentence is an exaggeration -- done for humor. I
wouldn't seriously have them rounded up and shot. I'm expressing it
that way to show that while I may get angry at some of their
positions, I am able to not let that anger get the best of me by
looking at them in a ridiculous (and thus harmless) fashion.
If you heard me say that last sentence, you'd laugh. It's all in the
delivery.
(Dennis and Bruce are the only ones here who ever seem to get any of
my damn jokes.)
Anyway, I'm radically to the left where animal rights and matters
pertaining to ecology are concerned. I think that meat, leather and
fur should be outlawed, and that the taking of an animal life should
be considered (and treated) as an act of murder. I'd also like to see
an end to the use of fossil fuels, plastic and other non-biodegradable
products and trees (use hemp instead). And, last but not least, I'd
like society to do away with money, standardize all housing
(underground), ban public worship, separate countries (one people --
one world -- one government) and have everyone work (for the
government) in either caring for the planet (growing crops,
maintaining forests), exploring space and developing new
technologies/medicines.
I'm sort of a facist-pinko.
SHARX.
Certainly no one-trick pony are you!!
Jim Colegrove
(Scarlotti) wrote:
>But if I say that Johnnie Ray was bigger than Screamin' Jay, that's
>simply a statement of fact -- Johnnie Ray had 3 of the top 10 singles
>at one point, whereas Screamin' Jay had ... no charting singles at
>all.
>
Fact.
>To claim that Screamin' Jay was more influential than Johnnie Ray (who
>reached an infinitely bigger audience) strikes me as a form of
>obscurantism -- blurring history. Not that it can be proven one way
>or the other, as it ultimately depends upon the unique reactions of
>the various individuals who listen to them.
>
Influential meaning effect on other artists.
You can be immensely popular and not be influential in that context.
Frank Sinatra was still very popular in the 1950s but he wasn't
influential on young musicians dedicated to creating rock 'n' roll
bands or recording rock 'n' roll records. How many versions of
Johnnie Ray hits were done by rock bands? As I have pointed out here
"I Put A Spell On You" was recorded by a number of artists, mostly
rock oriented, even up to present times.
>On the one side you've got the fact that current (and post-50s)
>rockers often think that music didn't exist before Elvis (as witnessed
>by a ROLLING STONE article last year which cited Elvis as the first
>white singer to "sound black"), so naturally more post-50s rockers
>will say they were influenced by other rockers. Those who've heard
>Howlin' Wolf, may very well cite him as an influence over Johnnie Ray.
>
>But on the other side, Johnnie Ray was a HUGE pre-rock superstar, and
>must have had some degree of influence on the first generation of
>pioneer rockers (and even some later ones like Bob Dylan and Ringo
>Starr) who all the current rockers claim.
>
I'm sure they heard him, I'm a part of that generation and I
certainly heard him. Ringo Starr even referenced Frankie Laine in
"Anthology." But I think his influence on other artists that were a
part of the rock generation is not significant.
>
>Anyway, to write him off as a "freak" who had no appreciable influence
>on anyone (as some here have claimed) is, IMO a form of (historical)
>obscurantism.
>
I don't write him off as a freak. I enjoyed his recordings as a kid
and still have a few of them. His influence however is open to debate.
Jim Colegrove
SHARX.
Who cares about influence? It is the SOUND..the song itself, which matters
to me.
>
>
>
> Jim Colegrove
Jim Colegrove
wrote:
Music historians, indeed all historians, care about influence. It is
the driving force of the direction of any history.
Jim Colegrove
SHARX.
You are quite correct. However most of us are assuredly not, primarily,
music historians. Of course, many of us ARE interested in such things...but
when it comes down to it, SOUND is what matters.
Bob Roman
> Well, to be honest, both the right and the left are not without fault.
Yet somehow you think your views are.
SHARX.
Because I am not of the right....or the left.
Scarlotti
> On 19 Feb 2004 01:09:27 -0800, Scar...@searchhawkmail.com
> (Scarlotti) wrote:
>
>
> >But if I say that Johnnie Ray was bigger than Screamin' Jay, that's
> >simply a statement of fact -- Johnnie Ray had 3 of the top 10 singles
> >at one point, whereas Screamin' Jay had ... no charting singles at
> >all.
> >
>
> Fact.
>
> >To claim that Screamin' Jay was more influential than Johnnie Ray (who
> >reached an infinitely bigger audience) strikes me as a form of
> >obscurantism -- blurring history. Not that it can be proven one way
> >or the other, as it ultimately depends upon the unique reactions of
> >the various individuals who listen to them.
> >
>
> Influential meaning effect on other artists.
> You can be immensely popular and not be influential in that context.
Fair enough.
But influence in this context can be direct (remakes of Elvis numbers)
or indirect (Ray as a "link between Sinatra and Elvis" in the
development of popular music/culture). That is, while Johnnie may not
have directly inspired all that many rockers, he played a major role
in the cultural transition to rock 'n' roll, so every "rock" star owes
him a debt whether they know who he was or not.
That his music was viewed by a lot of his peers as a direct forerunner
to rock 'n' roll is well documented. For instance, Frankie Laine
wrote that Johnnie Ray "was doing similar things (to r'n'r) with music
in the early fifties," and Tony Bennett called him "the father of rock
'n' roll."
> Frank Sinatra was still very popular in the 1950s but he wasn't
> influential on young musicians dedicated to creating rock 'n' roll
> bands or recording rock 'n' roll records. How many versions of
> Johnnie Ray hits were done by rock bands? As I have pointed out here
> "I Put A Spell On You" was recorded by a number of artists, mostly
> rock oriented, even up to present times.
As most of his records are more "proto rock" (IMO) than "rock proper,"
few rock bands would have much call for redoing them. He was also had
a bit too unique a style to readily lend itself to imitation (someone
singing in Johnnie's style would be seen as doing a Johnnie Ray
impression).
But CRY _has_ been remade by dozens of artists including
r&b/soul/however you classify them artists like Ben E. King and Ray
Charles, and country artists like Crystal Gayle. And Johnnie Ray has
been cited in songs by Billy Joel and Dexy's Midnight Runners.
> >But on the other side, Johnnie Ray was a HUGE pre-rock superstar, and
> >must have had some degree of influence on the first generation of
> >pioneer rockers (and even some later ones like Bob Dylan and Ringo
> >Starr) who all the current rockers claim.
>
> I'm sure they heard him, I'm a part of that generation and I
> certainly heard him. Ringo Starr even referenced Frankie Laine in
> "Anthology." But I think his influence on other artists that were a
> part of the rock generation is not significant.
In a direct sense, you're right. In an indirect sense, ... well, what
it boils down to is whether or not you see his music as being an early
form of rock 'n' roll and/or an intermediate step between
r&b-influenced pop and r'n'r. If you do, then his significance cannot
be understated. If you don't, then his significance (on r'n'r, at
least) is at best extremely minor.
> >Anyway, to write him off as a "freak" who had no appreciable influence
> >on anyone (as some here have claimed) is, IMO a form of (historical)
> >obscurantism.
