New topic
PrintableNMuzakNSoul said: Timmy84 said: It's quite interesting considering Marvin's situation at the time. He could've either went a more graphic funk route or he could've went to adult contemporary R&B. It's no telling. Maybe that's why he kinda knew he was gonna live to see past 45, he actually told Ebony magazine in 1981 that he planned to retire after his 50th birthday. He couldn't see himself lasting to the '90s.
It's just hard to tell. I just miss him though. We have to understand though that Marvin's whole life was build out of ironies. I mean that whole thing about him born in April and dying a day before his 45th birthday, and the actions that provoked it, it almost sounds like a tragic movie played out. I honestly don't think he was gonna be like any other artist, yeah he did modernize his sound with "Sexual Healing", he may had found trying to top its success difficult though, that's why he always went left-field whenever he did achieve some level of huge success in the '70s. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
Harlepolis said: Timmy84 said: I think Marvin, first of all, would've decided to stay in Europe, at least in Belgium. Second, he probably would've decided to do music his own way, people who became fans during the "Sexual Healing" period may take the music he did afterwards as a little left base but I think he would've continued to be, as you said, a musical auteur. I think as a live performer, two things could've happened had he lived: he could've either retired for good from the stage, or find a way to have fun onstage.
Lots of things really could've happened. If he had stayed in Europe, he would've remained drug-free and at least normal in the sense of how he saw normalcy (since his life was very erratic and abnormal). What his death did was it made him a myth: he went out the same way Billie Holiday went: as a troubled genius that was defeated by life's adversities. (Both Marvin and Billie died at 44) Very well put, Tim 
Intersting take on the mythology. I think Marvin though had two advantages that worked for him. One, he already TOLD his story(so there was no chance of folks living off the lies that they might've spread about him) Lady who came from a different time, lived by the "if people ask you where've you been, tell them where are you going" saying, so you know she added alot of fuel to the fire with her silent treatment, plus the fact that there aren't no offspring to fight for her legacy, she signed her life away on her death bed to that pimp husband of hers. Two; Marvin is considered a genius, whereas Lady is considered a gifted vocalist/stylist, which is not really abnormal considering that its a "boys club" anyway,,,,RARELY have I heard people refer to Bessie, Sarah, Dinah, Ella, Billie and Aretha as geniuses(ALL who raised the bar and created new standards musically). Might that be because, Aretha aside, the ladies you mentioned either wrote very little or none of their own music? Also, did any of those women produce their own music? Marvin was a singer, writer and producer. Not all of the time but quite often. That's not to say he was "better" but I think if you have one person who is primarily responsible for their music it is easier to tag them as a genius. What about Elvis Presley and Frank Sinatra? Do they ever get tagged as being a genius? I could be wrong but I don't think I've ever heard either of them referred to as such. I kind of put them in the same category as the women you listed. Maybe it has less to do with sexism than it does with them "just" being singers? (Again, Aretha aside) I guess what I am trying to say is that they all relied on other writers, producers and arrangers to create their music where someone like Marvin was more independent. Not completely independent, I don't think Marvin would have gotten anywhere without the musicians he played with but he was able to wear more hats than those you are talking about. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
rialb said: Harlepolis said: Very well put, Tim
Intersting take on the mythology. I think Marvin though had two advantages that worked for him. One, he already TOLD his story(so there was no chance of folks living off the lies that they might've spread about him) Lady who came from a different time, lived by the "if people ask you where've you been, tell them where are you going" saying, so you know she added alot of fuel to the fire with her silent treatment, plus the fact that there aren't no offspring to fight for her legacy, she signed her life away on her death bed to that pimp husband of hers. Two; Marvin is considered a genius, whereas Lady is considered a gifted vocalist/stylist, which is not really abnormal considering that its a "boys club" anyway,,,,RARELY have I heard people refer to Bessie, Sarah, Dinah, Ella, Billie and Aretha as geniuses(ALL who raised the bar and created new standards musically). Might that be because, Aretha aside, the ladies you mentioned either wrote very little or none of their own music? Also, did any of those women produce their own music? Marvin was a singer, writer and producer. Not all of the time but quite often. That's not to say he was "better" but I think if you have one person who is primarily responsible for their music it is easier to tag them as a genius. What about Elvis Presley and Frank Sinatra? Do they ever get tagged as being a genius? I could be wrong but I don't think I've ever heard either of them referred to as such. I kind of put them in the same category as the women you listed. Maybe it has less to do with sexism than it does with them "just" being singers? (Again, Aretha aside) I guess what I am trying to say is that they all relied on other writers, producers and arrangers to create their music where someone like Marvin was more independent. Not completely independent, I don't think Marvin would have gotten anywhere without the musicians he played with but he was able to wear more hats than those you are talking about. Actually, yes, I did hear about him being refered to as a genius. And the reason why you don't hear about Sarah, Billie, Dinah and Ella not being in the recording process because its not remotely thinkable to have women behind the recording booths back in those days. All of those ladies put their energy on re-writing the songs they sang to fit their renditions instead(and yes, they did write some songs for themselves). And if we're gonna judge it by your logic, then Miles Davis shouldn't be considered a genuis either because guess what, he rarely wrote/produced his music  yet, you never hear about Aretha(who wrote/produced her music) as such, now why is that?
But no, to me being a genuis is far deeper than having "producer/writer" tag as a credential. Look at Billie Holiday for example, somebody who made a big influence on a wild spectrum of artists(vocalists, musicians, artists, writers, poets, filmmakers, etc) to this day, that is somebody who's worthy of the genuis title, at least to me. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
rialb said: Honestly? I think we would have gotten a lot of mediocre music had he lived. In general the '80s were not kind to a lot of his peers, artistically speaking, and I see no reason why it would have been different for him. He may have eked out a few more big hits but I don't think they would be fondly remembered today. He probably would have released a series of so-so albums and by the '90s he would have been relegated to a nostalgia act. Of course it's possible that he would have released some fantastic music but I think when he died he was past his peak and creatively he was in decline. I'm not trying to be mean but I'm just offering my honest opinion. Obviously it was tragic they way he died but as far as his musical legacy goes it may have been for the best.
I agree with this.The late 80s was a rough period for many "classic" artists who were popular in the 60s and 70s.They had to adapt to changing musical trends,resulting in very weak albums (Diana Ross' late 80s albums,for example).It would have been disappointing to see Marvin collaborating with rappers in the 90s,or having someone like R.Kelly produce his music Marvin passed away just before R&B began its downward slide. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Harlepolis said: rialb said: Might that be because, Aretha aside, the ladies you mentioned either wrote very little or none of their own music? Also, did any of those women produce their own music? Marvin was a singer, writer and producer. Not all of the time but quite often. That's not to say he was "better" but I think if you have one person who is primarily responsible for their music it is easier to tag them as a genius. What about Elvis Presley and Frank Sinatra? Do they ever get tagged as being a genius? I could be wrong but I don't think I've ever heard either of them referred to as such. I kind of put them in the same category as the women you listed. Maybe it has less to do with sexism than it does with them "just" being singers? (Again, Aretha aside) I guess what I am trying to say is that they all relied on other writers, producers and arrangers to create their music where someone like Marvin was more independent. Not completely independent, I don't think Marvin would have gotten anywhere without the musicians he played with but he was able to wear more hats than those you are talking about. Actually, yes, I did hear about him being refered to as a genius. And the reason why you don't hear about Sarah, Billie, Dinah and Ella not being in the recording process because its not remotely thinkable to have women behind the recording booths back in those days. All of those ladies put their energy on re-writing the songs they sang to fit their renditions instead(and yes, they did write some songs for themselves). And if we're gonna judge it by your logic, then Miles Davis shouldn't be considered a genuis either because guess what, he rarely wrote/produced his music yet, you never hear about Aretha(who wrote/produced her music) as such, now why is that?
