Blues Critic Editorials
|
|
Blues Critic Editorials |
|
|
|
||
              
|
This page contains commentaries from Blues Critic editor Dylann DeAnna
"Music Ain't Got No Color? Blue-Eyed Blues & Southern Soul" by Dylann DeAnna 8-11-06 "Music ain't got no color. What color is a melody? What color is harmony? What color is a symphony? Music ain't got no color. I read in the Jet Magazine how the Bee Gees got rich singing black music and it made me sad. I read in the Rolling Stone Dionne Warwick got rich singing white music and that made me mad. See God created music and he gave everybody some. He didn't give it color so leave it alone and have some fun!" LISTEN Those are words taken from a Joe Tex song. Recently I wrote a review in which I referred to a CD as "typical white boy Blues". I received a nasty-gram because of it. By far the emails and letters we receive here at Blues Critic are extremely positive but sometimes we get one that isn't so nice: Here is the email sent to us on 6/26 (name of sender withheld)
"I just read the review on Steven S. The person that wrote this article is obviously a very I'm not a black man (on the outside anyway but doctors tell me there's still hope!) but obviously this gentleman thought I was. I find his hostility intriguing. Here is the quote from my review: "(CD) is honestly as good as half the Blues/Rock/whiteboyblues CDs on the market right now (but that ain't saying much)" I stand by that assertion. At the time of this disc's release there was a lot of Blues/Rock performed by Caucasians on the market that was tediously mediocre. I'm referring to Blues ROCK not all Blues. It wasn't meant as a commentary on "blue-eyed blues" in general. Can white people do black music? If someone prefers black artists over white artists is that racist? Only if they base it on color rather than music. But some can't tell the difference. In the 1970s Living Blues magazine was accused of racist policies for its ignoring the music of white performers. Co-founder of the magazine Paul Goren has said: "in 1993 Living Blues asked me ...the magazine's position in a Guest Editorial feature... In that column I emphasized that the magazine's policy was simply the manifestation of its purpose: to analyze, chart, review and celebrate African-American musical culture in the U.S. From such a perspective, I underscored, the magazine's covering of R & B artists like Ruth Brown or LaVern Baker was more natural than its covering of "blues" artists like Stevie Ray Vaughan. While I thought this supremely clear and natural, a large part of the readership did not. Once again an avalanche of mail descended, most of it against the magazine's policy and my editorial. A few subscriptions were cancelled." That writer is not a bigot but he sure ruffled a lot of feathers. Now, I'll admit there was a time when I was somewhat prejudiced against white Blues & Soul singers. I just didn't think whites could sing the Blues with any authenticity. White Blues to me just didn't have "soul". It wasn't a question of whether whites should sing Blues it's just whether they could. I can't tell you the number of critics who feel similar whether they say it publicly or not. But I don't feel that way anymore. I may have slightly more CDs by black performers than white but my attitude toward white Blues has changed. There's been and is currently plenty "Blue-Eyed Blues & Soul" singers/players that do Blues & Soul right... ...but some say it's because they "sound Black". How can they say that? Simply because Blues & Soul music came from black culture. Singer Mighty Mo Rodgers says the Blues started with slavery and it tells the story of the degradation of a people. He feels that the blues was a gift from God to African American people “to deny the nothingness of their existence”. His laconic "Took Away The Drum" hits the nail on the head. "Take a man from his nation/Put him in total isolation/Only thing to rescue/Is the blues/Took away the drum/That's how the blues did come". Chick Willis has a song called "Mr. Blues", a love song towards, well, "blues" music. It's also apologetics for an art form that Chick says black Americans have abandoned ( the blues reminds them of slavery and other social evils that inspired "singing the blues"). But the Blues has come a long way. A recent song called "That's Really What The Blues Is All About" by Lee "Shot" Williams says: "There's a lot of people who want to put down the Blues/Saying it ain't nothing but sad sad songs/I don't know nobody want to go to the juke joint and sit there and cry all night long/No the Blues was made for partying/Make you wanna scream, jump & shout/Laughin', drinkin'. having a good time is really what the Blues is all about". So Blues has many faces. From protest, for catharsis or to party. White folk have adopted the Blues in ever-increasing numbers. The "white experience" has expanded the Blues into even more sub-genres, especially Blues/Rock. But let's face it- there's still some friction between white performers and black art forms. White-owned labels or artists have been accused of "getting rich off black culture". That's true in a sense. A brief look at musical history will shed some light. Firstly, Elvis Presley. Everybody knows he struck gold by sounding "black". Few would deny his enormous debt to Little Richard & "Mystery Train". Rodgers has a song called "The Boy Who Stole The Blues" that basically says white boy Elvis robbed the Blues from black folk, got rich and the blues made him pay for it. "Some say Jim Crow made him the king of rock & Roll/And if there had to be a king/It would have been a black boy that's for sure". But this isn't really a diatribe against Elvis (or Caucasians) and in some ways he gives him credit. "Just like Jackie (Robinson) broke the color line too/Freein' America to the blues/Talking about the boy (Elvis) who stole the blues". Space doesn't permit me to list the number of white artists who've white-washed Blues & Soul songs or styles over the years for mainstream consumption. A few modern examples should suffice to show a pattern of a white performer borrowing a black art form and ending up more popular than any black artist. I'm not a fan of the music but for argument let's talk about when Rap or Hip Hop music broke big with Run D.M.C.. They had an across-the-board hit record and along came the Beastie Boys who outsold them. Next came M.C. Hammer but here came Vanilla Ice. Dr Dre & Snoop Dogg go multi-platinum but who's the biggest selling rapper? Eminem. Why? Are these white artists better than the black artists. Of course not. So why do white artists frequently sell more records doing black music than black artists? On The Positive Side: Black Approval It's not a conspiracy by whites to eclipse blacks and steal their music. Maybe there is some conspiracy higher up on the corporate level but the artists that do black music usually do it because they simply love it. Why do they love it? Consider a scene from the popular animated television show "The Simpsons", which (occasionally) has some decent satire. The main character, an oafish Caucasian Everyman name Homer, is watching a black comedian on the boob tube. The comedian is comparing how blacks and whites act. For example he says: "Now, white people talk like this: (he does a whiney, nasal nerd voice). But black people they talk like this: (he does a deep, laid back, cool voice)". Homer cracks up and says: "It's true! We (whites) are so lame!". It's a supercilious little example and whites are not really "lame" but it speaks volumes. There was an article in Race Traitor, Vol. 2 written by Paul Rubio that tries to explain why whites emulate blacks: "the use of African-American culture by whites (is) to find the spirit, and hence the humanity, they feel they've lost." In other words white people want some of that "deep soul" and brotherhood that blacks have amongst themselves because white culture often feels austere and hollow. Now forget about the whole gangsta/pimp/black-on-black violence subculture because that's NOT a true picture of Black America. It's an unfortunate byproduct of racial inequality and human imperfection that has been hoisted on the mainstream. I'm talking about the real "sound of black America", that "feeling" of black music, that which we think of as "soul". It came from oppression and religious fervor. (just ask Ray Charles). But, "feeling" the Blues is not just about suffering and church. But certainly much of the greatest music (or any art form) has arisen as a result of oppression or reverence to God. So, do whites have a right to do the Blues even if they don't have the same life experiences as blacks? Of course. If it were merely a matter of suffering and religion why are there so few Native American or Jewish Blues/Soul singers? Albert King said "everybody gets the Blues" and "if you can't dig the Blues you got a hole in your soul!" and who's to argue with him? What's interesting to me is I rarely hear a black music critic complaining about white Blues singers. I think it's more than mere tolerance. It's like Rodgers said earlier, the success of white performers doing black music means more opportunity and hopefully financial success for black Blues artists. Is there anything wrong with that? Only everything. Racist conditions make it so that the Blues becomes popular only when someone like Eric Clapton does it. In fairness Clapton is the first to admit his debt to black artists. Certainly you didn't miss the significance of the cover of "Riding With The King", a duet LP between Clapton and B.B. King. The cover has a picture of Clapton behind the wheel of a car and King relaxing in the backseat. Take that "Driving Miss Daisy!". Making things even more heartening King refers to Clapton as a "genius" in the liner notes. Makes me wanna break into a rendition of "Ebony & Ivory". I've heard many black Blues artists who've struggled for years express resentment over not getting a fair shot due to race. But the vast majority say the Blues stays alive because of white fans. So why does a writer like me need to even "go there"? I had someone say to me: "Dylann, the only reason you write about this issue is because of white guilt". That's untrue but I do believe a white person needs to see the big picture. A whole article could be written about the white man's responsibility to be empathetic considering American history. It's a "crazy mixed up world" as Little Walter sang. I once had a black artist tell me I was exploiting black culture by selling black music. I was stunned and hurt. But then someone I respect very much said to me: "Don't let it get you down. White people just cannot know what it's like to be black. No matter what good intentions you might have you just won't get it.". So now I see it from his perspective. Although what I was accused of wasn't true I was now able to put myself in this artist's place. Due to his past dealings with white folk "in the business" he was ultra-sensitive to anything that might appear exploitive. I could've whined and said: "Hey it's not my fault! I've never been racist to anyone- my grandparents didn't oppress black people blah blah blah I have black friends-" You know all the usual stuff whites say in their defense but sometimes we just don't get it. It reminds me of a scene in Spike Lee's movie "Malcolm X": A young, bright-eyed white college girl walks up to Malcolm and says something to the effect of: "Mr. X I really admire what you're doing for black people. What can I, a white person, do to help??". Malcolm stares at her and says: "Nothing!" and walks away. That girl was speechless! She didn't understand because she couldn't understand. Now, many would think: "Malcolm was racist!". But was he? Later in the movie he says whites can join the movement but blacks must help themselves first." So there it is. On the other hand blacks can never know what it's like to be white and want to be accepted by blacks. Sure, there's no comparison to how hard black people have struggled to be accepted let alone not oppressed by white America over the years. Often they've been forced to compromise to be accepted. So, perhaps it's only right that whites need to earn acceptance and trust in return. It's a strange dynamic being white and wanting approval from the black community considering all that's happened to build up suspicion and resentment. It's easy to see why a black artist might think "you got a lotta nerve" crossing those tracks. If you think that's unfair? Deal with it anyway. That brings us to another aspect to this whole racial issue: White Blues & Soul artists crave the approval of the Black community. Some even believe they need it to be considered a legitimate Blues artist. Some may seek approval out of guilt. Some surely for exploitive, political reasons but many seek approval because they have a sense of gratitude, respect and admiration for black culture and the art it has spawned. It's often a heartfelt and respectful longing. It isn't always granted, however. Usually the rejection and ridicule comes from other whites! If the black community doesn't accept you as a Blues artist you will be marked as a "wannabe" by many. "Blue-eyed" Soul/Blues singer Little Phil has a song called "White Boy" that goes: "Some criticize me, some surprise me/Yes, when the call me a wannabe/A little blue-eyed soul never hurt nobody/Yep, so I'm gonna do as I please/At a hole in the wall is where you'll find me/Every Friday night and Saturday too... cuz that's enough to make a white boy sing the blues!". I think this is the first song I've known that self-consciously addresses the prejudice some have against a Caucasian trying to sing black music. The good news is that Little Phil has been accepted as have many others. Southern Soul The Blues belongs to everybody...but everybody should give credit and honor where it's due- black culture. No black culture equals no Blues. No Blues means no Stevie Ray Vaughan, Eric Clapton, etc. If you truly believe "race isn't an issue" than "put your money where your mouth is". The genre known as "Southern Soul" is made up of mostly black artists. This is black music. But it would appear that mainstream media thinks of "Southern Soul" as the ghetto of Soul & Blues music. Some may say the reason is because they object to music made by "machines", ie, drum programming, synthesizers, etc. But that doesn't fly. Most pop music-especially Hip Hop- is performed by machines. There may be a lot of cheaply made crap out there but that's true of any type of music. Perhaps the name "Southern" Soul holds it back, causing many to think it's of interest only to folks in the Deep South. Perhaps, but it isn't true. What's considered modern "Southern Soul" or "Soul Blues" is loved all over the world by all races. In fact the second biggest market to the Southern United States for "Southern Soul" is Japan! So why isn't mainstream American radio playing this music? Why aren't they playing this black music? Food for thought. Will it take some white artist to cover "Southern Soul" and make it palatable to mainstream America? I sure hope not...because the racial issue will come up again. That's a warning. "Music ain't got no color"? Sure it does! What's wrong with that? written by Dylann DeAnna, Blues Critic 4/15/06 4/23/06 Updated "Please Don't Feed The Animals: Bootlegging Redux" By Dylann DeAnna
How would you feel if you spent your life savings, maxed out several credit cards and even sold your prized Chunky A and Deon Sanders CDs to open a restaurant only to find out an eatery down the street was breaking into your kitchen at night, using your recipes, cooking with your produce and then selling the food at their own restaurant...and at slightly cheaper prices than you!? I reckon you'd want to burn that joint down...or maybe you would just quit the restaurant business altogether. That feeling is shared by countless artists & record labels (especially independent) concerning the incessant marauding of Pirates. No, we're not talking about the latest Johnny Depp movie drivel glorifying bandits of the sea. We're talking about pirating music. Piracy in regards the music industry is making copies of officially released music and distributing the unauthorized copies for profit. We call them "bootlegs" but if we must be pedantic: music bootlegs technically refer to making copies and distributing music NOT officially released such as clandestinely taping a concert with a hidden recorder and selling CDs of the show. Nevertheless, "bootleg" is the word so we'll use it. The average consumer likely doesn't know whether he/she is buying an authorized CD or a fake copy. Sure, some bootlegs are obvious with the shabby packaging and dreadful sound quality. Yet, there's many official releases in the Blues/Soul world that are just as bad. As was discussed in an earlier article (ref: "Blurring The Line: Bootleggers, Pirates & Independents"), the increasing use of CD-R burning as official product has worsened the bootleg problem by blurring the difference. Instead of just flipping the disc over and checking the color to see if it's legit (CD-Rs are normally blue, green, gold, red as opposed to the silver pressed "real" CDs) you really don't know for sure. Just because it's a record store doesn't mean they aren't selling fakes. It's not just swap meets and street vendors that sell the phonies, it's pervasive throughout the market. Yes, anywhere you buy music could potentially be infected with this crime. But this article is directed to the consumer because bootleggers don't care. So here's a few questions. Let's say you are a true Blues lover. You'd rather buy the new Little Milton album than some new underwear even though your old ones got more holes than a thousand wiffle balls. You'd rather have the new Denise LaSalle CD than a personal massage from Beyonce or Usher. You're a music freak. You buy CDs frequently and you feel you support the Blues world. The Blues is in your blood. So then... When you boogie on down to the wrecka stow (record store) to get the latest Sir Charles Jones do you worry about whether the CD you're buying is counterfeit? What if you knew the CD you were buying was fake, would you still buy it? Not if you can get a real one. If you had a choice between a bootleg CD and the official CD which would you buy? You'd buy the real one. What if they look and sound exactly the same? Liner notes, the CD, even a bar code. You'd still buy the one you know is real. Well, here comes the tough question. What if the identical bootleg version is a few bucks cheaper? Which would you buy? Remember, the artist and/or label doesn't make a dime off the bootleg- only the seller makes a profit. Bottom line the seller (and maker) of that bootleg is flat out robbing the artist of their due. But, be honest. We are all trying to save a buck or at least spend the least amount we can to get what we want. I mean, you know you drive 5 extra miles to a different gas station just to save two cents!! We're all some cheap bastards and you know it. If you think about it we drive-thru a Carl's Jr. and buy some nasty $7 combo meal that's just going to give us gas in an hour but we don't want to pay $14 for a CD we'll have for a lifetime? I'd like to ask some of these yuppies here in San Diego if they ever figured out how much they spend at Starbucks per month? What a racket. It's just coffee, cream, sugar and a flavoring but they give it a fancy name like Frappachino and people pay four bucks for it! If you get one a day for a week you could've bought two CDs! Truthfully, more likely we're just on a budget and have to worry about what we spend. So, it's safe to say most people would go with the cheaper option. We might also reason; "Hell, this singer makes way mo' money than me so he don't need it. He's drivin' around in his Jeep with bling bling out the ying yang while I'm just tryin' to pay the rent". Of course that is usually not the case. There's more broke-ass musicians than not. Talent or no talent. And why should we pay more for the same thing? The bootleg CD looks, sounds and smells the same...and it's four bucks less. Most would say it's downright foolish to pay more than you have to. If you disagree I'd like to sell you a twenty for a C Note. Of course we do it all the time when we buy the Brand name over the generic when half the time it's the same stuff. So is it up to us, the consumer, to stop the bootlegging problem? I doubt anybody would say that. We all know it's the crooks- the bootleggers and those that enable them- who are to blame. Still, we can help. How would you feel if folks just stopped making music. No more new releases- period. All the musicians and promoters just quit and took jobs as parking enforcement jerks in Los Angeles. I can't tell you how many industry folk have said the bootleggers are killing the business. We've all heard the PSA's (Public Service Announcements) from artists crying "stop the bootlegging!". But they're powerless. The government isn't going to use it's resources to crack down on the problem. The terrorists are slightly worse after all. Slightly. It would just raise your taxes to have the police monitor all sellers of music. But some in the music biz do try. "Anti-piracy teams" of the the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) scan street vendors, flea market vendors, or retail stores for the presence of pirated/bootlegged music (allegedly). If they find something they begin surveillance of who is supplying the illegal materials. They attempt to climb the rope to find the manufacturing operation. The RIAA claims "the association’s anti-piracy team will continue to work closely with independent distributors and retailers to thwart this type of piracy". But how many have ever witnessed this? So what's the real solution? You can understand why artists want to start their own little labels and sell their music directly but if you want to sell more than 9 copies to your cousins and Aunt Mable you need the distributors, stores, what-have-you. Many independents are forced to sell CD-Rs or inferior product just to stay ahead of the bootleggers. Again, the solution is? The only solution is bootleggers getting a conscience but you'd have a better chance of seeing a black hole (or George Bush getting a third term). In an effort to find and stop piracy, the RIAA created their own informant program: CDReward. Under this initiative, the RIAA will provide monetary awards of up to $10,000 to an individual who provides the association with information regarding an illegal CD manufacturing location that is illegally producing RIAA member company sound recordings. Any individuals with information regarding CD-R pirates or illegal manufacturing locations can call 1-888-BAD-BEAT (1-888-223-2328), send an email to cdreward@riaa.com, or visit the program’s website at www.CDReward.com on the Web. The RIAA says they "will not publicly disclose the identity of the person submitting information, without consent, unless it is requested by a government agency, law enforcement agency or court subpoena". We can also help by not knowingly buy bootlegs. Period. If you love the Blues and you want to "keep the Blues alive" then don't help put them to death. If you know it's fake don't buy it. If you don't know then ask. You can't rely on the shop or the appearance of the CD because the seller may not even know he bought bootleg copies from his distributor. Then there's the "official CD-R's" problem (see"Blurring The Line: Bootleggers, Pirates & Independents"). Sure, what's the big deal? The deal is the music business is a business and if a business isn't making a profit that business is going out of business real soon. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to Target...to buy the new Mel Waiters CD (the hell with the new underwear).
12-26-05
"Bluesier Than Thou: Southern Soul, Snobbery & The Attack Of The Machines"
By Dylann DeAnna
I was in a Borders Books & Music today thumbing through various blues magazines when I came across a couple CD reviews in one that were quite narrow-minded. This magazine once again complained about the production on the latest releases from Ecko Records. In reviews of Lorraine Turner's "Shake It Down" and Rick Lawson's "Sexified", the writer denigrated the "boilerplate" production and arrangements and reliance on synths and programming. Hey, if they don't like it that's their right but why don't they like it? I will refer to programmed/synthesized music as "synthetic" music as opposed to "organic", which refers to music played by live musicians. The aforementioned CDs actually combine programming/synths with live musicianship but this magazine and other elitist snobs seem to think if ain't live it's pure sophistry! Or cheating? This "bluesier than thou" attitude is myopic to the extreme. Labels like Malaco, Alligator, Bullseye, Blind Pig, Delta Groove, Delmark, Severn, Telarc, etc, put out fantastic "organic" blues n' soul music and may this continue. My personal record collection is flush with Cds from these labels. There's no argument that the "organic" sound is usually to be preferred. You just can't beat real bass, drums, guitar, horns, etc.....Nobody yet has created a synthesizer that can sound as good as an Albert King or Stevie Ray Vaughan guitar solo. As far as horns, a solo by Maceo Parker or Clarence Clemons will always be superior to synth horns. Nevertheless, "synthesized" horns are in themselves an instrument. Consider the Yamaha used by Morris J. Williams on the Rick Lawson album. It's not a live horn sound but it sounds good in it's own right. It's funny I've never seen any rock critics bashing Steve Winwood for that signature keyboard sound he used on "While You See A Chance" and "The Finer Things". Does one have to use live horns in place of synths? Some people actually prefer synths! Check what's being played on the radio on Southern stations for example- it's mostly that "synthetic" sound coming from labels like Ecko,Waldoxy, Hep' Me, Surfside & Mardi Gras. It's not always the case that an artist or label is cutting costs* by relying on the "synthetic" sound instead of paying musicians. Some actually choose to produce their music this way because folks like it! Or some just recognize what's hip. Artie "Blues Boy" White, for example, has always put out "organic" blues n' soul records but on his latest he decided to add some "synthetic" tracks on a mostly "organic" disc to appeal to the Southern Soul market. He chose to do so is the point. (*But now that we've mentioned "cost cutting". Have these critics taken in consideration that many of these small labels that produce "black music" don't get the support needed to have 24-piece orchestras?!? That's a side issue. A whole article could be written about that alone.) Now, granted, the major complaint that magazine and others have has to do with programmed rhythms. There was a time when I was a snob about "fake drums" but now I've come to realize it's really just a different beast altogether. A live drummer and bassist can't create some of those percolating dance grooves. Nothing against Booker T & The MGs, Bar-Kays or the Muscle Shoals Rhythm Section. Of course, no program can replace a living, breathing rhythm section . That is, unless you choose to. As far as "synthetic" music there's two kinds, really. High Budget- it has a "big", full sound, bass heavy production often found on Ecko, Waldoxy or Jomar discs. There's also Low Budget- what I like to call "rinky dink". It sounds like it was recorded with a 1980s toy keyboard, Casio drum program on a boom box while underwater. Yes, some official recordings sound worse than bootlegs. This noise is better left unheard and no examples will be given here! There's good and bad on both sides. The bottom line is this: Don't compare apples to oranges. If you're gonna be a critic get hip to the "synthetic" sound and compare it on it's own merits instead of comparing to "organic" music. The latest Rick Lawson should not be compared to the latest Bettye LaVette. As far as "synthetic" music goes Rick Lawson is damn good...and as far as "organic" music goes the Bettye LaVette is damn good.
"Blurring The Line: Bootleggers, Pirates & Independents"
By Dylann DeAnna Singer/producer Carl Marshall has a song called "Bootleggers Give Me My Money!" and Dorothy Moore recently released a 30 second Public Service Announcement imploring "real fans" to refrain from buying CDs "from the street". Being that those CDs may be "bootlegs", she says: "We all lose from bootleg sales. Folks lose jobs. Even in the warehouse. Singers quit the business. Everyone loses except the vendor who steals the money". Technically, the term is "pirate" rather than "bootleg". Piracy is making copies of officially released music and distributing the unauthorized copies for profit. A "bootleg", however, is "a musical recording that was not officially released by the artist (or their associated management or production companies) and is being sold for profit". Whatever the term the result is the same- the artist gets nada from the sales. This article is going to focus on "pirated" CDs but I will refer to them as "bootlegs" as that's the popular usage. Some of you may remember the saga of Prince and "The Black Album". Prince finished the record, had it pressed but decided not to release it at the last minute. Nevertheless, a copy escaped the studio and thousands of duplicates (mostly LPs and cassettes- and later CDs) were made by "bootleggers". Neither Prince nor Warner Bros. made a dime...but those vendors sure did. When WB finally released the CD years later most "fans" already had a copy! Bootleggers are parasites killing the host. This obviously hurts the music business. It may not hurt a big name like Prince but it does hurt the small label or the new artist or the "cult" artist. It's criminal plain and simple to sell illegal copies of someone else's art. Of course you can make yourself a copy for "personal use" but you just can't sell it. Seems easy enough, right? Don't sell and don't buy "bootlegs" and we'll all get along in a perfect world. Well it's not that easy and some say part of the problem is with the artists or labels themselves. When you go to a swap meet or your local record store looking for the latest disc by, say, Roy C you pick it up assuming it's legit. Perhaps you notice the art looks professional and it even has a bar code so it must be the real deal, right? Not necessarily. There's two types of CD bootlegs. Those pressed at a record plant and those "burned" onto disc, aka, CD-R (compact disc recordable). A standard audio CD is almost always silver on the recorded side- sometimes gold. CD-Rs are sometimes silver but are usually blue, green, yellow or even red on the recorded side. Roy C's discs, by the way, are always standard CDs. The information (music) on a standard CD is encoded as a spiral track of pits "molded" into the top of the polycarbonate layer (The areas between pits are known as lands). Unlike conventional CD media, a CD-R has a core of dye instead of metal. A laser is used to "burn" small pits into the dye so that the disc can later be read by the laser in a CD-ROM drive or CD player. Opinion varies, but most insist the sound quality is the same as standard CDs and will last just as long if cared for properly. One thing's for sure, CD-Rs can be produced much faster than a standard cd and that's the catch. Being that CD-Rs are quicker and cheaper to make many artists and labels are releasing them as official product. You can understand why- if you need to get product out there asap you can't wait for a record plant, which may take up to 30 days, to do it for you. CD-R burning solves the problem. But you, the consumer, may be paying $12-$17 clams for a new CD and it's actually a CD-R. Does it matter? