Guest SteveA Posted September 30, 2006 Posted September 30, 2006 After the Amy Winehouse does an Etta James on "Rehab" shock , I heard another track on radio that confounded my current = crap theory. A foot stompin', testifying, wailing, everything plus the kitchen sink gospel style track called "Pray" by (gosh) Christina Aguilera. I'm too embarassed to buy it. Anybody else verify this?
hipshaker 05 Posted October 1, 2006 Posted October 1, 2006 actually, i like the track "Ain't No Other Man" (with the happy soul with a hook sample i believe) ..... quite funky!
Markw Posted October 1, 2006 Posted October 1, 2006 actually, i like the track "Ain't No Other Man" (with the happy soul with a hook sample i believe) ..... quite funky! Confession time................me too!! Loved this track!
Guest mrs norman maine Posted October 1, 2006 Posted October 1, 2006 Confession time................me too!! Loved this track! and me Great video too! I'm not normally fond of watching scantily clad ladies shaking their chests about, but like the track itself, it just fizzes along with more energy than a can of pop.
Drew3 Posted October 1, 2006 Posted October 1, 2006 After the Amy Winehouse does an Etta James on "Rehab" shock , I heard another track on radio that confounded my current = crap theory. A foot stompin', testifying, wailing, everything plus the kitchen sink gospel style track called "Pray" by (gosh) Christina Aguilera. I'm too embarassed to buy it. Anybody else verify this? This is an interesting question because yesterday I heard a song on The Jonathan Ross Radio Two show that I thought was an old soul record. Turned out to be a new song by.................................. Marti Pellow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thought It was good and wondered if any collectors/DJ's would ever consider buying something like this and even if they would play it out? Being the hipocrite that I am I'd be very disaproving if I heard this out and then the DJ announced it was said Mr P. Did anyone else hear it and what did you think? KTF. Drew.
Sean Hampsey Posted October 1, 2006 Posted October 1, 2006 Not heard the Marti Pellow track you refer to, but was there the night at the Town & Country Club when Willie Mitchell introduced said young Mr P onto the stage. You can imagine the howls of disapproval, considering we were all there to see Otis Clay, Ann Peebles, Lyn white and David Hudson, when this 'surprise guest' appeared to serenade us with his latest (Willie Mitchell produced) number. Poppa Willie was shocked that we didn't approve and later, backstage, I remember I had a difficult job explaining to him and the HI guys why we weren't exactly enamoured by Pellow's apearance. Sean
macca Posted October 1, 2006 Posted October 1, 2006 Not heard the Marti Pellow track you refer to, but was there the night at the Town & Country Club when Willie Mitchell introduced said young Mr P onto the stage. You can imagine the howls of disapproval, considering we were all there to see Otis Clay, Ann Peebles, Lyn white and David Hudson, when this 'surprise guest' appeared to serenade us with his latest (Willie Mitchell produced) number. Poppa Willie was shocked that we didn't approve and later, backstage, I remember I had a difficult job explaining to him and the HI guys why we weren't exactly enamoured by Pellow's apearance. Sean why did you guys disapprove of him? 'cos he's white & from scotland?
Guest Posted October 1, 2006 Posted October 1, 2006 Not heard the Marti Pellow track you refer to, but was there the night at the Town & Country Club when Willie Mitchell introduced said young Mr P onto the stage. You can imagine the howls of disapproval, considering we were all there to see Otis Clay, Ann Peebles, Lyn white and David Hudson, when this 'surprise guest' appeared to serenade us with his latest (Willie Mitchell produced) number. Poppa Willie was shocked that we didn't approve and later, backstage, I remember I had a difficult job explaining to him and the HI guys why we weren't exactly enamoured by Pellow's apearance. Sean Me too!!,strange...........there`s a double album of allmost the same concert,but recorded live in Berlin,same time as the fall of the Berlin wall why did you guys disapprove of him? 'cos he's white & from scotland? Cause he cant sing
Guest Ranger Posted October 1, 2006 Posted October 1, 2006 This is an interesting question because yesterday I heard a song on The Jonathan Ross Radio Two show that I thought was an old soul record. Turned out to be a new song by.................................. Marti Pellow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thought It was good and wondered if any collectors/DJ's would ever consider buying something like this and even if they would play it out? Being the hipocrite that I am I'd be very disaproving if I heard this out and then the DJ announced it was said Mr P. Did anyone else hear it and what did you think? KTF. Drew. Yes, I heard it. I wasn't really listening to the interview as I was driving along the M62 at the time. The record woke me up, I thought it was a nice 7ts sounding tune and made a point of listening to find out what it was with a view to maybe buying it. Gobsmacked when I found out who it was. No intention of buying it though - he sang another track live and was awfull Kev