> >
>
> I don't write him off as a freak. I enjoyed his recordings as a kid
> and still have a few of them. His influence however is open to debate.
Fair enough. It's definitely open to debate.
But can we even say that much about a little known artist like
Screamin' Jay? He may have inspired a handful of modern artists to
remake his best known song, but did this have any effect on the
development of music/r'n'r, either in technical innovation or in the
popular culture? Basically, did it change anything? Influence as
effect upon other artists strikes me as meaning much more than that
other artists like his music enough to cut their own version of one of
his songs. For me to say an artist was (historically) "significant"
or "influential," he must have done one of these two things: create a
new style and/or form (Stephen Foster, Bill Haley) or be more
responsible than any other artist in first popularizing a new
style/form in a given culture (Benny Goodman, Johnnie Ray), or else to
take an existing form/style to another level (variant form) in popular
culture (Elvis Presley, The Beatles).
I don't see Screamin' Jay, Howlin' Wolf, et al., as being either
"influential" or "significant" in the sense that I understand the
word. I will grant that they are well respected artists in their
field, but that's as far as I'm presently willing to go.
Bob Roman
Well thank goodness there's someone as serious-minded as you to carry
forth an alternative.
Bob Roman
RocketMan
>
> I don't see Screamin' Jay, Howlin' Wolf, et al., as being either
> "influential" or "significant" in the sense that I understand the
> word. I will grant that they are well respected artists in their
> field, but that's as far as I'm presently willing to go.
>
You obviously dont know the blues.
Howlin’ Wolf (Chester Arthur Burnett)
Born June 10, 1910, West Point, Mississippi
Died January 10, 1976, Hines, Illinois
Chester Arthur Burnett has probably had more impact worldwide than the
19th-century American president after whom he was named. With a musical
influence that extends from the rockabilly singers of the 1950s and the
classic rock stars of the 1960s to the grunge groups of the 1990s, plus
a legion of imitators to rival Elvis’s, he was one of the greatest and
most influential blues singers ever.
From the start, Chester’s voice was startling—huge and raw like Charlie
Patton’s, and even more powerful. He learned to play guitar and blues
harp simultaneously, using a rack-mounted harp. His stage presence was
absolutely feral, exaggerated by his physical size—he stood 6' 3" tall,
weighed 250 lbs, and wore size 16 shoes. John Shines frankly admitted,
"I was afraid of the Wolf, like you would be of some wild animal....It
was the SOUND he was giving off!"
In 1951, Wolf came to the attention of a young Memphis record producer,
Sam Phillips, who took him into the studio and recorded "Moanin’ at
Midnight" and "How Many More Years," and leased them to Chess Records.
Released in 1952, they made it to the top 10 on Billboard’s R&B charts.
Wolf cut other songs that Phillips farmed out both to Chess and RPM.
Chess eventually won the fight for Wolf, who moved to Chicago in 1953
and called the city home for the rest of his life.
Phillips, who certainly recognized musical talent (he later
"discovered" Elvis Presley, Carl Perkins, Jerry Lee Lewis, Johnny Cash,
and Charlie Rich), said that Wolf was his greatest discovery and losing
Wolf to Chicago was his biggest career disappointment.
"Chester Burnett had such a soulful sound that even though his words
were always good blues words, that man didn’t have to say a sound. Just
like his song ‘Moanin’ at Midnight.’…When it came out, it was as if
everything just stopped, everything that was going on. Time stopped.
Everything stopped. And you heard the Wolf.
RocketMan
SHARX.
>> I don't see Screamin' Jay, Howlin' Wolf, et al., as being either
>> "influential" or "significant" in the sense that I understand the
>> word. I will grant that they are well respected artists in their
>> field, but that's as far as I'm presently willing to go.
>>
>
> You obviously dont know the blues.
>
> Howlin' Wolf (Chester Arthur Burnett)
> Born June 10, 1910, West Point, Mississippi
> Died January 10, 1976, Hines, Illinois
>
> Chester Arthur Burnett has probably had more impact worldwide than
> the 19th-century American president after whom he was named. With a
> musical influence that extends from the rockabilly singers of the
> 1950s and the classic rock stars of the 1960s to the grunge groups of
> the 1990s, plus a legion of imitators to rival Elvis's, he was one of
> the greatest and most influential blues singers ever.
>
> Charlie Patton's, and even more powerful. He learned to play guitar
> and blues harp simultaneously, using a rack-mounted harp. His stage
> stood 6' 3" tall, weighed 250 lbs, and wore size 16 shoes. John
> Shines frankly admitted, "I was afraid of the Wolf, like you would be
> of some wild animal....It was the SOUND he was giving off!"
>
> In 1951, Wolf came to the attention of a young Memphis record
> producer, Sam Phillips, who took him into the studio and recorded
> "Moanin' at Midnight" and "How Many More Years," and leased them to
> Chess Records. Released in 1952, they made it to the top 10 on
> Billboard's R&B charts. Wolf cut other songs that Phillips farmed out
> both to Chess and RPM. Chess eventually won the fight for Wolf, who
> moved to Chicago in 1953 and called the city home for the rest of his
> life.
> Phillips, who certainly recognized musical talent (he later
> "discovered" Elvis Presley, Carl Perkins, Jerry Lee Lewis, Johnny
> Cash, and Charlie Rich), said that Wolf was his greatest discovery
> and losing Wolf to Chicago was his biggest career disappointment.
> "Chester Burnett had such a soulful sound that even though his words
> were always good blues words, that man didn't have to say a sound.
> if everything just stopped, everything that was going on. Time
> stopped. Everything stopped. And you heard the Wolf.
>
> RocketMan
Well, that is YOUR take on him. For many others, "Ho hum".
Mark Dintenfass
<Rock...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I don't see Screamin' Jay, Howlin' Wolf, et al., as being either
> > "influential" or "significant" in the sense that I understand the
> > word. I will grant that they are well respected artists in their
> > field, but that's as far as I'm presently willing to go.
> >
>
> You obviously dont know the blues.
>
> Howlin’ Wolf (Chester Arthur Burnett)
> Born June 10, 1910, West Point, Mississippi
> Died January 10, 1976, Hines, Illinois
Hi, Rocketman, and welcome. You'll find a lot of people here who agree
with you.
--
--md
Remove xx to respond
RocketMan
@clgrps13:
Not just me. He was inducted into the Rock & Roll hall of fame, as well
as the Blues Hall Of Fame. How many others can you name that have done
that. Not many.
Also, Sam Phillips says that Wolf was his greatest discovery, and he
'discovered' Elvis, Cash, Perkins, Rich, and Jerry Lee Lewis among
others.
Ho hum for you. Hall of fame for the rest of the world.
RocketMan
SHARX.
And a notable few.....who do NOT!!!!!!
SHARX.
Alright, be a sheep.
RocketMan
news:7qwZb.28403$n17.9903@clgrps13:
Looks like I stepped into some kind of pissing contest between the
intelligent, blues loving musicoligists, and the easy listening, pop,
elevator music lovers who have a closed mind regarding musical tastes.
Just tell me where to point it, and who to piss on, and I'll be happy to
play.
