Garethx

Yellow deejay copy, multi-coloured issue.

Part of a great run of singles on Cotillion by the group, all worth getting and all dirt cheap. Their album on the label collects all the sides but is a bit more expensive. The playing of the American Studios band is truly beautiful and the songwriting from various group members is top notch throughout. Baz, I think the group on Dyna is a different one, from the Carolinas.

Hi Currently looking for nice copies of the following 45s: OVIDE 241 MASTERS OF SOUL DO YOU REALLY LOVE ME?/ BY THE TIME I GET TO PHOENIX CHECKER 1220 GENE CHANDLER GO BACK HOME/ IN MY BODY'S HOUSE ASTROSCOPE 118 THE RIMSHOTS DANCE GIRL/ WHO'S GOT THE MONSTER TIA for any leads gareth

Hi What's the current going rate for: OVIDE 241 MASTERS OF SOUL DO YOU REALLY LOVE ME?/ BY THE TIME I GET TO PHOENIX TIA gareth

Polydor is a strange label when it comes to black music: obviously for an extended period of time James Brown was the standard bearer and they were obviously keen to try to expand that side of their business. Often it's a case of them promo-ing the 'wrong' sides of records. Had they gone with the 'other' sides in many cases they might have had hits. The New World is a classic example, where "We're Gonna Make It" is so obviously more commercial than the flip. The Pep Brown example you cite is a more complex thing as both sides of the stock copy are (for the mid 70s) pretty deep ballads. Another one where the dance side got lost in the promo process is the J.J. Williams 45: there are many demos of Lord Have Mercy On My Soul about, yet the stocker with Love Market is quite scarce. One thing to bear in mind with all this is that we're often looking at dance music as being the be-and-end-all of the equation, whereas Black radio in the 70s could make massive hits out of ballad/sweet sides, an important component of the radio formats then and now.

I don't think I'm providing an opposing point in the debate: in many cases I'm in more or less complete agreement with the tone and essence of your original post. I do, however, fundamentally disagree with your point about the extent of Motown's historical importance. Motown's impact in musical terms was unquestionably large for a period of time, but as a totem of Black enterprise it has to be said that the overall story in 50 years of existence has been one of heroic failure. As each generation passes the richness of the company's musical legacy will ebb away as the marketing becomes ever more formulaic and removed from the roots of what made that music vital and special. If you don't believe me have a look at comments from young people worldwide on sites like youtube. Awareness of Motown as a brand is vague at best in that demographic. Outside the confines of communities like this one Motown's importance registers no more than a footnote in wider stories like that of, for example, Martin Luther King, or indeed, Michael Jackson. That isn't a qualitative judgement (I own and like hundreds of Motown records but have never bought a Michael Jackson release), I'm just looking at the jackson Memorial from a slightly wider perspective. The media frenzy and the banality of much of the coverage and reaction to Jackson's death and indeed the skewed logic and questionable taste of much of last night's event is cause for much reflection from our sometimes insular perch as soul fans, but as Brian and Ady and others point out, it's the way things seem to be done nowadays. yours in soul, gareth

Very droll, Colin. You've cheered me up no end. In a serious answer to the question I honestly think James Brown had few rivals when it came to innovative and influential dancing from the stage. In the group stakes I'd have to say The O'Jays in their prime were far better movers than The Temptations.

Anita Harris?

You win the prize for 'Week's Most Self Righteous Post".

Hold on a second. You clearly don't know me very well to conclude from the above that I am keen to go in to bat for American capitalism. Jackson's ability to make and squander money was one of, if not the most noteworthy aspects of his life and celebrity and certainly worth commenting on. In answer to your question "Does it really do any individual any good to be worth billions of dollars, be they black or white?" I am clearly less qualified than you to make the sweeping generalisation implied by it. As for your long list of child showbiz casualties I'm aware of both high profile and more obscure cases, but I have to suspect that tales of woe from these quarters can often exaggerated in order to scratch the itch for continued exposure to the narcotic that is celebrity. It is of course entirely possible to taste success in the field of entertainment and then melt away from the public eye and enjoy a life of mundane, un-damaged normality. I suspect that the numbers in the respective camps would tend not bear out your theory of inevitability. In any case, the extent of Jackson's fame was highly unusual and his exposure to the limelight extremely prolonged, so drawing parallels with erstwhile soap opera stars who go off the rails is perhaps unhelpful. You state: For all the insane hype surrounding him, MICHAEL JACKSON individually is less important historically than MOTOWN as a collective, something which is perhaps in danger of being obscured by the fanatical hysteria being accorded to JACKSON in death. Yet it is possible that it is Berry Gordy and the Motown phenomenon which are as culpable in the tragic dimensions of what came to be Jackson's predicament as Joe Jackson, the American media and global capitalism (and by extenion in your argument, record buyers worldwide). Child entertainers in R&B were a not uncommon part of that field of entertainment in the mid 1960s. While The Jackson 5 were making independently distributed records in and around their hometown. Tony Talent, Little Gary Ferguson, Larry Chubby Reynolds, The Admirations and a host of others were doing the same throughout the States, with varying degrees of success. While precocious the Jacksons were not in themselves unique. That they were eventually signed by Gordy, groomed, styled and sold in the patented Motown manner was to be both their blessing and their curse. In creating unprecedented demand for the products of a group of adolescents it was Motown which exacerbated the strains on the vulnerable young performers. Yes, Motown has cultural significance, but it is entirely possible to argue that it actually has far less cultural significance than the Michael Jackson phenomenon. By the early 1980s Motown was a spent force aesthetically and economically. Indeed the recording arm of the Corporation could be said to be a failure of almost unparalleled dimension by that time, with operating costs and other outgoings wildly at odds with the revenues tricking in from an extremely mediocre roster. Berry Gordy was acutely aware of the need to sell the company in order that the legacy of the songwriting and publishing archive could be 'safeguarded' (i.e. kept in his own hands). The years of Motown representing an unqualified Black Success Story actually represent quite a short time span in the company's life. If the barometer of success is 'crossing over' in terms of sales and profile (and we must use that barometer because these were the terms in which Gordy himself saw success) then very few could actually be said to be successful. Outside of Jackson, Gordy himself, Smokey Robinson, Diana Ross and Stevie Wonder no Motown artist or figure achieved lasting, concrete success (in Gordy's terms) outside of cult fame in their lifetime. Motown Records would mean practically nothing to most people in the world in current terms outside a core of afficionados, whereas Jackson's iconic status is guaranteed now. Michael Jackson's Memorial Concert was broadcast live globally. Berry Gordy's will not be, and I think that's beyond question. That's different from asking whether that should be the case, but then I'm not the one making judgements.

Jackson's achievements were of course in micro when compared to the monolithic slabs of money he helped accrue for corporate America. His management (and this includes Joe Jackson, however unpalatable that seems to many) should be applauded for capitalising on their client's undoubted ability by facilitating the generation of sums of income which for an entertainer in America, particularly an African-American entertainer in the mid 20th century, were unprecedented. I don't agree with your assertion that it was 'almost certain' for Jackson's life to develop in the way it did given his childhood.

No aspect of the memorial show was remotely surprising. As a side note I think the constant innuendo about Joe Jackson's role in Michael's upbringing and the family's life is now overcooked. To say that the Jackson children had a hard life is hyperbole out of all proportion given the genuine danger, fear, famine and uncertainty faced by literally millions of children worldwide every day. Yes, Joe exploited the young Michael's talents: as their manager it was his role to ensure they wouldn't experience the blows he felt as a veteran of the seedy, segregated world of American Showbiz. He undertook to see that his family would genuinely break the glass ceiling that existed in the entertainment industry for a long time. If MJ's life came to stand for anything it is the final smashing of those barriers. All those mentioned in the forerunners thread last week, from Louis Armstrong to Smokey Robinson, helped of course, but Jackson Senior's determination to ensure that it was his brood's destiny to reap those benefits is, in some ways, laudable. Jackson's life and career is an interesting signifier of attitudes towards race in America over the last 50 years. The contradictions and ironies inherent in Michael's personality, looks and attitudes to race qualify all this in myriad ways. All this was encapsulated in last night's sometimes troubling spectacle.

