Week 5: 50 Records That Changes Music.

[Swish]

The selection this week should not come as a surprise to anyone, at least those with any appreciation for the "true American" music form, the Blues. And the record is Robert Johnson's "King of the Delta Blues Singers (1961"")

Described by Eric Clapton as "the most important blues singer that (sic) ever lived", Johnson was an intensely private man, whose short life and mysterious death created an enduring mythology. He was said to have sold his soul to the devil at a crossroads in Mississippi in exhange for his finger-picking prowess. Johnson recorded a mere 29 songs, chief among them "Hellbound on My Trail", but when it was finally issued, King of the Delta Blues Singers became one of the touchstones of the British blues scene. Without this there would be no Rolling Stones, Cream, or Led Zeppelin.

Comments? Thoughts? Opinions? Inquiring minds want to know!

Swish

[Stone]

I've never heard that, and am not a big blues fan. But I've read a few things about this and again, I really think his influence is undeniable. But I could also live without Clapton, the Stones (although I do like them), Cream, and Zeppelin.

Okay, so this is a useless post, but hey, at least I can admit it.

[Davey]

Yeah, undeniable. The reason I love a modern band like Califone so much, along with all the related bands and side projects, is the same lived-in feel you get from those old Robert Johnson and Charley Patton delta blues songs. Mixed with some of that old Appalachian folk from Dock Boggs that Alan Lomax and Harry Smith helped to resurrect. Straight outta the soul, and dragged into the modern era, and away from Exile on Main Street, using some of Brian Eno's old broken, buzzing and crackling electronics and flippity tape loops ... "Horoscopic.Amputation.Honey" chugging along right now ...

buzzing like a worn out fret, we'll cut our hair and fake our death

Followed by "Marlon Perkins" from Loftus. Yeah.

[nobody]

This is one of those that I like, but that has influenced a ton of stuff I don't.

I do like older blues quite a lot and listen to the stuff regularly, but the modern take on blues, pretty much from Stevie-Ray forward in particular, bugs me more than anything else. Its like middle aged white guys now own the blues, and it just kinda puts me off it, I must admit. That, and I think I prefer the rustic sound of ht e old records to the more modern stuff where the guys use top of the line gear and sound so modern.

Also not much of a fan of the 70s rock styles that leaned so heavily on the blues, never liked Clapton, Zeppelin was good for a song now and again, but usually just annoyed me. The Stones were about the only ones of the bunch that did much for me, and I kinda keep them in another category anyway to be honest.

I also think the Blues gets way too much credit...I've heard a million times that the blues is the basis for ALL of rock, and I can see the point, but only in so much as you could say that banging on tree stumps is the basis for all rock considering that's where a lot of the rhythms started. I mean, the statement makes sense if you lean heavily toward the 70s style blues rock that has been so popular over the years, but if you branch away from that, sure you've got blues influences, but you've got tons of other stuff represented as well. I guess a lot depends on how broad your definition of rock is...and mine may well be a bit too inclusive.

Just realized I'm now talking about Blues in general for influence, not just this record...juts seems that this record was the one that got people listening to the old guitar based blues styles...so hard to separate for me.

Still do love that record...just played it last week.

[3-LockBox]

Everyone's heard the story. Just a man, an acoustic guitar, recorded in a two room house. But the performance, both vocally and the style of guitar playing, would shape and influence three different genres of music; blues, country-western, and later rock-n-roll. No one could refute it.

This list focuses on what was essentially a re-issue when it came out '61. Johnson's influence actually predates this release by another 2 or 3 decades. But say what you want to about young white artists ripping off old blues artist, blues as a genre enjoyed a renaisance when budding rock stars (like Clapton, Page, Richards) got a hold of this album and broke away from the purely pop format of the early '60s artists that had started to distance themselves from rock's early Sun Records sound.

Unfortunately for our message board's sake, this is one of those things where the story of this man's influence has been told and re-told so many times, that while it's inclusion on a list like this is inevitable, it isn't very revelatory, or at this point even interesting.

