Sitting In The Park - Billy Stewart Or Georgie Fame

[Guest]

What a wonderful post to read.

I stand up and give you three cheers,Top post ever In my opinion,

I have in the past in various posts,Stated the money equasion in the Northern Soul genre,

And have been slated (for want of better words),For asking or putting forward the question of dosh,

Did any singer or song writer,record or write a song hoping it would be a failiure,

No I would have thought they wanted the song to be a hit,and if it was would if luck had it's way be covered by who ever where ever

Georgie Fame,The Hollies,The Beatles,The Rolling Stones and many many others covered what we would call Soul singles,And with each cover came more money for the writers of those songs,And also many peoples first memories of certain songs,

Um Um Um Um for instance how many people heard the Major Lance version first,or did they hear Wayne Fontanas version,Sandie Shaw"Always something" or Lou Johnson,

Chicken or the egg

Grant

You are clearly missing the point. I did not state that black artists did not want the money they earnt from the white covers....For gods sake!

I merely pointed out that it was social and political issues on a wide scale that filtered down into the entertainment industry and made it extremely hard for black acts to break through with their own material. There were racial barriers for years in the American Music Industry and that is why we had white covers of classic Black songs for decades! Do you really not believe that there were not Black artists who resented this - that there were not people who would have preferred to have seen their own original and in most cases, superior versions of so many of these songs, topping the charts?

I repeat - the majority of white Producers and Record Company Moguls did not sanction the release of these records as part of a collective stance on human rights, or in solidarity with the eventual Civil Rights Movement which blasted most of this bullshit away. They recorded these songs because they were great songs and they knew they could make money with white artists singing them.

So of course people heard SANDIE SHAW'S version first over LOU JOHNSON, there was invariably far more money and resources behind such pop acts as SS and of course the guranteed radio exposure for white pop acts in the 50s and 60s was the crucial factor in 'hitmaking' back then.

Do you have any idea at all about how hard it was to get radio play for a raft of black acts back then as opposed to white pop stars? I thought all this was well documented social history but there you go...

[Guest]

GQ's version of SITTING IN THE PARK is cheesy and naff,but their version of I DO LOVE YOU is fantastic!

The best version of DAYLIGHT is BW's,but I've seen Vicky Sue Robinson's version tear the arse out of a dance floor in New York back in the day.The best motown version of SWEET THING is Marvins(not The Spinners),but Georgie's is a great production job (Denny Cordell)especially in stereo.But leave Bessie Banks alone!!!(or the ghost of Dave Godin will return to haunt you !) her version of GO NOW leaves Mr.Laine's standing,which did launched the career of the most appalling proggers ever imagined by man!!Now off you go and check out Marvins version of "Sweet Thing"

Yes, MARVIN does a nice version of 'Sweet Thing', still prefer THE SPINNERS, I think there was a little period there at MOTOWN where they perfected the male Soul group thing. 'Truly Yours' is another monumental record to me, far better than THE TEMPS version, but THE SPINNERS were always in the shadow of the TEMPS and THE FOUR TOPS. Yes, agree totally that the MOODY BLUES cannot touch BESSIE BANKS, although pop fans might prefer the MB's.

[Pete S]

Yes, MARVIN does a nice version of 'Sweet Thing', still prefer THE SPINNERS, I think there was a little period there at MOTOWN where they perfected the male Soul group thing. 'Truly Yours' is another monumental record to me, far better than THE TEMPS version, but THE SPINNERS were always in the shadow of the TEMPS and THE FOUR TOPS. Yes, agree totally that the MOODY BLUES cannot touch BESSIE BANKS, although pop fans might prefer the MB's.

I'd have thought anyone who actually had decent hearing would prefer the MB's.

[Guest]

I'd have thought anyone who actually had decent hearing would prefer the MB's.

You say BESSIE BANKS sounds like a demo, I think it is a very authentic sounding Soul 45, THE MOODY BLUES is an overblown, melodramatic pop opera. It depends what you like I suppose....

[Pete S]

You say BESSIE BANKS sounds like a demo, I think it is a very authentic sounding Soul 45, THE MOODY BLUES is an overblown, melodramatic pop opera. It depends what you like I suppose....

Sorry, just don't get it - she sings it terribly. Sometimes these people did make bad records.

[Guest]

One is a soul record,the other a pop cover version.Simples

[Pete S]

One is a soul record,the other a pop cover version.Simples

Thats not in dispute. F*cking hell, whats the matter with you people. The pop record beats the soul record to a pulp. Or is it just not acceptable to say that?

[Guest TONY ROUNCE]

Thats not in dispute. F*cking hell, whats the matter with you people. The pop record beats the soul record to a pulp. Or is it just not acceptable to say that?

...it would certainly seem to be the case for some of the more blinkered posters on here, mate.