But no, to me being a genuis is far deeper than having "producer/writer" tag as a credential. Look at Billie Holiday for example, somebody who made a big influence on a wild spectrum of artists(vocalists, musicians, artists, writers, poets, filmmakers, etc) to this day, that is somebody who's worthy of the genuis title, at least to me. Eh, I think that the arrangers and musicians that Billie, Dinah, Sarah and Ella worked with deserve as much, probably more, credit for re-writing/updating most of the music they recorded. Maybe you disagree but I think that Sarah and Ella in particular made much better music in the '50s and into the '60s when they started working with better arrangers and recorded better songs. I did point out that Aretha was an exception in that she did write some of her music. I also pointed out that the others may have written the odd song but I think you would agree that they were almost completely dependent on other writers for their material. Presley and Sinatra also wrote the odd song but I don't consider them songwriters. It's not necessarily "my logic." I was just offering one possible reason why the women you are referring to may not widely be regarded as geniuses. Of course you are correct, a person doesn't have to be a singer/writer/producer to be a genius. There are some people who do all three that produce, in my opinion, mediocre music. Conversely, there are folks that "only" do one thing but they do it so much better than almost anyone else that they can be considered a genius at what they do. However, I do think that all things being equal if you have someone who just sings as opposed to someone who sings, writes and produces it is easier for the latter to be perceived as being a genius. In the end as long as you enjoy the music I don't think it matters who is referred to as a genius and who is not. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Harlepolis said: rialb said: Might that be because, Aretha aside, the ladies you mentioned either wrote very little or none of their own music? Also, did any of those women produce their own music? Marvin was a singer, writer and producer. Not all of the time but quite often. That's not to say he was "better" but I think if you have one person who is primarily responsible for their music it is easier to tag them as a genius. What about Elvis Presley and Frank Sinatra? Do they ever get tagged as being a genius? I could be wrong but I don't think I've ever heard either of them referred to as such. I kind of put them in the same category as the women you listed. Maybe it has less to do with sexism than it does with them "just" being singers? (Again, Aretha aside) I guess what I am trying to say is that they all relied on other writers, producers and arrangers to create their music where someone like Marvin was more independent. Not completely independent, I don't think Marvin would have gotten anywhere without the musicians he played with but he was able to wear more hats than those you are talking about. Actually, yes, I did hear about him being refered to as a genius. And the reason why you don't hear about Sarah, Billie, Dinah and Ella not being in the recording process because its not remotely thinkable to have women behind the recording booths back in those days. All of those ladies put their energy on re-writing the songs they sang to fit their renditions instead(and yes, they did write some songs for themselves). And if we're gonna judge it by your logic, then Miles Davis shouldn't be considered a genuis either because guess what, he rarely wrote/produced his music yet, you never hear about Aretha(who wrote/produced her music) as such, now why is that?
But no, to me being a genuis is far deeper than having "producer/writer" tag as a credential. Look at Billie Holiday for example, somebody who made a big influence on a wild spectrum of artists(vocalists, musicians, artists, writers, poets, filmmakers, etc) to this day, that is somebody who's worthy of the genuis title, at least to me. Great post btw
The 'genius' title (and often 'artist' title) is seemingly thrown at anyone who can play an instrument or who has their name on the writing credits. An ability to inspire no longer seems like a requisite. It wasn't until I listened to Billie that I realised that true artistry (and thus genius) takes many forms. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
rialb said: Harlepolis said: Actually, yes, I did hear about him being refered to as a genius. And the reason why you don't hear about Sarah, Billie, Dinah and Ella not being in the recording process because its not remotely thinkable to have women behind the recording booths back in those days. All of those ladies put their energy on re-writing the songs they sang to fit their renditions instead(and yes, they did write some songs for themselves). And if we're gonna judge it by your logic, then Miles Davis shouldn't be considered a genuis either because guess what, he rarely wrote/produced his music yet, you never hear about Aretha(who wrote/produced her music) as such, now why is that?
