the soul capital of the world?

24

  Comments


  • Jonny_PaycheckJonny_Paycheck 17,825 Posts
    LA doesn't even really belong in the discussion though.

    Sorry.

    how do you figure?

    Despite the city's great love of soul music, the local talent/scenes don't really rival Detroit or Chicago, for example.

  • grandpa_shiggrandpa_shig 5,799 Posts
    LA doesn't even really belong in the discussion though.

    Sorry.

    how do you figure?

    Despite the city's great love of soul music, the local talent/scenes don't really rival Detroit or Chicago, for example.

    yes i would agree. so the question is not what is the soul capitol, but rather, what city had the most prolific soul artists to come out. cuz i was just thinking that at one point or another, about 80% of the dudes you all are thinking of cut their records out here or in nyc, yes?

  • LA doesn't even really belong in the discussion though.

    Sorry.

    how do you figure?

    Despite the city's great love of soul music, the local talent/scenes don't really rival Detroit or Chicago, for example.

    yes i would agree. so the question is not what is the soul capitol, but rather, what city had the most prolific soul artists to come out. cuz i was just thinking that at one point or another, about 80% of the dudes you all are thinking of cut their records out here or in nyc, yes?


    I would never use that criteria, since so many acts cut in NYC (for Atlantic among others) who developed their sounds elsewhere, and unlike Muscle Shoals, or Stax or American in Memphis - where the studio/house bands had a distinct sound/feel - I can't imagine saying the same thing about NYC.

  • ElectrodeElectrode Los Angeles 3,083 Posts
    No non-USA soul hot spots?

  • batmonbatmon 27,574 Posts
    No non-USA soul hot spots?

    Hot spots equal CAPITALS?

  • SoulOnIceSoulOnIce 13,027 Posts
    Interesting how L.A. & NYC both have richer Doo-Wop/50's vocal
    group histories than soul, and how the soul scenes in both areas
    was generally connected with the 50's scene, like the Bob & Earl
    family that produced so many L.A. artists as well as recording on
    their own under various names throughout the 60's*. Of course this
    is true in the other areas, but Detroit, Memphis & Chicago seem to have
    had more of a homegrown Soul scene that, while it's roots were often in
    the vocal group/doo wop sound, seemed to really break away into
    something completely fresh and original.

  • pickwick33pickwick33 8,946 Posts
    NEW YORK DOO_WOP BITCHES!!!!!

    That's R&B[/b] - we talkin' soul![/b] (((grin)))

  • SoulOnIceSoulOnIce 13,027 Posts
    * and, of course, the East L.A./Chicano sound of the 60's was
    firmly rooted in the 50's vocal group era as well.

  • pickwick33pickwick33 8,946 Posts
    No non-USA soul hot spots?

    As if there were any?

  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
    No non-USA soul hot spots?




  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
    I will argue for New York.

    Atlantic Records.

    Soul was born and nurtured on Atlantic Records.

    Before Ray Charles there was Laverne Baker and Ruth Brown. Then with a little support from Jerry Wexler Ray Charles invented (Invented I Tell You!) soul music at Atlantic.

    All the greatest Detroit artists, Aretha, Pickett, Eddie Floyd, Sir Mack Rice and on and on recorded for Atlantic or Atlantic's subsidiaries or studios in Memphis or Muscle Shoals.

    King Curtis and the Kingpins with Bernard Purdie were pure NYC. Soul is not just about music, it is a culture. And NYC is that culture. Soul would not have been possible with out New Yorkers like Langston Hughes, and Zora Neal Hurston and Jackie Robinson. Soul couldn't have existed with out chicken and pancakes and the Village Vanguard. It couldn't have existed with out Harlem and 42nd street and the Village and Brooklyn and the Bronx and Queens. It couldn't have existed with out Xavier Cugot and Eddie Palmiere. No Brill building, no Lieber and Stoller, no Paul Winley, no Bobby Robinson = no soul.


    So clearly NYC is soul.


















    Ha ha, just kidding.


