maslar

Frosted steel - that's what I was looking for

they look grey to me

How is this "blue-eyed soul"? Vanessa Williams is Afro-American.

In all honesty I think the term "blue-eyed soul is one of the most ridiculous ever put out there. It doesn't begin to make sense on any level. My opinion, from what I've observed over the years, is that it originally was used by black artists (almost certainly tongue in cheek) to describe a record that sounds black but is by a white artist. Instead it's become a very wide all emcompassing means of confusion. To me the term means a record that isn't a true soul record but has elements of production that make it sound similar. I.e its obviously by a white artist (a white pop song) but is influenced by soul music of the time - usually Tamla Motown or the 60s Philly sound. So Dean Parrish's Determination is not a blue-eyed soul record. it's a soul record full stop. Bobby Goldsboro's Too Many People is a blue -eyed soul record. it's primarilly a white pop record. It's NOT a soul record. That's how I see it and I'm rarely confused on such matters these days.

Again, not much in it but if I had to choose I'd go with GW. I think his vocal - laid back and jazzy - slightly suit the mood of the song better.

Both are great but my slight preference is for Sidney Barnes - I really don't get the disparaging remarks aired regarding his vocals - he sings it perfectly in my book. Pretty baffling. As an aside I also think Standing On Solid Ground is a pretty decent record.

I think you're looking too hard . People tend to look slightly different in different photos. I'd say the drawing was an excellent ressemblance of the person in the soulful detroit pic. Also it's taken me just a short time to find a brief bio from a press cutting posted on Soulful detroit by Graham Finch which states that "Sylki" Hargrave performed in a "gospel quartet" (doo wop?). He performed at Lee's Club Senstation which featured black artists (situated in Paradise Valley I think). and there's a reference to his friendship with Betty Lavett(e).

Looks like a very good match to me?

Sorry but I have to disagree. If you're going to put yourself upand out there and be given a platforn as prominent as Blue and Soul then I would expect better. Maybe less time wasted time on china plates tales? The other thing that I completley disagree with (and which I think is quite illustrative) is the notion put forward by some - but Godin makes a real issue of it here in an unnecesarilly offensive manner - that white artists such as the Beatles andThe Stones exploited black american artist by covering their music. I don't believe this to be true at all. Neither, from what I have read over the decades do the artists concerned. In fact greats such as Muddy waters, BB King and Sonny Boy Williamson were openly appreciative of the support they got from Jagger, McCartney, Burdon etc etc. Many rightly stated that it gave their careers a fresh impetus. And many were on very friendly close terms with their UK admirers. Eric Clapton was even Muddy waters' best man at his wedding. What's more troubling to me is that I'm sure that the critics of Jagger et al know this it be the case. It's so obviously true and on the record. Therefore they can only be working under two basic assumptions: Either that the black artists are too stupid to realise they are being exploited or that they know but for whatever reason turn a blind eye to it or submissivley put up with it. Both are extremely offensive and untrue. But that in a round about way is what Godin is saying (probably without even realising it). I like a lot of the things Godin wrote and find much of it interesting - I wasn't buying Blues and Soul when he wrote for it. But I wouldn't take blind lectures off him on black american history (his knowledge of "the Ghetto" shows he has only a superficial understanding) nor would I be talked down to or lectured. No one is beyond questioning or correction. Particulary if they're going to make highly contentious and inflamatory remarks.

I've never read that particular book but that review tells me nothing about it other than DG seems to have an extreme dislike of some of the people involved. A review should be informative. You don't have believe it or agree but it should offer something to work from. DG doesn't do that. He just seems to want to get to Mick Jagger sooner rather than later. Nothing specific is addressed and there's absolutely no lucidity. Where are the examples? Where are the corrections to the mistakes he complains about?

I don't think this is true at all. These stories come from DG hilmself don't they? The age gap between them was too great for them to be at school together. In his early teens Jagger was working holidays in an American airbase and coming across sounds that DG had probably never heard. If anything it was Jagger doing the educating. Jagger was a massive Little Richard fan and was barely into his teens at that time. I'm guessing they may have had some form of brief conversation somewhere along the way but the emphasis that DG put on it (in my opinion) was ridiculous and actually bordering on delusions of grandeur. In one interview I think he actually claimed to be repsonsible for Mick Jaggers success. Although he may have been joking - well I'm hoping so. He also claimes he told Jagger to f*** of in the Ready Steady Go studio when apparently Jagger asked DG to introduce him to Marvin Gaye. I don't beleive this to be true and actually wonder why he would even claim it. Jagger and Gaye already knew each other having met in the States and were on friendly terms before Gaye's first visit to the UK. That aside anyone who knows anything about the pop culture at that time knows that there would be no need for Jagger to have to be introduced to anyone. it was all pretty laid back with mutual admiration etc. See the pic of Jagger and James Brown chatting backstage at a US concert (the one where the Stones topped the bill much to Brown's dipleasure. They still got on fine. Still, I've seen people repeat thise claims as if they're facts. Something DG actually complains about in the article above. Also he refers to MJ as an "upper middle class yob". This is very telling because it's completley untrue. Jagger was middle-class but definitley not upper middle class (there is a huge difference). Nor was he ever really yobbish in his behaviour. In fact most of the time he was actually very polite.

A mixed bad really. Informative on the (then) current scene but that "book review" is dreadful. It's hardly a review. Also he really should have let the "Mick Jagger" business go. it starts to look stange after a while.