Sweeney Posted October 1, 2006 Posted October 1, 2006 (edited) After the Amy Winehouse does an Etta James on "Rehab" shock , I heard another track on radio that confounded my current = crap theory. A foot stompin', testifying, wailing, everything plus the kitchen sink gospel style track called "Pray" by (gosh) Christina Aguilera. I'm too embarassed to buy it. Anybody else verify this? "Verify" what exactly? Buy some Gospel or Soul records instead. You know it makes sense. She's not a bad singer, but this should be in the "freebasing section". It ain't soul. Edited October 1, 2006 by sweeney
Sharon Cooper Posted October 1, 2006 Posted October 1, 2006 Just bought 'Save room' by John Legend; Great - Well worth a listen! Sharon
Sweeney Posted October 1, 2006 Posted October 1, 2006 (edited) ........... Edited October 1, 2006 by sweeney
Guest dundeedavie Posted October 1, 2006 Posted October 1, 2006 surely if any tune is good enough it deserves to be played ,,,,,, it is complete bollocks to say i was going to buy it cos i liked it but won't now cos of who it is :angry:
Guest Bogue Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 surely if any tune is good enough it deserves to be played ,,,,,, it is complete bollocks to say i was going to buy it cos i liked it but won't now cos of who it is :angry: Here here
Guest TONY ROUNCE Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 Not heard the Marti Pellow track you refer to, but was there the night at the Town & Country Club when Willie Mitchell introduced said young Mr P onto the stage. You can imagine the howls of disapproval, considering we were all there to see Otis Clay, Ann Peebles, Lyn white and David Hudson, when this 'surprise guest' appeared to serenade us with his latest (Willie Mitchell produced) number. Poppa Willie was shocked that we didn't approve and later, backstage, I remember I had a difficult job explaining to him and the HI guys why we weren't exactly enamoured by Pellow's apearance. Sean This new Marti Pellow record (and the album that it comes from) was actually produced by Willie Mitchell, in Memphis. I was sent a promo recently, and thought I'd give it a listen before passing judgement. It's not something that I'd keep personally, but I have to say it's not bad at all. If he hadn't been in Wet Wet Wet, and was a complete unknown, there would probably be a thread on here somewhere saying what a great soul singer this Marti Pellow was, and how come we hadn't heard from him before now... TONE
Winnie :-) Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 "Verify" what exactly? Buy some Gospel or Soul records instead. You know it makes sense. She's not a bad singer, but this should be in the "freebasing section". It ain't soul. ================= Silly statement! Doubt very much you have the monopoly on the definition of soul........bit of a blinkered view IMO. Winnie:-)
Winnie :-) Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 surely if any tune is good enough it deserves to be played ,,,,,, it is complete bollocks to say i was going to buy it cos i liked it but won't now cos of who it is :angry: =========== Totally agree with the above. Smacks of peer pressure, can't say I like it if XXX says it's not soul/not good etc etc
Sweeney Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 ================= Silly statement! Doubt very much you have the monopoly on the definition of soul........bit of a blinkered view IMO. Winnie:-) Oh dear! I was labouring under the misapprehension that I DID have the monopoly on the definition of soul. I'll have to go and find the nice man that sold it to me and ask for my money back. Thanks for pointing that out.
jocko Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 ================= Doubt very much you have the monopoly on the definition of soul........bit of a blinkered view IMO. Winnie:-) This is a statement that has been repeated numerous times recently and I just don't get it. How can there be more than one definition of Soul music, its a defined genre, well documented. There are great Soul singers (Bobby Womack, Rance Allen, Latimore, Millie Jackson etc etc etc etc ), not all of their records are great soul records, but this is the definition of a soul singer, therefore surely there can only be variations of how good a soul singer is after this. And therefore to not accept people who do not fit classicaly within this genre, or are not very good singers within these genre is not blinkered but a real understanding of Soul music. Including Frank Popp in particular is an insult to soul singers around the world, I respect what he does within his genre but irrelevant to Soul singers such as above. I suspect you like others are meaning Northern Soul Winnie, and then you are right there are many definitions, and some peoples idea of Northern has nothing to do with Soul in my book, but I respect the differing definitions within this genre nowadays, may not always like it but I do agree NS is almost undefinable in one style. My own preference is that is should be a subset of the Soul genre and at least pay homage to this genre, again in my opinion all the very greatest NS records are at least good soul records but I realise this is because I am Soul fan first and foremost (took me until recently I think to realise this). I repeat myself I realise but I think its an important historical fact and disrespectful to the history and the culture that was responsible for the creation of Soul music to keep rewriting its history in order to fit Northern Soul. Cheers Jock