But no, to me being a genuis is far deeper than having "producer/writer" tag as a credential. Look at Billie Holiday for example, somebody who made a big influence on a wild spectrum of artists(vocalists, musicians, artists, writers, poets, filmmakers, etc) to this day, that is somebody who's worthy of the genuis title, at least to me. Eh, I think that the arrangers and musicians that Billie, Dinah, Sarah and Ella worked with deserve as much, probably more, credit for re-writing/updating most of the music they recorded. Maybe you disagree but I think that Sarah and Ella in particular made much better music in the '50s and into the '60s when they started working with better arrangers and recorded better songs. I did point out that Aretha was an exception in that she did write some of her music. I also pointed out that the others may have written the odd song but I think you would agree that they were almost completely dependent on other writers for their material. Presley and Sinatra also wrote the odd song but I don't consider them songwriters. It's not necessarily "my logic." I was just offering one possible reason why the women you are referring to may not widely be regarded as geniuses. Of course you are correct, a person doesn't have to be a singer/writer/producer to be a genius. There are some people who do all three that produce, in my opinion, mediocre music. Conversely, there are folks that "only" do one thing but they do it so much better than almost anyone else that they can be considered a genius at what they do. However, I do think that all things being equal if you have someone who just sings as opposed to someone who sings, writes and produces it is easier for the latter to be perceived as being a genius. In the end as long as you enjoy the music I don't think it matters who is referred to as a genius and who is not. And I respect it but for all the Patrice Rushens, Brenda Russells, Mary Lou Williams, etc etc, you have tons of clueless music snobs who pose as critics with a smirk on their faces if you consider those ladies geniuses or the ones mentioned previously as such(all of them write, sing, produce their music with complete creative ownership. Mary Lou Williams in particular used to arrange bands like Duke Ellington, Tommy Dorsey and Benny Goodman among others).
And no, it doesn't matter to me who gets refer to as such, its subjective, but I can't help but to chuckle at how those so-called music writers reinforce who "they" consider a genius yet you almost see an absence of a WHOLE gender of musicians whose influence is pronounced(if not more, sometimes) than their counterparts. It certainly makes one wonder. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
"People think you just open your mouth up and sing, that's not true it's a more involved than that, it's a process." Diana Ross.
I'm not sure how this notion, if your aren't singer, arranger/songwriter, and/or producer than you are less. When in fact, artist who happen to be arrangers/songwriters are a very recent phenomenon in music. Those who are "switch hitters"....those considered to be brilliant are truly in the minority, still. If one thinks Aretha Franklin, Billie Holiday, Sarah Vaughan, or Dinah Washington just sung notes off the pages of sheet music, I would conclude they have a very narrow if not a rudimentary understanding of music... of what they are listening to. They are the poorer for it.... Bebop is music theory, it an interpretation of how notes could be played or placed within a song. Dizzy Gillespie, Thelonious Monk, Parker, and Bud Powell, all help create a new idiom, they threw octave and chordal melodies out the window. Yes, they were composers in their own right, but they also took many of those songs from the "Great American Songbook" and turned them on their ear. The oldest instrument is the human voice, but these ladies didn't do the very same thing as the gentlemen mentioned? Please. Ms. Holiday, Ms. Vaughan, nor Ms. Washington never sung a song the same way twice. Whatever you heard on a record you weren't ever going to hear it sung that way if you saw them live. Do you think arrangers where their on the side- lines handing them music sheets every time they sung? Ms. Vaughan trio's didn't even use sheet music when they played with her. She sung and musicians had to figure out what key and the music/notes to play. ===== [Edited 5/6/10 13:09pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The arrangers only do the music, they didn't program people's voices to sound as they did so I have to disagree that they just "did what they were told". The singers put their own spin into the songs I think, that's what differs from today's junk food industry. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Timmy84 said: The arrangers only do the music, they didn't program people's voices to sound as they did so I have to disagree that they just "did what they were told". The singers put their own spin into the songs I think, that's what differs from today's junk food industry.
