I don't understand these new-fangled dudes who are all up on the raer before they've even heard the standards.
Rare is exciting.
Good music more so.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
We've probably all heard those dudes who say things like "Shakespeare isn't relevant because nobody speaks that way anymore". Some of us may even have been one of those dudes at some point. And while those dudes are right in one sense, you have to wonder whether they'd be inclined towards such a sweeping statement if they really grasped the extent to which Shakespeare has shaped the English language, thus enabling many of the things that they think are relevant to exist in the first place.
Now this is not to suggest that someone needs to have read and understood every last word of Shakespeare before they can meaningfully appreciate any other expression of written English. I don't think that's true. But nor do I think it's in any way contentious to suggest that, if you claim to be interested in the written word, yet don't have at least a basic familiarity with who Shakespeare was, what he did and why it was and remains important, then you are at a disadvantage. If that's the kind of disadvantage you can live with (in which case it may not even be a disadvantage at all), then that's fine. Millions of people use Shakespearean English every day of their lives without ever realising it. To reduce it to some kind of "old shit vs. new shit" argument kind of over-simplifies things. Of course it's perfectly possible, for example, to dig all this throwback disco that's around now without ever having heard Law Of The Land, but I have to say I'd find it bewildering if someone who professed an enthusiasm for that shit had never taken the trouble to try and locate the source of it.
We've probably all heard those dudes who say things like "Shakespeare isn't relevant because nobody speaks that way anymore". Some of us may even have been one of those dudes at some point. And while those dudes are right in one sense, you have to wonder whether they'd be inclined towards such a sweeping statement if they really grasped the extent to which Shakespeare has shaped the English language, thus enabling many of the things that they think are relevant to exist in the first place.
Now this is not to suggest that someone needs to have read and understood every last word of Shakespeare before they can meaningfully appreciate any other expression of written English. I don't think that's true. But nor do I think it's in any way contentious to suggest that, if you claim to be interested in the written word, yet don't have at least a basic familiarity with who Shakespeare was, what he did and why it was and remains important, then you are at a disadvantage. If that's the kind of disadvantage you can live with (in which case it may not even be a disadvantage at all), then that's fine. Millions of people use Shakespearean English every day of their lives without ever realising it. To reduce it to some kind of "old shit vs. new shit" argument kind of over-simplifies things. Of course it's perfectly possible, for example, to dig all this throwback disco that's around now without ever having heard Law Of The Land, but I have to say I'd find it bewildering if someone who professed an enthusiasm for that shit had never taken the trouble to try and locate the source of it.
I think the same thing can be applied to Philly Soul.
It never really "died". Its contributions were woven into future R&B.
U can hear it in Off The Wall. You can hear it in House Music of the 80s. And even as later in Neo-Soul.
I think the same thing can be applied to Philly Soul.
It never really "died". Its contributions were woven into future R&B.
U can hear it in Off The Wall. You can hear it in House Music of the 80s. And even as later in Neo-Soul.
bingo
b/w
black music
Big_Stacks"I don't worry about hittin' power, cause I don't give 'em nuttin' to hit." 4,670 Posts
Hey Batmon (and fellow 'Strutters),
Your previous post was very well-stated. I was talking with my wife this morning about how music acts as the time-stamp of our lives. During the talk, I thought of what happened to my mom and dad when I played my 45 of "I'm So Proud" by The Impressions some years ago. Now, for years they told me it was their song as teenagers dating. Intellectually, I understood it but I truly didn't grasp it until I saw, in context, their reaction to hearing it. Instantaneously, they transformed into giggling teenagers, looked longlingly at each other, and started to slow dance right in front of me. This sort of visceral, emotional reaction is what gives music its intrinsic value to me, it's ability to time-stamp one's life and move people. I couldn't understand the importance of the song to my parents until I experienced it first-hand. Another example is how I never knew my rather conservative mother could dance until Chubby Checker's "The Twist" came on the radio in the kitchen one day. My mom got down like nobody's business, and again, music invoked a reaction captured in a particular time-and-space that was golden to her. I got to see a totally unique side of my mother because a song that was meaningful to her time played on the radio some 30 years later. This, to me, is a large part of what putting music in context means to me. It's artificial to separate music from the experience and circumstances associated with it.
