Week 5: 50 Records That Changes Music.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

...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?...)

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"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Resident Loser

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nobody

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?...)

---

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. :D

[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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire

...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.

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3-LockBox

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

I agree on all counts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MGH

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3-LockBox

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BradH

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3-LockBox

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...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Resident Loser

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone

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 <a 2-CD album>
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...)

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.

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


...Have a nice day

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3-LockBox

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

Don't trust Swish

---

I'll prolly be sorry I asked! LOL!

Swish - not to be trusted

Without this, I guess one of my favourite all time classics may not have been born: John Mayall & the Blues Breakers. I proudly display a framed copy of this album on my recroom wall with several others.

I see that not a lot has happened on this board since I left for holidays. Been gone for a month now and I'd like to say, "It's good to be back," but with the Greek Isles behind us, I already miss my daily ouzo & iced water by the sea.

How you all doing??

audiobill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Point taken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by audiobill

Without this, I guess one of my favourite all time classics may not have been born: John Mayall & the Blues Breakers. I proudly display a framed copy of this album on my recroom wall with several others.

I see that not a lot has happened on this board since I left for holidays. Been gone for a month now and I'd like to say, "It's good to be back," but with the Greek Isles behind us, I already miss my daily ouzo & iced water by the sea.

How you all doing??

audiobill

---

Glad to hear the trip went well. I was going to post about how one of my favorite "white" blues bands was the Allman Brothers, at least the older stuff like Eat a Peach and Live at the Fillmore East, but I would have been remiss if I didn't mention this one. Were they influenced very much by Robert Johnson? I don't think so.

Anyway, welcome back to the United States of Canada.

Swish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nobody

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.

---

Okay, back on topic, ablums vs. records be damned. I dig RJ alot. I even have the framed poster in my listening room (the photo booth one, not the one in the suit). RJ brings alot of swagger and mystique to the rock and roll image, regardless of the truth. And whats R&R without swagger.

But, Nobody makes and interesting point. I too think blues gets way too much credit. I think Steven Tyler is famous for saying "the blues had a baby and they called it rock and roll." Actually, I think rock and roll grew out of country music much more than anything else. Tyler should be saying "country music lost its twang and they called it rock and roll." That's why I liked the Johnny Cash movie so much. It is one of the few, if not only, major biopic to draw the straight line between country and rock.

Accordingly, I'm waiting with anticipation to see if any country albums show up on the list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlumpBuster

I'm waiting with anticipation to see if any country albums show up on the list.

---

I've seen the list and I won't say. But to be clear, I wouldn't expect any country artists on the list besides Hank Sr; since country has basically followed the same formula for 50 years, with no intent in changing, there hasn't been any real innovators in the genre I could think of, except maybe Cash (whom country music turned their back on a long time ago). We'll see...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swish

albums...records...what's the diff?

I'll prolly be sorry I asked! LOL!

Swish - not to be trusted

---

I wouldn't ask you that question when I know you already know the answer ;)

I'm not sure you can easily argue hillbilly music vs. blues (or, country & western vs. rhythm & blues if you wish, or some variant thereof) & point to one or the other having had all that much more influence in rock'n'roll than the other. Especially given the obvious signs in the music of Hank Williams.

I don't think the blues is given 'too much,' or 'too little' credit. I don't have quite as much hillbilly music as I do 40s & 50s R&B, but there's a great collection that came out a year ago that's one of the few multi-disc sets that hits a dedicated heaping of both sides of the fence to give a much clearer picture, for anyone who's interested in this stuff. It's a worthwhile companion to Nick Tosches' Unsung Heroes Of Rock 'N' Roll, and that's no small compliment.

But, okay, if we dispense with the technicalities of what is & isn't a record album (that good enough for everyone here?), and we accept that the album as we know it just doesn't play that much of a role until the 1950s, then why not get into it a little more.