Screaming Jay would was a performer. A unique individual, certainly
worth a mention in anybody's discussion or music in 1956. To ignore him
is difficult.
He didnt just sing. He had an act. He would emerge from a casket in full
voodoo regalia, carrying a skull and smoking a cigarette to sing "I Put
a Spell on You" (1956) Other novelties, ranging from "Feast of the Mau
Mau" to "Constipation Blues" (I wonder what this act was like) may have
stereotyped his talent, but on the other hand, his idiosyncracies
brought him TV and movie appearances that would have eluded him had he
played his music straight. Regardless of style, Hawkins's recordings
still display a remarkable voice, which would have been used for opera
had Screamin' Jay had his way.
Jim Colegrove
(Scarlotti) wrote:
But you know, I have hope for you.
Jim Colegrove
Mark Dintenfass
<Rock...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "SHARX." <SH...@SHARXTANKnospam.com> wrote in
> news:7qwZb.28403$n17.9903@clgrps13:
>
> > Mark Dintenfass wrote:
> >> In article <Xns9495A6C3A6...@68.1.17.6>, RocketMan
> >> <Rock...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't see Screamin' Jay, Howlin' Wolf, et al., as being either
> >>>> "influential" or "significant" in the sense that I understand the
> >>>> word. I will grant that they are well respected artists in their
> >>>> field, but that's as far as I'm presently willing to go.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> You obviously dont know the blues.
> >>>
> >>> Howlin' Wolf (Chester Arthur Burnett)
> >>> Born June 10, 1910, West Point, Mississippi
> >>> Died January 10, 1976, Hines, Illinois
> >>
> >> Hi, Rocketman, and welcome. You'll find a lot of people here who
> >> agree with you.
> >
> > And a notable few.....who do NOT!!!!!!
>
> Looks like I stepped into some kind of pissing contest between the
> intelligent, blues loving musicoligists, and the easy listening, pop,
> elevator music lovers who have a closed mind regarding musical tastes.
It's more like a couple of pop-lovers trying to piss on everybody else,
and a lot of people seeking shelter from the storm. I hope you brought
your umbrella.
> Just tell me where to point it, and who to piss on, and I'll be happy to
> play.
>
>
> Screaming Jay would was a performer. A unique individual, certainly
> worth a mention in anybody's discussion or music in 1956. To ignore him
> is difficult.
>
> He didnt just sing. He had an act. He would emerge from a casket in full
> voodoo regalia, carrying a skull and smoking a cigarette to sing "I Put
> a Spell on You" (1956) Other novelties, ranging from "Feast of the Mau
> Mau" to "Constipation Blues" (I wonder what this act was like) may have
> stereotyped his talent, but on the other hand, his idiosyncracies
> brought him TV and movie appearances that would have eluded him had he
> played his music straight. Regardless of style, Hawkins's recordings
> still display a remarkable voice, which would have been used for opera
> had Screamin' Jay had his way.
I saw his act at an Alan Freed show and it was mesmerizing. And, yes,
he really could sing. Legend has it that he didn't want to do "I Put A
Spell On You" in such a mannered way, so the producer got him drunk
before they made the recording.
RocketMan
@clgrps13:
BAAAAAAAD comeback
Daniel Heilman
"SHARX." <SH...@SHARXTANKnospam.com> wrote in message
news:yqwZb.28406$n17.3189@clgrps13...
> RocketMan wrote:
> >> Well, that is YOUR take on him. For many others, "Ho hum".
> >
> > Not just me. He was inducted into the Rock & Roll hall of fame, as
> > well as the Blues Hall Of Fame. How many others can you name that
> > have done that. Not many.
> >
> > Also, Sam Phillips says that Wolf was his greatest discovery, and he
> > 'discovered' Elvis, Cash, Perkins, Rich, and Jerry Lee Lewis among
> > others.
> >
> > Ho hum for you. Hall of fame for the rest of the world.
> >
> > RocketMan
>
> Alright, be a sheep.
>
>
Ah -- so if you like it and it's popular, it's the people's choice. If your
adversary likes it and it's popular, he doesn't have a mind of his own.
Don't you know that's a trademark Bruce Grossberg gambit?
SHARX.
Right BAAAAAAACK at you.
SHARX.
Grossie, what do you to say for yourself? Face your accusers.
Onyx512
>Date: 02/20/2004 7:43 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <Xns9495C8BA0D...@68.1.17.6>
>Screaming Jay would was a performer. A unique individual, certainly
>worth a mention in anybody's discussion or music in 1956. To ignore him
>is difficult.
>He didnt just sing. He had an act. He would emerge from a casket in full
>voodoo regalia, carrying a skull and smoking a cigarette to sing "I Put
>a Spell on You"
This entrance was met with many oooohs and aaaahs at a show I recall attending,
and it appeared that many in the audience were truly frightened by it. Isn't
that what good entertaining is all about?
Tom M
===========================================================
Endeavor To Persevere
RocketMan
@edtnps84:
Translation: Grossie, help me. Im losing a debate here. BOO HOO
Rockabi101
>> with you.
>
>And a notable few.....who do NOT!!!!!!
>
>
SHARX.
You lost the battle the day you were born.
SHARX.
Yeah, right...more of this labelling those who disagree as trolls. Get a
life, bud.
Scarlotti
> >
> > I don't see Screamin' Jay, Howlin' Wolf, et al., as being either
> > "influential" or "significant" in the sense that I understand the
> > word. I will grant that they are well respected artists in their
> > field, but that's as far as I'm presently willing to go.
> >
>
> You obviously dont know the blues.
Not really. I like most of the "legitimate" blues songs I hear well
enough -- but not well enough to pay attention to who the singer is,
or to seek out the record.
My favorite blues songs are those done by Big Band and/or Pop artists
-- IMO you get the same lowdown feeling but with better voices and
higher production values.
(A certain blues group is hunting me down this moment because they
found out -- courtesy of Dean F. -- that my favorite Blues album is by
Jo Stafford.)
> Howlin? Wolf (Chester Arthur Burnett)
> Born June 10, 1910, West Point, Mississippi
> Died January 10, 1976, Hines, Illinois
>
> Chester Arthur Burnett has probably had more impact worldwide than the
> 19th-century American president after whom he was named. With a musical
> influence that extends from the rockabilly singers of the 1950s and the
> classic rock stars of the 1960s to the grunge groups of the 1990s, plus
> a legion of imitators to rival Elvis?s, he was one of the greatest and
> most influential blues singers ever.
You're getting a little hyperbolic there, but that's okay -- I've been
known to go that route myself on one or ninety occasions.
> From the start, Chester?s voice was startling?huge and raw like Charlie
> Patton?s, and even more powerful. He learned to play guitar and blues
> harp simultaneously, using a rack-mounted harp. His stage presence was
> absolutely feral, exaggerated by his physical size?he stood 6' 3" tall,
> weighed 250 lbs, and wore size 16 shoes. John Shines frankly admitted,
> "I was afraid of the Wolf, like you would be of some wild animal....It
> was the SOUND he was giving off!"
But here's where I have to disagree -- I don't like Wolf's voice.
> When it came out, it was as if
> everything just stopped, everything that was going on. Time stopped.
> Everything stopped. And you heard the Wolf.
That's how I feel when I hear one of the singers/songs I love.
It's obviously a subjective response to music -- and varies from
individual to individual. But for me, Wolf's voice just doesn't cut
it.
As to the Blues, I have no idea as to how much Wolf might or might not
have influenced the genre. Much as with Jazz (and 99.9% of music in
general), the modern stuff holds little-to-no appeal for me.
Scarlotti
> Looks like I stepped into some kind of pissing contest between the
> intelligent, blues loving musicoligists, and the easy listening, pop,
> elevator music lovers who have a closed mind regarding musical tastes.
> Just tell me where to point it, and who to piss on, and I'll be happy to
> play.
Now you're not playing fair.
First off: Pop fans are hardly the most closeminded group here. Most
of us like some R&B, Country, R'n'R, Blues, Jazz, etc., whereas a
large number of this NG's members (especially the R&B fans) hate all
Pop as a matter of course. Some even admit to hating songs that
they've never listened to.
Second: Applying derogatory labels to Popular Standards (like
"Elevator" or "Easy Listening") is akin to throwing politically
incorrect names at various minority groups. A lot of the Pop
Standards are anything but "easy listening" -- think MULE TRAIN. To
lump, loud, hard, driving music under a wimpy and dismissive title
like "easy listening" is as wrong as any other form of stereotyping.
> Screaming Jay would was a performer. A unique individual, certainly
> worth a mention in anybody's discussion or music in 1956. To ignore him
> is difficult.
>
> He didnt just sing. He had an act. He would emerge from a casket in full
> voodoo regalia, carrying a skull and smoking a cigarette to sing "I Put
> a Spell on You" (1956) Other novelties, ranging from "Feast of the Mau
> Mau" to "Constipation Blues" (I wonder what this act was like) may have
> stereotyped his talent, but on the other hand, his idiosyncracies
> brought him TV and movie appearances that would have eluded him had he
> played his music straight. Regardless of style, Hawkins's recordings
> still display a remarkable voice, which would have been used for opera
> had Screamin' Jay had his way.
He sounds like a real character (which I respect).
But as to what I've heard of his music, his voice (and style) was, at
best, passable. His EBB TIDE, OL' MAN RIVER and SWING LOW, SWEET
CHARIOT are all apparently done straight, and all show that he had a
pretty good voice. But none of these touches the more famous versions
by vocalists like Righteous Brothers, Roy Hamilton, Frank Sinatra,
Paul Robeson, et al.
Whether it's his style or his pipes that are the culprit is hard to
say -- though my guess is that it's a little of both. His voice isn't
quite as expressive as those of the above-cited singers, and
consequently, his songs fail to be as effective.
Far from seeing him as being "significant" or "influential," he
strikes me more as an "also ran." A man who never quite made it to
the top, and whose records aren't bad ... but aren't exactly great
either.
Vocally, I'll take him over Howlin' Wolf any day.
Scarlotti
> It's more like a couple of pop-lovers trying to piss on everybody else,
> and a lot of people seeking shelter from the storm. I hope you brought
> your umbrella.
I'm not trying to piss on anyone, Prof. (I'm assuming that you
included me in that "couple" -- since I seem to be the only other Pop
music lover involved.)
What I'm trying to do is to establish a working definition for terms
like "influential" and "significant" and to show that the two cannot
be separated from a song's popularity.
A popular song in the 40s would (at least potentially) be influential
in regard to other 40s songs which attempt to replicate its
sound/style/success.
A song that wasn't popular in the 40s, but that has gained a cult
following over the years could not be said to have influenced other
songs of its era -- although (arguably) it could be looked on as
influential in regard to the music of today. I say "arguably" because
I've yet to see anything here that would lead me to believe that the
current influence of such songs extends to more than an individual
song or two by a handful of modern artists.
To me, this is an important issue, as it pertains directly to the
music I love (Popular), and to the book that I am currently attempting
to write on this topic.
So let's lay off the false accusations (or insinuations), okay.
You've misjudged my intentions from the get-go when you wrongly
accused me of racism for saying that Johnnie Ray was inspired by black
performers (a claim it turns out that you'd previously made yourself).
Try giving me the benefit of the doubt once in awhile, and you just
might see that my motivations are generally constructive.
RocketMan
news:4c6e579a.04022...@posting.google.com:
> RocketMan <Rock...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns9495C8BA0D...@68.1.17.6>...
>
>> Looks like I stepped into some kind of pissing contest between the
>> intelligent, blues loving musicoligists, and the easy listening, pop,
>> elevator music lovers who have a closed mind regarding musical
>> tastes. Just tell me where to point it, and who to piss on, and I'll
>> be happy to play.
>
> Now you're not playing fair.
I think you took it the wrong way. I was referring to SHARX, who not
only likes the same type of music as you, but HE also has a closed mind
to the blues. Read what I said again, especially ....who......etc.
Try not to be so sensitive. I love the mainstream pop stuff. I grew up
playing most of those songs on piano. Twenty years of piano accordian
lessons gave me a great appreciation for all types of music. Ten years
of fronting DOO WOP groups, and managing other groups, also rounded me
out.
>
> First off: Pop fans are hardly the most closeminded group here. Most
> of us like some R&B, Country, R'n'R, Blues, Jazz, etc., whereas a
> large number of this NG's members (especially the R&B fans) hate all
> Pop as a matter of course. Some even admit to hating songs that
> they've never listened to.
Like SHARX does. He's wrong, and their wrong.
>
> Second: Applying derogatory labels to Popular Standards (like
> "Elevator" or "Easy Listening") is akin to throwing politically
> incorrect names at various minority groups.
These are industry terms that I only borrowed. Again, be proud or your
musical tastes.
> A lot of the Pop
> Standards are anything but "easy listening" -- think MULE TRAIN. To
> lump, loud, hard, driving music under a wimpy and dismissive title
> like "easy listening" is as wrong as any other form of stereotyping.
>
>> Screaming Jay would was a performer. A unique individual, certainly
>> worth a mention in anybody's discussion or music in 1956. To ignore
>> him is difficult.
>>
>> He didnt just sing. He had an act. He would emerge from a casket in
>> full voodoo regalia, carrying a skull and smoking a cigarette to sing
>> "I Put a Spell on You" (1956) Other novelties, ranging from "Feast of
>> the Mau Mau" to "Constipation Blues" (I wonder what this act was
>> like) may have stereotyped his talent, but on the other hand, his
>> idiosyncracies brought him TV and movie appearances that would have
>> eluded him had he played his music straight. Regardless of style,
>> Hawkins's recordings still display a remarkable voice, which would
>> have been used for opera had Screamin' Jay had his way.
>
> He sounds like a real character (which I respect).
>
> But as to what I've heard of his music, his voice (and style) was, at
> best, passable. His EBB TIDE, OL' MAN RIVER and SWING LOW, SWEET
> CHARIOT are all apparently done straight, and all show that he had a
> pretty good voice. But none of these touches the more famous versions
> by vocalists like Righteous Brothers, Roy Hamilton, Frank Sinatra,
> Paul Robeson, et al.
Remember, Jay wasnt trying to be a music purist. He was putting on a
show, which was mesmerizing. Dont miss the point about Jay. As you
pointed out, his singing was average at best, but his total performances
were exceptional and definately memorable. Oldies stations still play
his song, but its hard to find Kay Starr or Frankie Laine on the dial. I
love them both, by the way.
>
> Whether it's his style or his pipes that are the culprit is hard to
> say -- though my guess is that it's a little of both. His voice isn't
> quite as expressive as those of the above-cited singers, and
> consequently, his songs fail to be as effective.
Again, its not just the song. Its the man and his show, and his
influence to the music industry to try something different, and to be
innovative. He definitely had an influence on me. I became a better
performer when I let it all go, without worrying about creating a
perfect song. When singing live, its about the performance. Just look at
the music of today. Many of today's artists couldnt get by without a
video showing some skin or saying something daring or controversial. Its
the whole performance that sells today. Most of these songs will never
be remembered.
>
> Far from seeing him as being "significant" or "influential," he
> strikes me more as an "also ran." A man who never quite made it to
> the top, and whose records aren't bad ... but aren't exactly great
> either.
He achieved what he set out to achieve. For a guy with mediocre talent,
he made a career out of his acts. Beats working for a living. Here we
are some 50 years later talking about him. To me, that's significant.
>
> Vocally, I'll take him over Howlin' Wolf any day.
This is where I think you are in great error. I played in a trio, and a
five piece band. We would strive to make each song as perfect as we
could. When we played the blues, it was so simple, so freeing, and so
much fun, that we became at one with the music. The message is more
important than the melody, and the rougher and grittier the vocal the
better. I have never heard a blues song that I didn't like.
SHARX.
Why do you keep spewing out your venemous hatred at me? I bet if I was a
black, R&B loving, homosexual, you'd be gushing your praises!!
Scarlotti
> I think you took it the wrong way. I was referring to SHARX, who not
> only likes the same type of music as you, but HE also has a closed mind
> to the blues. Read what I said again, especially ....who......etc.
> Try not to be so sensitive. I love the mainstream pop stuff. I grew up
> playing most of those songs on piano. Twenty years of piano accordian
> lessons gave me a great appreciation for all types of music. Ten years
> of fronting DOO WOP groups, and managing other groups, also rounded me
> out.
Okay. Sorry if I'm a bit on the defensive -- I've been under constant
attack here for almost a year and a half ... it does things to the
nnnnnnnnerves.
> > First off: Pop fans are hardly the most closeminded group here. Most
> > of us like some R&B, Country, R'n'R, Blues, Jazz, etc., whereas a
> > large number of this NG's members (especially the R&B fans) hate all
> > Pop as a matter of course. Some even admit to hating songs that
> > they've never listened to.
>
> Like SHARX does. He's wrong, and their wrong.
Agreed -- although I'm not so sure that SHARX hasn't heard these songs
(he's generally familiar with a lot more of the r'n'r/r&b/etc. songs
posted here than I am).
> > Second: Applying derogatory labels to Popular Standards (like
> > "Elevator" or "Easy Listening") is akin to throwing politically
> > incorrect names at various minority groups.
>
> These are industry terms that I only borrowed. Again, be proud or your
> musical tastes.
I don't know if I would call "Elevator" an industry term, but you're
right about that awful "easy listening" tag.
I've been trying to come up with a suitable name for the pop music of
the late 40s/early 50s (and put it before the group last June or so).
Right now I'm going with "Classic Pop," and "Popular Standards" --
though I don't feel that either of these fully captures the
scope/spirit of the music.
Any suggestions?
> Remember, Jay wasnt trying to be a music purist. He was putting on a
> show, which was mesmerizing. Dont miss the point about Jay. As you
> pointed out, his singing was average at best, but his total performances
> were exceptional and definately memorable. Oldies stations still play
> his song, but its hard to find Kay Starr or Frankie Laine on the dial. I
> love them both, by the way.
Vocally I'd rate Jay a little above average.
I've never seen his act (before my time, you know), and can only go
with the records ... for now at least.
Believe it or not, I still manage to find Kay and Frankie on the dial
-- but they stick to a handful of top 10 hits by each. Which is why I
rarely listen to the radio these days (I've got over 1,000 songs
downloaded to my computer from cds and now have my own private "radio
station" of my favorites).
> > Whether it's his style or his pipes that are the culprit is hard to
> > say -- though my guess is that it's a little of both. His voice isn't
> > quite as expressive as those of the above-cited singers, and
> > consequently, his songs fail to be as effective.
>
> Again, its not just the song. Its the man and his show, and his
> influence to the music industry to try something different, and to be
> innovative. He definitely had an influence on me. I became a better
> performer when I let it all go, without worrying about creating a
> perfect song. When singing live, its about the performance. Just look at
> the music of today. Many of today's artists couldnt get by without a
> video showing some skin or saying something daring or controversial. Its
> the whole performance that sells today. Most of these songs will never
> be remembered.
Which is not a good thing, IMO. That's probably one of the biggest
problems with today's music.
> > Far from seeing him as being "significant" or "influential," he
> > strikes me more as an "also ran." A man who never quite made it to
> > the top, and whose records aren't bad ... but aren't exactly great
> > either.
>
> He achieved what he set out to achieve. For a guy with mediocre talent,
> he made a career out of his acts. Beats working for a living. Here we
> are some 50 years later talking about him. To me, that's significant.
True. But a different use of "significant" than I was using. With
6-plus billion people on the planet, anyone whose achievements get
talked about has performed a (not so) small miracle.
> > Vocally, I'll take him over Howlin' Wolf any day.
>
> This is where I think you are in great error. I played in a trio, and a
> five piece band. We would strive to make each song as perfect as we
> could. When we played the blues, it was so simple, so freeing, and so
> much fun, that we became at one with the music. The message is more
> important than the melody, and the rougher and grittier the vocal the
> better. I have never heard a blues song that I didn't like.
I agree with you in spirit. Grit certainly is a vital part of the
genre, but how much grit is needed? More importantly, I feel that one
can have grit without sacrificing the musical qualities of one's
voice. I like most blues songs that I've heard as well -- but prefer
the "pop" versions (polished grit, he said with a smile). But I can
still appreciate a good deal of grit in a blues song ... I just draw
the line on how much grit is acceptable about three steps before
Howlin' Wolf.
"A man's got to know his limitations."
Bob Roman
> Okay. Sorry if I'm a bit on the defensive -- I've been under constant
> attack here for almost a year and a half ... it does things to the
> nnnnnnnnerves.
You don't acknowledge the extent to which you brought it on yourself?
Bob Roman
Scarlotti
How so? By having the audacity to post an opinion contrary to certain
members of the group?
Here again is an excerpt from the original argument for your review):
The original question was posted by someone using the name "1956" on
11/16/02. It asked the eternal question:
"Bill Haley or Elvis Presley?. Thats the big question on the birth of
rock 'n' roll."
