Real simple question: Are there great soul albums from the 1960s? We all take for granted that the art of album making didn’t really come into being until Rubber Soul et al, but beside James Brown’s Live at the Apollo, not a lot of great soul albums spring to mind if you discount hits collections and other live albums, such as Otis Redding’s excellent and fast-paced Live in Europe lp. I don’t own Aretha Franklin‘s Lady Soul, but that’s often a ’60s soul album that’s thrown into the mix when people list greatest albums of the ’60s. I know some of the songs from multiple hits collections of Aretha that I own. Is the album itself actually great and unified, or is it a typical collection of singles and cover tune filler?
Someone’s bound to suggest a Ray Charles album, and be my guest. I find his music boring in long stretches, but I’ll take your word for the genius of Ray Charles. Surely I am missing a truly great soul album that was recorded as an album in the 1960s! I think of soul album making beginning with Marvin Gaye‘s Let’s Get it On and Stevie Wonder‘s first mature works of 1970 and beyond. Surely I’m overlooking some earlier keepers. Make me feel stupid, Rock Town Hall!
Not really related…more of the fabulous Joe Tex after this jump!
Does Dusty in Memphis count?
I was afraid that would be nominated. I’m not conviced of the album’s greatness, but I’ll let it stand.
Booker T and MGs: Soul Dressing. Awesome.
http://www.google.com/musicl?lid=4EJNYWTakvM&aid=mBjyoGzRjlE
Ah, I was gonna say the first Donny Hathaway album, but although much of it was recorded in the 60s, it wasn’t released until July 1970.
The other two I can think of are live albums also, Sam Cooke Live at the Harlem Club and Etta James Rocks The House, which is on the soul/blues borderline.
Is Soul Dressing a great album or an album that you, in particular, love, Townsman Trolleyvox? I’ve got some Booker T and the MGs collections that are good, but I’ve never thought of them as a band aiming to make cohesive albums until McLemore Road, which is at least packaged like it aims to be a cohesive album. I’m willing to be ignorant here.
Yes, Mwall, I thought of Hathaway’s first, and I was surprised to learn that Andyr’s favorite soul album (in a cohesive sense), Psychedelic Shack wasn’t released until 1970. For some reason I thought that was a 1969 release, which might have made it more groundbreaking than is typically acknowledged.
How about Stevie Wonder and Marvin Gaye? Did either release a great proto-cohesive albums in the late, late-60s?
I picked Soul Dressing up at a yard sale on cassette, and, as I said, it’s amazing. A wonderful listen. Why the distinction between a great album and album that I love? I don’t know what they were aiming for. That’s a bit of an odd question, too. It’s a great record regardless of what they were aiming for. Probably they just wanted to put out great songs and weren’t thinking in terms of albums. Most pop/soul artists in 1965 were thinking about singles, right? Sure, it’s a collection of originals and covers. But Booker T and the MGs were really hitting musical paydirt at the time and the album reflects a group totally hitting its stride. Thus, a great album. You’re splitting hairs, man. Do you need a high concept or some artistic unified field theory for it to be “great”?
Along with “great” maybe I should have clarified my question with asking for an example of a soul album that was actually made to be an album, the way some mid-60s albums are purported to have been made, which was supposedly a new phenomenon in rock ‘n roll. Maybe this is just post-Beatles revisionism that I’ve swallowed hook, line, and sinker, but I thought Rubber Soul, Revolver, Blonde on Blonde, Pet Sounds, et al were supposed to have broken new ground, ground more consciously developed as an ALBUM than, say, The Trousers Sing “She’s My Kind of Girl” and 11 Lame Chuck Berry Covers. So, I respect your love for that album and don’t deny its groove factor, just as I would hope you respect my feelings that The Supremes A’ Go-Go and Smokey Robinson’s Goin’ to a Go-Go albums are great, fun spins but not necessarily cohesive, distinctive albums. I’m sorry for structuring this discussion around the sort of nonsense that Critics spew out, but for my own listening pleasure I am willing to pick up even the sort of suggestions that I must reject according to the rigorous terms of this thread.
By the way, as you ponder this topic, please don’t miss out on the Joe Tex videos!
I’m surprised that no one has mentioned Otis Redding’s Otis Blue yet. To be completely honest, I don’t own it (I just have an old Rhino very best of), but it’s always thrown around as one of the all-time greats in this category. What about Sly and the Family Stone’s Stand. I do own it and don’t think it’s a particularly cohesive album (though of course it has moments of greatness), but it’s generally very well-regarded. Or did it not come out until 1970 or something?
Otis Blue is the other ’60s soul album, along with the Aretha one and a couple of Ray Charles albums, that get’s thrown around. It has a couple of great songs, but is it an essential soul album, or do you just do what I’ve always done: buy more hits collections and live albums by Otis Redding?
Stand is a great album, but if I’m going to consider Dusty in Memphis a soul album I’ve got to consider Stand a rock album. File under ROCK..
BigSteve, any of the artists down your way release cohesive albums in the late-60s? I never know a lot about the chronology of New Orleans music.
Man, you are all about rules with this thread. What gives, man?
Did anyone hear the Scharpling and Wurster bit on WFMU a few weeks ago regarding “The Power Pop Pop-Pop”? It was like looking into the dark night of the soul of RTH!
Hmm…an interesting distinction. And yet, there have been plenty of albums that were conceived of as cohesive albums which suck, or at least are as shakey as The Twiddlers Sing “She’s Nasty” and 11 Lame songs that the Yardbirds Covered”. I guess the concept of the ALBUM as a distinct entity from a thrown-together collection only fascinates when it succeeds as such (breaking ground as opposed to breaking wind). Otherwise, I’ll take my Booker T album, which for me, anyway, certainly beats out many a conceived album. Is it somehow a lesser thing if that element of album ambition is absent? I guess that decade marked the appearance of pop music as high ART rather than just fun or a commodity. Pop got self-conscious, if you will. Many artists realized their own power and importance. Sure it was revolutionary and wonderfully pretentious at the time, but I can’t help but think there is a certain revisionist nostalgia going on here. Are albums somehow less artful if they aren’t self-aware? Saturnismine probably has something to say about this regarding the world of fine art.
I propose “Soul Of a Bell” by William Bell — a nicely unified set of tunes, including the *awesome*, shoulda-been-a-hit “Eloise (Hang On In There)”. Slightly less “unified” in concept — not that I don’t think that’s a bullshit rockist requirement to begin with — but equally great is the Sam & Dave LP “Soul Men.”
Moderator,
This is a real snoozer of a thread. It’s time for you to rip Beggar’s Banquet a new asshole. Again, you’ll come up with a lot of crap that I’ll wholeheartedly disagree with, but at least it’ll keep things from getting stagnant around these parts.
I am waiting. . . . I am waiting.
E. Pluribus
I think if an artist is really on top of his/her game, an album comprised of hits plus covers/filler can be a great album, can work as an album, even if it doesn’t have some kind of overarching concept. Any of the earliest Arethas on Atlantic are examples of this thesis. Barbara Lynn”s You’ll Lose a Good Thing as well.
Something Else by the Kinks is an album we might propose as a great album, but after all it was basically just the stuff the Kinks had recorded at the time collected on one platter. It sounds ‘unified’ because the Kinks sensibility and ability were unified at that moment.
To answer Jim’s question, I was going to suggest the recently discussed Yes We Can by Lee Dorsey as well as the Meters’ Look A Py Py, but it turns out both of those are dated 1970. I remember a very good Aaron Neville album called Tell It Like It Is, but I can’t seem to find it listed anywhere, and it may have been a compilation. I’m not intimately familiar with Fats Is Back (the one with Lady Madonna and Lovely Rita on it), but it has many admirers.
I only have comps by The Impressions, but I bet a few of their 60s albums hang together pretty well, since they had an in house writer in Curtis Mayfield.
Phil Spector’s Christmas album? Is that soul?
E Pluribus wrote:
This is part of a larger process. I’m sorry you’re finding it boring just as I’m sorry others are troubled by the growing amount of guidelines and restrictions. So far, Phil Spector’s Christmas album is among the few contenders.
Oh, and Soul of a Bell is a good nomination too. It’s centered around a good title and cover design, and the music sounds like it was put together and played of a same mind.
Moderator,
Big Steve drives me out of my friggin’ skull, but I’ve gotta give credit where credit is due. That Philles Christmas LP is indeed a winner. It’s a solid long player, and it is a concept LP. Truth be told, it’s the only real solid sixties soul LP besides James Brown Live at the Apollo, Vol. I. No need to piss away any more time on finding the golden nugget that doesn’t exist.
Know what I want right here and now? I want your ten favorite country songs. Let me reword that since I know you’re not a fan of the genre. Name 10 country songs that you can tolerate. And I don’t want any rock influenced country. I want the real stuff. Any era is fine as long as it’s truck-drivin’, whiskey drinkin’, cow buggerin’ country.
Reasons for the choices would also be appreciated.
Hope to hear from you soon,
E. Pluribus
Jeez, you want me to list 10 country songs I can tolerate – and not country-rock shit? That, my friend, might qualify as the offer I proposed for you to ask me any 10 tough questions. Nah, that invitation still stands, but answering this one might be tougher to do. I’ll tell you what, I’ll see if I can make some time to do that tonight and then I’ll post them separately with my comments tonight. Fair enough? I think the benefit of me posting my 10 most tolerable country songs will be to give more knowledgeable folks a chance to admire my good, if limited, taste in this area.
Come on, Plurbie — what’s wrong with “Soul Of a Bell” and “Soul Men”? You’re my vinyl guru, and I need to know!
Yours respectfully, though in a bit of discomfort in these Y-fronts you recommend,
FS
Nothing at all. My fear is what you truly believe -that “A New World Record” is better than “Soul of a Bell” and “The Black Album” is better than “Soul Men”.
C’mon! Take off the mask!
E. Pluribus
I too feel like there’s something strange about the initial question. The idea that soul music could be used not just for singles but for album-length concepts didn’t really come about until the 70s, so I’m not sure what the point is of saying that they don’t exist in the 60s, or if they do, that’s only because one or two records had very little filler in the singles they strung together. If the Spector record is an exception, that’s because Christmas, you know, was a concept for a record that was already around.
So I want to know what’s the difference between asking this question and asking, say, what’s the best 70s rock album made in the 60s? I mean, maybe there’s an answer, but if so I’d like to hear it.
I’m going to find Mr. Mod’s country list a fun experience too.
Mwall, I see what you’re saying, but at the heart of my question – as a record buyer and music lover – is, IS there a great ’60s soul album – an album constructed as an album, that is – that would be worth checking out. I own a number of collections by a lot of soul artists from the ’60s, and they are usually very good if not fantastic. However, anytime I’ve shelled out for an ALBUM made before the ’70s, there’s an obvious lag in the art of album making among soul musicians. It’s not a bad thing at all for many of these musicians, because even when the likes of Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, and especially Curtis Mayfield got into self-conscious album making, their hits to turds ratio got closer to 1:1. I was hoping that there might be some transitional albums from the late-60s by these artists that flew under the radar and that would be worth picking up. I’ve got some of those initial Curtom releases by late-period Impressions and solo Curtis Mayfield, and they really suck. Maybe I should try one of the Stevie Wonder albums from right before he gained full artistic independence and unbridled vision, so to speak.
Ah, I see. You were asking a question because it was a question you wanted an answer to, rather than because you were trying to prove something by asking it. You can see maybe why I was confused.
Well, it was released in 1971, so doesn’t really count here, but Stevie’s “Where I’m Coming From” is plenty good.
I think the answer to Jim’s question is “not really” but if you extend the deadline to 1973, you will find many.
My sense is that this is due to record labels – Motown especially – where there was no economic resaon to allow a “great album” to be recorded. Collections of singles and live albums are way more popular.
It wasn’t until Marvin Gaye and Stevie Wonder were able to renegotiate their contracts and get artistic control that they put out “What’s Going on” or “Talking Book”