Someone mentioned that Waylon & Willie were looking to expand the album as an art form within country music? Well, Merle Haggard's in there somewhere as well, but let's not forget about Johnny Cash. If only because the others were, for varying reasons, simply not as prominent, which may be a weak point to argue, but it's the truth. And while he didn't really get going with the 'concept album' thing until a bit later...well, Songs Of Our Soil was 1959, for Pete's sake. That's almost a decade on the Beatles, but while I always tend to chime in when people say Sgt. Pepper was the first 'concept album' by reminding them about Sinatra, this wasn't that far off. Ride This Train was more of a real effort in this area, but, geez, this is still 1960.

The bottom line is that the British blues boom of the 1960s has to be acknowledged by the writers of this piece. Again, I do take issue with what Clapton said about RJ, because you just don't hear it that much in most of the prominent bands that grew out of that scene. And they don't sound like I think it would've had RJ used the instrumentation of beat groups. Strangely, that makes me think more of the likes of Hound Dog Taylor, but that's probably wishful thinking on my part. More like early Muddy Waters & some of the other Aristocrat Records stuff, I guess.

However, the Rolling Stones, their early stuff, sounds a HECK of a lot like Elmore James.

There was one guy in the British scene who has been credited for being the singular, most prominent, most important force in bringing this American music in & doing something with it. I've read quite a bit about Alexis Korner. But I've never seen the name Robert Johnson come up all that much, certainly not enough if you take this placement at face value. He was into Big Bill Broonzy, Tampa Red (the first two names that come to my mind when I see all this latter-day RJ worship), Sonny Terry & Brownie McGhee...Muddy Waters, et al. I've never seen RJ given the sort of status in writings on Korner that you would expect given the prevailing view that RJ is the guy (sorta like the 'prevailing' view that Sgt. Pepper is the best rec ever, or some other Rolling Stone Magazine dogma).

But Tampa Red & Big Bill Broonzy weren't honored with lavish box sets within the past 15 years ago, giving all-knowing critics the opportunity to tell the rock audience that this is the sh*t, man. Unless Bear Family or some other smallfry did something I don't know about...but if that did happen, there was no publicity that I remember on the scale of having the RJ stuff shoved down the collective throat of the rock audience.

Ultimately, who cares? Well, I do happen to like Tampa Red better than RJ, but there are a few guys I like better than RJ. It doesn't really matter. Anyone who cares enough to seek out RJ based on this placement will either not like it & probably wouldn't have liked the blooz anyway, or they'll go & find other things on their own. RJ isn't a bad choice, certainly not a fraud of a pick here, but there are others that are at least arguably as good. They just didn't necessarily do it with one particular record, though, truth be told, it does seem just a bit dubious that this rec was the one. Whatever. I know a lot of people didn't dig the RJ box because they thought they were getting something that sounded like Eric Clapton.

They wouldn't like Tampa Red, either.

But Elmore James?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire

They wouldn't like Tampa Red, either.

But Elmore James?

---

I know he's been covered by many, like the aforementioned Allman Brothers with "Done Somebody Wrong" (from Fillmore East) and Stevie Ray Vaughn's "The Sky is Crying", and the Black Crowe's album "Shake Your Money Maker" was named after an EJ tune, so I suppose he had some influence on them as well. I'd say he was just as influential as Robert Johnson, if not more, at least to the bands I care about.

Of course, I consider you a blues "expert", so I defer to your superior wisdom on the subject.

Swish

Aw, shucks. I'm a dilettante, really. But thanks.

Those are well-known examples, but for something that sums up what I'm getting at, take a look for a tune called "Stranger," or "Stranger Blues," by Elmore James. When Brian Jones said 'I heard Elmore James, and the earth shuddered on its axis,' or whatever the exact quote was, this tune should make anybody understand what he was referring to, relative to his influence on the Rolling Stones, which was clearly THE preeminent one, even taking into account Keith Richards' love of Chuck Berry. Keeping in mind, of course, that it the band was Brian Jones' vision, for the most part, for at least their first couple of years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire

When Brian Jones said 'I heard Elmore James, and the earth shuddered on its axis,' or whatever the exact quote was, this tune should make anybody understand what he was referring to, relative to his influence on the Rolling Stones, which was clearly THE preeminent one, even taking into account Keith Richards' love of Chuck Berry. Keeping in mind, of course, that it the band was Brian Jones' vision, for the most part, for at least their first couple of years.

---

Funny though, Richards was in the liner notes of the Robert Johnson collection from ('89 or '90 I think) along side Eric Clapton giving glowing praise to RJ's music and listing it as a 'main influence'. The Stones did cover Love In Vain.

But maybe it just became fashionable to be quoted saying your main influence was Robert Johnson, even though its obvious to everyone else that it isn't entirely true.

As dubious as this list gets in a few weeks, Johnson's inclusion is just as valid as anything that's come before or after it. But it does remind of how little I know about the history of blues, beyond Johnson.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to denigrate his influence on the Rolling Stones, and Love In Vain wasn't the only Robert Johnson song that they covered, either. I've never considered RJ to be a 'main' influence on the Stones, but what do I know? I do think it's a safe bet that the Johnson cover that put him more on the map, though, was Crossroads.

AMG says that Johnson is the most celebrated figure in blues. I say that doesn't necessarily make him the most significant, but, again, I'm not really arguing against the inclusion of this rec here. I do think, though, that there are factors that weigh in that add up to excluding some of the people I've always read were considered to be just as influential. Including some of the names I've mentioned, others I've seen in this thread, and probably others that aren't worth dragging in here since the point's already been made.

Personally, I think that MCA could've handled the marketing of the Chess catalog better than they have: some of their collections are outstanding. But none that I know of made the noise that the RJ releases did. Altogether not surprising, when you look at how they treated the Who catalog for years. I'm not saying that marketing issues outweigh music issues here. But I do think it's a factor. The Stones issued compliments towards Chess artists that arguably rival Clapton's homage to Johnson, but it wasn't picked up on & used the same way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire

. I've never considered RJ to be a 'main' influence on the Stones, but what do I know?

---

Well, to be accurate, it wasn't a quote from The Stones, it was just Richards himself. Just cuz that particular RJ 'album' made him want to play the guitar, doesn't necessarily mean it was an influence on the band as a whole or that it was the direction they followed, because like you, I don't hear Robert Johnson in a lot of The Stones music at all, at least not in the latter years.

For a band that really whore its blues influences on their sleeves, you have to look at Led Zeppelin. The Stones were afficianodos of the blues, while LZ were practioners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3-LockBox

For a band that really whore its blues influences on their sleeves, you have to look at Led Zeppelin. The Stones were afficianodos of the blues, while LZ were practioners.

---

I would say the opposite. Rather, Page & Plant were afficianados more than actual practitioners. Jeff Beck was sort of the same way, always revving it up and, depending on one's viewpoint, dilluting it or making it more progressive. (Don't laugh. "Progressive Blues" used to be a commonly used term.) In fact, Beck invented the Zep style with the Yardbirds and watched with envy as Page made a fortune with it. But there's a reason Stevie Ray Vaughan thought of Page as some kind of futurist, at least according to Bowie. Although it's funny that SRV was such a Beck fan. Go figure. Anyway, the likes of SRV and Clapton practiced a more traditional style of blues guitars. (I can hear Jay grinding his teeth all the way from the Battery over that one.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire

I'm not sure you can easily argue hillbilly music vs. blues (or, country & western vs. rhythm & blues if you wish, or some variant thereof) & point to one or the other having had all that much more influence in rock'n'roll than the other.

---

Easily argue I will hereby proceed to do.

Consider this: how many blues artists went around incorporating hillbilly songs into their act? None that I'm aware of although there may have been a few random examples. But blues songs were a regular staple with hillbilly music singers. Blues with a twang. Hillbilly Blues it's sometimes called. And it's all over Western Swing. And speaking of that, what is Western Swing if not Western jazz swing? Swing with a twang. Look at jazz swing itself. Can you imagine straight swing without the strong blues element? No matter where you look in the roots of early rock 'n' roll, the blues is everywhere. The counter argument is to say the early rock 'n' rollers listend to both the blues and c&w and were influenced by both. I'll grant that and go one further: they were influenced by everything they heard. But in the grand scheme of things, the blues is the source code for American popular music going all the way back to the days when Fletcher Henderson and Duke Ellington discovered it as the crucial ingredient that held their own music together. It influenced jazz, country, Western Swing, rockabilly, on and on straight up the line into the British Invasion. Hell, you can't even get to prog rock without going through the Yardbirds' rave ups which led to Cream and other free-form jammers breaking the rules.

Yeah, but there's a clear aesthetic divide in the music, and when coupled with the racial divide, the nature of both society & the record business, then you have to look at it just a little differently, I think. Up North I don't think there was a ton of hillbilly music going on, but it was dominant on the radio & in the popular imagination in the South. And though there are probably plenty of exceptions, I think we mostly have to look at the form we think of when we think of Elvis as the genesis, as having come mostly from the South. The roots of which we don't need to get into. Now, if we look at things from the Tosches point of view, then it's a different story entirely, and I'd tend to agree with you. But the blues influencing Duke Ellington doesn't play that much into their effect on Eddie Cochran, I don't think.

The hillbilly music I'm thinking of of course incorporates blues structures, but the Carter Family wasn't singing about the same things Hank Williams was singing about. Mississippi John Hurt, maybe, at time, but definitely not Sonny Boy Williamson. We've had this discussion before, Bill Haley was Western Swing, but no matter how far you travel to link it with Robert Johnson, there's a mighty tall fence to scale there. It's a shame that race is the factor that it is here, but that's the way it was.

Johnny Winter had an album called the Progressive Blues Project.

I think the Stones were both aficionados and practitioners at the same time. Could be that being practitioners was what slowed them down in the competition of sorts that existed in the mid 60s between them, the Beatles, and the Beach Boys. Then again, it led to the recs they put together after the BBs fizzled commercially & the Beatles headed towards solo careers. I think of Zep more as Page's mad creation, incorporating quite a few things along with some of the best electric blues that came out of that movement, with Jones as his musical right-hand man. I'm sick to death of it, but they put together some interesting stuff. But I'm not sure I think of them as aficionados. Maybe Plant. But Page & Jones were far more universal & could've done a lot of different things, and Page already had. The drummer would've played polka if Page ordered it up so far as I can see. I think they kept him on a bit of a leash, something that you couldn't say about Keith Moon. But when they let him go, the results were...boring, in my book anyway. Moby Dick sounds like the biggest waste of time I've ever heard that came of throwing the guy a bone. ZZZZzzzzz.

I don't argue so much on SRV & Clapton being traditionalists. My main beefs with Clapton are glossy production values, a tone I rarely like, and a fondness for middle-of-the-road commercial rock that just sounds less than mediocre coming from the guy who played on that Mayall rec. I actually like quite a bit of what SRV did, I think the rap on him as a new/white/cheesy/rock-blues figure to be mocked for that is not entirely accurate. At least not for his first couple of albums. The tone, again, is not exactly my cup of tea, and the production is a little far into Robert Cray cleanness land for my taste, but the guy could play & had some taste. I guess he could be considered limited as far as his artistic vision, but let's not forget that he was making records already a couple of decades after Hendrix blazed trails that he might've been in the same ballpark with if he'd been younger. Trails that I've never heard in Clapton's playing. Hey, I don't want to make him seem like the 2nd coming, but I think the point is rarely made enough that people making pop and rock records after 1980 have one hell of a legacy of music that it's difficult to avoid in terms of originality, while still injecting some sincerity, inspiration, emotion, and melodies, riffs, & poetry. I think a lot of people could've done great things if they'd been born 20 years before they were who are derided for being part of a new crop of musical pablum that'll never live up to what came before. Ah, I hate to beat this drum, but I think it's something that needs to be said. Especially since there's a poster around here who doesn't seem willing to look at ideas like this. But nevermind that. Sorry.

How did you know I was grinding my teeth?