jocko Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Forget even asking them what their fave blue eyed Northern sounds are - guaranteed one little Hitler with Tourettes and a large chip on his shoulder will spoil it all with stories of how they created the world. Grow up FFS. Read Bobs one line answer to Pete which summarises the facts and then debate the facts rather than how you wish the facts were. You still have not answered one of my points.
Gene-r Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Grow up FFS. Read Bobs one line answer to Pete which summarises the facts and then debate the facts rather than how you wish the facts were. You still have not answered one of my points. Go back and read my answer to your previous post. Who is the hypocrite now?
jocko Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 I didn't complain about you defending yourself, I complained about you attacking someone in an extremely aggressive way. Big difference. "Yet he gets annoyed when people try to shout down racist and bigoted bile that often used to be spewed on here, shouting about being beaten down by the "loonie left". Who is the hypocrite here?" Gene is of Asian origin by the way. Sometimes enough is enought with the stupid attitudes, its time the "soul snobs" hit back. I repeat for the hard of thinking nothing about the orignal post was about Northern hence I will defend my right to defend music I love. The humouros approach has obviously not worked, and I niavely thought a rant might make the ignorant people think. Obviously too optimisitic. And WTF has Gene's origin got to do with it, a fact I already knew. Is that the old I can't be racist as I have Asian mates defence, never does wash with me I am afraid.
jocko Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Go back and read my answer to your previous post. Who is the hypocrite now? Just calling me names while ignoring the facts is not debating.
Gene-r Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Just calling me names while ignoring the facts is not debating. All right for you to do so then, isn't it?
Mike Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) thread temp closed will reopen later when reopened if this tit for tat style of argumentative posts continues will close and it will remain closed Edited July 7, 2011 by mike reopened....
Winnie :-) Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Okay, thought I would stand back and let this develop, Firstly, my style of response was very deliberate for a couple of reasons, with more vitriol than normal and deliberately little humour, and based on the responses I take it (a) Gene thinks it is okay to call people's names just because they like soul but does not think it is okay to defend yourself to this name calling in big bad nasty way, Who is the hypocrite here? (b) It is okay to start a topic for debate, by basically slagging a group of people, soul fans who dare to debate on a debating forum about music they love and defend that music against people whose only argument is to call them names, but it is not okay to defend that position. Who is the hypocrite? Go on and read Gene's words and his opening assumptions if you don't allow pop music to be called Soul, not Northern, then its open season on name calling. Its not my opinion on what is in Soul music, its a historical fact, hence my suggesting he educates himself with reading a world leading book on the fact. Ignorance is almost always behind intolerance, which calling people soul snobs because they like soul most definitely is. © Pete, the normal doyen of free speech, gets offended when someone defends themselves because they swear. Yet he gets annoyed when people try to shout down racist and bigoted bile that often used to be spewed on here, shouting about being beaten down by the "loonie left". Who is the hypocrite here? In all honest I am pig sick of people like Gene with this soul snob etc etc shite. and it does make me angry, I repeat its peurile, pathetic and uninformed. If I am wrong on this Gene debate the points I made rather than throwing a strop because I called you nastier names than you called us. Go on and read the facts between the swear words and debate them. Perception is a powerful thing and based on your point on your topic and your responses, most of my assumptions of you stand based on your stance, I have no other way to judge you. The ironic thing is I get accused of trying to define Northern when that is exactly the opposite of what I was doing, Sometimes its easy to miss the point when you are trying to defend the indefensible. Bob A gets it completely, no surprise really, if Gene had debated about this on the Northern Scene I wouldn't even have read it. He didn't, he decided to re-write the Soul music history, and as Bob says that is history, not an opinion, it is well documented fact. Am I sorry I wrote how I did, absolutely not, what I am sorry was it did not start the debate I wanted about this pathetic stance about soul snobs etc. Gene didn't even read it properly as he seems to think I am saying something about Northern, when it is quite clear I am not. However I couldn;t answer that, why, Gene closed it because I called him names in response to him calling me names, collectively rather than personally admittedly, quite ridiculous really. If you don't want to feel people angry at you think what you say, I challenge you to re-read your opening post and see any sort of balanced view or debate in that, you were stating a position and calling people names because they disagree with it. Hardly a debate is it. I repeat pathetic and peurile. Change my perception if you can. Purely as a member of soul source this is what I thought. Gene's initial thread starting post was clearly designed to promote debate, the use of the term 'soul snobs', though potenitially inflammatory, was a generalisation of a common perception and aimed at no one in particular. Your reply was way over the top, and uncalled for for two main reasons. 1) You personalised your attack because you didn't agree with his opinion/comment/subject matter 2) By personalisiing your comments you changed the nature of the thread, from one of debate to a slanging match and by continually repeating it ie: ''peurile and pathetic'', the 'blue eyed soul' issue of the debate gets lost in amongst the natural human trait of having to defend yourself. I'll repeat this is my own personal view, and from my perspective as a lay member of soul sourceWinnie
jocko Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Guilty as charged Winnie, and I have apologised to Mike directly for the hassle I have caused. I will be honest and say it was very deliberately personal as I do not see the difference between that and the bits highlighted below. I am only sorry it allowed the usual mod bashers here to drag Chalky into it, I really do not know why you guys put up with it. It is starting all over again with Chalky just like it used to with Karen, just because they dare to have an opinion! I am sure you will be on the list soon. I cannot say I am sorry about my response, as if you read the bits highlighted below you will see that not only was it never just about naming blue eyed soul stuff and does not mention Northern once in its setting out, it is fairly personal. I just don't see throwing direct insults nicely as being any better than my response. The ill-informed part comes from the fact it is so obviousl from the list of records Soul is being used for Northern, which no matter which way you look at it, is ill-informed, particularly in current scene. The summing up, which I have also highlighted is hardly balanced either. I am afraid I think pathetic, peurile and ill-informed is the only logical response I have, and I won't apologise for that. I think I did set out logically and reasoned why I thought that, and set that out as facts, both in my first response and then the next one, which had little insult in it. Neither has actually been debated if you read over this, sadly this often happens, people throw things up, the original reason for getting pi**ed at them then is lost in the bun fight, partly my fault for my tactic in this. It is just another example of how little fact is debated on here sadly, FreeBasing seems the only place for that now, ironically. ***************************************************************************************************************** The debate on the Javells post regarding black soul v white soul really got me thinking, and relating the differing views to my 27 years on the scene. I like to think that soul music is as diverse as the people who listen to it and buy the music - but wherever you go, there will always be a blinkered cross-section of people (OK, soul snobs if you want), namely: - Those who refuse to acknowledge "white" records as soul, and will refuse to listen, buy, or even dance to them. - Those who refuse to have anything to do with soul sounds that don't originate from certain states of the USA, or from the USA as a whole. - Those who hastily write off all blue-eyed soul as pop. And, on the same hand... Those who are so blinkered and narrow-minded that they refuse to open their minds or even listen to other types of music other than soul (who even go as far as slating R&B as "rock n' roll" in a derogatory sense), or records that sell for over, say, the £300 price tag. I'm sure there are some that will only listen to records by white artists, but I guess it's safe to say that they are a different entity who have no place on the scene! So, how about a list of "white" records that have always been greately revered on the soul scene, many of which are personal favourites of mine. Which of these are yours? THE MARTELLS: Where Can My Baby Be THE DEADBEATS: No Second Chance THE MODS: Dry My Eyes DEAN COURTNEY: I'll Always Need You BOBBY PARIS: I Walked Away GARY SOL'E: Holdin' On TONY COLTON: I Stand Accused MARK LOYD: When I'm Gonna Find Her LYNNE RANDELL: Stranger In My Arms B J THOMAS & THE TRIUMPHS: Keep It Up THE BUCK ROGERS MOVEMENT: Take It From Me Girl JOANNIE SOMMERS: Don't Pity Me ROCK CANDY / CONTEMPLATIONS: Alone With No Love (I'm assuming it's white) NICKY JAMES: So Glad We Made It STEVE ALDO: YOu're Absolutely Right THE SEVEN SOULS: I Still Love You (bearing in mind the 50-50 mix of black and white in the group) THE TEMPESTS: Just about anything they've committed to vinyl (and yes, I know Hazell Martin is a black singer!) I'd take a safe guess that there is at least one record or artist here that would be a fave of anyone pigeon-holed in the categories mentioned above. So, snobbery, purism, hypocrisy, or just plain narrow-mindedness? What do you think? Would be interesting to see all sides to the debate following this, so let's open the floor......
