maslar

I don't understand the point you're making. I'm aware of the wiki page. It's based on the 1995 Savage interview. I've just looked through that interview again, the first time in many years, and it's even worse than I remembered it.

Muddy Waters, BB King, Sonny Boy Williamson etc etc said otherwise The Britsh R&B groups and the Beatles did more to popularise black American artists than anyone else.

1 No, they weren't at school together. the age gap between them is too great. it is of course possible they knew each other although I've never seen any reference to DG in any Stones or Jagger biography. 2. Why would Mick Jagger, one of the world's leading pop stars, have to ask Dave Godin to introduce him to Marvin Gaye? Didn't this question spring right out at you? It's completley absurd and untrue. They'd already ,met backstage at a concert in the States prior to DGs version of events. They were already on friendly speaking terms. Just as MJ was on friendly terms with James Brown at the same concert. They didn't need introductions. It wasn't a garden party. I found this today via google. I wasn't going to mention it but .it just shows you don't have to dig too deep before you hit ...... From the udiscovermusic website (not sure of source). On DG and the naming of the Stones in 1962 -. There was also the small matter of what the band should call themselves. According to Dave Godin, a friend from Kent, where Mick and Keith grew up, “I was there when they decided on the name, and there is no way that it came from the Muddy Waters 78 "Rolling Stone Blues". No one would be seen dead with 78s, we exclusively had 45s and 7" EPs. I had the Muddy Waters "Mississippi Blues" EP on London that includes "Mannish Boy" which has the interjection ‘Ooo I’m a rollin’ stone’.” Not everyone liked the name, particularly Ian Stewart, "I said it was a terrible name. It sounded like the name of an Irish Show Band, or something that ought to be playing at the Savoy." All this is unture. The story of how the Stones were named is well known enough. Brian Jones named them, not "they". And it was done by phone to Jazz Review. He chose the name on the spot by looking at the track listing on a Muddy waters LP beside him. This would be a "best of" released in 1958. There weren't any other that contained Rollin' Stone. It's all a little petty. Why does DG feel the need to provide his version? And a "friend"? Really. That aside, he doesn't seem aware of the fact that the track was available on an LP that the Stones/ Brian Jones had in their possession. DG may have had singles and e.p.s but they were not exclusive at all. Jagger was ordering Chess LPs from the States prior to all this. Has it ever occured to you that maybe they were more knowledgeable than him? Or at least equal? And he only ever talks about Jagger. The Stone were initially Brian Jones' band. And what about Richards. he was also into R&B for years and Watts was a jazz affecionado of long standing. All the prime movers on the 1950s UK blues and R&B scene -Alexis Korner, Chris Barber, John Myall etc had no qualms about the Rolling Stones at all.

Not that I'm aware of. His dislike of Jagger in particular seems completly irrational. I've read the stories attributed to their relationship and each one fell apart instantly. None of it adds up. What's strange is that so many people seem to accept it and revel in it : DG the man who told Jagger to f*** off. The man who introduced Jagger to the blues. etc, etc

Interesting piece. I agree completly with his criticism of cover-ups. I've never understood the need for them or agreed with the justification behind them. In a nutshell he sums up why they should be incompatible with the soul scene. Sadly there's the usual dig at the Rolling Stones. Even by his standards this one is offensive, to the the point where it's almost funny. Aside from insulting the Stones (and other Britsh R&B artist who he never mentions) it's equally offensive to the black American blues and R&B artists who were on very friendly terms with Jagger, Clapton, Burdon at al and who openly welcomed the boost that their British fans (Jagger Richards were R&B obsessives and primarilly fans) gave to their carrers and status. Between these two "Poles" the other points are intersting conversation starters but the dates eem ot be out here and thereby a couple of years..

To state the obvious - soul music is soul music - a convenient marketing term used to describe black popular music at the start of the 60s. The term "blue eyed soul" as far as I'm aware was used by black artists initially to describe a white artist/record who sounded black (at a time when most listeners first heard records on the radio). And not in a disparaging manner at all. In essence it's a largely meaningless term beyond that and therefore open to distortion - as seen on this thread. Even back in the 60s confusion abound. For example reading Dave Godins piece in B&S on discovering Dean Parrish is white and his subsequent befuddled response. Not that it should have come as any great revelation to him. After all years previously the first wave of visitng Motown artists had suggested Tom Jones as an example of a white soul singer. Obviously something DG didn't take on board. What most refer to as "blue-eyed soul I would call "pop-soul". That grey area where elements of soul and white pop mix (usually obviously white pop vocal and typically soulful orchestration. David and the Giants is brilliant pop-soul. Move a slight step to the soul side and you've got the Drifters (still usually pop-soul to me). Is pop-soul real soul music? Not really. The strange thing is that back in the day there seemed to be a more relaxed attitude about it all. Also, it's notable that white artists who actually did get played on black radio stations in the States in the 60s eg Bobby Gentry and Lulu aren't mentioned at all on this thread.

Who knows how and why a particular record gets released in a foreign country and others don't? Some are obvious, some not so. E.g why was The Hesitations INBTW/Soul Superman released in Holland and not the UK? Or any other European country for that matter? As for Egypt - I don't really have any knowledge of how record were released (or what were imported - if any) or for what reason. The absence of the American fleet aside the obvious answer is a perceived market/demand from young people. Then again maybe they specifically released records that could be used in the belly dancing dens in the casbah (in the absence of the US cavalry of course). The Beatles releases only amount to the last two LPs I think and those are very rare (there might have been one of two singles, I'm not sure). I've seen a pic of an Egyptian copy of Baby Love. It looks to me like releaes were done on very idiosyncratic manner - probably due to the whims of individuals more than anything else.

United Arab Republic. The name Egypt went under from 1958 until 1971. From 58 to 61 the UAR was Egypt and Syria.

Oooh slippy Freud

How many times is a record played on the "Upfront scene" (Trade mark pending) before it is classed as "overplayed" and dropped from the playlist? A rough estimate will do.

So basically it's an eclectic mix of (maybe) danceable black music rather than just northern soul..... ? Does "Upfront" just represent a broad mix of tracks that haven't been heard before on the northern soul scene and are therefore new to punters who don't normally listen to much else apart from NS - But these tracks maybe very well known in other circles.- funk, folk, jazz - so not rare in all cases? E.g I imagine many hippies, students, folk music fans etc heard the Richie Havens track back in the early 70s. The Gil-Scott Heron track on another thread (Lady Day and John Coltrane) is so well known it couldn't be called "rare" under any circumstances. Although the UK Philips single may be scarce but that's another matter. So "cutting edge" means cutting edge for the musically unenlightened on the NS scene? Well to me the term "cutting edge" would only apply to new music . It has an avante-garde association. Not really to anything retrospective. And not to tracks that are historically well established in other music genres: jazz, jazz funk R&B. Maybe a better term sould be "that certain lightbulb moment". I think the term and explanation would look more strange to those who already have eclectic musical tastes. Probably not to those who only listen to northern soul.

It was a simple enough question. Why such a song and dance about it? Just give a brief overview of what it is and some examples of the tracks played.

Interesting. So a song that was known to millions of people with absolutley no connection to the northern soul scene in the decades since its release is played on the NS "upfront" scene presumeably as cutting edge? Like The Bottle it's essentially a jazz record, albeit contemporary jazz fusion of it's time.

It's a superb instrumental. The reason it's knocked is obviously due to the fact that the composer/artist is known. (an American Tony Hatch) If it was by the Terra Shirma Strings there wouldn't be a problem.

Have to disagree. What you're giving here is a general rule of thumb which is ok. However, what you fail to omit is that within the record colecting sphere acetates and test pressing can be highly desireable and fetch high prices. That is because these items are legitimate and nearly always have a traceable history attached to them. It is possible to have this authentification. As for the FW test pressing:. Again there are too many irrelevant generalisations on this thread. When you get an item such as this (with unique circumstances attached to it) - and assuming it's genuine - then all notions of "are test pressings worthy?" or "is the standard issue more valuable?" go right out of the window. It stands on its own as a distinct unique item. There aren't any precedents in cases such as this. In auction it may sell for much more than the standard issue. It may go for similar or indeed significantly less. No one is going to know until the auction finishes (PS, I know it hasn't gone to auction, I'm speaking hypothetically). So it terms of value - it is what it is. But the most important thing is once authenticated - there are no precedents to judge it by in a unique case such as this.

Despaireth not brother for if thou observe that what I actually wrote you will see that your despair truly is in vain - for the second time on this thread . Me in the first post: " Yes gospel had a huge influence on 60s soul music ".

Roburt - didn't realise you were still looking. So that's almost half a dozen of nearly and almost tracks now? Almost two months later.

This is very intersting but it's become equally as confusing as hell Here's what I've got so far - not sure how close I am so please correct. 1. Pete's record (TP) - tapes sent to Motown Detroit. Then to RCA (Chicago or more probably Nashville). Lacquers made at RCA then sent to Matrix of Nashville for the metalwork. Then sent (more or less next door) to Southern Plastic for pressing. Doubtful if SP had it own label making facilities 2. Previous known demo copies. Tapes sent to Motown Detroit. Then to RCA (Chicago) for lacquering then to ARP. Not sure if ARP did its own metalwork (im guessing it did) but it did have its own label making facilities. ARP TPs had a distinct label but I suppose they could have used standard demo labels instead for whatever reason. Hence the demos being found in a box of text pressings. The obvious question - which no one seems to have asked yet - is how does it sound? The idea of test pressing (as far as I know) was to check for obvous sound faults or skips etc. Sound quality was always presumed to be less than the actual release would be due to the low number run. (although on standard hi-fi equipment it would probably be dfficult ot har any differences). Also to check the correct verion was used. Since this demo was ok'd I' suppose it was the correct tape mix.

CJ for me but not much in it and no bad versions imo.

I clicked on the link to the dt site and Avast tells me a threat has been detected. No surprise there. Proceed with caution. Strange how the OP replies to one point raised in the Support Forum but ignores my post here on the actual topic. and the very pertinent point I highlight. But not really surprising. For the record, soul music is secular music. It isn't anything to do with christainity per se. All the early rock'n'roll stars Elvis, JL Lewis, Carl Perkins, Chuck Berry etc etc went to church, usually southern Baptist. They even sang a few hyms in the Sun Studios. Yet no one in their right mind would say Rock'n'roll owes a lot (or indeed anything) to christianity (even though in some cases their music ability was honed in a church environemnt). It's ridiculous to even suggest it. Let's have a little reflection and restraint.

It's not soul music. It's pre-soul mid-50s rhythm and blues. That's not being picky. Is Johnny B Goode by Chuck Berry soul music? Is That's Alright by Elvis soul music? Somehwere down the line you've got to actually draw a line.

Not really what I was looking for. I Got A Woman isn't a soul record. it's mid-50s rhythm and blues. Sixties soul? I'm sure there might be some. But they don't roll off the tongue do they?

I'm not really asking anyone to agree with me. I'm giving my opinion. In fact you are agreeing with me with regard to the inluence of gospel (probably without you realising it.) Can you give examples of gospel songs that had their words changed?

Duplicate post

Slightly uncormfortable reading in my opinion. The opening sentence is quite disturbing. "Given how much influence christianity and gospel music has had on the music we all love". Yes gospel had a huge influence on 60s soul music but to implicitly forge a link to christianity is absurd, The influences are more musical - harmony and chord prgressions etc. What the article in a roundabout way is saying is that soul music is in effect christian music which it is not. Yes some soul performers had stong religious beliefs. But there were probably just as many who did not.