Due to many circumstances many folks dont have the "privilege" of hearing PHilly Intl. in its "proper" context.
Hearing Teddy's Your My Latest. My Greatest Inspiration, on a comp or in a mix is Cool.
And shit can blow your mind taking it in on the level.
There is another dimension if you heard it at the High School Dance, The Local Blue Light Basement Party or as The Robinson's Wedding Song.
If your digging and you come across various artists from the label and you wonder if they have joints, wouldnt some sort of common sense come through if they keep poppin up in the field?
Like "Damn a whole bunch of muthafuckas owned Saturday Night Fever". There's has got to be a reason, even if it sounds wack to my ears or have no connection to the album(parents didnt own it, etc.)
I guess my question is how can one call her- or himself a soul music fan but has no clue whatsoever that Harold Melvin and the Blue Notes recorded on Philly International Records?
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
By being 20 and just starting out.
When you were young did you get interested in early 50s R&B or R&R?
Did you get into Four Blazes as deeply as Ruth Brown?
Did you know Decca records as well as Atlantic?
Could you listen to Johnny Ray cry with out laughing?
Do you rate Night Train (Jimmy Forrest) up there with Booted (Roscoe Gordon)?
For someone one around in the early 50s these records would share a context and appreciating one with out the other would seem weird to someone who grew up with them.
Dudes question bothers me as much as it bothers you, but as people have pointed out, a young un getting started will have those types of questions.
I guess my question is how can one call her- or himself a soul music fan but has no clue whatsoever that Harold Melvin and the Blue Notes recorded on Philly International Records?
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
By being 20 and just starting out.
When you were young did you get interested in early 50s R&B or R&R?
Did you get into Four Blazes as deeply as Ruth Brown?
Did you know Decca records as well as Atlantic?
Could you listen to Johnny Ray cry with out laughing?
Do you rate Night Train (Jimmy Forrest) up there with Booted (Roscoe Gordon)?
For someone one around in the early 50s these records would share a context and appreciating one with out the other would seem weird to someone who grew up with them.
Dudes question bothers me as much as it bothers you, but as people have pointed out, a young un getting started will have those types of questions.
A local sweet-soul collector once told me that when he was starting out looking for old soul records, he accidentally bought some old country 45s.
Why? Because they were on King Records. And in his mind, he, understandably, associated King with James Brown. He thought that Grandpa Jones and Cowboy Copas would be bringing the funk.
He didn't know that King was a country & western powerhouse. Which isn't surprising, since the R&B stable overshadowed the country. And after 1965, James Brown alone overshadowed everybody else on the label. But given the circumstances (like age and context), I can understand why.
So the final analysis is that there's a split into two camps.
Some who believe context is required for a proper appreciation of an art form - the Trench argument. You can enjoy but not on as deep a level as could be had by immersing yourself into its life cycle.
Some who believe that paying dues, serving an apprenticeship, putting in the hard graft is not taking cognisance of the way the world operates today, and is also at heart an exclusionary and elitist stance.
There are unassailably valid points on both sides.
For me, the Trench perspective sits least comfortably. Many of those who espouse it got their context second hand. I doubt there's many on here who were inspired to go and shovel shit from the streets when Let's Clean ...Ghetto first dropped. I see no distinction between second hand context via 'classics' radio format plus magazine articles and, say, setting up for a board hazing on the netwebs.
On the other hand, as someone who acquired knowledge and records the hard way, a degree of railing against the instant Internet expert is natural, if not inevitable. It is partly rooted in envy, in that if the interminable discussions with foul-breathed anally retentive and deeply unfunky autists in mold-infested vinyl dumps worldwide could have been avoided, I might have taken that option.