Ady Croasdell Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Dean Courtney looks quite black and probably is Jock. Swap him with Dean Parrish. Ady
Pete S Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Dean Courtney looks quite black and probably is Jock. Swap him with Dean Parrish. Ady To be fair to Jock, it was Gene who put Dean Courtney on the blue eyed list, as some people pointed out in the original topic yesterday
Russ Vickers Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Shame really cos over on The Javells thread, there are people saying that they are soul snobs and proud to be so. Thats been taken out of context Pete, the criteria that was being set to describe a 'Soul Snob' in that particular post maybe different to this. I was referring directly to the playing of bootlegs & the fact that I disagree with this entitles others to call me a 'Soul Snob' apparently - if this is the definition then I'm a 'Soul Snob'. Best Russ
Garethx Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Gene's original proposition was so loaded that it was bound to get up people's noses. He started the topic and, as Jock highlights above, stated exactly where he stood on the debate. There have been a few really good discussions on here on the entire topic of Blue Eyed Soul. The point I've always tried to get across about it is that it's actually quite distinct from 'Records Made By White People Which Just Happened To Be Played On The UK Northern Scene'. John Reed's post on the original topic was reasoned and the list of records he gave was very instructive. White Soul is a fascinating phenomenon and worthy of serious discussion.
Pete S Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Thats been taken out of context Pete, the criteria that was being set to describe a 'Soul Snob' in that particular post maybe different to this. I was referring directly to the playing of bootlegs & the fact that I disagree with this entitles others to call me a 'Soul Snob' apparently - if this is the definition then I'm a 'Soul Snob'. Best Russ Just saying that the term is being used Russ, no big deal
Russ Vickers Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Just saying that the term is being used Russ, no big deal No worries mate. Russ
Garethx Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 But as Bob A. pointed out in Gene's original topic it's fairly impossible to have a discussion on soul's roots and identity as a cultural phenomenon without it having a racial dimension or a political context. Soul was born of a specific set of circumstances in the African American timeline and it had a specific point to put across about black people's lives. That is inescapable. If revisionists seek to state that was not actually the case then I can only guess at their agendas.
Gene-r Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) ....it was Gene who put Dean Courtney on the blue eyed list, as some people pointed out in the original topic yesterday As Lord Luther says, "my mistake"! Edited July 7, 2011 by Gene-R
Guest in town Mikey Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Gene's original proposition was so loaded that it was bound to get up people's noses. He started the topic and, as Jock highlights above, stated exactly where he stood on the debate. There have been a few really good discussions on here on the entire topic of Blue Eyed Soul. The point I've always tried to get across about it is that it's actually quite distinct from 'Records Made By White People Which Just Happened To Be Played On The UK Northern Scene'. John Reed's post on the original topic was reasoned and the list of records he gave was very instructive. White Soul is a fascinating phenomenon and worthy of serious discussion. Very true Gareth. A calm discussion on white soul acts would be fascinating. I'm not what you'd call a soul fan. As Jock and Chalky pointed out earlier. The Northern Soul thing, of which I think I am a fan, of is a different animal. Northern wise I think the 'soul' of the tune at times is lost against the danceability of the track. (Obv examples are instrumentals). But as a Northern Soul fan I dont care the colour of the singer. But conversely I do care about the format it is on, ie OVO. Right or wrong, its something I do feel strongly about. And I think that is because of growing up with Northern Soul. I dont know if any other scene is as obsessed with the validity of the tune being played as the Northern Soul scene can be. I think a discussion on acts like the Average White Band or Boz Scaggs would be really enjoyable. But soul fans might be aghast at those two?? I dont know. Also I've said many times that I think Liam O'Maonlai of the Hot House Flowers has soul oozing out of his recordings. But wouldnt think he would be considered 'soul'. Add Van Morrison and Natalie Merchant to this description too. Even if I'm upsetting the soul fans For Gene's original discussion about blue eyed soul. For me there is no better record, of any genre than Rufus Lumley - Stronger Than me. Stick it in whatever box you want. Finally. Am I the only one that think deep down Gene And Jock are pretty much in the same corner, but are just getting there in a different way? I didnt get why Jock responded as he did. But then I didnt get the same from Gene's original post, that Jock has explained, he took from it. And as someone who knows both guy. I think the Northern Soul scene is all the better for having two guys as passionate about Northern Soul and soul as these two.
Guest Dave Turner Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 A very good and worth reading piece on the issue of white "soul" with sound clips. https://www.sirshambling.com/articles/blue_eyed_soul.htm
Pete S Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 A very good and worth reading piece on the issue of white "soul" with sound clips. https://www.sirshambling.com/articles/blue_eyed_soul.htm Sorry but stopped reading as soon as he said this: Also the feeling that black skin was important was a clear reaction to the "rip-offs" which constituted many insipid white covers of soul tunes. Although this practise was more prevalent in the 50s - and worse artistically - it still occurred in the 60s. The most extreme examples like the Walker Brothers "My Ship Is Coming In", the Moody Blues "Go Now" and the Beatles atrocious "Twist and Shout" still continue to grate even to this day all of those are as good as or better than the originals - he's set his agenda out right from the start
Gene-r Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) Sorry but stopped reading as soon as he said this: Also the feeling that black skin was important was a clear reaction to the "rip-offs" which constituted many insipid white covers of soul tunes. Although this practise was more prevalent in the 50s - and worse artistically - it still occurred in the 60s. The most extreme examples like the Walker Brothers "My Ship Is Coming In", the Moody Blues "Go Now" and the Beatles atrocious "Twist and Shout" still continue to grate even to this day all of those are as good as or better than the originals - he's set his agenda out right from the start Good point - I bet quite a few black vocal groups and artists felt hard done by when almost every single by Pat Boone was an insipid cover version of a doo-wop / R&R track of the day. Thankfully, people like Alan Freed broke tradition and made this type of music available to all ears. After this, blue-eyed cover versions seemed to improve in quality. There are, of course, some excellent British NORTHERN soul records which are cover versions (eg, Dennis D'Ell "Better Use Your Head", Chapter Five's "One In A Million", Kenny Lynch "My Own Two Feet" etc). Edited July 7, 2011 by Gene-R
Pete S Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 watch out....return of the loony left rumored.... Rich great to see you back, just in time to, we've just arrived at your favourite subject, The Moody Blues "Go Now", which is where you cam in in the first place I think...or was it Georgie Fame "Sitting in the park"
Pete S Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Good point - I bet quite a few black vocal groups and artists felt hard done by when almost every single by Pat Boone was an insipid cover version of a doo-wop / R&R track of the day. Thankfully, people like Alan Freed broke tradition and made this type of music available to all ears. After this, blue-eyed cover versions seemed to improve in quality. There are, of course, some excellent British NORTHERN soul records which are cover versions (eg, Dennis D'Ell "Better Use Your Head", Chapter Five's "One In A Million", Kenny Lynch "My Own Two Feet" etc). No what I mean is that he rightly says that white cover versions of black songs are latgely insipid, and I agree with him, except those three that he chose there are not insipid and are all very, very good records (Walker Bros, Moody Blues, Beatles). We've had the Moody Blues / Bessie Banks argument loads of times though.
Godzilla Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Dean Courtney looks quite black and probably is Jock. Swap him with Dean Parrish. Ady To be fair to Jock, it was Gene who put Dean Courtney on the blue eyed list, as some people pointed out in the original topic yesterday As Lord Luther says, "my mistake"! I pointed it out in Jokey way before everything kicked off. For the record though, I have no axe to grind with Gene, or with Jock for that matter and I'm psychically forwarding a couple of imaginary pints for them to sit down with, have a chat and get over it.
Marc Forrest Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Maybe you should be more "aware" of the cultural context of the music you listen to? "Soul" and "Soul Music" are specific terms that became culturally important / frequently used directly in connection with the emergence of the elements of African-American consciousness / identity that was happening in the late 60s and early 70s -- e.g. changes in politics, clothing, hairstyles, food, attitudes, and every other cultural element. Obviously the meaning of words change but in this case it has a lot of baggage and is very closely tied to very specific things. The music "ceased to be produced" when the people producing the music and connected to the cultural movement ceased to use it as a term to describe their own music. It's problematic to reappropriate the word to describe other things because of its close connection with specific historical and cultural things. At least it should be done with an awareness of what the word came from. I would describe a lot of music today as "soulful" and maybe some throwback acts like Sharon Jones and the Dap Kings are able to capture an older sound and I would go so far as to call them "throwback soul" or something like that, but even those acts aren't making music in the specific cultural context that "soul music" comes from. Anyways, people need to chill out. I don't see why people should be nasty. Agree on all parts except for the part Soul music "ceased to be produced when the people producing the music and connected to the cultural movement ceased to use it as a term to describe their own music"..as most still do up to today. I am not only talking about "old" artists still productive such as Lou Pride to name just one, I am also talking and including artists such as Sharon jones (just becuase you named her) and many many others as well. The term "Soul" was found and used long before the civil movement(s) found their way and had their influx on US society on a wider scale. The Great Nathaniel, Chubby Martin are just two artists from the top of my head who used the term SOUL in the early Sixties long before "Sweet Soul Music" and others. Personally I have no problem inlcuding white artists or brown or yello ones into the Genre SOUL as long as what they deliver indeed has all necessary ingredients of what makes a SOUL tune. In general, to me, the term SOUL was "invented" and used long before it became a tag for a certain state of conscience and way of living, but was soon "adopted" to label what you just so rightly described. Today again it has lost most of this and is a simple label for certain Music styles being produced all over this planet. any yes, people need to chill out indeed and enjoy their music, be it blue - eyed or brown eyed
Guest Dave Turner Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Sorry but stopped reading as soon as he said this: Also the feeling that black skin was important was a clear reaction to the "rip-offs" which constituted many insipid white covers of soul tunes. Although this practise was more prevalent in the 50s - and worse artistically - it still occurred in the 60s. The most extreme examples like the Walker Brothers "My Ship Is Coming In", the Moody Blues "Go Now" and the Beatles atrocious "Twist and Shout" still continue to grate even to this day all of those are as good as or better than the originals - he's set his agenda out right from the start But surely Pete if you'd read on a little bit he redressed the balance with Otis & Aretha's covers Stones and Beatles tracks. Also that was the writer's feeling "then" as a young chap. "All those are as good as or better than the originals" That's just your opinion Pete, other folks have their own opinions.
Gene-r Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Agree on all parts except for the part Soul music "ceased to be produced when the people producing the music and connected to the cultural movement ceased to use it as a term to describe their own music"..as most still do up to today. I am not only talking about "old" artists still productive such as Lou Pride to name just one, I am also talking and including artists such as Sharon jones (just becuase you named her) and many many others as well. The term "Soul" was found and used long before the civil movement(s) found their way and had their influx on US society on a wider scale. The Great Nathaniel, Chubby Martin are just two artists from the top of my head who used the term SOUL in the early Sixties long before "Sweet Soul Music" and others. Personally I have no problem inlcuding white artists or brown or yello ones into the Genre SOUL as long as what they deliver indeed has all necessary ingredients of what makes a SOUL tune. In general, to me, the term SOUL was "invented" and used long before it became a tag for a certain state of conscience and way of living, but was soon "adopted" to label what you just so rightly described. Today again it has lost most of this and is a simple label for certain Music styles being produced all over this planet. any yes, people need to chill out indeed and enjoy their music, be it blue - eyed or brown eyed Quite right Marc. Just one thing - you should have said NORTHERN soul
Guest Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) Interesting Thread Thought would put up this link which I found fascinating (if you have the patience to read through it !!!!) https://books.google....epage&q&f=false Jonathan Edited July 7, 2011 by Indalosoulclub
Guest Dave Turner Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Good point - I bet quite a few black vocal groups and artists felt hard done by when almost every single by Pat Boone was an insipid cover version of a doo-wop / R&R track of the day. Thankfully, people like Alan Freed broke tradition and made this type of music available to all ears. After this, blue-eyed cover versions seemed to improve in quality. There are, of course, some excellent British NORTHERN soul records which are cover versions (eg, Dennis D'Ell "Better Use Your Head", Chapter Five's "One In A Million", Kenny Lynch "My Own Two Feet" etc). I bet the writers didn't feel so hard done by though. Black artists nearly always were hard done by and often didn't receive any, or very little recognition or financial reward. Many large companies, Chess for example, knew full well that the "black" market was smaller than the "white" market and as such released a track by a black artist only to sell the rights to companies so that company could put out a "white" cover which would sell infinitely more copies. Did it piss black artists off, I suspect it sometimes did but that was the music business they were in, that or nothing.
Gene-r Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 And as someone who knows both guy. I think the Northern Soul scene is all the better for having two guys as passionate about Northern Soul and soul as these two. Why thanks Mike - really nice of you to say so. Hope you are well. Must correct you though - I lost my passion for NORTHERN soul a couple of years ago, mainy for the reasons and type of people you've seen here.