Guest dundeedavie Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 my comment was more along the lines of taste ......the person in question liked it enough to listen to the end with a view to buying it ...UNTIL he found out who it was . i haven't heard the record so i won't comment on playability but surely the northern scene is more fluid than this ? is it so regimented that it is almost like a uniform ? the scene played sven zetterberg , nicole willis , the modern scene has played lisa stansfield so there are examples of forward thinking outside the box . so i ask the question , IF this is good enough WHY SHOULDN'T IT BE PLAYED
Sean Hampsey Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 why did you guys disapprove of him? 'cos he's white & from scotland? No, well not in my case at least, since I am White and also of Celtic extraction. As I stated in my earlier post, we were all there to see Otis Clay, Ann Peebles, Lyn White and David Hudson and not a British POP idol.... which is the only fair description that befits the said Mr Pellow IMO. Sean
Guest Baz Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 so i ask the question , IF this is good enough WHY SHOULDN'T IT BE PLAYED Because again these nich pop tunes allways get a look in when there is thousands of great soul records actually made in the sixtys buy soul artists that get over looked, to me this is a connoisseur's scene why should we water down our scene with these crap over hyped pop records all the time, there is thousands of decent records that proberly have never been spun. keep it real dont go for these 'taylor made' sounds they're pants
Guest dundeedavie Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 Because again these nich pop tunes allways get a look in when there is thousands of great soul records actually made in the sixtys buy soul artists that get over looked, to me this is a connoisseur's scene why should we water down our scene with these crap over hyped pop records all the time, there is thousands of decent records that proberly have never been spun. keep it real dont go for these 'taylor made' sounds they're pants i presume you've heard it then , i haven't so can't comment on whether it is pants or not . playing devils advocate for a sec .... why can't he be a soul singer ? because of his pop past ? ...because it's new ? because he is white ? because he is scottish ? and by that then are you accusing willie mitchell(who i believe someone said produced said tune) of selling out and being mercenary and doin it for the cash ? or not knowing a good singer if he heard one ? producing a tailor made ? who wants to go first ? and hey don't level personal insults either , only asking the questions
Guest dundeedavie Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 ps what is the bloody tune called so i can at least try and hear it
Sean Hampsey Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 (edited) to not accept people who do not fit classicaly within this genre, or are not very good singers within these genre is not blinkered but a real understanding of Soul music. Cheers Jock Amen to that statement. Soul Music has had to endure enough plagiarism and condemnation throughout the decades without having to deal with misinterpretation or a ready acceptance of dilution from those who purport to be Soul Music fans. I personally find such compromises insulting to the genre. Your examples of what constitutes a Soul Artist (Womack, Latimore, Millie Jackson etc.) are spot on in my book. I've always found that anyone who can't tell the difference probably isn't really listening. And before I get accused of being "Soulier Than Thou", as a classically trained musician, I'm quite happy (on occasion) to listen to non-soul music and have in my collection such a wide range of artists from The Chieftains to The Sandford Townsend Band... but I don't consider these genres to have anything to do with what I consider to be, or would describe to be, Soul Music. Sean Hampsey Edited October 2, 2006 by Sean Hampsey
Sean Hampsey Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 If he hadn't been in Wet Wet Wet, and was a complete unknown, there would probably be a thread on here somewhere saying what a great soul singer this Marti Pellow was, and how come we hadn't heard from him before now... TONE You're probably right Tony, but I doubt very much whether you would have been the one to start the thread... and I'm damn sure that I wouldn't have either. Sean
Guest Baz Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 i presume you've heard it then , i haven't so can't comment on whether it is pants or not . No i havent herd it, was talking in general to most of the tunes brought out seem to mask other tunes that should be played. playing devils advocate for a sec .... why can't he be a soul singer ? because of his pop past ? ...because it's new ? because he is white ? because he is scottish ?Who said he cant be a soul singer? again im talking about every song in question lately Amy W, Christine Ag and MP or are you just defending him because he is scottish? i never even mentioned him. and by that then are you accusing willie mitchell(who i believe someone said produced said tune) of selling out and being mercenary and doin it for the cash ? or not knowing a good singer if he heard one ? producing a tailor made ? So what if Willie Mitchell produced it, not a big fan of his anyway, what about all the pop tunes Berry Gordy produced, Smokey wrote ect? dont make them bad at all, some of these questions are a bit stupid Davie, all i said was i dont think these catchy tunes shuold be played when there is plenty of decent proper records that get over looked.