On 11/19/02 after sitting through a lengthy argument on Ray Charles'
(???) claim to said title, I responded thus:
"While the early r&b artists were certainly an *influence* on r&r, I
think rock clearly developed more out of the pop hits of the late
40s/early 50s than anything else: 'That's My Desire,' 'Cry,' 'You
Belong to Me,' 'Wheel of Fortune,' 'Ricochet,' 'Rag Mop,' etc. (No,
I'm not saying these are r&r -- merely that they're close enough to
demonstrate the evolutionary link: Swing-Pop Standards-Rock.)
"If anyone has a legitimate claim to being the father of r&r, it's
Johnnie Ray. The only thing that keeps Ray's heavily-r&b-influenced
songs, from being r&r is the fact that he's backed up by an orchestra
instead of guitar, bass and drums. Elvis openly admitted that he
borrowed much of his style from Ray, and if anyone's ever listened to
the recent 'High Drama: The Real Johnnie Ray' compilation album, it
plays like a rock album -- orchestral backing notwithstanding."
I believe this to be a very reasonable, and well-argued response. It
is also expressing nothing out of the ordinary (as I later attempted
to demonstrate via dozens of quotes from various sources/sites).
Here are a sample of the responses I received:
11/20/02 (the very first reply): "If ignorance is bliss, my friend,
you must be ecstatic!!!"
Naturally, that came from Bruce.
My response, however was civil. Lengthy, admittedly -- but giving a
basic overview of how I came to that conclusion (including sources).
Bruce replied: "That's pure BULLSHIT" And attempted to make a racial
issue out of it: "Music does not have to be BY A WHITE ARTIST in order
for it to be BLACK
INSPIRED and R & B INFLUENCED...."
In the same post, Bruce also called my statements "Preposterous," and
addressed me as "You boob."
Mark Dintenfass continued Bruce's argument along racial lines:
"My guess is that (Scarlotti's) bought into the old, and vaguely
racist notion
that black music is mostly defined by being more emotionally
uninhibited than white music, and thus Laine and Johnny Ray, because
they sing in a overly emotive way compared to the understated crooners
of the day, must be 'singing black.'"
(This in spite of the fact that 2 years earlier, he had made a similar
claim regarding Ray.)
Bruce (later admitting to be "having fun with the new guy") continued
with his onslaught of infammatory remarks: "you have no fucking idea
what you're talking about," and this classic:
"Scott, you remind me of the nerdy guys that we used to give wedgies
to.
"I'm sure you're very familiar with what a wedgie is. Remember in
school when
guys used to lift you up from behind by your underwear?
"What did they do?
"Did they hang you up on a hook, or did they just lift you up by the
underwear
until it ripped off of your ass?
"Why don't you take your Georgia Gibbs records, your Frankie Laine
records, your
Johnnie Ray records, go play with yourself, and leave the R & B and
rock and
roll discussions to people who GET what that stuff is all about,
because you
obviously haven't got a goddamn clue."
("Scott," needless to say, is not my name. Still, everyone and their
brother immediately latched on to it.)
The argument ran on through several lengthy threads, with others
joining in -- either with flat-out rude comments and insults (a la
Bruce) or with implied character assasinations (a la Mark).
Eventually, I had my fill of it, and decided to give folks a little
taste of their own medicine.
I just happen to be better at it than the rest of you. ;)
But as I've stated time and again, my main reason for posting here is
to learn about the music of the 1950s. I prefer having intelligent
discussions (as of late with BBE, ROCKETMAN, COOLGROOVE, et al.), and
have always responded respectfully to everyone who treats me/my posts
in a like manner.
(Posting verbal replications of offensive bodily functions in reply to
my posts -- as per Dean -- doesn't quite cut it as "respectful.")
Bob Roman
> robert...@hotmail.com (Bob Roman) wrote...
> > Scar...@searchhawkmail.com (Scarlotti) wrote...
> > > Okay. Sorry if I'm a bit on the defensive -- I've been under constant
> > > attack here for almost a year and a half ... it does things to the
> > > nnnnnnnnerves.
> >
> > You don't acknowledge the extent to which you brought it on yourself?
>
> members of the group?
No, contrary opinion is what this group thrives on. You brought bad
will on yourself when you displayed zero aptitude for the
give-and-take of conversation. You came in with certainty that you
alone held the truth, and were arrogant enough to think dissentors to
your pop gospel were being heretical and small-minded. Because of
your unwillingness or inability to consider opinions counter to your
own, I called you a troll; for that observation, in a precurser to
SHARX, you called me a homosexual. (That remark drove away your only
ally, Mr. Gilson, who actually was one.)
Your self-perception of victimization justified in your mind months of
rudeness. More recently you seem to have realized that your opinions
might be able to co-exist with fans of rougher sounds. But by then
you had burnt too many bridges. There still could be room for you
here, but the first step is recognizing that you have been a victim of
nothing but your own hubris.
Bob Roman
SHARX.
Bob, you are a hypocrite of the first order. You, and many of the R&B
fanatics, are guilty of *precisely* what you are accusing others of. Look in
the mirror and give your head a strong shake. Incredible.
Scarlotti
> No, contrary opinion is what this group thrives on. You brought bad
> will on yourself when you displayed zero aptitude for the
> give-and-take of conversation. You came in with certainty that you
> alone held the truth, and were arrogant enough to think dissentors to
> your pop gospel were being heretical and small-minded.
Again, I refer you to the original post. The only hubris displayed
there is directed at me from others (particularly Mark D., who in one
of the first responses to my statement labels me "ignorant" in regard
to r&b, and patronizingly tells me that if I stick around long enough,
I'll get an education.
Bob, you were not around when the argument first began (I believe your
computer was down). You first showed up about a week or so into the
discussion -- *after* things had already gotten out of hand.
Perhaps in reading random attacks and counterattacks out of sequence,
you gained a false impression of how things developed. In the name of
fairness, I ask you to go back and reread the original post. My first
entry is the 70th response, and is immediately followed by venom
(Bruce) and arrogance-with-unjust-accusations-of-racism (Mark).
And please note that these are the *first* responses to my postings.
Bruce's reply was the 71st entry -- directly after mine. Mark's was
the 77th. The only "give-and-take" I'd had by the time Mark replied
was with Bruce (whose posts consisted of little more than name calling
and wedgie fantasies).
The thread's title is Re: Rock's Birth? and an NG google search will
bring it right up.
*****
Look, I'm not claiming to have been a saint in what ensued. I'm
simply saying that you're mistaken in thinking that my "attitude"
brought about the initial animosity.
> Because of
> your unwillingness or inability to consider opinions counter to your
> own, I called you a troll; for that observation, in a precurser to
> SHARX, you called me a homosexual.
It is one thing to be willing to consider a contrary opinion. It is
something else again to consider a contrary opinion laced with words
like "boob," "asshole," "ignorant," "racist," and the like. I have
always been more than open to considering opinions that run counter to
mine -- when presented in a civil manner.
I may not change my own opinion as a result -- but I certainly did
consider them. My usual m.o. (and a careful review of past threads
will support this) is to test a counter opinion against *additional*
views. To this end, I would search for whatever information I could
find on the subject and compare/contrast the views expressed there
with both my own and those running counter to mine.