  • kalakala 3,361 Posts
    ^^^^^^^
    what he said +the apollo=nyc as the jumpoff for detroit?

    although ruth brown defines crossover


    tuff to beat detroit though

  • batmonbatmon 27,574 Posts
    I will argue for New York.
    Atlantic Records.
    Soul was born and nurtured on Atlantic Records.
    Before Ray Charles there was Laverne Baker and Ruth Brown. Then with a little support from Jerry Wexler Ray Charles invented (Invented I Tell You!) soul music at Atlantic.
    All the greatest Detroit artists, Aretha, Pickett, Eddie Floyd, Sir Mack Rice and on and on recorded for Atlantic or Atlantic's subsidiaries or studios in Memphis or Muscle Shoals.
    King Curtis and the Kingpins with Bernard Purdie were pure NYC. Soul is not just about music, it is a culture. And NYC is that culture. Soul would not have been possible with out New Yorkers like Langston Hughes, and Zora Neal Hurston and Jackie Robinson. Soul couldn't have existed with out chicken and pancakes and the Village Vanguard. It couldn't have existed with out Harlem and 42nd street and the Village and Brooklyn and the Bronx and Queens. It couldn't have existed with out Xavier Cugot and Eddie Palmiere. No Brill building, no Lieber and Stoller, no Paul Winley, no Bobby Robinson = no soul.
    So clearly NYC is soul.
    Ha ha, just kidding.





  • batmonbatmon 27,574 Posts
    And where is Philly in this?

  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
    I will argue for New York.
    Atlantic Records.
    Soul was born and nurtured on Atlantic Records.
    Before Ray Charles there was Laverne Baker and Ruth Brown. Then with a little support from Jerry Wexler Ray Charles invented (Invented I Tell You!) soul music at Atlantic.
    All the greatest Detroit artists, Aretha, Pickett, Eddie Floyd, Sir Mack Rice and on and on recorded for Atlantic or Atlantic's subsidiaries or studios in Memphis or Muscle Shoals.
    King Curtis and the Kingpins with Bernard Purdie were pure NYC. Soul is not just about music, it is a culture. And NYC is that culture. Soul would not have been possible with out New Yorkers like Langston Hughes, and Zora Neal Hurston and Jackie Robinson. Soul couldn't have existed with out chicken and pancakes and the Village Vanguard. It couldn't have existed with out Harlem and 42nd street and the Village and Brooklyn and the Bronx and Queens. It couldn't have existed with out Xavier Cugot and Eddie Palmiere. No Brill building, no Lieber and Stoller, no Paul Winley, no Bobby Robinson = no soul.
    So clearly NYC is soul.
    Ha ha, just kidding.





    Sorry guys. I have no idea how I wrote that long ass argument for NYC and didn't mention the Apollo. Proof that NYC is soul because you didn't count as soul until you played it.

  • pickwick33pickwick33 8,946 Posts
    ^^^^^^^
    what he said +the apollo=nyc as the jumpoff for detroit?

    although ruth brown defines crossover

    how? i think ruth brown only made the pop Top 40 ONCE, with an intentionally pop song that she hated to her dying day ("lucky lips")

  • batmonbatmon 27,574 Posts
    ^^^^^^^
    what he said +the apollo=nyc as the jumpoff for detroit?

    although ruth brown defines crossover

    how? i think ruth brown only made the pop Top 40 ONCE, with an intentionally pop song that she hated to her dying day ("lucky lips")

    R uth & B rown

  • buttonbutton 1,475 Posts
    On the NYC/La thing, I don't think I'd rank those as high as the other major hubs of the era. When you say Chicago sweet soul, Philly sweet soul, the Detroit sound, or the Memphis sound, anyone who follows the music even a little starts to get an idea of where you're going. What is the LA sound? It doesn't conjure up any identity of its own.

    I suppose you have to look at it on two fronts. On the one hand, there are the major musical hubs with large populations, deep economic pockets, and lengthly musical history. On the other, the smaller cities who forged their own scenes without any of these advantages.

  • The_Hook_UpThe_Hook_Up 8,182 Posts
    LA and NYC can duke it out over punk/hardcore and the late 50s and early 60s Jazz scene..but I dont think they really figure at all in this conversation...

  • SwayzeSwayze 14,705 Posts
    per capita (meaning the output of soul vs. the size of the city):
    memphis, detroit, nola, chicago are the big four.

    after that i'd say philly, then ny.

    from there, it gets smaller. dc and its suburbs was also very fertile.

  • DCarfagnaDCarfagna 983 Posts
    CHICAGO[/b]

    And I have the discographical research to prove it.
    The Windy City had an entire stretch of the South Loop dedicated to the creation of soul music.
    Detroit had three or four buildings spread over the whole town.

    This a quantitative survey, not a qualitative one.