All this nonsense about "the soul version is always better" is just that - nonsense. The best version of any record is the one that's

1) sung best

2) played best

3) produced best

...the ethnic background of the singer/musician/producer shouldn't - and doesn't - come into it. Ever.

That's why 'the pop versions' of "Go Now", "Twist And Shout" and "Stitting In The Park" are the best versions. And always will be.

And while we're at it, Des O'Connor's version of "One, Two Three O'Leary" is better than Oscar Brown Jr's. Fact...

Edited July 13, 2009 by TONY ROUNCE

[Guest]

Thank God nobody brought up the Simply Red version of GO NOW !!LOL

[Geoff]

Thank God nobody brought up the Simply Red version of GO NOW !!LOL

Good lord, didn't know he'd attempted it. I think he did a decent version of Money's Too Tight To Mention, but not liked the other covers by him that I've heard.

I think the Moody Blues version of Go Now is good, they don't slavishly copy Bessie Banks one, but do prefer hers. I will admit I generally have a preference for original versions, goes back to when you never heard the American original on the BBC, they'd always play the British (usually inferior) cover.

At the end of the day though it's just personal preference. My opinion is no more or no less valid than anyone else's.

[Pete S]

Thank God nobody brought up the Simply Red version of GO NOW !!LOL

That's a truly terrible version. Can't understand why they completely changed the original melody.

[Guest]

The trouble with the internet is that myths grow at alarming rates,and before you know it some arse has rewriiten history.

Surely somebody out there has Dave Godins review of Bessie Banks GO NOW? or his notes on his compilation album that included it.

The most important thing that is missing from the pop cover(appart from a soulful vocal)of GO NOW is the final chorus key change on Bessie's that stabs you in the heart.The myth that Dennie Laine discovered the tune,grew up because in an interview somebody was quoted as saying "Dennie discovered it".The correct quote was that "Denny (Cordell) discovered it" while going through work of Leiber and Stoller (who pruduced though did not write Go Now)He always thought Bessie's was best,even though he produced the Moody's version but he later excelled himself when he came to cover SITTING IN THE PARK and SWEET THING on Georgie.

Maybe we now have a new definition of "Soul Music" is . -What Bessie had,but the Moody Blues didn't

On your marks, get set........GO!!!!

[Pete S]

The trouble with the internet is that myths grow at alarming rates,and before you know it some arse has rewriiten history.

Surely somebody out there has Dave Godins review of Bessie Banks GO NOW? or his notes on his compilation album that included it.

The most important thing that is missing from the pop cover(appart from a soulful vocal)of GO NOW is the final chorus key change on Bessie's that stabs you in the heart.The myth that Dennie Laine discovered the tune,grew up because in an interview somebody was quoted as saying "Dennie discovered it".The correct quote was that "Denny (Cordell) discovered it" while going through work of Leiber and Stoller (who pruduced though did not write Go Now)He always thought Bessie's was best,even though he produced the Moody's version but he later excelled himself when he came to cover SITTING IN THE PARK and SWEET THING on Georgie.

Maybe we now have a new definition of "Soul Music" is . -What Bessie had,but the Moody Blues didn't

On your marks, get set........GO!!!!

At the risk of upsetting Mel Brat, whatever Dave Godin says about anything is of no relevance as far as I'm concerned. I didn't get and I don't like his style of writing. And that chord change you mention is carried by the backing singers, not Bessie Banks, no?

[Guest TONY ROUNCE]

The most important thing that is missing from the pop cover(appart from a soulful vocal)of GO NOW

"A soulful vocal" is actually what's completely missing from the original. I've heard dogs bark with more soul.

Unlike Denny Laine, who gives it his all, Bessie just does not get the song at all (you should hear some of the out-takes!) and the only emotional part of the record is when "Cissy's Girls" come in on the backing vocals with that magnificent "goooooood-BYE" on the final coda.

I could cheerfully go the rest of my life without ever hearing her version again, something I could never say about the Moody Blues cut.

[Pete S]

The trouble with the internet is that myths grow at alarming rates,and before you know it some arse has rewriiten history.

Surely somebody out there has Dave Godins review of Bessie Banks GO NOW? or his notes on his compilation album that included it.

See another thing is, you had Dave Godin, I've got Tony Rounce and if he says it is, then it is!

[Guest SoulRenaissance]

...it would certainly seem to be the case for some of the more blinkered posters on here, mate.

All this nonsense about "the soul version is always better" is just that - nonsense. The best version of any record is the one that's

1) sung best

2) played best

3) produced best

...the ethnic background of the singer/musician/producer shouldn't - and doesn't - come into it. Ever.

That's why 'the pop versions' of "Go Now", "Twist And Shout" and "Stitting In The Park" are the best versions. And always will be.

And while we're at it, Des O'Connor's version of "One, Two Three O'Leary" is better than Oscar Brown Jr's. Fact...

