Great stuff this week. Not only is the recording quality obviously getting better as we pass through the decades, but in my opinion also the skill of artistry. This is readily apparent in the very first of the required listening examples. Frank Sinatra's voice is so skillfully delicate, it is a little wonder as to why he rose to such popularity and was able to continue his career for so long. Just reading about his attempts to learn and become better, and the amount of shows he was able to sing in one week in quite astounding.
The first elective listening I did was to Perez Prado's Mambo #5, mainly because I remembered David Ignacio's version, which starts of using the words "Ladies and Gentlemen, this is Mambo #5." I was just interested in seeing if there were any similarities, and to my relative surprise, much of the rhythmic, harmonic, and melodic components are strikingly similar. Obviously the recording in the listening example does not have vocals, but in comparison to the amount of takeaways that the Ignacio version used, I choose to overlook it as a fairly small element that was added in the newer arrangement. In an effort to stay up-to-date and current, one could hardly expect that vocals would not be added.
Going back to the required listening "Choo Choo Ch'Boogie" was a song I just loved. It's another one of those songs that I feel like I've heard before at some point, but not really sure if I have. Partly because of how the jump blues style is audibly a precursor to certain artist's early rock 'n' roll. I do not consider myself the most learned individual especially in the popular music genre, but I was surprised that the name Louis Jordan did not ring a bell for me. It's not surprising with its straight forward form of 12-bar blues and 8-bar chorus and lyrics that were familiar to many that it became the first successful version of rhythm & blues.
Another piece I had to listen to was Muddy Waters, just because, and it did not disappoint. This has always been one of the concepts of what blues is in my mind, very possibly because I'm a Chicagoan and this is Chicago electric blues style. The extremely clearly defined call and response sections, where the call section in the ensemble is the exactly the same line, while the vocals are musically very much the same with just a few changes in lyrics is just so simple, but as the text states "gritty" it has always appealed to me.
"Hound Dog" was another song I chose to listen to based on a previous conception of what I thought it would sound like. I was expecting the Elvis version (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MnmIVBSZYM), especially with us getting into the rock 'n' roll era, but I was surprised when I listened and read the text indicating it was a blues song and that this version by "Big Mama" Thorton preceded the Elvis version. I would say that it is an equal if not superior version, maybe just in the fact that it is always a point of contention for me to change an original if it was so good to begin with. The fact Elvis did a new version so soon afterwards is also surprising to me, even though after all the reading it shouldn't be, since there appears to be a long standing tradition of doing covers and arrangements on popular music of the day, to capitalize on its success.
I next listened to "Shake, Rattle, and Roll," both the original by Joe Turner and the cover by Bill Haley and the Comets, which only accentuated the thoughts of the previous paragraph. yes, there were some lyric changes, and the style was a little different, slightly more up-tempo, with more guitar than saxes, but wow! It amazes me that one would reach such heights in comparison to another version so close in succession. I cannot say I like one better than the other, they are similar, but different, just like most cover bands today. I guess it just goes to show how dominating racial bias still was in those days.
Then I listened to "Maybellene" by Chuck Barry, and other than the tempo, which admittedly really does have a significantly faster tempo than songs we have listened to in this class, it doesn't seem like a song that should have had any more success than other songs of the era. That points back to popular music in general though, in which a group or artist can rise to stardom very quickly just based on something slightly new, a niche that had not been reached in the general public yet, for one reason or another.
Listening to "Long Tall Sally" seems to be in direct contrast to the above, in which it is very obviously something new. Granted, for its time, and even now, it was a bit over the top, but that's why so many liked it, it flagrantly showed off something that had not been done before, and in this case I am not surprised at all. So what's the difference between Little Richard and Chuck Berry? I hesitate to say, but it would seem that this difference comes from savvy marketing, and businessmen who knew when to jump on something new.
Elvis and "Don't be Cruel" is almost exactly what I expected, with the exception that his voice is a little higher in this recording than I would have imagined. I was waiting for the chance to listen to Elvis in this week's listening excerpts, and I found myself experiencing something new, gotta love that! I guess I am just not as familiar with Elvis as I thought I would be from the constant saturation we experience with his music even today.
Finally I listened to The Coasters doing "Charlie Brown" another song I recognized. I've never really thought about why I liked it before, but after the analysis it seems so obvious. The silly style sax solo, great for portraying a class clown which the lyrics are about (which also appeals to kids, going back to the first time I heard this song as well being when I was a kid), and elements like the artificial high voices that for me are reminiscent of Alvin and the Chipmunks!
We have now been getting into more music I recognize and have actively enjoyed in the past, so this week was fun, and I cannot wait until the next!
No comments:
Post a Comment