Article on Aretha Franklin - The Greatest?

[AllenLowe]

in musical terms - jazz, blues, country, rhythm and blues, rock and roll - WW II is the line. From all I have listened to, which  is a lot.

Edited April 4, 2016 by AllenLowe

[medjuck]

Yes I have to check myself when I'm about to say "post-war" since younger people now ask me "which war?".  Of course that's now also true when I say "turn of the century".  I'v taught myself to say "turn of the 20th Century". 

[AllenLowe]

I include all the secret wars that US intelligence has waged. Gets very complicated....

[JSngry]

1 hour ago, Larry Kart said:

Love you, too, but I'll stick by that claim that the pre-World War II and post-World War II divide dwarfs anything we've seen since -- culturally, politically, socially, economically, you name it. For one thing, only after (and largely because of) WW II did the US become a full-fledged international power, whether it wanted to or not. Born in the early spring of 1942, I have no direct literal experience of the pre-WW II U.S., but a whole lot of what we were in the '20s and '30s and before was still hanging around to be felt and observed when I was young and conscious, and you wouldn't believe how different it was in all sorts of ways. Further -- and this I did directly experience -- I do have memories and feelings of what it was like to be born and live for a while in a civilization that not only was at war, with my father and a great many other fathers in the service and perhaps not coming home (this not comparable to anything we've had since on that front), but also was fighting a war in which, when I was born and for a fair while afterwards, it was possible that we might not prevail, and this against Nazi Germany and Japan.

No less important -- and I've noticed this time and again -- I of course have a good many friends who were born after the big wave of post-WW II prosperity and the rise of suburbia and the consumer culture we now all take for granted began to kick in --  say, around 1950. The big dividing line there, in terms of sensibility (or so it has seemed to me for a long time), is that if you were born during WW II or earlier, you perforce lived within the framework of history -- the events of today and tomorrow fundamentally were tied to, emerged from, and were shaped by aspects of the past. (To pick one obvious example, WW II itself was shaped by the nature of Germany and related matters going back a good long ways -- no WW I, no Versailles Treaty, no collapse of the German economy, no world-wide Depression, no simmering stew pot of German anti-Semitism, no Hitler, no WW II). If you were born after 1950, I think that the framework of history in the sense I just mentioned (as part of one's overt or implicit sensibility)  became semi-arbitrary, if it had much if any force at all -- life took place in one long today and tomorrow, not a today conditioned by yesterday. If there was much past, it existed like a channel on your TV set (and that most people had one of those after a while was a huge deal in shaping one's sense of life as a near-endless today); you could visit the "past" for fun or for thrills and chills, but it was no longer  a limiting, shaping, inspiring presence, an unavoidable reality, in American life. Actually, one of the nice incidental signs of this shift in sensibility were the odd little bursts of cultural nostalgia that arose from time to time in the post WW II era, and particularly post 1960, where guys like R. Crumb became fervent collectors of "vintage" cultural debris from the American musical and otherwise pasts. The sense that something precious had been or was being lost, of course, but also the sense that contemporary life had and perhaps could have no equivalents of this almost lost authenticity.

Well, ok then. That's not the same as saying that Viet Nam had no - or at best, minimal - lasting cultural impact, which is what it appeared was being said earlier, and which I find to be an absurdly simplistic, and wrong, assessment.

And keep an eye on this post(Iraq)war thing...if Viet Nam was the acid trip war of scarydevilgenies being let out of the bottle and then seemingly disappearing once an illusory mass sobriety took hold, what we're in now is an methoid brainrattle abandonment of that "sobriety", and a willingness to let those genies - and any other ones that come along -  back into the game as allies.

 

[JSngry]

1 hour ago, medjuck said:

Yes I have to check myself when I'm about to say "post-war" since younger people now ask me "which war?".  Of course that's now also true when I say "turn of the century".  I'v taught myself to say "turn of the 20th Century". 

I've no statistics to back this up, but anecdotal evidence suggests that the Iraq war did more for the notion of "professional soldier", not simply as an expression of a calling, but also as the best economic option available, that anything I've seen in my lifetime.

For the young people who have gone through all that - and continue to deal with the aftermath of it, "postwar" ain't gonna have shit to do with either Sinatra, Aretha, Beatles, Dylan, none of that shit.

And never mind all the new - and undoubtedly  unending - rounds of answer records coming out of the various terrorist/"terrorist" indie labels..

Remember sex before AIDS? Those of us who do ain't getting any younger. And now we got remembering America before Iraq, which these days...and how many are left remember life before Viet Nam?

"postwar"...it's just a silly notion if it extends out into the infinite, because it seems that America has damn near always been getting its war on at some point or another, little lulls here and there but not for TOO long, and it seems like all these wars bring about their changes to the national psyche, but if you want to not feel too creepy about that, sure, just call it all "postwar" and, oh yeah, WWII, that was Epic, hooray!

Shit, we've still not gotten over postwar as in Civil War.

[medjuck]

Yes I have to check myself when I'm about to say "post-war" since younger people now ask me "which war?".  Of course that's now also true when I say "turn of the century".  I'v taught myself to say "turn of the 20th Century". 

 

And what used to be called "modern" in terms of art and architecture is now called  "mid-century". 

[A Lark Ascending]

When I see post-war I always assume it means after 1648. Now there was dividing line!

I'm sure WWII was part of a wider series of social changes, but the big demarcation point I see in the UK lies between my generation and my parents (OK, that could just be a natural perception that your parents never really get it). When I grew up Afro-Caribbean immigration was already well established and substantial immigration from Asia was in process; black musical influences from the USA especially within rock and pop were part of the culture around me. My parents, by contrast were very uncomfortable with immigration having grown up in a Britain where non-white immigration was limited and where popular music was largely white with the occasional appearance of 'characters' like Louis Armstrong (think of the 'High Society' role) and Harry Belafonte. I remember both parents would grimace at the sort of gospel/soul inflections in the music that came to dominate in the 60s. Where the likes of George Formby, Vera Lynn or Gracie Fields just sounded ludicrous to my ears (many's the time I got the 'You'd not be so mocking if you'd lived through the war' lecture!). 

Interesting that the musical influences seem to now have been completely absorbed. It's popular music that does not phrase via those gospel/soul styles that seem unusual today. However, the issues surrounding ethnicity in every day life would seem to have changed far less than we once imagined if current debates about migration and Europe are anything to go by.

A different experience from the USA, I know.

I could also be controversial and suggest a more influential watershed than Vietnam was the dominance of free market dogma from the 70s/80s. Not sure how that has impacted on music but it's certainly upset the apple cart everywhere else. And then there's technology....  

 

Edited April 5, 2016 by A Lark Ascending

[paul secor]

Postwar/which war doesn't mean much to me. However people take that term is up to them.

I was interested in the fact that David Remnick's comments about popular singers seemed to only include r&b and soul singers. My first thought was, what about country singers? - Hank Williams, Merle Haggard - gospel singers? - Rev. Claude Jeter and Sam Cooke (actually, there are many, many gospel singers I'd rather listen to before I'd want to listen to Aretha singing gospel)  - or singers from non-American cultures? - I immediately thought of Cesaria Evora - and Billie and Louis can't be denied. If someone thinks that Aretha is "the greatest" - I wouldn't go there myself, there are just too many fine singers who are still with us and who have left us - that's ok for them, but I feel that there's too large a musical world out there to make that statement.

I enjoy listening to Aretha Franklin at times, but I feel that she's been riding on the coat tails of her Atlantic recordings from the late 60's since that time. Just my opinion on that.

[John L]

 

1 hour ago, paul secor said:

Postwar/which war doesn't mean much to me. However people take that term is up to them.

I was interested in the fact that David Remnick's comments about popular singers seemed to only include r&b and soul singers. My first thought was, what about country singers? - Hank Williams, Merle Haggard - gospel singers? - Rev. Claude Jeter and Sam Cooke (actually, there are many, many gospel singers I'd rather listen to before I'd want to listen to Aretha singing gospel)  - or singers from non-American cultures? - I immediately thought of Cesaria Evora - and Billie and Louis can't be denied. If someone thinks that Aretha is "the greatest" - I wouldn't go there myself, there are just too many fine singers who are still with us and who have left us - that's ok for them, but I feel that there's too large a musical world out there to make that statement.

I enjoy listening to Aretha Franklin at times, but I feel that she's been riding on the coat tails of her Atlantic recordings from the late 60's since that time. Just my opinion on that.

 Yea, but those are SOME kind of coat tails to ride on.  It went on well into the 70s too.   For example, I consider "Angel" to be one of her most definitive performances.  I get major goosebumps every time I hear her sing the bridge after the instrumental passage - just unreal.   By the late 70s, she lost a step.  Her voice changed.  It happens to the best of us.   She was still capable of great performances, but it never again quite reached the earlier heights.  Should we hold that against her?  

Yes, there are plenty of other great singers.  But Aretha is certainly in my Pantheon.  Pre-war, post-war, any kind of music - Aretha in her prime could hold her own with anybody. 

 

Edited April 5, 2016 by John L

[JSngry]

Quite coincidentally found some upperend cable channel last night that was carrying something call Get.TV and one of their slots was filled with a Kraft Music Hall episode called Woody Allen Looks At 1967. Totally wiggy, and Aretha had a spot singing Respect & Chain of Fools surrounded bu the Peter Gennaro Dancers and all sorts of design...Aretha was presented as a prop for the production number and was relegated to jumping up and down on a pedestal like a little girl. She never got a full closeup. Lisa Minelli got to sing and act, and William F. Buckley participated in a tightly edited bantering session with Woody & the audience.

Prior to that was an episode of The Judy Garland Show that Mel Torme wrote that book about. It was one of the last ones, all Garland, with one appearance of the Buddy Cole trio accompanying her. Everything else was full orchestra (and more) and Judy Garland, wonderful pitch, but the time like a speed freak, everything stepping on the beat from the top. That was uncomfortable, a variety show without variety. One or two arrangements took some really nifty turns, but most were the ongoing same thing. I can only conclude that The Judy Garland Show failed simply because Judy Garland on TV for an hour was too creepy for most people. It was for me.

Next Monday, Get.TV will have an episode of The Merv Griffin Show with guests Willie Mays, Lionel Hampton, and Tallulah Bankhead.

 

[paul secor]

Willie, Hamp, and Tallulah - I'd like to catch that trio.

[JSngry]

AND Merv!

[Cyril]

  I don't like her kind of singing, it makes me nervous.  

[mjzee]

I just finished reading the article.  I think y'all are making too much of this.  Remnick set out to write an overly-glowing portrait of Aretha.  I mean, jeez, that's about all we get these days in writings about pop stars - if the writer offends, access gets cut off.  That part of the article's flackery; the good parts of the article (and there are many) go into Aretha's history in Detroit, her beginnings in show business, the portrait of her performing at a Canadian casino, the sad realities of Detroit today, and the uncertainties regarding the movie of Amazing Grace.  Try to get past the puffery and get into the meat of the article; you won't be disappointed.

[paul secor]

That's one way to look at it, but when you begin an article by referring to someone as the greatest anything, you're setting yourself up to get called out for it.

[JSngry]

Same thing with the culturally thuggish use of "post-war".

[duaneiac]

1 hour ago, paul secor said:

That's one way to look at it, but when you begin an article by referring to someone as the greatest anything, you're setting yourself up to get called out for it.

Well, except for Muhammad Ali, of course.  When his time comes and articles, obituaries and remembrances are written about him, 99% of them will use the phrase "The Greatest" -- and they will be correct.