Another great post Tony. "It's what's in the grooves that counts" to coin a phrase. Whilst were all soul fans on here, we surely cannot be so blinkered to suggest that just because a black artist sings a song, it is always superior to songs done by some white artists. It's not. Soul music sung by black artists are going to form the vast majority of what i regard as good music, it reaches parts that white musicians never do. But i can appreciate a good tune regardless. I left all this imature blinkered nonsense behind me back in the 70's.

A case in point. While i'm not a massive Beatles fan, i grew up in a household where their music was played. After listening to J. J. Barnes' version of "Day tripper", i decided that the Beatles version is far better. And i'm a longtime fan of his. But just not blinkered. I also prefer Billy's version than Georgie's version of the song that started this thread off.

What's all this black purity nonsense about though?

Martyn

[dthedrug]

See another thing is, you had Dave Godin, I've got Tony Rounce and if he says it is, then it is!

what are you sugesting Pete! who had Dave Godin? you no he liked it up the bum DAVE KIL

[Pete S]

what are you sugesting Pete! who had Dave Godin? you no he liked it up the bum DAVE KIL

Er, not quite what I was suggesting Dave!

[Guest]

Yes....and there are people who believe that the CIA brought down the Twin Towers,that Elvis is alive and working in a fast food store,Michael Jackson fathered three white children,Crop circles are made by men from space,Diana was murdered by Prnce Philip,Madonna sings live on stage,James Brown wasn't black enough for the North(of England)and Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.........Believe what you like,it don't change a f**king thing!!

[Pete S]

Yes....and there are people who believe that the CIA brought down the Twin Towers,that Elvis is alive and working in a fast food store,Michael Jackson fathered three white children,Crop circles are made by men from space,Diana was murdered by Prnce Philip,Madonna sings live on stage,James Brown wasn't black enough for the North(of England)and Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.........Believe what you like,it don't change a f**king thing!!

I believe the first one you mention. 100%.

[Guest]

That speaks volumes

[Pete S]

That speaks volumes

[Pete S]

That speaks volumes

So does starting on the insults after less than 20 posts...

[Guest]

...it would certainly seem to be the case for some of the more blinkered posters on here, mate.

All this nonsense about "the soul version is always better" is just that - nonsense. The best version of any record is the one that's

1) sung best

2) played best

3) produced best

...the ethnic background of the singer/musician/producer shouldn't - and doesn't - come into it. Ever.

That's why 'the pop versions' of "Go Now", "Twist And Shout" and "Stitting In The Park" are the best versions. And always will be.

And while we're at it, Des O'Connor's version of "One, Two Three O'Leary" is better than Oscar Brown Jr's. Fact...

It seems really strange to me this thread. In the past it was always the soul fans who would get wound up and defensive in such debates whereas it seems that the champions of these pop records (who of course are also soul fans) seem to be getting quite angry and bombastic in their declarations.

TONY, I think you should take a deep breath and read what you have written here very slowly....

Nobody has made any specific mention of 'ethnic backgrounds'. I simply happen to prefer BESSIE BANKS as a soul record and I dont like THE MOODY BLUES version, hated it as a kid, always have done along with their other poncy anthem about knights in satin.

As for BILLY STEWART, its an all-time classic and I am sure thousands of Soul fans prefer BILLY'S version so why does that wind you up so much? BILLY STEWART - Chicago Soul legend, GEORGIE FAME - London copyist, those are the facts regarding their careers - you'll just have to accept that some people genuinely prefer those orginal records and I am one of them.

As for THE ISLEY'S 'Shout', I think that the fact that JOHN LENNON gave one of his greatest ever vocal performances on THE BEATLES cover - and there are not really that many great ones compared to countless vovalists and records on our scene - is one of the factors that interests me about THE ISLEY'S record. What was it that LENNON was hearing that inspired him so?

A bloody amazing record that's what and bollocks are the pop covers superior - once again it's not a matter of race but a matter of taste!

Each to their own....

[Guest]

I believe the first one you mention. 100%.

The first English Corn Circles were made by My Dad and his best mate Doug, both English working class artists and serious practical jokers. Towards the end of the 70s, when I was still enjoying the relatively (compared to now) underground Northern Soul Scene, my Dad would tell me what shapes and where they were going to be putting them down before I set off to an All-Nighter or a Soul night! I can still remember the buzz of coming home on gear and going straight back out in the car at sunrise to see their handiwork in a field!

Car stero booming MORRIS CHESTNUT 'Too Darn Soulful' from the rodaside and us dancing like demented looners in the midde of a freshly created circle - that nobody at the time was writing about or even mentioning in the media!

Absolutely friggin'priceless, funny what debates like these throw up!

Edited July 14, 2009 by chorleysoul

[Guest]

At the risk of upsetting Mel Brat, whatever Dave Godin says about anything is of no relevance as far as I'm concerned. I didn't get and I don't like his style of writing. And that chord change you mention is carried by the backing singers, not Bessie Banks, no?

Excuse me....

You criticize JAZZBO for supposedly 'insulting' people and then dismiss DAVE GODIN in utterly irreverent terms? To state that NOTHING somebody like DAVE GODIN said about Soul or ANYTHING has any relevance - as far as your concerned - is a quite staggering statement to read on a forum like this.

You have no respect for anything DAVE GODIN ever said or wrote and yet you are a Soul fan?

DAVE GODIN spent a significant period of his life fighting for an equal commercial and creative platform for Soul Artists. The fact he now gets slagged off in a discussion where the instigators are defending white cover versions of Soul originals, whilst of course being Soul Fans themselves - has to be the most ironic and bizarre 'position' I have ever encountered.

Sorry but I find that position a tad arrogant to say the least. I think you need to go back and read a lot of DAVE GODIN'S stuff again. If you cannot find a single point of relevance in ANYTHING he writes about Soul or the world in general as it goes, then god knows what he'd have to do or say to solicit your erudite approval.

[Guest]

Another great post Tony. "It's what's in the grooves that counts" to coin a phrase. Whilst were all soul fans on here, we surely cannot be so blinkered to suggest that just because a black artist sings a song, it is always superior to songs done by some white artists. It's not. Soul music sung by black artists are going to form the vast majority of what i regard as good music, it reaches parts that white musicians never do. But i can appreciate a good tune regardless. I left all this imature blinkered nonsense behind me back in the 70's.

A case in point. While i'm not a massive Beatles fan, i grew up in a household where their music was played. After listening to J. J. Barnes' version of "Day tripper", i decided that the Beatles version is far better. And i'm a longtime fan of his. But just not blinkered. I also prefer Billy's version than Georgie's version of the song that started this thread off.

What's all this black purity nonsense about though?

Martyn

Care to define what you mean by that last statement, because its the first time I've seen it mentioned in this thread? In fact the only people that have used race flavoured language in this debate are those championing the pop versions, now including yourself.

Of course we've now reached a point where TONY ROUNCE declares that these records are superior and PETE S pronounces that DAVE GODIN never said or wrote anything of relevance to him. Sorry, disagree passionately on both points. The originals are the greater records both individually and collectively for what they represent culturally, if people cannot think deep enough to understand that, it's their loss.

That last sentence is needless and an insult to the intelligence of the people who are merely stating their preference one way or the other....

Strange.

[Guest TONY ROUNCE]

...Exactly what DO they represent "culturally"?

As far as I can can see they were just records that were made with a view to, and a hope of, getting in the US Hot 100, just as the UK versions were made with the aim of reaching our Top Thirty. Like all records, all they really represent is a shot at money in the bank for a record label and the artist who recorded them.

I'd never argue that all UK versions of soul tunes are better, in fact there are some bloody awful ones (the Paramounts' mangling of the Impressions' "I'm The One Who Loves You" is one that immediately comes to mind). But those we're arguing about here do happen to be better, in the same way the the Isleys version of "Twist And Shout" is better than the Top Notes original (it would be hard not to be).

Forgive me if I hit a nerve earlier on, but the way your posts read, it does seem like you are arguing that the US versions are better just because they are "soul records by black artists", not because they are superior pieces of work. That's an argument that's never held any water for me - the best version is the best version because it's the best version, and for no other reason. The implication that UK versions of US originals are in some way inferior because they took sales and attention away from those US originals is just daft.

And by the way, I'll reiterate that nobody is trashing Billy Stewart or the Isley's records - they're both extremely good. Better versions of each just happened to be produced here in the UK.

Bessie Banks' "Go Now", however, IS a very mediocre record that has a reputaion far in excess of its actual worth as a piece of music. BB made plenty of good records including the flip of "Go Now", just now "Go Now " itself. The reason that the Moody Blues record did better in charts all around the word is that it's a better record. They did not steal Bessie's thunder - her version would not have stood a chance of becoming a hit anyway.

We're obviously going to have to agree to disagree in our viewpoints, but for me music has always been colourblind and it always will be. Which is why I will never stop being entertained by arguments such as these

Edited July 15, 2009 by TONY ROUNCE

[Pete S]

Excuse me....

You criticize JAZZBO for supposedly 'insulting' people and then dismiss DAVE GODIN in utterly irreverent terms? To state that NOTHING somebody like DAVE GODIN said about Soul or ANYTHING has any relevance - as far as your concerned - is a quite staggering statement to read on a forum like this.

You have no respect for anything DAVE GODIN ever said or wrote and yet you are a Soul fan?