I'll tell you what is revelatory (if you're interested). The latest CD release of his work (at least the most recent to my knowledge). I used to own the two CD box set (The Complete Recordings from the late '80s) and while it was a nice two-CD set,including a big booklet with bio and written testimonies by blues-rock luminaries like Clapton and Keith Richards, the sound quality was terribly shrill and made listening to more than a few songs at time a chore. Of course, the original recordings are ancient and one could only expect that they didn't sound much better on vinyl in '61. But the 2004 re-release of King Of The Delta Blues Singers (vol 2) brings way more fidelity, much lower noise floor, and much more importantly, a more intimate and listenable experience (even if two-thirds of the songs you'll hear have been covered dozens of times by dozens of artists). If you hadn't already plunked down bucks on one of the numerous compilations of Johnson's 30 some odd songs, then now is as good a time as any.

[Resident Loser]

...I've read it in a few places that Johnson was no big deal in his heyday and that he was considered a master of hype and self-promotion...Surely he had contemporaries like Muddy Waters (one of his songs was the source of the Rolling Stones' name), Bukka White, Son House, Howlin' Wolf, Wille Dixon et al...and certainly their records have been around for quite some time...in some cases recorded by Alan Lomax in the 30s for the Library of Congress...others through the 40s and 50s as commercial releases...

It doesn't seen that RJs music was any big thing 'til recorded by Columbia at the urging of John Hammond in '61...and that may have been part of the overall resurgence of folk music in the late 50s/early60s...One could ask the question, had one of the others been championed by the legendary Mr. Hammond for commercial release, would Johnson be crowned 'King" of anything...

Most latter-day performers or group certainly didn't try to emulate the performances or the simple arrangements...they may have covered the material, but performed it in stylistically different ways...The Stones usually were the more "authentic" when doing blues or R&B covers...maybe the Yardbirds...Cream was a whole 'nother thing and Zep...well some of their lyrics like "...shake for me girl, I wanna' be your back door man are nothing but titles of blues/R&B songs...

The reasoning for inclusion of this album is debateable and even as a source of material ripe for the pickin', it's contribution was rather small when viewed in the context of the overall RJ catalog...

If anything, it's original release date may have been the impetus to investigate the genre as a whole. As a result of its discovery by the likes of Messrs. Clapton, Richards and Page, I suppose one could give it significance on that count alone rather than on it's specific artistic importance as a single entity...

jimHJJ(...who knows?...)

[Troy]

Undeniably influential.

But influential of things that I don't listen to, so I SO don't care. That whole "selling his soul at the crossroads" thing is a load of bollocks.

Wasn't Marlon Perkins the host of "Wild Kingdom"?

[3-LockBox]

If anything, it's original release date may have been the impetus to investigate the genre as a whole. As a result of its discovery by the likes of Messrs. Clapton, Richards and Page, *I suppose one could give it significance on that count alone rather than on it's specific artistic importance as a single entity...

jimHJJ(...who knows?...)

*I think that that's exactly what they've done. Yes, they left out some other artists who have made prolly just as big an impact as Johnson, but they are talking album here and not performer, though I agree that others deserve inclusion when it comes to influence.

[MindGoneHaywire]

I don't care all that much, either. I think there's a case to be made that Muddy Waters & perhaps even B.B. King were just as influential, but...I don't care. Partly because this is a compilation. It's tough to talk albums & include something by a guy who died years before there was any such thing. It clouds the issue enough to make the debate difficult.

Never bought Clapton's remark, personally, but I wouldn't deny that RJ influenced the guy I happen to like best (Howlin' Wolf). But that influence certainly wasn't as a result of this particular rec they're trying to frame as an album for the sake of their list.

Anyone who wants to hear the number one, undeniable, most specific influence on the Rolling Stones, get an Elmore James record. RJ occupies a place in lore partially on merit, but partially also because some critics got all overheated about his legacy & cast him as the bluesman it was hip to be into. Not a horrible choice, just one that doesn't work for me personally. Nevertheless, these people figured they had to have a blues rec included, and picked a rather obvious choice.