Hi Currently looking for a copy of DAN BRANTLEY KEEP ON TRYING / I'M SO LONELY HOLLYWOOD 1133 Issue or WDJ, ideally in above VG+ condition. TIA for any leads, gareth

Some fascinating snippets of information on Robert Tanner/The Jivers/The New Sound on John Ridley's website here, plus soundfiles of the wonderful ballad sides of the two Megatone 45s: https://www.sirshambling.com/artists/R/robert_tanner2.html

For a long time I was led to believe this was a one-off. Time and experience have shown that not to be the case, but it's still pretty rare. I think Dylan got a worn but perfectly serviceable copy from ebay a couple of years ago, possibly when one of the premier Japanese deep collectors was offloading some choice records. At the same time there was a mint copy on gemm for $500 (the exchange rate was about 2:1 then). I was severely tempted and it hung around for months. By the time I had made the decision to bite the bullet it had, of course, gone. One of the greatest female group southern soul records: a truly brilliant double-sider. Good luck in your search Tony.

Are The Modulations on Buddah the same group as the one on Savoy (i.e. featuring Glenn Jones)? I have reservations about that. One group which was torn apart by crime and guns was The Rotations on DeBrossard.

Far superior to Betty Moorer too, in my opinion. This floats and stings where Betty shouts and wavers. Maybe the quintessential group crossover record.

Not the case at all, I'm happy to say. I'm pretty sure Tommy Potts, who's a member on here, has met him in the last couple of years in California.

Lee Harris did indeed do a version of 'Don't let Our Love Fade Away': unquestionably the best version too. The backing track was recycled as "Nothing I'd Rather be Than Your Weakness" by Marva (Whitney) Taylor (possibly replayed but certainly based on the same rhythm section) later re-released as the MWT Express. I prefer the organ version of Gene Williams, but both are pretty good small-label indie-soul with committed vocalising and interesting low-fi production. Until many of the Forte releases were de-rarified a few years ago by label owner Ellis Taylor releasing old stock these records had a degree of mystique and were pretty sought after. As is often the case a relative flood of copies on the market has seen interest in the titles wane as collectors become blase and dealers slash prices to sell. A shame as there is some good raw soul on the logo.

Let's hope so Mark. Can't have a club captain who wears jeans and trainers to matches, can we? To be honest we could use the money from the sale to overhaul a severely weakened United. best, gareth

Original release is on ABC/Peacock. The album is called "2000 Years", released in 1978. Haven't heard the Heat label version to comment on whether it's a re-recording.

Essentially a tailor-made I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always been led to believe that this was specifically recorded and released to try and capture sales once the Curtis Anderson version proved difficult to buy in the late 80s. An OK record but lacking any of the magic of the CA version. Anyone paying over $100 would need their head examining.

Chris It's the same 45. Released with both variants of the title. I've no idea which was first or if indeed there was any timelapse between the respective label variations. For what it's worth in an interview with Billy Ball on the Funky 16 Corners website he categorically states that the Tighten Up rhythm was invented by his band, was a staple of their live shows and that his was the first recording of it. The TSU Toronadoes/Archie Bell version on Ovide then Atlantic was obviously the hit (and in my opinion the definitive version) but Ball says that he was most put out to have to put the Bell/Buttlier writing credit on the label of his 45, released only in the wake of Archie Bell and The Drells success. My copy is simply entitled "Tighten Up". I don't have a copy of the "Tighten Up Tighter" variation but wonder if it's possible that has a different writer credit, i.e. including Billy Ball.

When was it ever exclusively a 'sixties soul scene'? Fifties R&B played something of a part at the trailblazing venues of the 60s. The Wheel djs would have played soul and R&B records because of the sound in the grooves, not the date on the label. The Torch, Cats and other influential venues were playing things like The Fuller Brothers as practically new releases in the early 70s. The window of '60s only' soul was a very short one, and didn't exist in all probability out of preference, just happenstance.

I think it was me who had a gripe about the 'crap record' thread. I stand by what I said then. It's very easy to produce a list of shockingly bad records played in the name of Northern Soul. This thread is a bit different as it seeks to de-bunk the 'sacred cows' of the soul world: a different and potentially worthwhile endeavour. In answer to the question I'll go with any version of "What Does It Take" from the ho-hum Junior Walker to the execrable, unforgiveable Bay Brothers take and all versions in-between (The Electrifying Cashmeres has a scorching vocal which makes it more than listenable, but this one-chord doggerel is a sorry excuse for a song). keep 'em peeled the soul cop.