DAVE GODIN spent a significant period of his life fighting for an equal commercial and creative platform for Soul Artists. The fact he now gets slagged off in a discussion where the instigators are defending white cover versions of Soul originals, whilst of course being Soul Fans themselves - has to be the most ironic and bizarre 'position' I have ever encountered.

Sorry but I find that position a tad arrogant to say the least. I think you need to go back and read a lot of DAVE GODIN'S stuff again. If you cannot find a single point of relevance in ANYTHING he writes about Soul or the world in general as it goes, then god knows what he'd have to do or say to solicit your erudite approval.

No, you excuse me - I'm not slagging him off, I said I don't like his writing.

You need to get out more, there's a whole lot more important things in life than defending dead journalists from people who simply don't like their writing. That's the trouble with this forum, anyone who goes against the grain is deemed to have something wrong with them. Can't have an opinion that's different from anyone else, no sir.

[Guest]

Tony,for a start Bessies version could not have been a world wide smash anyway because it was not made available at the same time as the Moody Blues version due an arrangment made with Lieber and Stoller.Ask them!!

Because one version is a world wide hit and the original was not proves NOTHING!!! Ask Chuck Berry or a thousand others.

Whilst every artist that cuts a record might dream of entering the Billboard Hot 100,that was not the only reason for doing it .In fact most black artists released records,in the hope of black radio play in order to get live gig bookings on any of the many curcuits of halls,bars and clubs throughout the U.S.(Something that is being repeated now 2009)and often gave up any royalty payment rights for that reason.

[Guest]

Now what next? YAZZ vs OTIS CLAY ?

[Guest]

"Tony,for a start Bessies version could not have been a world wide smash anyway because it was not made available at the same time as the Moody Blues version due an arrangment made with Lieber and Stoller.Ask them!!"

I refer,of course to the REST OF THE WORLD (outside The U.S.)

[Pete S]

Some people's attitudes are too blinkered to understand any reasoned commentary. I'm closing this topic so if you want to talk about Dave Godin, start your own topic, this was about preferences of a particular record and it's gone way way off track.

[Guest]

This is an interesting point but I'm not sure whether to respond to it on here DAVE, or to go back to the original thread if it has been re-opened by PETE, what do you think lol!!!!

Just played an old 45, HONEY BOY'S version of 'Private Number' while I think about it and it is a nice version like many others. One I definetly prefer over the original Soul cut is MARCIA GRIFFITHS version of ARETHA'S 'Sweet bitter love', going to dig that out now too! Mind you, the subject of Jamican soul covers and boots is definetly worth its own thread although I've just realised as I wrote that, there is already a forum specifically for that.

You are most certainly spot on in defining the New Orleans influence on Reggae - the best Soul example of that is probably ROBERT PARKER'S 'I caught you in a lie', a majestic record that carries the most perfect definition of what would become recognised worldwide as a chop-chop reggae guitar style. The popularity of this record amongst older Jamaicans is something you will clearly be aware of and its influence on the radio waves in JA was enormous.

Overall though, I still maintain most Soul originals are the superior records, irrespective of what record you heard first. I love SUSAN CADOGAN'S 'Hurt so good' because it sums up a period of my life in 70s dancehalls and I always preferred it over MILLIE JACKSON'S take, which I thought was the original! Then in America a few years ago, I heard KATIE LOVE AND THE 4 SHADES OF BLACK'S actual original and it knocked me off my feet, the best version by a country mile or more! (There is a clip of it on STEVE PLUMB's site at the moment for anybody who has not heard it, in the 'Rare Soul' section).

To sum up, I think there is actually a crucial difference though between these two strands, of which I think you'll probably acknowledge. On the whole, the vast majority of the reggae versions of Soul cuts were made AFTER the Soul originals were already sizeable pop or at least r/b hits.....The Jamaican producers listened out for the big black US tunes and adapted them to fit Carribean eardrums. Whereas a hell of a lot of the UK and US pop covers were actually hits before - or in a lot of cases, rather than - the Soul originals. Which takes us to TONY ROUNCE'S question 'So what do these records represent culturally?'.

Edited July 25, 2009 by chorleysoul

[Guest]

This is an interesting point but I'm not sure whether to respond to it on here DAVE, or to go back to the original thread if it has been re-opened by PETE, what do you think lol!!!!

Just played an old 45, HONEY BOY'S version of 'Private Number' while I think about it and it is a nice version like many others. One I definetly prefer over the original Soul cut is

MARCIA GRIFFITHS version of ARETHA'S 'Sweet bitter love', going to dig that out now too! Mind you, the subject of Jamican soul covers and boots is definetly worth its own thread although I've just realised as I wrote that, there is already a forum specifically for that.

You are most certainly spot on in defining the New Orleans influence on Reggae - the best Soul example of that is probably ROBERT PARKER'S 'I caught you in a lie', a majestic record that carries the most perfect definition of what would become recognised worldwide as a chop-chop reggae guitar style. The popularity of this record amongst older Jamaicans is something you will clearly be aware of and its influence on the radio waves in JA was enormous.