Guest dundeedavie Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 No i havent herd it, was talking in general to most of the tunes brought out seem to mask other tunes that should be played. Who said he cant be a soul singer? again im talking about every song in question lately Amy W, Christine Ag and MP or are you just defending him because he is scottish? i never even mentioned him. So what if Willie Mitchell produced it, not a big fan of his anyway, what about all the pop tunes Berry Gordy produced, Smokey wrote ect? dont make them bad at all, some of these questions are a bit stupid Davie, all i said was i dont think these catchy tunes shuold be played when there is plenty of decent proper records that get over looked. so after asking for no personal insults my questions are stupid ? and you have used the term "proper " records again . i'm the biggest snob in the world and everyone knows it but if a record is good enough it shoud be played and it would be sad to think that there is no more records ever to be released that can be played at a northern venue and that we only have the definate number already made , the beginning of the end and whether you believe that or not i couldn't give a shit
Winnie :-) Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 Oh dear! I was labouring under the misapprehension that I DID have the monopoly on the definition of soul. I'll have to go and find the nice man that sold it to me and ask for my money back. Thanks for pointing that out. ============ That's ok, will always try to help the self inflated
Fdsoul6345789 Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 Read this thread with great interest. My personal take on this subject is in my humble opinion is that I like the sound of black America and no Glaswegian can in my book be considered to be a soul singer. If you live for this music like I do and do not go off and think that I have a better opinion than anyone else I just like my music to of the SOUL variety and Mr Pellow no matter how good or bad the record sounds he don't in my book come into the category of guys like SOLOMON BURKE, BARBARA ACKLIN, FREDDIE HUGHES, OTIS, WILSON P, BOBBY WOMACK. How anyone can give credence to some of the PURE SHIT that gets hailed as soul is beyond me. Sometimes I feel I have been in a different room when I hear some of the dross that gets played on the NORTHERN scene as it's far removed from REAL soul and usually just bad pop music. Would like to pick up on the point made earlier as to the brilliant records overlooked for various reasons too common, not rare enough etc. Instead garbage records masquerading as soul get played to the detrement of this crap. Real soul is by artists mentioned by SEAN and JOCK guys that take the time to actually listen to the music as opposed to some who just look for a certain beat that can be danced to who gives a flying F*** who sings it as long as it meets the criteria. And just for the record I would be first in the queue to boo MR PELLOW off the stage if I had been there. and I AM GLASWEGIAN. fd.
Pete S Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 If you live for this music like I do I live for my kid, soul music comes about a thousand places behind
Winnie :-) Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 This is a statement that has been repeated numerous times recently and I just don't get it. How can there be more than one definition of Soul music, its a defined genre, well documented. There are great Soul singers (Bobby Womack, Rance Allen, Latimore, Millie Jackson etc etc etc etc ), not all of their records are great soul records, but this is the definition of a soul singer, therefore surely there can only be variations of how good a soul singer is after this. And therefore to not accept people who do not fit classicaly within this genre, or are not very good singers within these genre is not blinkered but a real understanding of Soul music. Including Frank Popp in particular is an insult to soul singers around the world, I respect what he does within his genre but irrelevant to Soul singers such as above. I suspect you like others are meaning Northern Soul Winnie, and then you are right there are many definitions, and some peoples idea of Northern has nothing to do with Soul in my book, but I respect the differing definitions within this genre nowadays, may not always like it but I do agree NS is almost undefinable in one style. My own preference is that is should be a subset of the Soul genre and at least pay homage to this genre, again in my opinion all the very greatest NS records are at least good soul records but I realise this is because I am Soul fan first and foremost (took me until recently I think to realise this). I repeat myself I realise but I think its an important historical fact and disrespectful to the history and the culture that was responsible for the creation of Soul music to keep rewriting its history in order to fit Northern Soul. Cheers Jock =========== Jock, The style of music is a defined genre, not the musicians singing it surely. Jackie Wilson is a soul singer (not just northern) but also flirted with rock and roll and country and western, where should we stand on him? Is he a soul singer, or an all rounder who happened to make some soul records? The point I'm making is, to list who is and isn't a soul singer seems pretentious and an attempt to oversimplify the genre along with setting definite perameters for something to be acceptable. The Amy Winehouse record is a typical example, yes there are recording artists who didn't get recognition back in the 6Ts and 7Ts, but I'm not sure how they should get preference over artists performing today, as put forward by another poster. What you find soulful, and what I find soulful, may differ, I'm happy to accept that, because we may have different tastes, why therefore, do we have to put things into such a small box? It does seem that some have such pre-concieved ideas on soul music and it sometimes appears they've read a book called the true definition of soul music. If so I wish they'd pass it round so I wouldn't feel so far out of sync Winnie:-)
