Don Covay Hasn't Noticed
Jeff Rubard
song on the radio at any given time is a CCR song; and the popularity
of CCR is an interesting case, as the songs of those El Cerrito boys
are mainly given over to hellfire-and-brimstone visions mined from the
living memory of Aimee Semple McPherson and points distant, with a
pause for the most effective military-brass-tweaking song of all time.
But I would venture to say that, of that period, the best song that
*isn't* on the radio is a Don Covay song; and this fairly Platonistic
thought requires some explanation. For those who don't know, Don
Covay was the man who wrote "See-Saw", "Chain of Fools", "Mercy Mercy"
and many other songs you know much better from their other versions.
Additionally, he had his own act, which went through various versions
(one including Jimi Hendrix) before arriving at the present. Although
Don Covay has had a stroke, he's still recording music; and my thesis
is that he hasn't noticed, because there's nothing to notice.
Let me explain. Although Covay was responsible for many of the
greatest soul songs of all time, he's not really a soul artist; a
protege of Little Richard, who nicknamed him "Pretty Boy", Covay is
squarely within the "black rock" genre which was later refounded by
groups like Living Colour and 24-7 Spyz. That is, Don Covay plays
rock, and as with Ike Turner it's your problem. Why is it your
problem? Well, let's consider Chuck Berry (one of Turner's least
favorite people): who is widely regarded as a master of 50's rock,
because he was the best. But not only are Chuck Berry songs more
musically interesting than what was going on at that time
(Vincentolary aside), there's more going on lyrically than anyone at
that time wanted to admit. Chuck Berry songs are definitively
*extensional*: there's never an assumed distance between Berry and the
narrator of the song. But that's not all; there is an assumed
distance between Berry and the audience of the song. For example,
"Brown-eyed Handsome Man" brings together disparate elements that
really don't congeal, and doesn't he know it.
Now, this is more interesting than white Negritude already, but what
is even more interesting is that Don Covay songs are completely
extensional; Don Covay is basically just saying some words, including
the figurative words. Do the lyrics mean something? Words mean
something. Are there subtexts to the words? Don Covay didn't notice,
and there's really no reason for him to have noticed; truth be told,
there's really nothing more interesting than Don Covay going on in Don
Covay's environment. The environment is important as backdrop, and
Covay treats it well enough, but he's not "hitting and getting hit",
and sometimes the inanimate portions of the environment are
friendlier. Now, is this a character? Yes. But it is the character
of objective truth: Don Covay would like you to come back and take
that hurt off him, come hell or high water. Can you think of worse
things? I suspect he can as well.
SavoyBG
>Let me explain. Although Covay was responsible for many of the
>greatest soul songs of all time, he's not really a soul artist;
He certainly is a soul artist.
>a
>protege of Little Richard, who nicknamed him "Pretty Boy", Covay is
>squarely within the "black rock" genre which was later refounded by
>groups like Living Colour
And Joe Tex and Otis Redding also started as Little Richard imitators, are they
not soul artists either?
Covay was a member of the "Soul Clan," along with Solomon Burke, Arthur Conley,
Ben E. King and Joe Tex.
Listen to his 1968 classic "I Stole Some Love" and tell me that it's not soul.
If you want to hear "Black Rock" go listen to Gary US Bonds.
Mark Dintenfass
<sav...@aol.com> wrote:
I think you've been had, Bruce. In fact, for a while reading the
original post I thopught you or Roger had written it as a parody of
over-intellectualizing about music. It is, in any case, utter
gibberish.
--
--md
Remove xx to respond
Dennis B
Don't forget Covay's "I Was Checkin' Out, While She Was Checkin' In,"
one of the most heartbreaking cheating songs ever.
Gary Nichols
"Mark Dintenfass" <mdint...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote in message
news:131120031902244155%mdint...@xxnew.rr.com...
Besides I think this exact same post was here a few months ago and some
people took it seriously at that time too
--
"Remember there is a light at the end of the tunnel'
Gary 'Gatsby' Nichols
gar...@juno.com.
Jeff Rubard
> >From: jru...@opensentence.org (Jeff Rubard)
>
> >Let me explain. Although Covay was responsible for many of the
> >greatest soul songs of all time, he's not really a soul artist;
>
> He certainly is a soul artist.
>
mad
when you call him a soul man and I think Don Covay is really more of
a piece with him than Sam Cooke.
> >a
> >protege of Little Richard, who nicknamed him "Pretty Boy", Covay is
> >squarely within the "black rock" genre which was later refounded by
> >groups like Living Colour
>
> And Joe Tex and Otis Redding also started as Little Richard imitators, are they
> not soul artists either?