In my opinion it's "soul" as far an any instrumental can be considered soul music. The problem with tracks like AOTR is that the artist behind them in known If, to use an example, The Gallop had been written and performed by Mike Post and all other things being equal then it too would be trashed. That's how it goes, isn't it? An arrangement of a record can make it "soulful". AOTR (as I've lready stated) in my opinion has a recogniseable gospel element - the strings which perform a soaring counter melody as well as a strong jazz input. So I will gladly stand by my claim that it is indeed a "Soul" instrumental.

Stop Girl is a brilliant record as is the flip - One By One. Whether it's a soul record or not can be argued for eternity. As a (insert other genre here) record it's superb and the label is very nice too. Actually the first label I ever heard applied to this type of garage sound was punk rock (years before it was used in 1976). But that aside, I wonder how many black radio stations would have played it has they been given a copy? I'd bet quite a few. I've always had a soft spot for Wayne Gibson UMT. It's just a nice catchy arragement of a great tune. Mike Post AOT Rhino - in my opinion it is a soul intrumental. For the reason that I think its got a strong gospel influnce via the strings and a certain jazz element. That combibation gives it some vailidity in my books.

Nice, one of my all time faves.

Elvis' girlfriend were Linda Thompson folowed by Ginger Alden.

Was it something I said? The whole Soul City saga would actually make a very interesting book. Set against the backdrop of the late 60s soul scene or even witihn the context of the London underground scene. Howver it would also require a certain level of objectivity. Anyone for objectivity?

Ok so it was Bill Downe and whoever transcribed the interview made a mistake. But what does that change? Absolutely nothing. But in the meantime some more questions: Did Van McCoy know of the Soul City release? Did Jamie records? Did Chris/Marke Jackson actually sing on the Jamie release? I'm not saying he didn't but is it a definite? Why the narrative to paint Jackson as the bad guy? Maybe he acted in good faith and was genuinely f***** about? Seeing as how the whole operation seems a little amateurish.

BTw I'm not necesarily aiming my comments about Soul City at Dave Godin .. there were others involved in the label. I'm also not being being judgemental. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do etc etc. I have the second Jamie release (which I believe was 100% above board?) and to me this would seem to be more "official" than the Soul City release? Just to encapsulate: Soul City release as an "A side a fairly obscure "B" side from America. They change the name of the artist. Then they put a track on the "B" side which may not be the artist on the "A" side? I'm guessing the tracks were cut in the UK from imported vinyl copies or acetates? Like I believe some of the Tamla ones were (legally of course) and in doing so improved the sound quality (via British craftsmenship). But if that is the case then it hardly warrants changing the production credits. As for D Nathan getting the name wrong - why would he do that? Maybe that's where the truth lies?

If i was a betting man i'd wager it was on this side of the pond, even though I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "double-dealing". can I have some more detail please? The records were manufactured and released in the UK. I've since read Dave Nathan's interview on Soul City (Britisgrecordshoparchive). Interestingly when talking about the releases he goes through the licencing deals. Except when talking about Chris Jackson - then it's simply about connections through his manger. And of course all the other releases make reference to these licensing deals with the original recording label stated on the label - all except the CJ release with its bizarre "commissioned" status.

I'm looking forward to seeing the film but I'll probably wait for the dvd. From what I've seen there's been extremly mixed reactions so far in the States. My own view (from the reactions I've seen so far and without seeing it myself) is that the more you know about the incident (and the background) the more critical you are likely to be about the film. And vice-verca. I'm sure there will be quite a backlash as time goes on. Strangley it would appear that the film's central character is Melvin Dismukes (the black security guard who was at the motel with the police) and is quite favourable to him. I find this really strange if it's true. He was actually charged with"felonious assault" on the testimony of witnesses present - but like all those charged was found not guilty . He was also quite happy to be photographed with the three police officers who were charged with the killings.

That article is about the follow-up single which was never released - and which I believe Dave Godin placed much of the blame for the collapse of the label. (I'm only going from memory so might need correction). Strange to place the blame for a whole label on the release (or lack ) of one single but there you go. One thing is certain -Chris Jackson went from being flavour of the month to whipping boy in a very short period of time. Did Jackson ever appear live? If not why not? He was in the country for months based in London. Surely Soul City would have got him a few promo club gigs in that time? Why was he (at just 21) so keen to go into behind the scenes record production (for Gene Redd). something I'm not sure ever happened? If his voice and image were so great. He didn't really have that levelof experience did he? With regard to the "B" side. If it was "Commissioned in the US" (i'm still trying to work that one out) why wasn't the orignal flip side "Commissioned" at the same time? Would have made life a lot easier surely?

"Rejigged" by who exactly? I thought I'd heard it all. Are you sure you haven't got this wrong? He couldn't have actually said that. It's the same recording - arranged and produced by Van McCoy. And of course he rejigged "Chris" to "Marke" (with an "e").

Surely the Soul City Chris Jackson single is considered a little dodgy in general? - "A Commisioned recording made in the USA for Soul City ". What's that supposed to mean? It's obviously the Jamie track but no reference to Van McCoy at all, who arranged and produced the Jamie track.

I'd say it sounds a lot like Jerry Williams and could very well be him. The problem when trying to compare to other tracks, eg If You Ask Me, is that they may sung in a different key or pitch or delivery so they're never going to sound identical.