Winnie :-) Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 Read this thread with great interest. My personal take on this subject is in my humble opinion is that I like the sound of black America and no Glaswegian can in my book be considered to be a soul singer. If you live for this music like I do and do not go off and think that I have a better opinion than anyone else I just like my music to of the SOUL variety and Mr Pellow no matter how good or bad the record sounds he don't in my book come into the category of guys like SOLOMON BURKE, BARBARA ACKLIN, FREDDIE HUGHES, OTIS, WILSON P, BOBBY WOMACK. How anyone can give credence to some of the PURE SHIT that gets hailed as soul is beyond me. Sometimes I feel I have been in a different room when I hear some of the dross that gets played on the NORTHERN scene as it's far removed from REAL soul and usually just bad pop music. Would like to pick up on the point made earlier as to the brilliant records overlooked for various reasons too common, not rare enough etc. Instead garbage records masquerading as soul get played to the detrement of this crap. Real soul is by artists mentioned by SEAN and JOCK guys that take the time to actually listen to the music as opposed to some who just look for a certain beat that can be danced to who gives a flying F*** who sings it as long as it meets the criteria. And just for the record I would be first in the queue to boo MR PELLOW off the stage if I had been there. and I AM GLASWEGIAN. fd. ================ Sorry but it's ridiculous to say no Glasweigan could be a soul singer. The criteria for northern is it's danceable, but that doesn't extend to all soul music. To cite Jock and Sean as people who actually take the time to listen to music is all very well, but to then say "some" just look for a certain criteria indicates that the "some" don't have an understanding of soul music, which is a short-sighted view to say the least. One of the biggests re-occurring threads on here is how do we attract youngsters to the scene, and these blinkered "we know best posts" are a far bigger threat to their involvement than a million pairs of baggy trousers.
Pete S Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 =========== Jock, The style of music is a defined genre, not the musicians singing it surely. Jackie Wilson is a soul singer (not just northern) but also flirted with rock and roll and country and western, where should we stand on him? Is he a soul singer, or an all rounder who happened to make some soul records? The point I'm making is, to list who is and isn't a soul singer seems pretentious and an attempt to oversimplify the genre along with setting definite perameters for something to be acceptable. The Amy Winehouse record is a typical example, yes there are recording artists who didn't get recognition back in the 6Ts and 7Ts, but I'm not sure how they should get preference over artists performing today, as put forward by another poster. What you find soulful, and what I find soulful, may differ, I'm happy to accept that, because we may have different tastes, why therefore, do we have to put things into such a small box? It does seem that some have such pre-concieved ideas on soul music and it sometimes appears they've read a book called the true definition of soul music. If so I wish they'd pass it round so I wouldn't feel so far out of sync Winnie:-) My God! I agree with you Winston.
Sweeney Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 ============ That's ok, will always try to help the self inflated Why the personal insults? I pointed out in my initial post that I didn't regard the Christina Aguilera track as a soul record. In return I get called silly, blinkered and self-inflated by you. Surely the point of this forum is to discuss things pertaining to Soul music rationally (and hopefully) without childish name-calling. You have a different opinion of this record to me - fine. I respect your opinion. You seem not to respect mine. It's a reasonably accomplished pop record we're talking about - not a cure for cancer.
simonb Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 There is a new Justin Timberlake track coming out DAMN GIRL! It samples a good chunk of JC Davis - A NEW DAY (New Day records). Mr Davis has been rewarded well apparently. I can listen to it, but its not my cup of tea. I bet Mr Davis is happy as larry though!
Winnie :-) Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 Why the personal insults? I pointed out in my initial post that I didn't regard the Christina Aguilera track as a soul record. In return I get called silly, blinkered and self-inflated by you. Surely the point of this forum is to discuss things pertaining to Soul music rationally (and hopefully) without childish name-calling. You have a different opinion of this record to me - fine. I respect your opinion. You seem not to respect mine. It's a reasonably accomplished pop record we're talking about - not a cure for cancer. ============== So it's rational to say, this subject should be in freebasing as it isn't soul?? Don't you think thats detrimental to the original thread starter and doesn't promote discussion. In a single line you've dismissed the record given your opinion and asked for the topic to be moved. Sorry but that comes across as arrogant. Doesn't seem you're accepting someones opinion that its a soul record in your first post. That of course is your prerogative, but it's certainly not respecting someones opinion in my view. Of course the forum is set up to debate, but not to stipulate otherwise those with different views no longer have a platform if they go against the company line. As regarding my 'self inflated' reply, you ended the post I replied to with 'Thanks for pointing that out', clearly being sarcastic which is why I responded in kind. Your post didn't seem to indicate you respected my view and I've always been taught to treat like with like. Winnie:-)
Guest mrs norman maine Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 Pardon me for sticking my oar in. Isn't it for the moderator to decide whether the topic stays in a Soul section, or gets moved to Freebasing? Anyway, must get back to playing Solitaire....
