Thank you, John. You said it far better than I did!
Malcolm
*******
On 4/17/2014 11:21 PM, John Haley wrote:
> I agree with David Seubert. It is really hard to generalize.
>
> Success for a musician in his or her career, in any genre, is a haphazard
> thing which is influenced by a large number of career factors, some of
> which are well beyond an artists' control. Luck (good or bad) is certainly
> a big factor. Having the financial backing to launch a career is another;
> having good business sense is yet another. In the past, as today, some
> performers have achieved big fame and success through sheer persistence
> more than talent (Lady Gaga comes to mind), while others who are wildly
> talented have not succeeded at all beyond their giving exemplary
> performances. From the artist's career perspective, it truly is one big
> ol' crap shoot.
>
> Since records became a commercial reality a century ago, making records
> became one huge career factor but by no means the only one. And when you
> study an artist's career, the records they leave may or may not accurately
> reflect the reality of that career. In the end, the records present us
> with their own kind of reality, in a given time or place. Some records
> show us exactly what a performer could do while others do not, and some
> represent creations embodying their own concepts that do not relate that
> much to what the performer actually did in performance. I myself have
> always enjoyed and collected live recordings. And examples going every
> direction are legion. Caruso's records, while not conveying all the
> outstanding beauty of his voice that all contemporary critics mentioned
> first, still give us a very good idea of his prominence, while Rosa Raisa's
> do not. And there is Celestina Boninsegna, whose voice on records was one
> of the greatest of all Italian sopranos, who had a minuscule career and was
> actively disliked at the Met in her one season there. But oh those
> records!
>
> I do not believe that simply looking at record sales figures, as
> interesting as they may be, is a very accurate way of assessing the quality
> of a musical artist, and the notion that the best artists sold the most
> records is really unreliable as any kind of yardstick of quality. There
> are just too many random factors unrelated to musical quality at work.
>
> In one sense, looking retrospectively at a body of recordings is a "purer"
> way to assess an artists' musical quality because all the various career
> factors that helped or hindered a successful career are no longer
> enhancements or obstacles to assessment. Madame X's great physical beauty
> on stage (or lack of same), or who her press agent and manager were, or who
> her lovers or husbands were, no longer matter very much once her career is
> over. The huge amount of politics that go into any career are dissolved
> over time, but the recorded evidence remains what it is, standing on its
> own merit (except that we can play it back better than ever before!)
>
> We are very privileged, in a way, to be able to "rediscover" a Robert
> Johnson or Amede Ardoin or [fill in for yourself] today based upon the
> batch of records they left, when they did not have big careers. It is not
> fetishism to rediscover someone with a wonderful talent that still speaks
> to us today, and I believe collectors sometimes provide a very valuable
> service to our collective body of cultural knowledge about ourselves.
>
> Best,
> John Haley
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>> Hi Matthew:
>>
>> According to the liner notes with the latest Robert Johnson box set, only
>> one or two disks found much circulation, but they were regionally
>> successful. I definitely agree with you that the most "popular" of RJ's
>> songs far out-sold records by Geeshie and Elvie and also Son House. If I
>> remember correctly, Son House told Alan Lomax that he received only a
>> couple copies of his Paramount records and that he only saw one of his
>> records for sale in a store once. I do think ARC had overall better
>> distribution and was on somewhat less shakey ground in the early Depression
>> years than Paramount or Gennett.
>>
>> When I was in Memphis in 1993, I could have bought several RJ records for
>> $10 each. I regret not ponying up, but I'll guarantee they wouldn't ever
>> sound as good as what's on the latest box set. Seth Winner did a really
>> good job with restoration and audibility.
>>
>> -- Tom Fine
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barton, Matthew" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 3:30 PM
>>
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] The Ballad of Geeshie and Elvie
>>
>>
>> I think it's safe to say that at least some of Robert Johnson's original
>>> releases outsold those of Geeshie Wiley, or those of Son House and Skip
>>> James. I can't put my hands on it right now, but I'm sure I read in 78
>>> Quarterly a long time ago that more than a hundred copies were known to
>>> exist of some of his titles, so somebody bought them. That doesn’t mean he
>>> was a big recording star by any means, or even influenced artists of the
>>> time through his records, but he did better than some of his own peers and
>>> influences, and might have had a future in recording if he hadn't died.
>>>
>>>
>>> Matthew Barton
>>> Library of Congress
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:
>>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Biel
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 2:58 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] The Ballad of Geeshie and Elvie
>>>
>>> I also did not factor in radio broadcasts, but in that era most of the
>>> broadcasts of this type of musician would be on low power local stations.