Overall though, I still maintain most Soul originals are the superior records, irrespective of what record you heard first. I love SUSAN CADOGAN'S 'Hurt so good' because it sums up a period of my life in 70s dancehalls and I always preferred it over MILLIE JACKSON'S take, which I thought was the original! Then in America a few years ago, I heard KATIE LOVE AND THE 4 SHADES OF BLACK'S actual original and it knocked me off my feet, the best version by a country mile or more! (There is a clip of it on STEVE PLUMB's site at the moment for anybody who has not heard it, in the 'Rare Soul' section).

To sum up, I think there is actually a crucial difference though between these two strands, of which I think you'll probably acknowledge. On the whole, the vast majority of the reggae versions of Soul cuts were made AFTER the Soul originals were already sizeable pop or at least r/b hits.....The Jamaican producers listened out for the big black US tunes and adapted them to fit Carribean eardrums. Whereas a hell of a lot of the UK and US pop covers were actually hits before - or in a lot of cases, rather than - the Soul originals. Which takes us to TONY ROUNCE'S question 'So what do these records represent culturally?'.

JUST TO EXPLAIN THE ABOVE POSTING: IT HAS BEEN COPIED AND POSTED FROM THE 'PRAISE THE LORD, IT'S BACK' THREAD WHERE SEVERAL PEOPLE CONTINUED THIS DEBATE REGARDING SOUL ORIGINALS AND UK/US POP 60S COVERS, AFTER PETE S CLOSED THE ORIGINAL THREAD.

PETE HAS KINDLY NOW RE-OPENED THE THREAD AND THE ABOVE POSTING IS IN RESPONSE TO SOMEBODY POSING THE QUESTION REGARDING THE RELEVANCE OF JAMAICAN REGGAE COVERS IN ALL THIS. HOPEFULLY THIS DEBATE CAN NOW CONTINUE AS IT IS A VERY WORTHWHILE SUBJECT, CHEERS PETE.

[Guest]

I downloaded The Georgie Fame version of Sitting in the Park from itunes after hearing it on the radio - its Great!. Not heard the Billy Stewart version .I wil try and check it out.

[Guest TONY ROUNCE]

"Bessies version could not have been a world wide smash anyway because it was not made available at the same time as the Moody Blues version due an arrangment made with Lieber and Stoller.Ask them!!"

I have. You're wrong. No such 'agreement' ever existed.

Honestly, the old crap that people post up here at times never ceases to amaze me...

[Pete S]

Honestly, the old crap that people post up here at times never ceases to amaze me...

[Modernsoulsucks]

I have. You're wrong. No such 'agreement' ever existed.

Honestly, the old crap that people post up here at times never ceases to amaze me...

I heard that at the time Bessie Banks was playing in goal for Leicester City and so wasn't available to promote the record?

ROD

[Pete Eccles]

I heard that at the time Bessie Banks was playing in goal for Leicester City and so wasn't available to promote the record?

ROD

Brilliant

[Guest]

...Exactly what DO they represent "culturally"?

As far as I can can see they were just records that were made with a view to, and a hope of, getting in the US Hot 100, just as the UK versions were made with the aim of reaching our Top Thirty. Like all records, all they really represent is a shot at money in the bank for a record label and the artist who recorded them.

Edited July 27, 2009 by chorleysoul

[macca]

Has anybody read any of Nick Tosches books?

There's one called Where Dead Voices Gather. I couldn't put it down.

The principal protagonist is Emmett Miller, a long forgotten minstrel player.

The story he tells of the endogamy that existed in both black and white genres is really fascinating.

He also wrote one called 'Country', which is equally fascinating as it explores the effect of white

on black and black on white in that genre, which may not be that apparent to those who have just scratched the surface.

[Modernsoulsucks]

I think that's a pretty fair assessment Richard although I would say that there were Black artists who were household names before the "social revolution of the 60's". Whether Armstrong,Basie,Ellington,Cole etc were just exceptions that proved the rule or maybe they were recording in a genre that was more familiar to a White audience as opposed to say the blues guys.

To kill two birds with one stone I can see why you admire Dave Godin so much and I think he'd be proud to think that 40 years down the line his influence has played a part in leading you to come up with an article that he himself could have written back then. However I can appreciate that for a 16 year old at the time it could be considered heavy-going and of only peripheral interest to someone merely wanting to know the latest sounds in the clubs.

Whatever the motivations for Moodies and Fame to cover those tracks [i prefer the originals myself] I do wonder why we appeared not to hear the original Black artists back in the 60's in the UK but then in 65 I was 12 and not that musically aware so maybe somewhere we did. They certainly got a release here and were played in some clubs. However "pop" music radio was almost non-existent compared to that in the USA and from what I've read restrictive practices [such as "needle-time] by the Musicians Union over here prevented exposure on radio and curtailed touring opportunities for USA acts.