While I am researching the above, I am quite open to all the
information (pro and con) I come across. I weigh the resultant
arguments for each side, and form my own conclusions. Which (when
supporting my position) I would post -- not so much to show up the
contrary poster, as to allow said poster to challenge the newfound
evidence.
For this, I was continually attacked (yourself among the attackers)
for refusing to give credence to the views of the "experts" comprising
this NG.
To me this sounds like hubris with a capital "H."
Why should I be expected to accept everything Mark or Fred posted
without question? And why should it be considered "attitudinal" of me
to seek out further views from other "expert" sources?
You claim that I have an inability to consider opinions that run
counter to my own -- but isn't that, in actuality, what you were
advocating when you condemned me for not blindly accepting the
pronouncements of r&b fans (many with little knowledge of or interest
in pop) over pop fans?
In all seriousness, Bob -- should I faithfully accept an opinion by
Mark (that I've "bought into the old, and vaguely racist notion that
black music is mostly defined by being more emotionally uninhibited
than white music, and thus Laine and Johnny Ray, because they sing in
a overly emotive way compared to the understated crooners of the day,
must be 'singing black'") over views expressed by Ray and Laine
themselves???
Granted, not all of the issues were that cut and dried, but the point
still holds.
*****
As to my calling you a "homosexual," I cannot find the actual thread,
but believe I remember it well enough. You acknowledge it (above) to
have been issued (at least in part) in retaliation to your having
labelled me a "troll" (and you were urging others to killfile me at
the time). Well it may have been in response to this, but it wasn't
brought about by your calling me a "troll."
My recollection is that it came on the heels of Mark's claim (albeit
in a different thread) that:
"You (addressing me) are obsessively combative, obsessively
repetitive, narcissistic, unconsciously racist, and rigidly fixated on
the songs that you learned from your mother and singers to whom you
seem to have a guilty homoerotic attachment"*
and your (and Bugge's and Dean's) subsequent condemnation of me in his
support. It was my way of demonstrating the absurdity of assessing
someone's sexuality based on postings in a Google group. As Mark was
invariably supported by a trio of male friends, one could just as
easily level such allegations against him (and/or you, Dean and
Bugge). And so, I did.
*Mark wrote the above (and similar fare including references to my
marriage) in response to my having a little sport at his "Chuck the
Poet" thread. And before you go shooting me for that, I followed up
with several serious attempts to initiate a potentially rewarding
discussion on poetry and songwriting which both Mark and yourself
ignored.
> (That remark drove away your only
> ally, Mr. Gilson, who actually was one.)
My sincere apologies to Mr. Gilson, whom I both like and respect.
(For the record, I support gay rights, gay marriage, have had many
close friends who were bi/gay, and don't care what anyone's sexual
preference is.)
I had always believed that his leaving had to do with Tom B.'s
branding me a "Satanist," as his disappearance followed several of
Tom's posts to that effect. However much it hurts to know the truth,
I appreciate your having told me -- and offer my honest thanks to you
for doing so.
> Your self-perception of victimization justified in your mind months of
> rudeness. More recently you seem to have realized that your opinions
> might be able to co-exist with fans of rougher sounds. But by then
> you had burnt too many bridges. There still could be room for you
> here, but the first step is recognizing that you have been a victim of
> nothing but your own hubris.
I appreciate the offer, and thank you for that as well.
And I'm willing to compromise and admit that I can be rude, crude,
attitudinal and arrogant -- as can quite a few others here. For the
most part, I do it tongue-in-cheek (though it may not always come
through in this medium) -- but I'm even willing to confess that I have
crossed over the line on a few occasions.
Okay, okay... I'll even confess to having just the merest streak of
sadism in me (in that I don't necessarily find these exchanges of
derogatory quips to be entirely unpleasant). ;)
But goddammit, Bob, I didn't start the nastiness, and I'll be hanged
if I'll confess to something I never did.
Nosiree ... uh ... bob!
Bob Roman
> Perhaps in reading random attacks and counterattacks out of sequence,
> you gained a false impression of how things developed. In the name of
> fairness, I ask you to go back and reread the original post. My first
> entry is the 70th response, and is immediately followed by venom
> (Bruce) and arrogance-with-unjust-accusations-of-racism (Mark).
No, he didn't. I believe this is the note from Mark that upset you:
"If that has not been clear to casual listeners, you have to consult
the history of American racism to understand why. Paul Whiteman did
not invent jazz no matter what people in Peoria in the 1920s may have
thought. Frankie Laine did not invent r'n'r. Eminem did not invent rap
no matter what some unconsciously racist fan may say fifty years from
now."
The fact is, race is a huge part of any conversation about the history
of American music. It is not an accusation of racism to point out
that 1950s attitudes can have a residual effect on twenty-first
century views of the 1950s.
I have said similar things to Mark himself. In one of the first
conversations I had with him, six or seven years ago, I pointed out
that something he wrote could have such racial implications. I wasn't
calling him a racist, and he recognized that. I always assume people
are of good-will until proven otherwise.
> For this, I was continually attacked (yourself among the attackers)
> for refusing to give credence to the views of the "experts" comprising
> this NG.
My memory is that I first called you a troll based on your interaction
with Cathy D. And Cathy is the sweetest-tempered person who ever
graced this group.
> And I'm willing to compromise and admit that I can be rude, crude,
> attitudinal and arrogant -- as can quite a few others here. For the
> most part, I do it tongue-in-cheek (though it may not always come
> through in this medium) -- but I'm even willing to confess that I have
> crossed over the line on a few occasions.
This is an admirable step. No sarcasm or irony intended.
But I hope will also consider that others see their initial
interactions with you as innocently as you see your interactions with
them. Given that, your willingness to escalate -- "crossing the line"
-- at any perceived slight will inevitably be seen as hostility on
your part.
BTW, and I've said this before, I've never asked people to killfile
you. I've never asked people to killfile anyone.
Bob Roman
SHARX.
You were accused of asking people to SHUN him, not kill file.
Scarlotti
> No, he didn't. I believe this is the note from Mark that upset you:
>
> "If that has not been clear to casual listeners, you have to consult
> the history of American racism to understand why. Paul Whiteman did
> not invent jazz no matter what people in Peoria in the 1920s may have
> thought. Frankie Laine did not invent r'n'r. Eminem did not invent rap
> no matter what some unconsciously racist fan may say fifty years from
> now."
>
> The fact is, race is a huge part of any conversation about the history
> of American music. It is not an accusation of racism to point out
> that 1950s attitudes can have a residual effect on twenty-first
> century views of the 1950s.
>
> I have said similar things to Mark himself. In one of the first
> conversations I had with him, six or seven years ago, I pointed out
> that something he wrote could have such racial implications. I wasn't
> calling him a racist, and he recognized that. I always assume people
> are of good-will until proven otherwise.
I never had any problems with that post from Mark. I agree with it,
in a general sense.
What I have problems with are the posts I'd directly quoted from
early:
(#77 in the Re: Rock's Birth thread) Mark stated (direct quote) that:
"My guess is that (Scarlotti's) bought into the old, and vaguely
racist notion that black music is mostly defined by being more
emotionally uninhibited than white music, and thus Laine and Johnny
Ray, because they sing in a overly emotive way compared to the
understated crooners of the day, must be 'singing black'"
and in his later response to my goofing on his Chuch the Poet post, he
wrote:
"You (addressing me) are obsessively combative, obsessively
repetitive, narcissistic, unconsciously racist, and rigidly fixated on
the songs that you learned from your mother and singers to whom you
seem to have a guilty homoerotic attachment."
In the first, he claims that I have "bought into a vaguely racist
notion," and in the second he calls me "unconsciously racist."
Adjectives like "vaguely" and "unconscious" may soften the delivery of
the accusations, but in no manner alleviate the severity of his
charges that my opinions are "racist."
Bruce's "boob" and "wedgie" comments never bothered me -- I just see
them as invitations to rough things up with him. But the "racist"
accusations rankle.
> > For this, I was continually attacked (yourself among the attackers)
> > for refusing to give credence to the views of the "experts" comprising
> > this NG.
>
> My memory is that I first called you a troll based on your interaction
> with Cathy D. And Cathy is the sweetest-tempered person who ever
> graced this group.
You're probably right. You've called me a troll more than once, after
all. :)
> > And I'm willing to compromise and admit that I can be rude, crude,
> > attitudinal and arrogant -- as can quite a few others here. For the
> > most part, I do it tongue-in-cheek (though it may not always come
> > through in this medium) -- but I'm even willing to confess that I have
> > crossed over the line on a few occasions.
>
> This is an admirable step. No sarcasm or irony intended.
Appreciated.
> But I hope will also consider that others see their initial
> interactions with you as innocently as you see your interactions with
> them. Given that, your willingness to escalate -- "crossing the line"
> -- at any perceived slight will inevitably be seen as hostility on
> your part.
Fair enough.
In all honesty, I don't hold anything against anyone in this NG -- and
I'm rarely ever feeling hostile when I post. Whether in my writings,
or in everyday life, my sense of humor only connects with a small
percentage of people -- even less so on message boards or in this NG.
[I never thought I was even approaching the line with Cathy (much less
crossing over it), and I still haven't figured out how my barking
after mentioning The Spaniels would cause her to killfile my posts.
Maybe you get it, and maybe I'm just dense, but can't see why that
should offend anyone.]
Earlier today, I posted a self-spoofing disclaimer (addressed to you),
following my definition of r'n'r. I found it amusing, but apparently
it didn't come off.
Anyway, I've been trying to keep the potentially offensive comebacks
down to a minimum of late (relatively speaking), and am planning on
continuing to do so. But I don't expect anybody to alter their
opinion of/feelings toward me as a result. I'm more hoping to avoid
burning any other bridges.
> BTW, and I've said this before, I've never asked people to killfile
> you. I've never asked people to killfile anyone.
Could we say that you strongly suggested it, then? ;)
(Hopefully the emoticons help -- much as I detest them.)
Hey, just so you're not asking anyone to killfile me now, I'm happy.
Steve Carras
> Scar...@searchhawkmail.com (Scarlotti) wrote...
> > robert...@hotmail.com (Bob Roman) wrote...
> > > Scar...@searchhawkmail.com (Scarlotti) wrote...
> > > > Okay. Sorry if I'm a bit on the defensive -- I've been under constant
> > > > attack here for almost a year and a half ... it does things to the
> > > > nnnnnnnnerves.
> > >
> > > You don't acknowledge the extent to which you brought it on yourself?
> >
> > How so? By having the audacity to post an opinion contrary to certain
> > members of the group?
>
> No, contrary opinion is what this group thrives on. You brought bad
> will on yourself when you displayed zero aptitude for the
> give-and-take of conversation. You came in with certainty that you
> alone held the truth, and were arrogant enough to think dissentors to
> your pop gospel were being heretical and small-minded. Because of
> your unwillingness or inability to consider opinions counter to your
> own, I called you a troll; for that observation, in a precurser to
> SHARX, you called me a homosexual. (That remark drove away your only
> ally, Mr. Gilson, who actually was one.)
>
> Your self-perception of victimization justified in your mind months of
> rudeness. More recently you seem to have realized that your opinions
> might be able to co-exist with fans of rougher sounds. But by then
> you had burnt too many bridges. There still could be room for you
> here, but the first step is recognizing that you have been a victim of
> nothing but your own hubris.
>
> Bob Roman
DBurch7672
mention in anybody's discussion or music in 1956. To ignore him is difficult.
He didnt just sing. He had an act. He would emerge from a casket in full
voodoo regalia, carrying a skull and smoking a cigarette to sing "I Put a
Spell on You" (1956) Other novelties, ranging from "Feast of the Mau
Mau" to "Constipation Blues" (I wonder what this act was like) may have
stereotyped his talent, but on the other hand, his idiosyncracies brought him
TV and movie appearances that would have eluded him had he played his music
straight. Regardless of style, Hawkins's recordings still display a remarkable
voice, which would have been used for opera had Screamin' Jay had his way.
desire for the operatic genre; or a respect for it, for that matter*?
He sounds like a real character (which I respect).
Sounds like the 1950's "question" to which Alice Cooper or Marilyn Manson are
the "answers", (to me!)
Pete Grendysa
> Screaming Jay would was a performer. A unique individual, certainly worth a
> mention in anybody's discussion or music in 1956. To ignore him is difficult.
>
> He didnt just sing. He had an act. He would emerge from a casket in full
> voodoo regalia, carrying a skull and smoking a cigarette to sing "I Put a
> Spell on You" (1956) Other novelties, ranging from "Feast of the Mau
> Mau" to "Constipation Blues" (I wonder what this act was like) may have
> stereotyped his talent, but on the other hand, his idiosyncracies brought him
> TV and movie appearances that would have eluded him had he played his music
> straight. Regardless of style, Hawkins's recordings still display a remarkable
> voice, which would have been used for opera had Screamin' Jay had his way.
>
> How do you know; (about the opera thing, tha is!)? Did he *ever express a
> desire for the operatic genre; or a respect for it, for that matter*?
In my interviews with him for Goldmine and Blitz! magazines he said:
"I had been playing piano since I was three years old and had dreams
of becoming an opera singer. The first record I ever bought was by
Enrico Caruso."
And: "I love ballads, I'm sincere about that. That may shock you. I
had a slogan a couple of years ago. I like Frank Sinatra, and when he
came out with that tag on his name 'Ol' Blue Eyes Is Back', I went and
did the same song - 'I've Got You Under My Skin', and called it 'Ol'
Black Ass Is Back!' Can you figure out how I can jump from being a
madman to doing ballads? Originally I came into this business to do
opera. Opera don't get on the charts and don't make a lot of money,
and they used to tell me, different record companies, 'Singers are a
dime a dozen. What we need and what we want is something different!'
Jay was literate, intelligent, humorous, and kind. Always a pleasure
to talk to.
Pete Grendysa