Guest Bogue Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Oh dear, oh dear!....has somebody been rewriting history again?? Came across this a few months back & thought it might have some relevance to the bit in this debate regards the origins of the term 'soul' in music. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soul_Stirrers Guess that group name could become a new insulting reference too eh?
Pete S Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) But surely Pete if you'd read on a little bit he redressed the balance with Otis & Aretha's covers Stones and Beatles tracks. Also that was the writer's feeling "then" as a young chap. "All those are as good as or better than the originals" That's just your opinion Pete, other folks have their own opinions. Not going to start this one up again. Theres a whole mega-topic about it already Edited July 7, 2011 by Pete S
Guest Dave Turner Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Not going to start this one up again. Theres a whole mega-topic about it already staying well away from that mate just to say I've never liked Georgie Fame ever since he was in the office at Cleethorpes Winter Gardens giving it large that there was more soul in his coffee adverts. I think he rightly got the impression that he should fook off quick
Ste Henderson Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Slightly off topic sorry But is it just me or is it a fact that this " soul snob and I know more than you attitude " put people off from commenting on topics such as this because people get shot down because of a certain few peoples inabilty to accept other peoples comments or contributions regardless if they are right or wrong ? and would this still be the case if we discussing this face to face rather than on a forum ? I doubt it Just a thought Steve
Guest Bogue Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Re the black artists returning the favour & recording versions of white pop songs....there are some really good tunes in amongst them One that springs to mind is 'Wee Willie Walker's' version of 'Ticket To Ride'....much much better version than the Beatles imo...it becomes a totaly different song!
Billy Freemantle Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 ...on the entire topic of Blue Eyed Soul. The point I've always tried to get across about it is that it's actually quite distinct from 'Records Made By White People Which Just Happened To Be Played On The UK Northern Scene'. That's one the most intelligent distinctions I've read on this or any other 'soul' forum. I think it's a lot more accurate, too, to talk about the Northern Scene as opposed to the Northern Soul Scene.
Garethx Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 I've read and re-read Gene's original post again and I find it ridiculous that he should stir up such a hornet's nest and then retreat, pretending to be the voice of reason and the wronged party in a frank exchange of views. Maybe Gene can convince me otherwise but he is clearly stating that if I don't like all the records on his list I am a blinkered, narrow-minded hypocrite. Apart from The Seven Souls (which shouldn't be on it in the first place) and Joanie Sommers (an unreserved masterpiece in any genre of popular music) the vast majority of those records are pretty poor and the type of thing I became a soul fan to largely avoid listening to. Play The Deadbeats or Gary Sole to any reasonably informed music fan and tell them they are 'soul' and you'd probably expect to receive a puzzled reaction. I completely understand that many pop records had the correct flavour to become popular Northern Soul plays and don't mind listening to many of them in the course of a night out, but they are not and cannot, surely be the scene's bedrock. Take J.J. Barnes, Eddie Parker, The Tomangoes, The Salvadors or The Del Larks or Mel Britt or Mikki Farrow or Willie Tee out of Northern Soul history. Replace them with the Paul Anka's, The Gary Lewis's, Buck Rogers Movement etc. and you would have something which wouldn't have lasted two years, let alone the forty-odd and counting we're in now. I am utterly convinced of this. The pop stompers are an interesting curio, a diversion and a sprinkling of the weird and wonderful. The pop records lack the basic elemental feeling of the greatest Northern Soul records. It's in the vocals, it's the intensity of the productions. It wasn't invented by the Radio Corporation of America, or Warner Brothers or EMI of Hayes, Middlesex. It came from the streets of inner city Black America. The proliferation of pop reached epidemic proportions at a time when the scene enjoyed its highest attendances and it's surely no co-incidence that a different set of values came to prevail in the post-Made In England era. The values which now seemingly get labelled Soul Snobbery. It's come to something when you have to defend liking soul music on a soul music forum! 3
Pete S Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 It's come to something when you have to defend liking soul music on a soul music forum! It's come to something when people jump in the defend such an aggressive attack on another forum member.
Guest squaw Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Slightly off topic sorry But is it just me or is it a fact that this " soul snob and I know more than you attitude " put people off from commenting on topics such as this because people get shot down because of a certain few peoples inabilty to accept other peoples comments or contributions regardless if they are right or wrong ? and would this still be the case if we discussing this face to face rather than on a forum ? I doubt it Just a thought Steve Was reading through this thread at another well know members house earlier today,we came to the exact same conclusion.
Russ Vickers Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Only you Pete could make such a one liner after such a poiniant & well thought out post.........incredible . Sure Gene is a lovely bloke, but he set himself up. You n Jock have a past history so your not very likely to agree with him. Russ
Garethx Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 It's come to something when people jump in the defend such an aggressive attack on another forum member. At first I thought Jock's reply was maybe too strong but, like I said, re-read Gene's original post and it really is an unveiled attack on the views which many of us hold on here. Jock's reply was a robust defence of his own values rather than a personal attack on Gene.
Billy Freemantle Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 ... Play The Deadbeats or Gary Sole to any reasonably informed music fan and tell them they are 'soul' and you'd probably expect to receive a puzzled reaction. In my experience their reaction has been one of mirth. Take J.J. Barnes, Eddie Parker, The Tomangoes, The Salvadors or The Del Larks or Mel Britt or Mikki Farrow or Willie Tee out of Northern Soul history. Replace them with the Paul Anka's, The Gary Lewis's, Buck Rogers Movement etc. and you would have something which wouldn't have lasted two years, let alone the forty-odd and counting we're in now. I am utterly convinced of this. Yes, they would have the longevity of any other novelty record and often a lot less than that.
Pete S Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) Only you Pete could make such a one liner after such a poiniant & well thought out post.........incredible . Oh b*llocks Russ. Poignant? It's a throwaway post on a solul forum, not a eulogy, what are you on? Pick on my mates, I'll stick up for them, end of. Edited July 7, 2011 by Pete S
Russ Vickers Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) Pick on my mates & I'll stick up for them end of . My dads bigger than yours.......its a soul forum for gods sake !!! Now I'm off to do something interesting like listen to some tunes black, white n brown Russ Edited July 7, 2011 by Russ Vickers
Gene-r Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) At first I thought Jock's reply was maybe too strong but, like I said, re-read Gene's original post and it really is an unveiled attack on the views which many of us hold on here. Jock's reply was a robust defence of his own values rather than a personal attack on Gene. What's this - the Jocko fan club rushing to his rescue? Jock's arrogance and personal attack exposed his true colours, and I am proud to have played a major part in his exposure here. End of. Edited July 7, 2011 by Gene-R
Gene-r Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) I've read and re-read Gene's original post again and I find it ridiculous that he should stir up such a hornet's nest and then retreat, pretending to be the voice of reason and the wronged party in a frank exchange of views. Maybe Gene can convince me otherwise but he is clearly stating that if I don't like all the records on his list I am a blinkered, narrow-minded hypocrite. No Gareth. No one is calling you a blinkered, narrow-minded hypocrite, so don't try to put words into my mouth. That is an example list of my personal faves - I don't shove belief down anyone's throat. You've given your opinion (good or bad) on some of the sounds there, and that's what the debate is supposed to be about, for those of you who didn't know. Keeps it healthy. And who's retreating? Obviously you're trying your best to defend Jock's stupid outburst by turning it round on me. Doesn't wash..... Edited July 7, 2011 by Gene-R
Gene-r Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Only you Pete could make such a one liner after such a poiniant & well thought out post.........incredible . Sure Gene is a lovely bloke, but he set himself up. You n Jock have a past history so your not very likely to agree with him. Russ Why thank you for the 'lovely bloke' compliment Russ - I am flattered! However, I would say that anyone who starts a debate of any sort is likely to set themselves up - just depends which idiot decides to be obstructive to the debate at the time. I'm not on my own on this.
Garethx Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 What's this - the Jocko fan club rushing to his rescue? Jock's arrogance and personal attack exposed his true colours, and I am proud to have played a major part in his exposure here. End of. His exposure as what exactly? A passionate advocate of soul music in its many guises? I'm sure he can live with that. He wasn't attacking you personally Gene. He was disagreeing with your views in an internet discussion. It's an important distinction. Please don't take this personally, but your reaction to it all has been mean-spirited and a touch puerile: initially closing your own topic when a dissenting voice was raised and then continuing to badger away in another topic specifically opened to continue debate on what could have been a fascinating topic. Now you crow about Jock's 'demise' to use your original choice of words. It doesn't look good.
Pete S Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Pick on my mates & I'll stick up for them end of . My dads bigger than yours.......its a soul forum for gods sake !!! Now I'm off to do something interesting like listen to some tunes black, white n brown Russ Off to your drama queen lessons are you?
Recommended Posts