[musicoverall]

I do like older blues quite a lot and listen to the stuff regularly, but the modern take on blues, pretty much from Stevie-Ray forward in particular, bugs me more than anything else. Its like middle aged white guys now own the blues, and it just kinda puts me off it, I must admit. .

It's been said - and this is by no means a racist comment - that when the blues got too far away from the cotton fields, it lost its identity. That would mean that Stevie Ray was probably one of the first to "change" the blues into the stuff that bothers you - and me, as well.

[musicoverall]

...I've read it in a few places that Johnson was no big deal in his heyday and that he was considered a master of hype and self-promotion...Surely he had contemporaries like Muddy Waters (one of his songs was the source of the Rolling Stones' name), Bukka White, Son House, Howlin' Wolf, Wille Dixon et al...and certainly their records have been around for quite some time...in some cases recorded by Alan Lomax in the 30s for the Library of Congress...others through the 40s and 50s as commercial releases...

It doesn't seen that RJs music was any big thing 'til recorded by Columbia at the urging of John Hammond in '61...and that may have been part of the overall resurgence of folk music in the late 50s/early60s...One could ask the question, had one of the others been championed by the legendary Mr. Hammond for commercial release, would Johnson be crowned 'King" of anything...

Most latter-day performers or group certainly didn't try to emulate the performances or the simple arrangements...they may have covered the material, but performed it in stylistically different ways...The Stones usually were the more "authentic" when doing blues or R&B covers...maybe the Yardbirds...Cream was a whole 'nother thing and Zep...well some of their lyrics like "...shake for me girl, I wanna' be your back door man are nothing but titles of blues/R&B songs...

The reasoning for inclusion of this album is debateable and even as a source of material ripe for the pickin', it's contribution was rather small when viewed in the context of the overall RJ catalog...

If anything, it's original release date may have been the impetus to investigate the genre as a whole. As a result of its discovery by the likes of Messrs. Clapton, Richards and Page, I suppose one could give it significance on that count alone rather than on it's specific artistic importance as a single entity...

jimHJJ(...who knows?...)

I'm always careful about what I read about the blues, particularly if it comes from another bluesman. Inconsistencies abound. But I tend to agree that it was the "rediscovery" of RJ by the British rockers you mentioned that made this record so influential. I think the record is great but I'd hesitate to say it was "better" than stuff by Son House, Charley Patton, Frank Stokes or some of the other contemporaries. Quite frankly, I think Elmore James was more influential in the sense that his presentation was more closely emulated - but then we get into the "RJ influenced Elmore" thing which is, of course, true. MindGoneHaywire mentions that he was the biggest influence on the Stones and I think that is undeniable. Clapton may have been heavily influenced by RJ but his bandmate at the time Keith Relf was more into Sonny Boy's I and II.

All of this makes me realize what an exercise this all is.

[bobsticks]

[QUOTE=. RJ occupies a place in lore partially on merit, but partially also because some critics got all overheated about his legacy & cast him as the bluesman it was hip to be into. Not a horrible choice, just one that doesn't work for me personally. Nevertheless, these people figured they had to have a blues rec included, and picked a rather obvious choice.[/QUOTE]

Style over substance...Agreed

[3-LockBox]

...I don't care. Partly because this is a compilation. It's tough to talk albums & include something by a guy who died years before there was any such thing. It clouds the issue enough to make the debate difficult.

yeah, I kinda wish they'd stick with albums, and not include singles collections...which brings me once again to ask why Hank Williams is left off the list when he was undeniably country-western's biggest and longest lasting influence (and this is regardless of whether I like country music or not) and especially since Sr was so influenced by the blues himself.

The Observer should stick to their own rules.

[bobsticks]

A cursory glance at the timeline brings some doubt as to whether this particular album would be Capton's primary influence anyway. If the album in question was released in 1961, wouldn't ole Slowhand have already been playing with the Yarbirds.
This is a bit before my time, but isn't it a safe assumption if EC was indeed influenced by RJ that it was an earlier album. Isn't there an element of trans-atlantic trade after WW2 at play here?

[MindGoneHaywire]

Well, so far it's hardly a perfect list. It makes a few good points, but the placement of Sgt. Pepper is weak. The jazz choices are weak. Including a Robert Johnson comp & omitting Hank Williams is weak. And the amount of Britpop choices they picked while excluding recs I think we can mostly agree are more worthy of inclusion is weak.

Having a blues album that you can make even a weak case for it belonging in the top 5 of such a list is not a bad thing, though. What album would you pick to replace it? And, if it's a compilation, is there an actual album that you think would deserve placement? I think the "Real Folk Blues" series by a variety of artists that recorded for Chess might've made just as much sense.

[Swish]

yeah, I kinda wish they'd stick with albums, and not include singles collections...which brings me once again to ask why Hank Williams is left off the list when he was undeniably country-western's biggest and longest lasting influence (and this is regardless of whether I like country music or not) and especially since Sr was so influenced by the blues himself.

The Observer should stick to their own rules.

Don't go telling everyone who is and who is not on the list! You're going to ruin my whole friggin' deal here. But yeah, how can Hank be excluded?

Swish

[3-LockBox]

Well, so far it's hardly a perfect list. It makes a few good points, but the placement of Sgt. Pepper is weak. The jazz choices are weak. Including a Robert Johnson comp & omitting Hank Williams is weak. And the amount of Britpop choices they picked while excluding recs I think we can mostly agree are more worthy of inclusion is weak.

I agree on all counts

Having a blues album that you can make even a weak case for it belonging in the top 5 of such a list is not a bad thing, though. What album would you pick to replace it? And, if it's a compilation, is there an actual album that you think would deserve placement? I think the "Real Folk Blues" series by a variety of artists that recorded for Chess might've made just as much sense.

I agree that Johnson was/is an influencial blues artist, if the list is named "50 albums that changed the face of music", then I gotta go with proper albums, which why I'd assume that Hank Williams is left off. RJ certainly belongs on any list of influencial artists (and he is often, along with Williams).

I think including comps as albums convolute the issue, as does the preponderance of British acts. Not familiar enough with proper blues albums though. Country music for the most part was (and still is) centered around singles and radio play, not albums as an artistic statement (though Waylon & Willie tried to change that). That's why I wouldn't get too bent about the exclusion of CW artists and why I'm OK with the Beatles' Seargent Peppers making the list. Hell, I could understand the VU album being on the list, just not its presumed importance.

If its an "albums" list it should be albums only. If the artists were influencial, include them on the influencial artists lists, but if they didn't make an album, leave them off of the "albums" list. Obviously a list of their staff's personal faves and not a list that tries to be comprehensive. The Observer choked.

[BradH]

If its an "albums" list it should be albums only.

Actually, the list says "records", not "albums". (I'm taking Swish's word for this.) So, in that sense, a collection of records could be legitimate, I suppose. And RJ's influence over the older bluesmen was large. After all, he's credited with inventing the "break". But I never heard about this particular record having more influence over the British blues boom than records by Howlin Wolf or Muddy Waters or any number of blues artists.

[3-LockBox]

Actually, the list says "records", not "albums". (I'm taking Swish's word for this.) So, in that sense, a collection of records could be legitimate, I suppose.

Nope. The article is "50 Albums That Changed Music"

Don't trust Swish

[Resident Loser]

Nope. The article is "50 Albums That Changed Music"

...since it seems we all sorta' concur that RJs recording is more or less an emblematic expedient, let's get a bit nit-picky...

Technically speaking, nothing on that list is actually an album...With the advent of the 33 1/3 LP, the word album is really a misnomer...It certainly applied in the days of black shellac 78s when 4 or 5 disks were ensconced in their own sleeves, each bound into a book-like storage medium...much like a photo album, many things kept in one convenient package...

Sooo...should the title of the article have been 50 records? Were all the titles released as LPs, or are some of the more recent inclusions strictly CDs? In normal parlance 'round these parts, it's usually albums or records or disks for vinyl and CDs and discs for the digital stuff...I mean while a record is a record, as in "...this will go into your permanent record young man...", should it have been 50 recordings? 50 audio recordings?

I mean if you can't even come up with a title for the article that's correct, what are we to make of the choices contained therein?

And yes I agree, not including Hank Williams Sr.is one major faux pas...

Maybe we can come up with a list of reasons why lists should be ignored...

jimHJJ(...come to think of it, ignore that last remark...)

[Stone]

Technically speaking, nothing on that list is actually an album...With the advent of the 33 1/3 LP, the word album is really a misnomer...It certainly applied in the days of black shellac 78s when 4 or 5 disks were ensconced in their own sleeves, each bound into a book-like storage medium...much like a photo album, many things kept in one convenient package...

You are wrong. Maybe that's how the term "album" originated (with multiple disks in their own sleeves), but it has stuck, through the advent of the 33 1/3 LP, and now into the age of CDs, etc. Any music fan knows what an "album" is. I'm surprised you don't. In addition, Webster's defines "album" as "one or more recordings (as on tape or disc) produced as a single unit." Produced as a single unit. So not only is your statement incorrect as to the common vernacular of a music fan, but it's also incorrect "technically."

[Resident Loser]

You are wrong. Maybe that's how the term "album" originated (with multiple disks in their own sleeves), but it has stuck, through the advent of the 33 1/3 LP, and now into the age of CDs, etc. Any music fan knows what an "album" is. I'm surprised you don't. In addition, Webster's defines "album" as "one or more recordings (as on tape or disc) produced as a single unit." Produced as a single unit. So not only is your statement incorrect as to the common vernacular of a music fan, but it's also incorrect "technically."

...if you are going to cite a definition, why not post it in its entirety...from M-W:

Main Entry: al·bum
Pronunciation: 'al-b&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, a white tablet, from neuter of albus
1 a : a book with blank pages used for making a collection (as of autographs, stamps, or photographs) b : a cardboard container for a phonograph record : JACKET c : one or more recordings (as on tape or disc) produced as a single unit
2 : a collection usually in book form of literary selections, musical compositions, or pictures : ANTHOLOGY

Or maybe this from Wikipedia:

An album is a collection of related audio tracks distributed to the public. The most common way is through commercial distribution, although many smaller artists will often distribute directly to the public by selling their albums at shows or on their websites.

The term "record album" originated from the fact that 78 RPM Phonograph disc records were kept together in a book resembling a photo album. The first collection of records to be called an "album" was Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker Suite, released in April 1909 as a four-disc set by Odeon Records.[1][2] It retailed for 16 shillings — about $20 USD in modern currency.

In 1948, Columbia produced the first 12", 33⅓ RPM microgroove record made of vinylite.[1] With a running time of 23 minutes per side, these new records contained as much music as the old-style album of records and, thus, took on the name "album". For many years, the standard industry format for popular music was an album of twelve songs, originally the number related to payment of composer royalties.

Today, with the vinyl record no longer being used as the primary form of distribution, the term "album" is applied to any sound recording collection, mainly those on compact disc, Although it can also refer to MiniDisc, Compact audio cassette, and MP3 albums. Cover art is also considered an integral part of the album.

Note the use of quotes in the previous paragraphs...

Come to think of it, why not call it a magazine?

So like many things...the phrase burn-in or the word irregardless (also in the dictionary), common usage in the vernacular and technical correctness are two different things...So technically speaking an album is what I stated it to be; the word's continued use is more a case of habit, convenience, laziness, inattentiveness or a combination of all ...

Much like folks who live in Brooklyn or Queens (two of the five boroughs of NYC located on Long Island) who say they are going to the Island (in actuality meaning Nassau or Suffolk counties also on LI)...you really can't go to somewhere you already are...

You can put your boots in the oven, but that don't make 'em biscuits.

jimHJJ(...spare me your take on the word's etymology and your assumptions on what I do or don't know...)

[GMichael]

I like dark gravey on my toasted boots. But I don't like them baked. They come out too dry. Ever try them deep fried? Yummy.

[bobsticks]

Mr. Newman meet Mr. Safire.
Mr. Safire...Mr. Safire...


...Have a nice day

[nobody]

It really is best just to not argue with people who don't feel the need to be tied to logic in their responses.