Guest TONY ROUNCE Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 You're probably right Tony, but I doubt very much whether you would have been the one to start the thread... and I'm damn sure that I wouldn't have either. Sean ...That makes two of us, then, mate TONE Pardon me for sticking my oar in. Isn't it for the moderator to decide whether the topic stays in a Soul section, or gets moved to Freebasing? Anyway, must get back to playing Solitaire.... ...'s the only game in town, according to Andy Williams... TONE
Winnie :-) Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 Pardon me for sticking my oar in. Isn't it for the moderator to decide whether the topic stays in a Soul section, or gets moved to Freebasing? Anyway, must get back to playing Solitaire.... ============ Was just thinking of PM'n Mike and asking whether a section for current releases might help, but then realised it probably wouldn't because we'd still be in the realms of who decides what is soulful. Does seem a bit of a general consensus that white people can't sing soulfully, personally I think its a bit of a misconception, but each to their own
jocko Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 How can there be more than one definition of Soul music, its a defined genre, well documented..... I suspect you like others are meaning Northern Soul Winnie, and then you are right there are many definitions Winnie normally your responses are reasoned and well thought out but I don't think you have really read my post. I am quite clear in my quotes above saying I am not talking about Northern. =========== Jock, The style of music is a defined genre, not the musicians singing it surely. Jackie Wilson is a soul singer (not just northern) but also flirted with rock and roll and country and western, where should we stand on him? Is he a soul singer, or an all rounder who happened to make some soul records? The point I'm making is, to list who is and isn't a soul singer seems pretentious and an attempt to oversimplify the genre along with setting definite parameters for something to be acceptable. Although there is obviously huge influence by style/quality of musicians on soul records the genre of soul music is defined by the singer and their voice, that's as indisputable as defining Opera music, why is it any different with soul music? I listed these people as merely examples, the etc, etc was to show they are only a small example of great soul singers. I then followed that up by saying not all their records are great soul records, so not saying these people define soul but the quality of their greatest recordings definitely do, not sure why that is pretentious, cannot think of any more effective way to show what I am meaning as definitive. And of course there are parameters, there have to be for any genre, again why should it be any different for Soul music. How people interpret these parameters is the burning question, but again using the analogy of Opera there is only so far they can be moved without actually re-defining the genre. There is enough truly great soul music to render any changes to definition pointless and meaningless in my opinion. The Amy Winehouse record is a typical example, yes there are recording artists who didn't get recognition back in the 6Ts and 7Ts, but I'm not sure how they should get preference over artists performing today, as put forward by another poster. And I didn't say only 6TS and 7ts, currently I buy almost exclusively new music made in current year and a fair bit of vocal house, all which fits the parameters of soul music in my opinion. My point is this music should get precedence over Amy Winehouse, again talking about the Soul world not the Northern Scene, I don't think they will be to everyones taste here as it is fairly contemporary so I don't think everyone should like it, but its indisputably soul to me, whether its as timeless as the stuff made in 60;s/70's is another matter and for another thread. It does seem that some have such pre-conceived ideas on soul music and it sometimes appears they've read a book called the true definition of soul music. If so I wish they'd pass it round so I wouldn't feel so far out of sync Winnie:-) Again I don't get this, of course you need pre-conceived ideas of any genre, but especially soul music, how else do you define it? And as it has to be all about the style of vocals then not many books can convey this, however I am happy to do you a CD (will be next week), there wont be any Northern on it, probably lots of old music but hopefully once you have heard it you will understand my point perfectly. Not that I expect you to agree with it!!! If you do want to read books about history of soul then suggest you start with these Charles Keil - Urban Blues Michael Harambolos - From Blues to Soul In America, Leroi Jones - Blues People. The first 2 actually only touch on soul, the third is actually about jazz but to me they explain the evolution of soul and cultural conditions that created it better than any other. Don't normally get into these debates, normally just cut and run but since I seem to have started it thought I should contribute. Now off to play some Techno ! Cheers Jock PS Realise you were only being sarcastic re books but thought I would live up to the soulier than thou sanctimonious git criticisms I now expect!!
Winnie :-) Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 How can there be more than one definition of Soul music, its a defined genre, well documented..... I suspect you like others are meaning Northern Soul Winnie, and then you are right there are many definitions Winnie normally your responses are reasoned and well thought out but I don't think you have really read my post. I am quite clear in my quotes above saying I am not talking about Northern. QUOTE(Winnie :-) @ Oct 2 2006, 01:16 PM) =========== Jock, The style of music is a defined genre, not the musicians singing it surely. Jackie Wilson is a soul singer (not just northern) but also flirted with rock and roll and country and western, where should we stand on him? Is he a soul singer, or an all rounder who happened to make some soul records? The point I'm making is, to list who is and isn't a soul singer seems pretentious and an attempt to oversimplify the genre along with setting definite parameters for something to be acceptable. Although there is obviously huge influence by style/quality of musicians on soul records the genre of soul music is defined by the singer and their voice, that's as indisputable as defining Opera music, why is it any different with soul music? I listed these people as merely examples, the etc, etc was to show they are only a small example of great soul singers. I then followed that up by saying not all their records are great soul records, so not saying these people define soul but the quality of their greatest recordings definitely do, not sure why that is pretentious, cannot think of any more effective way to show what I am meaning as definitive. And of course there are parameters, there have to be for any genre, again why should it be any different for Soul music. How people interpret these parameters is the burning question, but again using the analogy of Opera there is only so far they can be moved without actually re-defining the genre. There is enough truly great soul music to render any changes to definition pointless and meaningless in my opinion. QUOTE(Winnie :-) @ Oct 2 2006, 01:16 PM) The Amy Winehouse record is a typical example, yes there are recording artists who didn't get recognition back in the 6Ts and 7Ts, but I'm not sure how they should get preference over artists performing today, as put forward by another poster. And I didn't say only 6TS and 7ts, currently I buy almost exclusively new music made in current year and a fair bit of vocal house, all which fits the parameters of soul music in my opinion. My point is this music should get precedence over Amy Winehouse, again talking about the Soul world not the Northern Scene, I don't think they will be to everyones taste here as it is fairly contemporary so I don't think everyone should like it, but its indisputably soul to me, whether its as timeless as the stuff made in 60;s/70's is another matter and for another thread. QUOTE(Winnie :-) @ Oct 2 2006, 01:16 PM) It does seem that some have such pre-conceived ideas on soul music and it sometimes appears they've read a book called the true definition of soul music. If so I wish they'd pass it round so I wouldn't feel so far out of sync Winnie:-) Again I don't get this, of course you need pre-conceived ideas of any genre, but especially soul music, how else do you define it? And as it has to be all about the style of vocals then not many books can convey this, however I am happy to do you a CD (will be next week), there wont be any Northern on it, probably lots of old music but hopefully once you have heard it you will understand my point perfectly. Not that I expect you to agree with it!!! If you do want to read books about history of soul then suggest you start with these Charles Keil - Urban Blues Michael Harambolos - From Blues to Soul In America, Leroi Jones - Blues People. The first 2 actually only touch on soul, the third is actually about jazz but to me they explain the evolution of soul and cultural conditions that created it better than any other. Don't normally get into these debates, normally just cut and run but since I seem to have started it thought I should contribute. Now off to play some Techno ! Cheers Jock PS Realise you were only being sarcastic re books but thought I would live up to the soulier than thou sanctimonious git criticisms I now expect!! =================== Bloody hell Jock, didn't expect such a long explanation, but thank you (and I'm not being sarcastic) I'll try and explain my viewpoint a little better. Soul music to me doesn't have definite perameters, because I can accept pop music can be soulful, for instance Motown, pop after all just means popular and soul music has definitely had moments in the sun. I know you're not talking specifically about northern, and neither am I. I like the Amy Winehouse record, but not sure I'd expect or want to hear it at a nighter, but it would still fall within my definition of a soulful sound. I also think Janis Joplin had soul, and one I've been castigated for before, broken dream by Python Lee Jackson, I can't explain why I find them soulful but I do. Now at a guess, I'd suggest that you may not, but I couldn't accept that as an argument unless you could say exactly why they're not soulful records and even then the chances are I wouldn't agree with you. Not because I'm totally bloody minded, but some of those particular records move me, make me feel emotional, and I've always equated that with soul music. So I suppose I see it as, if it moves you, you can classify it as soul, because a particular artist has no grounding in soul, didn't have a troubled childhood, wasn't poverty stricken or isn't black to me doesn't have any relevance. I'm not saying that any of the above criteria match your beliefs, but they do match some peoples. To give an example, "Open the door to your heart", for me the best version is by Doni Burdick for some reason it moves me more than the traditional versions, something in his voice, maybe the phrasing, I'm just not sure, but it does it for me everytime and I think it's really soulful. I'm just trying to say the music can't be that inflexible, that I should have to discard something because it doesn't fit certain peoples views. I'm sure soul was never meant to be so rigid, certainly I don't think my soul was made that way. Hope this explains to a degree what I mean Winnie:-)