Just a word on Philly, and to expand on Doc's food theme, Philly cuts are a bit like Jaffa Cakes. Impossibly tasty, perfectly crafted, a real pinnacle in the form. However, eat a packet of them puppies in one sitting and guaranteed come 7 in the a.m. you will be shitting through the eye of a needle. Best to break that scene up with some grimy badness. A sausage roll would be my choice, probably equating to the aforementioned Sad Chicken or similar.
Great discussion, cool was kept, props everyone.
Now I'm off to listen to some raw indie modern and fondle some implausibly rare 7" plastic artefacts. Pasue.
owning/knowing about some music does not make you a better person than the next human
never forget that folks
sometimes you seem to take this music loving shit way too seriously and entirely miss the point of it all in the process
why so serious?
don't worry. not as much as you think
Big_Stacks"I don't worry about hittin' power, cause I don't give 'em nuttin' to hit." 4,670 Posts
Hey Skel,
Your summary of the points in this thread is generally spot-on. I would only add that my stance is more about having some exposure to music to enhance appreciation of it. It's hard for me, coming from my Generation X cohort, to imagine someone being totally clueless about Philly International Records (assuming the person is a fan of soul music) given how many of its hit records are still so widely played. Music by its very nature, so it seems, is experential, thus it needs to be felt to be fully appreciated. I harken it to a distinction between playing a musical instrument and being a musician. The person who plays an instrument can read the music sheet put in front of him/her, but is confined in a rote sense to what is charted on the sheet. The musician, on the other hand, not only can read the sheet, but can improvise and/or sit in with a band she/he has never played with and never miss a beat. The musician, owing to her/his experience, has a foundation of knowledge and experience where she/he can instinctually 'feel' where the music is going to go; therefore, the musician has more flexibility to play during unfamiliar circumstances. The person who merely plays an instrument is limited to playing what is placed on the music stand.
Also, contrary to the elitist view you seem to suggest in your 'trench' perspective, I think the Internet makes the collection and consumption of music too clinical and esoteric. Art appreciation, to me, requires some form of active participation in said art either as a participant or spectator. People can arrive at the dance however they choose to do so. It just saddens me a bit for them to miss out on such beautiful experiences with music.
Music by its very nature, so it seems, is experential, thus it needs to be felt to be fully appreciated.
Thanks p
Now it only remains for me to ask: What are the implications of the 'context' idea to your appreciation of the Heavy Horses album?
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
damms said:
owning/knowing about some music does not make you a better person than the next human
never forget that folks
sometimes you seem to take this music loving shit way too seriously and entirely miss the point of it all in the process
I don't think that's really what's being argued, though. I don't see anyone trying to assert superiority over anyone else.
You can dig The Magnificent Seven without having seen The Seven Samurai, or indeed even knowing that the latter provided the inspiration for the former, because The Magnificent Seven works in its own right. But knowing those things might enrich your enjoyment or understanding of it. If things like that don't matter to you, then that's cool.
Like I said earlier, I'm only really surprised at those kinds of gaps in someone's knowledge when the person admitting to them professes to be someone with a deep love and understanding of whatever's under discussion. With Philly, you're talking about a label that dominated mainstream r&b in the 70s to an equivalent degree that Motown did in the 60s. For fans of old soul music to claim they don't know anything about it seems a bit weird to me. If you come with the argument that, because it was mainstream it couldn't have been that important, then it's likely somebody is going to call you on the possibility you may be fetishising obscurity for its own sake. But again, if that doesn't matter to you, it's not going to be a big deal either.
I wanna make clear that of course I'm familiar with plenty of PIR material.
I've owned several records on the label in the past.
Just haven't been all that impressed.
Hence the thread.
Comments
Good music more so.