ROD

[Guest TONY ROUNCE]

However "pop" music radio was almost non-existent compared to that in the USA and from what I've read restrictive practices [such as "needle-time] by the Musicians Union over here prevented exposure on radio and curtailed touring opportunities for USA acts.

ROD

This is a very good point. How restrictive it was to get airplay can be judged by the fact that, when it went on the air, Radio 1 was still restricted to something like 12 hours of needle time per week (which, among other things, is how the "Radio 1 Session" came into being). A 'local bias'towards domestically recorded versions of US material is therefore not too difficult to understand.

I should point out that, after "Go Now", the Moody Blues went a long time without another UK hit of any significance - nearly 3 years, in fact, during which time they released a mixture of original material and versions of soul records that did not chart. Quite a few of Georgie Fame's Columbia singles also missed out between "Yeh Yeh" and "Sitting In The Park".

It's fair to say that their versions of the two US songs we're discussing here were hits because they were good, not because they were part of any UK conspiracy to deprive black American artists of airplay and sales. Let's also not forget that plenty of Caucasian American Pop artists also missed out on UK success because of local 'covers. I don't see anyone on here fighting Ray Peterson's corner over Ricky Valance's note-for-note cover of "Tell Laura I Love Her", for example...

As for Chorleysoul's 'article', I've been too busy laughing at its earnest naivety to offer any kind of serious rebuttal. Thanks for injecting some humour into my day, at any rate, Richard!

Edited July 28, 2009 by TONY ROUNCE

[Guest]

This is a very good point. How restrictive it was to get airplay can be judged by the fact that, when it went on the air, Radio 1 was still restricted to something like 12 hours of needle time per week (which, among other things, is how the "Radio 1 Session" came into being). A 'local bias'towards domestically recorded versions of US material is therefore not too difficult to understand.

I should point out that, after "Go Now", the Moody Blues went a long time without another UK hit of any significance - nearly 3 years, in fact, during which time they released a mixture of original material and versions of soul records that did not chart. Quite a few of Georgie Fame's Columbia singles also missed out between "Yeh Yeh" and "Sitting In The Park".

It's fair to say that their versions of the two US songs we're discussing here were hits because they were good, not because they were part of any UK conspiracy to deprive black American artists of airplay and sales. Let's also not forget that plenty of Caucasian American Pop artists also missed out on UK success because of local 'covers. I don't see anyone on here fighting Ray Peterson's corner over Ricky Valance's note-for-note cover of "Tell Laura I Love Her", for example...

As for Chorleysoul's 'article', I've been too busy laughing at its earnest naivety to offer any kind of serious rebuttal. Thanks for injecting some humour into my day, at any rate, Richard!

Tony, anything that makes you smile is good and unlike PETE, I am certainly not going to take offence at your 'laughter'! In fact, when it comes to naivety, the above posting takes the biscuit and stretches the ration of this debate to elastic band style proportions!

What really interests me is how people on here seem to keep coming up with alternative positions as regards the central truths regarding exploitation of Black Musicians and their creative product. RAY PETERSON and RICKY VALANCE??????????????, do me a favour mate! That statement certainly brought a genuine guffaw from my belly! A clever response on the bounce, but for anybody to try and purport that there is any serious level of comparison between the prejudices and barriers faced by Black creative artists in the US and their white counterparts during the 20th Century period under discussion, is absolutely LUDICROUS....

The Black Artists were already facing very serious levels of discrimination merely as citizens, let alone in their trade or profession. These were already people without respite to quality education, health care, political representation or any of the normal aspects which the majority of White Americans took for granted. Life for Black Americans before the 1960's was a significantly different experience and if you truly believe that these factors had nothing to do with the barriers they faced within the entertainment industry, then it is you who are sucking on a pill of deluded earnesty.

I seriously understand that most people prefer to simply discuss 'records'. i.e are they 'good' or 'bad'. I understand why they prefer that. It is much easier, thats for sure.

Edited July 29, 2009 by chorleysoul

[Guest]

I think that's a pretty fair assessment Richard although I would say that there were Black artists who were household names before the "social revolution of the 60's". Whether Armstrong,Basie,Ellington,Cole etc were just exceptions that proved the rule or maybe they were recording in a genre that was more familiar to a White audience as opposed to say the blues guys.

To kill two birds with one stone I can see why you admire Dave Godin so much and I think he'd be proud to think that 40 years down the line his influence has played a part in leading you to come up with an article that he himself could have written back then. However I can appreciate that for a 16 year old at the time it could be considered heavy-going and of only peripheral interest to someone merely wanting to know the latest sounds in the clubs.

Whatever the motivations for Moodies and Fame to cover those tracks [i prefer the originals myself] I do wonder why we appeared not to hear the original Black artists back in the 60's in the UK but then in 65 I was 12 and not that musically aware so maybe somewhere we did. They certainly got a release here and were played in some clubs. However "pop" music radio was almost non-existent compared to that in the USA and from what I've read restrictive practices [such as "needle-time] by the Musicians Union over here prevented exposure on radio and curtailed touring opportunities for USA acts.

ROD

I agree Rod, of course there were previous 'household' names as you put it. I think the profound difference between stars like JAMES BROWN, ARETHA, SLY STONE etc, was that they emerged as part of a collective consciousness that actively and positively celebated Black American identity as opposed to be being 'entertainers'. Their elevation occurred inside a massive manifestation of Black pride and indeed, a struggle for basic human rights. All the other strands of disenfranchisement and prejudice that Black Americans faced stemmed from the intial denial of those human rights. Black Entertainers were accepted previously but they had to know their place. SAMMY DAVIS's life story is a particularly vivid example of this culture.

The sometimes blatantly savage social opression endured by Black Americans for decades, (Still apparent today in many certain aspects, by the way) was most certainly a factor in the creation of Soul Music, as it was Hip-Hop. The music represented a bona fide strand of cultural radicalism and expression. When records were watered down and covered by White pop artists, the cultural identification factors evaporated and the 'blackness' of the artistic expression vanished. They simply became mere slabs of pop music, as opposed to slabs of cultural identity. When JAMES BROWN released 'Say it loud, I'm Black and I'm proud', it was a pivotal moment. Here was a record that not only encapsulated the cultural relevance of Black Soul music, but a contribution that was simply impossible to 'borrow' and dilute. It is moments like this which define and chart the progress of Black American popular music from the 60s onwards.

For people like TONY ROUNCE to consisently ignore these factors and to label the consideration of them as naive is somewhat strange. Insisting on limiting the debate to two single records that he and others happen to prefer musically, for whatever reason, is again rather baffling to me. Then again, two sets of eyes see two stories...

Edited July 29, 2009 by chorleysoul

[Sebastian]

When JAMES BROWN released 'Say it loud, I'm Black and I'm proud', it was a pivotal moment. Here was a record that not only encapsulated the cultural relevance of Black Soul music, but a contribution that was simply impossible to 'borrow' and dilute.

Don't know if I'd say that he was diluting it, but Vic Waters sure gave it a go on one of his Penn/Oldham produced CRAZY HORSE 45s.

[Guest TONY ROUNCE]

For people like TONY ROUNCE to consisently ignore these factors and to label the consideration of them as naive is somewhat strange. Insisting on limiting the debate to two single records that he and others happen to prefer musically, for whatever reason, is again rather baffling to me. Then again, two sets of eyes see two stories...

I'm not interested in widening the debate. For me there is no debate here beyond which versions of "Sitting In The Park" and "Go Now" are the best.

Now give it a rest, will you?

[Guest]

Don't know if I'd say that he was diluting it, but Vic Waters sure gave it a go on one of his Penn/Oldham produced CRAZY HORSE 45s.

Interesting contribution but the VIC WATERS record is a pastiche, not a cover. How could a white country swamp boy perform 'Say it loud, I'm black and I'm proud'?!!! The other difference is that WATERS genuinely toured with BROWN and his record was conceptually inspired by JB'S anthem. It was not a 'cloned' pop version of the original black record but an answer refrain from a White American who clearly saw a

certain strand of parallel with the experiences of Black Americans and poor White country folks. Both groupings suffered social oppressions to varying degrees. Therefore the WATERS record is not a dilution but again, a cultural extension of his own life experiences (much of his stuff is like that) embodied within his music. As such it is an interesting release in it's own right.

That is completely different for example, to TIMEBOX'S version of 'Girl dont make me wait' which is simply a UK pop group and their producer trying to hit some cash off of the back of a great US Black record which was almost guranteed never to hit mainstream eardrums in the UK at the time of release. If people still refuse to acknowledge that this syndrome existed for donkey's years and that THE MOODY BLUES record was a perfect example of the genre then I am strangely surprised. Whether they prefer any of those records musically is not the point. It was the fact that nobody knew these records that made them attractive propositions to Producers and if DENNY CORDELL had not recognised the sheer quality of the song, he would never have have cut it on the MOODY BLUES in the first place!

Does anybody think he would not concurr with that completely?

Edited July 29, 2009 by chorleysoul

[Pete S]

That is completely different for example, to TIMEBOX'S version of 'Girl dont make me wait' which is simply a UK pop group and their producer trying to hit some cash off of the back of a great US Black record which was almost guranteed never to hit mainstream eardrums in the UK at the time of release.

Well it might have helped if they'd actually released the original in this country!