Sean Hampsey Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 You all take this way too seriously. It's very serious stuff Pete... Far too many lives have been lost and gallons of blood have been spilled over the years on this subject. It's the story of the Blues. Homeless children, battered wives, gnashing of teeth, people thrown out of their jobs onto the scrapheap of human misery. But you wouldn't understand... by the look of you on your photograph, you only look about 2 years old! Sean
Winnie :-) Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 You all take this way too seriously. ============= You could be right
Sweeney Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 (edited) ============== So it's rational to say, this subject should be in freebasing as it isn't soul?? Don't you think thats detrimental to the original thread starter and doesn't promote discussion. In a single line you've dismissed the record given your opinion and asked for the topic to be moved. Sorry but that comes across as arrogant. Doesn't seem you're accepting someones opinion that its a soul record in your first post. That of course is your prerogative, but it's certainly not respecting someones opinion in my view. Of course the forum is set up to debate, but not to stipulate otherwise those with different views no longer have a platform if they go against the company line. As regarding my 'self inflated' reply, you ended the post I replied to with 'Thanks for pointing that out', clearly being sarcastic which is why I responded in kind. Your post didn't seem to indicate you respected my view and I've always been taught to treat like with like. It seems my original post HAS promoted discussion. You talk of treating like with like - how am I meant to respond when you describe my honestly held opinion as being 'silly' and 'blinkered'. Is this not directly comparable to the arrogance you ascribe to me? I wasn't aware that I was breaching forum etiquette by expressing an opinion and certainly wasn't trying to disrespect the Topic originator as you claim. If my economy of words was misconstrued as rudeness, I apologize to SteveA unreservedly. You're also putting words into the topic originator's mouth. He doesn't even mention the 'S' word. He was asking us what we thought of a particular track by an artist. I gave my very humble opinion, which is not to my knowledge part of some imaginary "company line" you allude to. It's an OK Pop record which uses techniques appropriated from black musical forms, as 'Rehab' does, but has little or nothing to do with the reason that we're here – which is the discussion of Rare Soul. Christina Aguilera is not a soul artist (IMHO, obviously). If you put a cat in a stable, it doesn't become a horse. Anyway Pete is right. It's just a pop record after all. Edited October 2, 2006 by sweeney
Pete S Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 It's very serious stuff Pete... Far too many lives have been lost and gallons of blood have been spilled over the years on this subject. It's the story of the Blues. Homeless children, battered wives, gnashing of teeth, people thrown out of their jobs onto the scrapheap of human misery. But you wouldn't understand... by the look of you on your photograph, you only look about 2 years old! Sean 2 years old! Only 9 and a half months I'll have you know!
Sean Hampsey Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 2 years old! Only 9 and a half months I'll have you know! Exactly! ...Never bleedin' lived Mate! Looks a Top Little Fella Pete. What ya feeding him on? Sean
Pete S Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 Exactly! ...Never bleedin' lived Mate! Looks a Top Little Fella Pete. What ya feeding him on? Sean Spinach mate
Winnie :-) Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 It seems my original post HAS promoted discussion. You talk of treating like with like - how am I meant to respond when you describe my honestly held opinion as being 'silly' and 'blinkered'. Is this not directly comparable to the arrogance you ascribe to me? ============= Not sure how you think, but when someone puts something up in All about Soul, presumably they think the topic is soulful? To then ask for it to be put into freebasing because it isn't soul related is not being respectful IMO, and that I find silly, and blinkered, because as you've now made clear, you were talking only from your own perspective. ========================== I wasn't aware that I was breaching forum etiquette by expressing an opinion and certainly wasn't trying to disrespect the Topic originator as you claim. If my economy of words was misconstrued as rudeness, I apologize to SteveA unreservedly. ============ I'm not claiming anything, you told Steve A to go and buy some gospel records, or something similar. I'm not defending the poster in particular, just an individuals right to have a viewpoint that differs from the norm, and be allowed to say so, without someone telling him/her you've got it wrong, this isn't even soul. You're also putting words into the topic originator's mouth. He doesn't even mention the 'S' word. He was asking us what we thought of a particular track by an artist. I gave my very humble opinion, which is not to my knowledge part of some imaginary "company line" you allude to. ============== Yep the company line is imaginary ========================== It's an OK Pop record which uses techniques appropriated from black musical forms, as 'Rehab' does, but has little or nothing to do with the reason that we're here - which is the discussion of Rare Soul. Christina Aguilera is not a soul artist (IMHO, obviously). If you put a cat in a stable, it doesn't become a horse. Anyway Pete is right. It's just a pop record after all. ==================== No she's not specifically a soul artist, but that doesn't preclude her from making a soul record or does it?? I agree we're here to talk about rare soul, but we're also here to talk about the natural progression of the music, or is the revolution not to be televised?? Don't particularly want to argue with you on list, so maybe better to take it off list, after your next reply if that suits you better? Winnie:-)
Recommended Posts
Get involved with Soul Source
Add your comments now
Join Soul Source
A free & easy soul music affair!
Join Soul Source now!Log in to Soul Source
Jump right back in!
Log in now!