At 04:19 AM 2/2/99 -0500, mr. mazor wrote about motown:
>Well, it was ALL manufactured to get to Top 40 if it could! And they both
>had distinctive sounds, after all. But Motown's ambition was to do
>something else--to produce acts that could break through to take in he big
>bucks and yes respect appearing live anywhere--including Las Vegas, night
>clubs, movies, television--none of which had very much been possible.
Exactly. The Motown story (and Stax too, for that matter, and Elvis and
Hank and a graet majority of all of the pre-punk music we talk about on
this list) is proof positive that great art and great commercial success
are NOT, by definition, mutually exclusive. The entire rock and soul and
country and pop tradition is a resounding rejection of this premise.
>As for Stax=grit and Motown=pretty--as a longtime fan of both, I'd have to
>say that this rounds out their depth and breadth too much. Martha and the
>VDs pretty not gritty? The Temptations? (And what David no doubt likes
>about those Philly folks is that crossing of gritty and pretty.)
Yes, those contrasts were amazing at Philly International (and motown too,
you know, not to mention most of the best countrypolitan). To describe
Motown or Philly soul, or the Nashville Sound or whatever, as solely
"pretty" doesn't accurately capture the range of strengths in those
records. I mean, did Stax ever make a harder, grittier record than
"Backstabbers," strings and all? I mean, has anyone?
Have you heard the news? You don't have to choose! <g> --david cantwell
