Hmm, maybe Miller wasn't all wrong!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Kulp" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mitch Miller RIP
> Miller's opposition to rock and roll is legendary,but I take exception to the
> notion that Columbia had none of note while Miller was popular music A&R
> director.Aside from Carl Perkins,and Link Wray,we have Sid King and The Five
> Strings (Who should have been as big as Buddy Holly or Gene Vincent.),The
> Collins Kids,The Treniers,and a few others who slipped onto Columbia and Epic
> back then
> One need not wonder what Mr.Sing Along thought of stuff like this:
> From: Daniel Shiman <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Tue, August 3, 2010 1:17:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mitch Miller RIP
> With Miller's musicality and experience, he might have done the same thing at
> Columbia, but refused to acknowledge rock 'n' roll as a bonafide art form and
> something that could have made Columbia millions. Instead, they stagnated in the
> rock world. Only John Hammond gave Columbia any place in the rock world by
> signing Bob Dylan, then just a folk singer who happened to develop into a rock
> legend. As a partial result of Miller's influence, Columbia didn't have any
> bonafide rock 'n' roll talents until Janis Joplin in the late '60s.
>> Cary Ginell
> Columbia Records (and RCA and Decca, all the more so) was rapidly losing ground
> to its West Coast counterparts in the '60s in terms of rock.
> But to say there weren't any significantly talented rock acts on Columbia until
> Joplin's signing is overstatement. In those intervening years, Columbia
> released albums by the Byrds, Moby Grape, the United States of America, the
> Cyrkle, Simon & Garfunkel, Electric Flag, Sagittarius/Millenium and Leonard
> Cohen (alongside many other, more obscure artists with appeal to contemporary
> rock audiences).