That's why everyone sounds alike. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
No clue , everyone's predictions are interesting . I wish I was a big fan of his I don't know much about him. I do respect him for the great music he gave us. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TD3 said: Timmy84 said: The arrangers only do the music, they didn't program people's voices to sound as they did so I have to disagree that they just "did what they were told". The singers put their own spin into the songs I think, that's what differs from today's junk food industry.
That's why everyone sounds alike.And see when artists back then (like Marvin) did come off sounding like someone else, least they had a support system within a company (as Motown was) and to develop their style. That's why Marvin is so heralded. Lamont Dozier and Eddie Holland and Smokey Robinson all said Marvin took songs THEY wrote and made them his own, I think Marvin interpreted the lyrics or changed some lyrics or did something to them because "Ain't That Peculiar" didn't sound like a Miracles record, "How Sweet It Is" and "Can I Get a Witness" didn't sound like Supremes/Four Tops songs, "I Heard It through the Grapevine" definitely wasn't mocking Norman's Temptations productions. Stevie's "You're the One for Me" didn't sound so Wonder-esque. Marvin would bring his own personality to the songs. He was a great interpreter in the '60s but he also had the added bonus of writing songs himself, playing drums and piano. So he was able to develop as did the other artists mentioned here. A Marvin Gaye at this day and age wouldn't exist in the mainstream, he would be told to sound like Michael or Justin or whoever. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Harlepolis said: Timmy84 said: I think Marvin, first of all, would've decided to stay in Europe, at least in Belgium. Second, he probably would've decided to do music his own way, people who became fans during the "Sexual Healing" period may take the music he did afterwards as a little left base but I think he would've continued to be, as you said, a musical auteur. I think as a live performer, two things could've happened had he lived: he could've either retired for good from the stage, or find a way to have fun onstage.
Lots of things really could've happened. If he had stayed in Europe, he would've remained drug-free and at least normal in the sense of how he saw normalcy (since his life was very erratic and abnormal). What his death did was it made him a myth: he went out the same way Billie Holiday went: as a troubled genius that was defeated by life's adversities. (Both Marvin and Billie died at 44) Very well put, Tim
Intersting take on the mythology. I think Marvin though had two advantages that worked for him. One, he already TOLD his story(so there was no chance of folks living off the lies that they might've spread about him) Lady who came from a different time, lived by the "if people ask you where've you been, tell them where are you going" saying, so you know she added alot of fuel to the fire with her silent treatment, plus the fact that there aren't no offspring to fight for her legacy, she signed her life away on her death bed to that pimp husband of hers. Two; Marvin is considered a genius, whereas Lady is considered a gifted vocalist/stylist, which is not really abnormal considering that its a "boys club" anyway,,,,RARELY have I heard people refer to Bessie, Sarah, Dinah, Ella, Billie and Aretha as geniuses(ALL who raised the bar and created new standards musically). I think tha has more to do with the fact that they are "just" singersrather than there gender. People don't relegate a Joni MItchell to being just a singer, because she's rightly seen as someone who played, wrote, arranged & composed much of her music in her prime. Also in the jazz circles many of these ladies are rightfully regarded as greats but the word "Genius" with that audience, gets seriously put in perspective. You'd have to make a serious SERIOUS argument as to how the legacy and musicianship of Ella, Sarah or Billie is comparable to that of Duke, Bird or Trane. Did Prince ever deny he had sex with his sister? I believe not. So there U have it..