Now this is not to suggest that someone needs to have read and understood every last word of Shakespeare before they can meaningfully appreciate any other expression of written English. I don't think that's true. But nor do I think it's in any way contentious to suggest that, if you claim to be interested in the written word, yet don't have at least a basic familiarity with who Shakespeare was, what he did and why it was and remains important, then you are at a disadvantage. If that's the kind of disadvantage you can live with (in which case it may not even be a disadvantage at all), then that's fine. Millions of people use Shakespearean English every day of their lives without ever realising it. To reduce it to some kind of "old shit vs. new shit" argument kind of over-simplifies things. Of course it's perfectly possible, for example, to dig all this throwback disco that's around now without ever having heard Law Of The Land, but I have to say I'd find it bewildering if someone who professed an enthusiasm for that shit had never taken the trouble to try and locate the source of it.
I think the same thing can be applied to Philly Soul.
It never really "died". Its contributions were woven into future R&B.
U can hear it in Off The Wall. You can hear it in House Music of the 80s. And even as later in Neo-Soul.
bingo
b/w
black music
Your previous post was very well-stated. I was talking with my wife this morning about how music acts as the time-stamp of our lives. During the talk, I thought of what happened to my mom and dad when I played my 45 of "I'm So Proud" by The Impressions some years ago. Now, for years they told me it was their song as teenagers dating. Intellectually, I understood it but I truly didn't grasp it until I saw, in context, their reaction to hearing it. Instantaneously, they transformed into giggling teenagers, looked longlingly at each other, and started to slow dance right in front of me. This sort of visceral, emotional reaction is what gives music its intrinsic value to me, it's ability to time-stamp one's life and move people. I couldn't understand the importance of the song to my parents until I experienced it first-hand. Another example is how I never knew my rather conservative mother could dance until Chubby Checker's "The Twist" came on the radio in the kitchen one day. My mom got down like nobody's business, and again, music invoked a reaction captured in a particular time-and-space that was golden to her. I got to see a totally unique side of my mother because a song that was meaningful to her time played on the radio some 30 years later. This, to me, is a large part of what putting music in context means to me. It's artificial to separate music from the experience and circumstances associated with it.
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
Hearing Teddy's Your My Latest. My Greatest Inspiration, on a comp or in a mix is Cool.
And shit can blow your mind taking it in on the level.
There is another dimension if you heard it at the High School Dance, The Local Blue Light Basement Party or as The Robinson's Wedding Song.
If your digging and you come across various artists from the label and you wonder if they have joints, wouldnt some sort of common sense come through if they keep poppin up in the field?
Like "Damn a whole bunch of muthafuckas owned Saturday Night Fever". There's has got to be a reason, even if it sounds wack to my ears or have no connection to the album(parents didnt own it, etc.)
By being 20 and just starting out.
When you were young did you get interested in early 50s R&B or R&R?
Did you get into Four Blazes as deeply as Ruth Brown?
Did you know Decca records as well as Atlantic?
Could you listen to Johnny Ray cry with out laughing?
Do you rate Night Train (Jimmy Forrest) up there with Booted (Roscoe Gordon)?
For someone one around in the early 50s these records would share a context and appreciating one with out the other would seem weird to someone who grew up with them.
Dudes question bothers me as much as it bothers you, but as people have pointed out, a young un getting started will have those types of questions.
A local sweet-soul collector once told me that when he was starting out looking for old soul records, he accidentally bought some old country 45s.
Why? Because they were on King Records. And in his mind, he, understandably, associated King with James Brown. He thought that Grandpa Jones and Cowboy Copas would be bringing the funk.
He didn't know that King was a country & western powerhouse. Which isn't surprising, since the R&B stable overshadowed the country. And after 1965, James Brown alone overshadowed everybody else on the label. But given the circumstances (like age and context), I can understand why.
never forget that folks
sometimes you seem to take this music loving shit way too seriously and entirely miss the point of it all in the process
why so serious?
Some who believe context is required for a proper appreciation of an art form - the Trench argument. You can enjoy but not on as deep a level as could be had by immersing yourself into its life cycle.