Joe Tex *and* Otis Redding are pretty borderline, actually; soul is
transmuted gospel, but it's not all there is to R&B and R&B isn't all
there is to black music of that era.
> Covay was a member of the "Soul Clan," along with Solomon Burke, Arthur Conley,
> Ben E. King and Joe Tex.
I know; it's in the liner notes to *The Definitive Don Covay*. I've
never heard their song, though.
> Listen to his 1968 classic "I Stole Some Love" and tell me that it's not soul.
I think that's his best song ever; I'd say it's R&B simply by virtue
of it being Don Covay. I can't tell that Don Covay has ever been to
church by listening to his music, and although I expect he has I doubt
he was in the choir, much less the heartthrob of "churched" black
America or some subset thereof.
> If you want to hear "Black Rock" go listen to Gary US Bonds.
The reason that expression appeared in quotation marks is that it's a
little bit "pleonastic" - you really shouldn't have to add the
adjective, or foist the term off on minor acts like Gary Bonds.
Jeff Rubard
> jru...@opensentence.org (Jeff Rubard) wrote in message news:<740acfc5.03111...@posting.google.com>...
>
>
> one of the most heartbreaking cheating songs ever.
Yeah, that's a great song too (and by that point, when he was working
with the Muscle Shoals guys, he was pretty much just doing soul): but
the point of my "overintellectual" approach comes out here. In the
hands of someone else, that song would be really *fraught*: what is
that guy really thinking about? His masculinity? His right to that
woman? The other guy's car? But Don Covay is just really upset;
his dirt caught up with him. Is that why? Who knows.
By the way, if you want to avoid a really "overintellectual" approach
to music, Harry Belafonte fans should avoid a book titled *From A
Logical Point Of View* by a man named Willard van Orman Quine. It's
actually not a bad book, but the problem is that "the logical point of
view" espoused by Quine was not Harry Belafonte's idea of logic (which
extended a little further than the ugly woman); in fact rather pointedly
the opposite, although the song title was good enough.
SavoyBG
>minor acts like Gary Bonds.
Minor act, huh?
Covay wishes that he was as succesful as Bonds was.
Jeff Rubard
Songwriting royalties are almost better, because you get paid
a couple cents everytime the song gets played on commercial radio.
As far as Bonds, well, he doesn't rock my world; he's a little
tame, and it wasn't as tame an era as oldies radio would have
you think.
Lex Jansen
ballads EVER. "I don't know what you got, but it's got me" by Little
Richard.
Lex Jansen
Please reply to the newsgroup. In order to fight spam and virusses replies
to my email address listed in this post will be deleted without reading. If
you want to reply to me personally, please replace "spam" with "admin" in
the e-mail address. An alternative means of contact is the form at:
http://www.lexjansen.com/feedback
"SavoyBG" <sav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031113191041...@mb-m26.aol.com...
KEN8038
CDs of all time. Classic after classic. Some have already been mentioned in
these posts, but check out "Daddy Loves Baby" which to me sounds like the
source (voice and all) for Mick Jagger's "Emotional Rescue". ---Ken
PS: One drawback: no CD release of "Mercy Mercy" sounds as good as my old
scratchy 45. --Ken
Jeff Rubard
> Mind you. Don Covay was co-writer ot the one of the greatest deep soul
> ballads EVER. "I don't know what you got, but it's got me" by Little
> Richard.
>
like a blues than a deep soul song, which has more to do with Luther's
bathroom habits than a foxy chick: "Eight Men, Four Women" is a
deep-soul song, "Mustang Sally" isn't.
Intheway1
>
Chart appearances are only one measure of success, and the only one where Bonds
beats Covay. And let's be honest, there was a hell of a dry spell for Bonds
between 1962 and 1981. It only ended when Bruce Springsteen took an interest,
and then his return to the charts lasted only as long as Springsteen was
involved. With that kind of career arc, he's three years overdue for another
revival now.
Three words why Covay has been more successful than Bonds in any other respect:
Chain of Fools.
Fred
SavoyBG
>Chart appearances are only one measure of success, and the only one where
>Bonds
>beats Covay.
But the most important one though.
>And let's be honest, there was a hell of a dry spell for Bonds
>between 1962 and 1981.
It's not like Covay was exactly tearing things up between '66 & '72, not to
mention over the last 30 years.
>Three words why Covay has been more successful than Bonds in any other
>respect:
> Chain of Fools.
That's not even the biggest hit record that he wrote. What about "Pony Time?"
Covay has also never had an album on the pop chart.
Didn't he sing background on a Rolling Stones album, mid-70's I think?
Intheway1
>>Bonds
>>beats Covay.
>
>But the most important one though.
>
Well, by that standard, the Singing Nun was more successful than Sam and Dave
because she had a Billboard #1 and they didn't. And since the Singing Dogs not
only had a longer chart career, but also had a #1, they were more successful
than Jackie Wilson.
Charts have a couple fatal flaws as measures of success (whatever you may mean
by that term.)
The greatest one is that they are broadly acknowledged to be inaccurate. They
were subject to direct manipulation, which makes reliance on their credibility
tenuous at best. There is also the historic (and generally admitted) problem
of racial bias that skewed the published numbers for many years. Basing a
statement that one artist was more successful than another based on chart
positions ignores the serious problems with the veracity of the charts
themselves.
Just as important in undermining the use of charts as a gauge of historic
success is the fact that cross-period comparisons are statistically unsound.
Charts are intended as a snapshot of how records are doing relative to each
other during a closely defined, and extremely limited, time period. There is
no direct correlation between the success of a #3 record in March, 1965 and the
success of a #3 record in March, 1967 (or even of the #3 in the next week in
March, 1965) other than the fact that they were both ranked lower than just two
other songs during those periods. (You can't even say that they sold fewer
records than all but two other songs because of both the way the charts were
calculated and because the underlying data is unreliable.)
Chart positions are relative, and (if the underlying data is accurate) only
useful in comparing one record's success against the limited universe of other
records released at that specific time. Without factoring this into
consideration, saying that an artist with more chart appearances was more
successful than another with fewer appearances is not supportable all by
itself. At best, all you can say is that one artist had more chart success
than another. Expanding that to some broader gauge of success is not valid,
unless you have some other foundation for the claim.
>
>It's not like Covay was exactly tearing things up between '66 & '72, not to
>mention over the last 30 years.
>
Covay was active during that period as a writer and producer, as well as
putting out one of the best, and most under-appreciated LPs of 1969, "House of
Blue Light." (Atlantic was already showing signs of being unable to market
black artists not named Aretha). Bonds wasn't even recording.
Ill health curtailed his work in the mid-80s, even before the stroke, but of
course, that interjects something personal about the individual's real life
into the conversation and must be avoided at all costs. However, his alleged
lack of new work "over the last 30 years" must be considered as a mark against
his success as an artist. John Lennon has had an equally bad stretch since
1980 by this standard.
Disco killed traditional soul as a commercial form of music by the mid-70s.
Covay's recording career suffered the same fate as nearly every other performer
in that genre. Perhaps the only reason disco had no effect on Bonds' recording
career is because he didn't have one at the time.
Besides that, there was a new Covay CD release in 2000, and another one in the
preliminary stages now.
>
>>Three words why Covay has been more successful than Bonds in any other
>>respect:
>> Chain of Fools.
>
>That's not even the biggest hit record that he wrote. What about "Pony Time?"
In terms of any standard other than chart position, Chain of Fools was the
bigger song. Although it is also a notoriously inexact measurement, Chain of
Fools was certified Gold. Pony Time wasn't.
>Covay has also never had an album on the pop chart.
Absolutely true. In addition to the previous reasons not to rely on charts,
Atlantic made absolutely no effort to promote his early LPs. The lack of an
equally successful follow-up single to "Mercy Mercy" (and the LP has a couple
that should have been) pretty much guaranteed the album was going to tank
commercially without any promotion by the label.
>Didn't he sing background on a Rolling Stones album, mid-70's I think?
>
Dirty Work, 1986.
The relationship with the Stones goes back much further. Beyond covering
"Mercy, Mercy" early on, there are obvious vocal clues that Jagger listened to
a lot of Covay records, and Jagger has acknowledged that Covay was an
influence.
Let me make it clear here that I am not denigrating Bonds in any way. He made
some singles that remain among the best party records of all time.
You said "Covay wishes he was as successful as Bonds." This, of course,
presumes that Covay shares your opinion that chart position is the most
important measure of success, and that no other measure can change the results
of that comparison. (And I have to admit to some curiousity over how you come
to this conclusion about Covay's state of mind, given your repeatedly avowed
disinterest in what the actual performers think or do.)
For a rougly two-year period, Bonds was a presence on the charts. Except for a
much later re-emergence, which was due far more to the Springsteen affiliation
than anything else, that was it. His follow up, produced by Steve Van Zandt in
an attempt to continue the Springsteen connection, tanked, and the only new
release since then has been a 2000 live concert of his earlier stuff.
Covay never reached the chart peak Bonds did, but in terms of duration,
consistency, and sheer output, he is more successful. In terms of more
intangible things like impact, influence and reputation, I don't think Bonds
comes close.
Fred
Brett A. Pasternack
>
> >>Chart appearances are only one measure of success, and the only one where
> >>Bonds
> >>beats Covay.
> >
> >But the most important one though.
> >
>
> Well, by that standard, the Singing Nun was more successful than Sam and Dave
> because she had a Billboard #1 and they didn't. And since the Singing Dogs not
> only had a longer chart career, but also had a #1, they were more successful
> than Jackie Wilson.
While I take your point that there are more important things that chart
success, determining chart success is hardly limited to looking at how
high their biggest record hit. Sam & Dave and Jackie Wilson were
certainly more successful than the Singing Nun on the charts when
looking at their whole career.
And the Singing Dogs only had a longer career and a #1 hit if you
consider the special Christmas Singles chart as equal to the actual Hot
100, which would be an absurd proposition. Their career on the "regular"
pop chart (this was actually pre-Hot 100) lasted all of seven weeks, and
they peaked at #22.
Mark Dintenfass
<inth...@aol.com> wrote:
> For a rougly two-year period, Bonds was a presence on the charts. Except for
> a
> much later re-emergence, which was due far more to the Springsteen affiliation
> than anything else, that was it. His follow up, produced by Steve Van Zandt
> in
> an attempt to continue the Springsteen connection, tanked, and the only new
> release since then has been a 2000 live concert of his earlier stuff.
I have that second LP and it's very, very good. But nothing matches his
half dozen great singles of the cusp era.
>
> Covay never reached the chart peak Bonds did, but in terms of duration,
> consistency, and sheer output, he is more successful. In terms of more
> intangible things like impact, influence and reputation, I don't think Bonds
> comes close.
I agree. Covay is on my list of great soul singers, and I have listened
to him over the years much more than I've listened to Bonds. That's a
pretty decent measure of success, too.
Intheway1
>While I take your point that there are more important things that chart
>success, determining chart success is hardly limited to looking at how
>high their biggest record hit. Sam & Dave and Jackie Wilson were
>certainly more successful than the Singing Nun on the charts when
>looking at their whole career.
>
>And the Singing Dogs only had a longer career and a #1 hit if you
>consider the special Christmas Singles chart as equal to the actual Hot
>100, which would be an absurd proposition. Their career on the "regular"
>pop chart (this was actually pre-Hot 100) lasted all of seven weeks, and
>they peaked at #22.
I agree completely with everything you say, and only raised the admitted
ludicrous examples of the Singing Nun and Dogs (a supergroup opportunity
missed, for sure) to show that considering chart position as the most important
factor in determining its success was a flawed approach.
The charts are an inadequate way to determine anything other than where a
record ranked at a specific time and place, and really don't tell us anything
definitive or conclusive all by themselves about the overall success of an
artist. If they did, the Singing Dogs could still be said to be more
successful than Covay only with a #22 ranking, 17 places higher than Covay's
best.
Fred
Intheway1
I haven't heard it in years, but remember it as good solid rock. I think Van
Zandt did a good job of producing Bonds and placing him in a really good
setting. It was, as I remember, every bit as good as the previous one he did
with Springsteen, but it got none of the sales boost that one did, which I
think is for the sole reason that Springsteen wasn't involved, so there was no
reflected spotlight on it.
This illustrates another drawback of using charts to determine success.
Sometimes a record charts for reasons completely unrelated to the music.
Fred
Intheway1
>
"Dedication", and it's immediate followup "On The Line" were Springsteen
co-productions in 1981 and 1982, respectively. "Standing In The Line of Fire"
was partially produced by Van Zandt (with Bonds) in 1984.
Fred
SavoyBG
>>Chart appearances are only one measure of success, and the only one where
>>>Bonds
>>>beats Covay.
>But the most important one though.
>Well, by that standard, the Singing Nun was more successful than Sam and Dave
>because she had a Billboard #1 and they didn't.
How do you get that? It's a very poor comparison for this reason....
It says "chart appearances." Sam and Dave had way more "chart apperances that
the Singing Nun.
The Singing Nun was in no way as succesful as Sam and Dave.
BUT
"Dominique" was a more successful single (and LP) than any individual record
that Sam & Dave ever had.
Big difference.
>And since the Singing Dogs not
>only had a longer chart career, but also had a #1, they were more successful
>than Jackie Wilson.
The Singing Dogs never had a # 1 record, what are you talking about?
Again, we're talking about "chart appearances," not the highest individual
chrating record.
What kind of mron would say that the Silhouettes were more successful than the
Hollies because they had a # 1 record and the Hollies didn't?
Fred, you're fucked up man.
>Just as important in undermining the use of charts as a gauge of historic
>success is the fact that cross-period comparisons are statistically unsound.
>Charts are intended as a snapshot of how records are doing relative to each
>other during a closely defined, and extremely limited, time period.
>There is
>no direct correlation between the success of a #3 record in March, 1965 and
>the
>success of a #3 record in March, 1967
Everything is relative Fred. There were a lot more people buying records in the
1970's than in the 1940's.
But for its time, "In The Mood" was a much bigger record than something like
"Crocodile Rock," even though "Crocodile Rock" may have sold more copies.
You have to remember that there were way less options in the 40's for people to
do. You didn't have 300 cable channels, and all kinds of different radio
stations with different musical formats.
A million seller in 1947 was a much more well known record, percentage wise in
the community, than a million seller in 2001.
By 2001 there were lots of big music fans, who would not even be familiar with
a huge hit, because the hit would be of a different type of music than they
were into.
In 1947, if a record was huge, like "Open The Door Richard," for instance,
virtually anybody who was interested in music would have been familiar with
that record.
>In terms of any standard other than chart position, Chain of Fools was the
>bigger song.
I beg to differ. If the standard is sales than "Pony Time" was also the bigger
song. If the standard is how good the record was, IMO, "Pony Time by Chubby
Checker" is a better record than "Chain Of Fools by Aretha"
>Although it is also a notoriously inexact measurement, Chain of
>Fools was certified Gold. Pony Time wasn't.
>
Let me get this straight. You're crying about the unreliability of chart info,
but now you're gonna brimng up whether or not a record was "certified gold?"
Would you please stick to lawyering and leave the record research to those who
know what the S means in Mike (or is it Ray) Callahan's website.
I don't think Cameo/Parkway even let their records be certified gold, but even
if they did, we'll never know for certain which record sold more copies.
>You said "Covay wishes he was as successful as Bonds."
>And I have to admit to some curiousity over how you come
>to this conclusion about Covay's state of mind, given your repeatedly avowed
>disinterest in what the actual performers think or do.)
Did you ever hear of an "expression" to make a point Fred?
Obviously I have no idea what Covay thinks. My point was that Covay would have
ben very happy to have asw many big pop hits as Bonds did.
>Covay never reached the chart peak Bonds did, but in terms of duration,
>consistency, and sheer output, he is more successful.
Then I suppose you consider Mantovani (and Don Covay) to be more succesful
than the Beatles. He beats them in duration, consistency, and in sheer output.
>In terms of more
>intangible things like impact, influence and reputation, I don't think Bonds
>comes close.
Well, Springsteen has stated that Bonds was a huge influence on him, and goiven
that the average white rock and roll fan never heard of Covay, but has heard of
Bonds, it would be hard to say that Covay has had more impact or a better
reputation.
He may have that with other artists, but certainly not with the general public.
Intheway1
Really? Wow. But they had a #1 (which, the last time I checked, was a chart
appearance, although you are free, as usual, to change definitions as you go
along), so I guess that one doesn't count.
>The Singing Dogs never had a # 1 record, what are you talking about?
>
Whitburn shows them as #1 on the Christmas singles list. A #1 is a #1, or does
it count only if a song is on charts we like?
>What kind of mron would say that the Silhouettes were more successful than
>the
>Hollies because they had a # 1 record and the Hollies didn't?
Maybe a "mron" who says that chart appearances are the most important gauge of
success until someone challenges that idiotic statement? You tell me.
As the point obviously escaped you, I was not arguing that chart appearances
were the most important factor in determining success. You were.
Everything that follows this point is totally irrelevant to the previous posts,
and an obvious attempt to change the subject.
>But for its time, "In The Mood" was a much bigger record than something like
>"Crocodile Rock," even though "Crocodile Rock" may have sold more copies.
"Bigger" in what sense? A 78 is bigger than a 45, but I don't think that's
what you had in mind.
>A million seller in 1947 was a much more well known record, percentage wise
>in
>the community, than a million seller in 2001.
This is obviously true in simple terms of demographics, but, as far as I can
tell, it has nothing to do with the comments I made concerning relying on
charts as evidence of success.
Remember, Bruce, *you* were the one saying chart appearance was the the most
important factor in determining success.
>In 1947, if a record was huge, like "Open The Door Richard," for instance,
>virtually anybody who was interested in music would have been familiar with
>that record.
I don't suppose you have any proof of this.
Why don't you just say you're willing to "bet your balls" that it is true so
you can avoid saying this is just stating your opinion as fact.
>I beg to differ. If the standard is sales than "Pony Time" was also the
>bigger
>song.
Now I know you have no proof of this, and in fact I have proof to the contrary
in the form of contemporaneous publishing royalty statements.
>Let me get this straight. You're crying about the unreliability of chart
>info,
>but now you're gonna brimng up whether or not a record was "certified gold?"
Somehow you missed the phrase "notoriously inexact measurement" in my comment
about the certification. Since the meaning of the statement escaped you, I
will put it more plainly Certifications are not an accurate determination of
sales, nor of success. Neither are the charts.
>I don't think Cameo/Parkway even let their records be certified gold,
Oops, sorry Bruce. You're wrong. "The Twist," "Let's Twist Again" and "Limbo
Rock" all were certified by C/P for Chubby Checker. They also certified
records for Bobby Rydell, Dee Dee Sharp and ? and the Mysterians. I have no
idea why they skipped over "Pony Time" if it in fact qualified.
It's mistakes like this that can be so easily checked against available
resources that undermines the credibility of an alleged authority, isn't it?
>Well, Springsteen has stated that Bonds was a huge influence on him, and
>goiven
>that the average white rock and roll fan never heard of Covay, but has heard
>of
>Bonds, it would be hard to say that Covay has had more impact or a better
>reputation.
I suppose you would have proof of that comparison as to the perception of the
"average white rock and roll fan", or are you just stating your opinion as fact
again?
I am not sure where you draw the line at "average white rock and roll fan" (or
even why you draw such a line in the first place, since your blessed charts
didn't just count sales to such a group), but I was specifically referring to
relative impact on other performers. If we say that Springsteen and Jagger
were a draw (and that is giving you the benefit of the doubt on Springsteen,
who may have liked the sound of Bonds' records, but who's obvious vocal
influences were Sam Cooke and Paul Jones of Manfred Mann), there is a lot
longer line of people who have claimed Covay was an influence from Curtis
Mayfield to Robert Cray. Ironically, among those admirers who showed up on the
1993 tribute CD was one Gary US Bonds.
Fred
Jeff Rubard
> >From: inth...@aol.com (Intheway1)
>
>
> >Chart appearances are only one measure of success, and the only one where
> >Bonds
> >beats Covay.
>
> But the most important one though.
>
> >And let's be honest, there was a hell of a dry spell for Bonds
> >between 1962 and 1981.
>
> It's not like Covay was exactly tearing things up between '66 & '72, not to
> mention over the last 30 years.
>
> >Three words why Covay has been more successful than Bonds in any other
> >respect:
> > Chain of Fools.
>
> That's not even the biggest hit record that he wrote. What about "Pony Time?"
It's the greatest soul record ever, though.
Intheway1
>have
>ben very happy to have asw many big pop hits as Bonds did.
This, of course, is not what you said. You said Covay wishes he was as
*successful* as Bonds was.
May we now take it from the authority that success is measured in the number of
pop hits, and that a lack of pop hits means a lack of success?
Just trying to tie down the terms here.
Fred
SavoyBG
>(which, the last time I checked, was a chart
>appearance, although you are free, as usual, to change definitions as you go
>along)
I never set a definition that whichever artist had the one solitary highest
charting single was the one that I would consider to have done the best on the
charts, that was your inane assumption.
>The Singing Nun was in no way as succesful as Sam and Dave.
> But they had a #1
Who's they? Did the Singing Nun have a twin sister or something?
>Singing Dogs
>Whitburn shows them as #1 on the Christmas singles list. A #1 is a #1, or
>does
>it count only if a song is on charts we like?
So you want to count the Christmas chart, which was not even around every year,
and which simply listed the best selling Christmas records of the week, as a
seperate chart, and you say that having a record that's # 1 on that chart,
constitutes a # 1 record?
Okay, if that's true, than we obviously have to count the R & B chart as a
chart too then right, and if an artist has a # 1 R & B song, it would also
constitute having a # 1 song.
So based on YOUR definitions, Sam & Dave were bigger than the Singing Nun,
since she only had one number one song (Dominque), while they had two # 1 songs
(Hold On I'm A'Comin' & Soul Man).
>A #1 is a #1, or does
>it count only if a song is on charts we like?
Okay, so that also means that "Soul Man," which was # 1 for 7 weeks in the R &
B chart, was bigger than "Dominque," which was only # 1 for 4 weeks.
Based on your statement we shouldn't care WHAT chart that it's # 1 on, right?
>Maybe a "mron" who says that chart appearances are the most important gauge
>of
>success until someone challenges that idiotic statement? You tell me.
Fred, did you know that the word "appearances" is plural?
When looking at an artist's chart "appearances" you look at all of their chart
"appearances" to judge who was more succesful.
You don't just look at whichever artist had the single biggest hit record, and
ignore every other chart apperance they had.
I stand by my statement that chart "apperances" are the most important guage of
an artist's success. That does not mean that if the artist had a # 1 record
that they are more successful than any artist that did not have a # 1 record,
Fred. Nobody ever said that.
>As the point obviously escaped you, I was not arguing that chart appearances
>were the most important factor in determining success. You were.
And I still am. Success as a recording artist though, not as a songwriter,
producer, or any other side career.
Gary US Bonds was a more succesful recording artist than Don Covay. He sold
more singles, and he sold more albums than Covay. Their chart apperances
clearly show that.
>Now I know you have no proof of this, and in fact I have proof to the
>contrary
>in the form of contemporaneous publishing royalty statements.
Are those documents as solid as the ones from Stax that "proved" that there was
only one version of "Soul Man?"
Fred, did you ever think that it was possible that soem labels under report
sales for tax and royalty purposes?
Would it shock you to discover that maybe Parkway under reported sales of "Pony
Time" to avoid paying Check, Covay, and Uncle Sam as much money as they were
due?
>I suppose you would have proof of that comparison as to the perception of the
>"average white rock and roll fan", or are you just stating your opinion as
>fact
>again?
No Fred, you're right, Don Covay is a household fucking name.
SavoyBG
>May we now take it from the authority that success is measured in the number
>of
>pop hits, and that a lack of pop hits means a lack of success?
Do you think there are ANY artists out there would would prefer not to have big
hits on the pop charts, and instead be simply cult favorites?
I don't.
Any artist I ever met or heard an interview with only wanted to talk about
their biggest hits. Try talking to the Four Tops about their Chess record, for
instance. They laugh about it as if it was a joke. Same thing with the Miracles
and "Got A Job."
Intheway1
>Do you think there are ANY artists out there would would prefer not to have
>big
>hits on the pop charts, and instead be simply cult favorites?
>
>I don't.
>
>Any artist I ever met or heard an interview with only wanted to talk about
>their biggest hits. Try talking to the Four Tops about their Chess record,
>for
>instance. They laugh about it as if it was a joke. Same thing with the
>Miracles
>and "Got A Job."
>
All very interesting, especially the part where you rely on what artists have
to say, because we know they all can be so bitter and forgetful when what they
say doesn't agree with your opinion. Your standards are getting more flexible
every day, Bruce.
You still haven't addressed the point raised in my previous post, however. You
originally said that "Covay wishes he were as successful as Bonds."
Since you have tried several times now to change what you said to Bonds "having
more pop hits" than Covay (which nobody disputes), there are two conclusions I
can reach:
1. You are attempting to weasel out of an opinion you couldn't back up, or
2. You define "success" simply as a function of having pop hits.
Once and for all, which is it?
Fred
SavoyBG
>Once and for all, which is it?
Twice and for all now, it was an expression meaning that Covay wishes that he
had had the success on the pop charts that Bonds had, that's all.
There are all kinds of different ways to define success Fred. Covay may be much
more successful as a father, a husband, a son, a human being, a humaniterean,
etc....
but he was not as successful as Bonds at recording music (as the lead artist)
that people wanted to buy.
He was more successful than Bonds as a songwriter as far as songs he wrote that
other people had hits with.
Chubby Checker's "Pony Time" pisses all over the Goodtimers version IMO.
"Sookie Sookie" by Steppenwolf is about even with the Covay version IMO.
I mean how successful can a recording artist be if he never even had an album
on the Billboard pop LP chart?
PRowan9262
And there are three kinds of turds, Fred!!
There's musturd!!!!
There's custurd!!!
And there's YOU, you little shit!!!!
Dennis C from Tennessee
Intheway1
>
You really don't want to start a discussion of grammar and spelling, do you?
>So you want to count the Christmas chart, which was not even around every
>year,
>and which simply listed the best selling Christmas records of the week, as a
>seperate chart, and you say that having a record that's # 1 on that chart,
>constitutes a # 1 record?
>
>Okay, if that's true, than we obviously have to count the R & B chart as a
>chart too then right, and if an artist has a # 1 R & B song, it would also
>constitute having a # 1 song.
>
>So based on YOUR definitions, Sam & Dave were bigger than the Singing Nun,
>since she only had one number one song (Dominque), while they had two # 1
>songs
>(Hold On I'm A'Comin' & Soul Man).
>
>>A #1 is a #1, or does
>>it count only if a song is on charts we like?
>
>Okay, so that also means that "Soul Man," which was # 1 for 7 weeks in the R
>&
>B chart, was bigger than "Dominque," which was only # 1 for 4 weeks.
>
>Based on your statement we shouldn't care WHAT chart that it's # 1 on, right?
You're the one relying on charts as "the most important" determinant of
success, not me. (Why do I have to keep reminding you of this, Bruce?) The
multiplicity of charts and the variation between them is just another reason
why they can't be trusted.
>
>>Maybe a "mron" who says that chart appearances are the most important gauge
>>of
>>success until someone challenges that idiotic statement? You tell me.
>
>Fred, did you know that the word "appearances" is plural?
>
>When looking at an artist's chart "appearances" you look at all of their
>chart
>"appearances" to judge who was more succesful.
>
>You don't just look at whichever artist had the single biggest hit record,
>and
>ignore every other chart apperance they had.
>
>I stand by my statement that chart "apperances" are the most important guage
>of
>an artist's success. That does not mean that if the artist had a # 1 record
>that they are more successful than any artist that did not have a # 1 record,
>Fred. Nobody ever said that.
>
>>As the point obviously escaped you, I was not arguing that chart appearances
>>were the most important factor in determining success. You were.
>
>And I still am. Success as a recording artist though, not as a songwriter,
>producer, or any other side career.
>
>Gary US Bonds was a more succesful recording artist than Don Covay. He sold
>more singles, and he sold more albums than Covay. Their chart apperances
>clearly show that.
They really don't, Bruce. All you can say with any certainty is that for a two
week period, Billboard says Bonds may have sold more copies of "Quarter To
Three" than any other artist sole copies of his or her record.
The charts are inaccurate. The charts are manipulated. The charts are biased.
You can't draw any accurate correlation between different charts. We know all
these things, yet you insist on the Biblical accuracy of the charts.
>
>>Now I know you have no proof of this, and in fact I have proof to the
>>contrary
>>in the form of contemporaneous publishing royalty statements.
>
>
>Fred, did you ever think that it was possible that soem labels under report
>sales for tax and royalty purposes?
I've suggested before that you stay away from the law, Bruce. You obviously
have no grasp of the subject, and really just make a bigger fool of yourself
when you get in over your head. For tax purposes, it is in the label's
interest to overstate sales because royalties would be a deductible expense
against revenue. Label tax return expenses are not broken down by individual
artist and release, so there is no way of using them to determine the accuracy
of sales anyway.
>Would it shock you to discover that maybe Parkway under reported sales of
>"Pony
>Time" to avoid paying Check, Covay, and Uncle Sam as much money as they were
>due?
So, in order to "prove" that Pony Time sold more copies than Chain of Fools,
you are suggesting that C/P engaged in tax fraud?
You have any proof of this? Or is this just another application of the rule
that documents are no good unless they agree with you?
There is a fair possibility that labels fudge their tax returns, just because
tax evasion is Corporate America's favorite pasttime. There are probably
hundreds of ways to do this that don't involve trying to hide revenue. Remember
that a label's revenue is another company's expense, which will be reported on
that company's tax return, which are readily accessible to an IRS auditor.
Hiding revenue is the easiest scam to find. Morris Levy could tell you that..
No question about understating sales on royalty statements. That's standard
industry practice. And I take it you are not suggesting that Cameo/Parkway was
just a bigger cheat than Atlantic, which is why Pony Time is not reported as
selling as many copies as Chain of Fools. Pound for pound, artist for artist,
Atlantic was the worst, give or take a Syd Nathan or a Morris Levy. C/P were
no angels when it came to royalty reporting, but you are comparing them to the
Anti-Christ of labels.
The propensity for underreporting sales on royalty statements is why audits are
done.
When you are dealing with songwriting revenue, there are several addition steps
you can take to determine the accuracy of the numbers you get from audits. You
correlate information from several sources to determine documents are accurate.
When audited publishing statements correlate to BMI statements, and both
publishing and BMI statements correlate to audited royalty statements, you can
be pretty sure the numbers are fairly accurate, within reasonable limits.
Nobody relies on your holy charts in an audit. Nobody even seriously raises
chart position as proof of underpayment. Hell, no one even relies much on the
allegedy "scientific" SoundScan these days as an accurate count of sales
(except your holy charts) because it is acknowledged that they are subject to
gross manipulation by the labels.
>
>>I suppose you would have proof of that comparison as to the perception of
>the
>>"average white rock and roll fan", or are you just stating your opinion as
>>fact
>>again?
>
>No Fred, you're right, Don Covay is a household fucking name.
That's not the point, Bruce, but, again, a nice attempt at backing away from
your own words by not answering the question. You claimed to know what "the
average white rock and roll fan" knew, and I simply wanted to know the source
of your information. You are an historian, after all, and I figured you had
something to base this on. Either you have a source, or you are just blowing
smoke again. There are opinions, and there are facts. Which one is this?
It's fun