Print

Print


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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF5DvDucf7w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4jCsq2aFe0
Roger



________________________________
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).

-Dan