Some who believe that paying dues, serving an apprenticeship, putting in the hard graft is not taking cognisance of the way the world operates today, and is also at heart an exclusionary and elitist stance.
There are unassailably valid points on both sides.
For me, the Trench perspective sits least comfortably. Many of those who espouse it got their context second hand. I doubt there's many on here who were inspired to go and shovel shit from the streets when Let's Clean ...Ghetto first dropped. I see no distinction between second hand context via 'classics' radio format plus magazine articles and, say, setting up for a board hazing on the netwebs.
On the other hand, as someone who acquired knowledge and records the hard way, a degree of railing against the instant Internet expert is natural, if not inevitable. It is partly rooted in envy, in that if the interminable discussions with foul-breathed anally retentive and deeply unfunky autists in mold-infested vinyl dumps worldwide could have been avoided, I might have taken that option.
Just a word on Philly, and to expand on Doc's food theme, Philly cuts are a bit like Jaffa Cakes. Impossibly tasty, perfectly crafted, a real pinnacle in the form. However, eat a packet of them puppies in one sitting and guaranteed come 7 in the a.m. you will be shitting through the eye of a needle. Best to break that scene up with some grimy badness. A sausage roll would be my choice, probably equating to the aforementioned Sad Chicken or similar.
Great discussion, cool was kept, props everyone.
Now I'm off to listen to some raw indie modern and fondle some implausibly rare 7" plastic artefacts. Pasue.
Your summary of the points in this thread is generally spot-on. I would only add that my stance is more about having some exposure to music to enhance appreciation of it. It's hard for me, coming from my Generation X cohort, to imagine someone being totally clueless about Philly International Records (assuming the person is a fan of soul music) given how many of its hit records are still so widely played. Music by its very nature, so it seems, is experential, thus it needs to be felt to be fully appreciated. I harken it to a distinction between playing a musical instrument and being a musician. The person who plays an instrument can read the music sheet put in front of him/her, but is confined in a rote sense to what is charted on the sheet. The musician, on the other hand, not only can read the sheet, but can improvise and/or sit in with a band she/he has never played with and never miss a beat. The musician, owing to her/his experience, has a foundation of knowledge and experience where she/he can instinctually 'feel' where the music is going to go; therefore, the musician has more flexibility to play during unfamiliar circumstances. The person who merely plays an instrument is limited to playing what is placed on the music stand.
Also, contrary to the elitist view you seem to suggest in your 'trench' perspective, I think the Internet makes the collection and consumption of music too clinical and esoteric. Art appreciation, to me, requires some form of active participation in said art either as a participant or spectator. People can arrive at the dance however they choose to do so. It just saddens me a bit for them to miss out on such beautiful experiences with music.
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
Thanks p
Now it only remains for me to ask: What are the implications of the 'context' idea to your appreciation of the Heavy Horses album?
I don't think that's really what's being argued, though. I don't see anyone trying to assert superiority over anyone else.
You can dig The Magnificent Seven without having seen The Seven Samurai, or indeed even knowing that the latter provided the inspiration for the former, because The Magnificent Seven works in its own right. But knowing those things might enrich your enjoyment or understanding of it. If things like that don't matter to you, then that's cool.
Like I said earlier, I'm only really surprised at those kinds of gaps in someone's knowledge when the person admitting to them professes to be someone with a deep love and understanding of whatever's under discussion. With Philly, you're talking about a label that dominated mainstream r&b in the 70s to an equivalent degree that Motown did in the 60s. For fans of old soul music to claim they don't know anything about it seems a bit weird to me. If you come with the argument that, because it was mainstream it couldn't have been that important, then it's likely somebody is going to call you on the possibility you may be fetishising obscurity for its own sake. But again, if that doesn't matter to you, it's not going to be a big deal either.
I've owned several records on the label in the past.
Just haven't been all that impressed.
Hence the thread.
That is all.
Laterz.