>>> If they toured regionally there would be the possibility of appearing on
>>> other small stations in those towns, but remember, Black performers were
>>> not heard on radio as much as Whites. The major touring artists are the
>>> ones who were the major recording artists as well. Even they did not get
>>> network attention or slots on the major stations. When some stations like
>>> WDIA appeared in the 40s, they had already passed this older music by.
>>>
>>> Having John Hammond and Alan Lomax know of you did not bring you into
>>> wider public attention until they were successful in bringing you out of
>>> the rural into the city like LeadBelly. If John Hammond REALLY wanted to
>>> keep Robert Johnson in the forefront he could have done a Columbia Red
>>> Label album in 1941 or put a couple of the Vocalion sides out on a Red
>>> label single. He did it with other artists. Nobody bought the Vocalions
>>> and they went out of print without even getting an OKeh repressing when
>>> CBS took over ARC.
>>>
>>> And the Harry Smith series was WHY the young White folkies went looking
>>> for Mississippi John Hurt, but Hurt did not get beyond the ken of the small
>>> group of White folkies until he was dragged out of Avalon into the
>>> North.
>>>
>>> Mike Biel [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] The Ballad of Geeshie and Elvie
>>> From: Malcolm Rockwell <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Date: Thu, April 17, 2014 2:26 pm
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>> Hi Tom -
>>> Yes, that's part of what I'm saying. As an example, I was good friends
>>> with a musician that went on to become a major force in the music biz (at
>>> which point he disassociated himself with all his old friends, but that's a
>>> different tale). He had just produced and written a large portion of what
>>> became a major album. I asked him what he thought of his
>>>
>>> work. He told me that once it was "in the can" he never listened to it
>>> again. All he heard was the clams.
>>> Or, an analogy, if you will: if a tree falls in the forest and no one
>>> hears it does it make a noise? Sure. But if it's been recorded you get to
>>> hear the same noise over and over again. Pretty soon it becomes the sound
>>> of all trees falling in all forests. The action is frozen in time and is
>>> dead as a result.
>>> Oddly enough there are many records in my collection that I've only heard
>>> once. Whether I think they're good or bad - that's immaterial.
>>> There are plenty of exceptions, though. Stuff that I like enough to hear
>>>
>>> more than once! And we won't even get into arranging or engineering
>>> (which I also like - shaping raw material into a thing of elegance.
>>> Great fun!).
>>> IMO, One of the finest pieces of Frankensteinian music is the Beatles
>>> Remix album. I took great pleasure and joy in hearing what could be done
>>>
>>> digitally to "dead" material we are all familiar with. Absolutely
>>> fantastic and kinda true to the forms the Beatles were working toward.
>>> The remixes became interpretation, as opposed to facile acceptance of an
>>>
>>> original recording. Excellent.
>>> As to radio, my head skipped over that entirely while shaping my
>>> viewpoint. I'll consider it (television and film, too) but by the time a
>>>
>>> performer gets to any of those forms of extended media he/she is usually
>>>
>>> well hooked into the Business loop.
>>> Still, it all starts with the belief in the performer and their
>>> performance. The rest is... well... the rest.
>>> Malcolm
>>>
>>> *******
>>>
>>> On 4/17/2014 6:59 AM, Tom Fine wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Malcolm:
>>>>
>>>> This is a very interesting perspective. Are you saying that the only
>>>> original context that matters was the actual performance of the music
>>>> that happened to be captured in a given recording? I'm sympathetic to
>>>> that view, but what about the larger influence of the performers with
>>>> wider audiences? We haven't even discussed the many performers who
>>>> were _broadcast_ in the early days of radio (and sometimes later than
>>>> that). For instance Sonny Boy Williamson (Rice Miller), wouldn't his
>>>> radio broadcasts have a much wider reach than any records he might
>>>> have made?
>>>>
>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Malcolm Rockwell"
>>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 12:37 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] The Ballad of Geeshie and Elvie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dammit. I wrote at least three letters I never sent on this topic
>>>>> because they were too vitriolic for even myself.
>>>>> Listen. The artists didn't care whether they were "important", were
>>>>> leaving no &^%(&*_) legacy to you and me, and were little concerned
>>>>> with anyone outside their own circles. Usually other musicians, if that.
>>>>> They made music to make music. They made music to make money. Records
>>>>> were incidental although I'd hazard a guess that they fantasized that
>>>>> they, too, could become as well known as other blues
>>>>> musicians/singers/composers that had gone before them that they had
>>>>> heard on recrod (or in person). Most musicians do, working or not.
>>>>> Most did not have the chops for promotion and packaging as did the
>>>>> promoters, A&R men and others working to make a living in The
>>>>> Business. And where they went astray was thinking/hoping they could
>>>>> trust the bastards. The lure of wide popularity and "big money" has
>>>>> its price and they were either unaware of that or willing to pay the
>>>>> piper.
>>>>> Importance? Feh.
>>>>> Anything past the note - right now - is meaningless. It's up to the
>>>>> rest of us to shape and shade and analyze and beat each other with.
>>>>> And all in retrospect to the simple actions that started it. The
>>>>> buzzing of a string. The sound of a voice. The clap of hands.
>>>>> Malcolm Rockwell
>>>>>
>>>>> *******
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/17/2014 2:11 AM, Tom Fine wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Paul:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This actually backs up the point Mike and I are making -- that these
>>>>>> obscure records now termed "IMPORTANT" by 20-20 hindsight had little
>>>>>> to no influence in their time and place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> History is interesting but unreliable because it seems to be all
>>>>>> about selective interpretation of a few facts and personalities at
>>>>>> different time spaces from actual events. This is definitely the
>>>>>> case with music history, especially in modern times when all of a
>>>>>> sudden any song ever recorded (just about) can show up on YouTube
>>>>>> and be discussed endlessly on blogs. What's lost is the context and
>>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess I have a reflexive hostile reaction to mainstream media
>>>>>> articles "discovering" record collectors and collections as if they
>>>>>> are some rare Yoda-like "wise ones." These sorts of presentations
>>>>>> simply reflect the historical ignorance of the authors. And as I
>>>>>> said before, I think that some record collectors and dealers use
>>>>>> this ignorance to promote things they are selling by
>>>>>> over-emphasizing "importance" as opposed to obscurity/rarity. This
>>>>>> rubs me the wrong way because it's a prime driver of
>>>>>> context-shifting in the general "narrative."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS -- if you want to hear the sounds of the actual day that
>>>>>> Mississippi John Hurt was "rediscovered" by an enterprising white
>>>>>> record collector, I gave the CD a very positive review:
>>>>>> http://blackgrooves.org/discovery-%E2%80%93-the-rebirth-of-mississip
>>>>>> pi-john-hurt/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Stamler"
>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 12:46 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] The Ballad of Geeshie and Elvie
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/16/2014 8:48 PM, Michael Biel wrote:
>>>>>>>> I remember back in the 1960s when Mississippi John Hurt (who I met
>>>>>>>> and recorded) was re-discovered by a group of young Northern White
>>>>>>>> guys (some of them my friends). Hurt had no influence on anybody
>>>>>>>> until after he was re-discovered, recorded, and toured.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the contrary, his records influenced people in the folk revival
>>>>>>> as early as 1952, with their reissue in the Harry Smith Anthology.
>>>>>>> If you read the booklet for the reissue of the Anthology, you can
>>>>>>> find the testimony of revival people like Dave Van Ronk who were
>>>>>>> powerfully influenced by what they heard on 78s and reissues -- when
>>>>>>> Hurt was still working as a cowherd in Avalon, MS. Heck, the
>>>>>>> guitar lick from "Spike Driver Blues" even got borrowed by the folk
>>>>>>> revivalist Win Stracke for his accompaniment to "Buck Eye Jim",
>>>>>>> which was popular in the 1950s -- again way before Hurt was
>>>>>>> "rediscovered" and toured. It was the discs that influenced people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the case of Hurt, the people he influenced were all white
>>>>>>> folk-revivalists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike also writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your
>>>>>>>> own example of Ma Rainey shows the vast difference among those
>>>>>>> who had
>>>>>>>> influence and those who didn't. Robert Johnson has become a god
>>>>>>> -- and nobody heard of him before the first LP reissue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the other hand, Robert Johnson's playing influenced black
>>>>>>> players who wound up in the electric blues scene, among them Johnny
>>>>>>> Shines and Elmore James (Shines had traveled with Johnson).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And Johnson wasn't totally unknown at the time his records came
>>>>>>> out. Hammond, of course, knew about him, and sought him out for the
>>>>>>> "Spirituals to Swing" concert, but a few weeks too late. Alan Lomax
>>>>>>> knew his music too, and went looking for him -- also too late, but
>>>>>>> in the absence of Johnson he recorded young McKinley Morganfield.
>>>>>>> You know the rest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peace,
>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
|