    As far as the number of releases generated from a particular city (in order):

    Chicago
    Los Angeles
    Detroit
    New Orleans
    Philadelphia
    New York City

    And until someone shows me a comprehensive Detroit soul discography, Chicago will forever have it buried under. I have two UK-built lists from the mid-80s for both Detroit and Chicago, and even then Chicago was crushing. Memphis was dominated by Stax from 1966-1976, so there weren't that many indies until the label folded and people had to go for self. To an extent, Miami was the same way, with Henry Stone and his family of labels gobbling up most of the local talent. Texas had a great amount of output, but no one city dominated (though Houston is deep).

  • SoulhawkSoulhawk 3,197 Posts
    trippin

    all you're doing is flaunting your ignorance of the Detroit soul scene


  • DCarfagnaDCarfagna 983 Posts
    SHOW ME A LIST.

    (Seriously, you have no idea.)

    You're letting your civic pride get in the way of the actual numbers.

  • SoulhawkSoulhawk 3,197 Posts
    a list is irrelevant

    the WORLD has spoken, Detroit wins

    per capita we have as many shitty local releases as anywhere

  • meatyogremeatyogre 2,080 Posts
    Chicago seems to have had more indy powerhouse labels than Detroit. And the fact we had Record Row here means that anyone could walk down Michigan Ave. back in the day and potentially get signed to an indy or major with relative ease...which also pumped the locals up to press up their own singles to promote themselves to the majors and big time indys. I don't think Detroit was really set up like that.

    I would love to see the arguments in numbers for both Detroit/Chicago on paper. Seems like both cities are endless. I would gladly take all the Detroit funk 45s over all the Chicago funk 45s out there though!

  • DCarfagnaDCarfagna 983 Posts
    Well, apparently the world knows nothing about record research.

    Chicago population in 1970 = 3.36 million
    Detroit population in 1970 = 1.51 million

    HOW THEN IS IT POSSIBLE?

  • Deejay_OMDeejay_OM 695 Posts
    Ok so pound for pound, which US city would you say gave us the greatest soul and funk music? There are the big names in history like Chicago, Detroit, Memphis, NOLA, Philly and so on. But then you've got the smaller cities. Although not as prolific, some of them put out some seriously heavy records as well. I'm thinking of places like Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Baton Rouge etc... Then also, there are the bigger cities that never got a lot of credit in the Historical sense. Places like Houston or Miami.

    I definitely don't have an answer to this. I'd be comfortable saying that the Rust Belt as a region put out some seriously massive cuts on all fronts, and is probably where I'd start. But to narrow it down to one city is too tough. Anyone?


    after reading over the ORIGINAL question...I'd like all of you to rethink your ideas above...the statement reads above "pound for pound which US city would you say gave us the greatest soul and funk music?"...pound for pound...means OVERALL releases...not artists, etc....just sheers numbers of contribution....therefore...not if they came from that city, or where born there, etc...what city gave us the most?


    my original answer stands....Detroit/Chicago (a battle for first)...then L.A...then NYC...if you argue that with the above quote...you don't get the arguement...NOLA, Ohio, Memphis...are out of the picture...don't care they have great soul bbq, or whatever..it's POUND FOR POUND overall releases....not if you associate that city with soul/funk...

  • SoulhawkSoulhawk 3,197 Posts
    Well, apparently the world knows nothing about record research.

    Chicago population in 1970 = 3.36 million
    Detroit population in 1970 = 1.51 million

    HOW THEN IS IT POSSIBLE?

    I said per capita bitch

    considering the great population disparity vs chi-town, it makes Detroit's achievement even more remarkable

    the detroit record row was along woodward( natch) where every major had an office, indie centers were on grand river & the linwood / 12th st area

    ---

  • Deejay_OMDeejay_OM 695 Posts
    LA and NYC can duke it out over punk/hardcore and the late 50s and early 60s Jazz scene..but I dont think they really figure at all in this conversation...


    um...expecting that statement from a little dude...

  • DCarfagnaDCarfagna 983 Posts
    after reading over the ORIGINAL question...I'd like all of you to rethink your ideas above...the statement reads above "pound for pound which US city would you say gave us the greatest soul and funk music?"...pound for pound...means OVERALL releases...not artists, etc....just sheers numbers of contribution....therefore...not if they came from that city, or where born there, etc...what city gave us the most?

    I HAVE DONE (AND CONTINUE TO DO) THE NUMBERS AND IT IS CHICAGO.
    FACT TRUMPS SPECULATION.
Sign In or Register to comment.