http://prince.org/msg/8/327790?&pg=2 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Sandino said: Harlepolis said: Very well put, Tim
Intersting take on the mythology. I think Marvin though had two advantages that worked for him. One, he already TOLD his story(so there was no chance of folks living off the lies that they might've spread about him) Lady who came from a different time, lived by the "if people ask you where've you been, tell them where are you going" saying, so you know she added alot of fuel to the fire with her silent treatment, plus the fact that there aren't no offspring to fight for her legacy, she signed her life away on her death bed to that pimp husband of hers. Two; Marvin is considered a genius, whereas Lady is considered a gifted vocalist/stylist, which is not really abnormal considering that its a "boys club" anyway,,,,RARELY have I heard people refer to Bessie, Sarah, Dinah, Ella, Billie and Aretha as geniuses(ALL who raised the bar and created new standards musically). I think tha has more to do with the fact that they are "just" singersrather than there gender. People don't relegate a Joni MItchell to being just a singer, because she's rightly seen as someone who played, wrote, arranged & composed much of her music in her prime. Also in the jazz circles many of these ladies are rightfully regarded as greats but the word "Genius" with that audience, gets seriously put in perspective. You'd have to make a serious SERIOUS argument as to how the legacy and musicianship of Ella, Sarah or Billie is comparable to that of Duke, Bird or Trane. But why even compare them to the musicians? I think that's why there's a battle between what makes someone a musician and "just a singer", same thing with what makes someone a "genius". Is it just because they can play all the instruments and sing all the vocals, or does it have to do with how someone would approach a song so much it doesn't even relate to the composer who wrote it? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
If Marvin Gaye was alive around the early 90's, I would have been thrill to see him do a song with Rakim, Big Daddy Kane, OR 2pac. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Better yet, Michael could've done a song with Marvin and put it on the Bad OR Dangerous album. This would've been music history in the makings, IMO. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I always thought if Marvin was in a better frame of mind after "Sexual Healing" reestablished him, he wouldn't have mind doing collaborations, then again, this was a guy who was competitive so he would try to match up with whoever he was collaborating with, be it MJ, Stevie or whoever. If Marvin had lived, I could've seen Hall & Oates doing something with him like they did with David Ruffin & Eddie Kendricks on their duet album. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Timmy84 said: Sandino said: I think tha has more to do with the fact that they are "just" singersrather than there gender. People don't relegate a Joni MItchell to being just a singer, because she's rightly seen as someone who played, wrote, arranged & composed much of her music in her prime. Also in the jazz circles many of these ladies are rightfully regarded as greats but the word "Genius" with that audience, gets seriously put in perspective. You'd have to make a serious SERIOUS argument as to how the legacy and musicianship of Ella, Sarah or Billie is comparable to that of Duke, Bird or Trane. But why even compare them to the musicians? I think that's why there's a battle between what makes someone a musician and "just a singer", same thing with what makes someone a "genius". Is it just because they can play all the instruments and sing all the vocals, or does it have to do with how someone would approach a song so much it doesn't even relate to the composer who wrote it? Less not forget Billie Holiday was a arranger/songwriter. Mr. Ellington was prolific composure but his partners (Strayhorn for example) wrote a lot of music for which Ellington put his name on. At that, has anyone heard those two sing any of their music or any of the songwriters from the "Great American Songbook".? That's all I have to say. 
===== [Edited 5/8/10 19:27pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TD3 said: Timmy84 said: But why even compare them to the musicians? I think that's why there's a battle between what makes someone a musician and "just a singer", same thing with what makes someone a "genius". Is it just because they can play all the instruments and sing all the vocals, or does it have to do with how someone would approach a song so much it doesn't even relate to the composer who wrote it? Less not forget Billie Holiday was a arranger/songwriter. Mr. Ellington was prolific composure but his partners (Strayhorn for example) wrote a lot of music for which Ellington put his name on. At that, has anyone hear those two sing any of their music or any of the songwriters from the "Great American Songbook".? That's all I have to say.
===== [Edited 5/8/10 18:14pm] You hit the nail on the head. Sarah as shown in that video used her voice like an instrument and yes Billy Strayhorn wrote most of Ellington's hits (much like Bobby Byrd and Fred Wesley wrote the majority of James' hits). And yes Billie indeed was a COLLABORATOR so there was a connection between her and whoever musician she was working with. They need more credit than some people give them as far as "just being singers to great musicians". Not saying some of y'all are dissing them but it's just not what they all were. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Timmy84 said: TD3 said: Less not forget Billie Holiday was a arranger/songwriter. Mr. Ellington was prolific composure but his partners (Strayhorn for example) wrote a lot of music for which Ellington put his name on. At that, has anyone hear those two sing any of their music or any of the songwriters from the "Great American Songbook".? That's all I have to say.
===== You hit the nail on the head. Sarah as shown in that video used her voice like an instrument and yes Billy Strayhorn wrote most of Ellington's hits (much like Bobby Byrd and Fred Wesley wrote the majority of James' hits). And yes Billie indeed was a COLLABORATOR so there was a connection between her and whoever musician she was working with. They need more credit than some people give them as far as "just being singers to great musicians". Not saying some of y'all are dissing them but it's just not what they all were.There's some debate if Holdiay had "collaborators" at all, she wrote 11 songs. I think "some people" slapped their names on them as "co-writers". No different than Irvin Mills (Ellington's manager) slapping his name on Mr. Ellington's earlier works and that fool had about as much to do with Ellington's composing as you or I. When it's all said in done, we've been blessed because we"ll never see the likes of those ladies Billie Holiday, Ella Fitzgerald, Sarah Vaughan, and Dinah Washington in nobody's life time. Just as with "classical music" and it's various time periods and stages of development. those composers, musicans, and singers were and are the standard-bearers.....then there's everbody else. I've yet to hear any of those everybodies do anything unique and/or revolutinary. Doesn't mean there aren't any good singers that just it, Holiday, Fitzgerald, Vaughan, and Washington weren't just good singers.
===== [Edited 5/9/10 4:31am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TD3 said: Timmy84 said: You hit the nail on the head. Sarah as shown in that video used her voice like an instrument and yes Billy Strayhorn wrote most of Ellington's hits (much like Bobby Byrd and Fred Wesley wrote the majority of James' hits). And yes Billie indeed was a COLLABORATOR so there was a connection between her and whoever musician she was working with. They need more credit than some people give them as far as "just being singers to great musicians". Not saying some of y'all are dissing them but it's just not what they all were.There's some debate if Holdiay had "collaborators" at all, she wrote 11 songs. I think "some people" slapped their names on them as "co-writers". No different than Irvin Mills (Ellington's manager) slapping his name on Mr. Ellington's earlier works and that fool had about as much to do with Ellington's composing as you or I. When it's all said in done, we've been blessed because we"ll never see the likes of those ladies Billie Holiday, Ella Fitzgerald, Sarah Vaughan, and Dinah Washington in nobody's life time. Just as with "classical music" and it's various time periods and stages of development. those composers, musicans, and singers they were and are the standard-bearers.....then there's everbody else. I've yet to hear any of those everbbodies do anything unique and/or revolutinary. Doesn't mean there aren't any good singers that just it, Holiday, Fitzgerald, Vaughan, and Washington weren't just good singers.
===== [Edited 5/8/10 19:00pm]   | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Timmy84 said: I always thought if Marvin was in a better frame of mind after "Sexual Healing" reestablished him, he wouldn't have mind doing collaborations, then again, this was a guy who was competitive so he would try to match up with whoever he was collaborating with, be it MJ, Stevie or whoever. If Marvin had lived, I could've seen Hall & Oates doing something with him like they did with David Ruffin & Eddie Kendricks on their duet album.
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |