LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  April 2014

ARSCLIST April 2014

Subject:

Re: The Ballad of Geeshie and Elvie

From:

Malcolm Rockwell <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 18 Apr 2014 06:18:48 -1000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (323 lines)

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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager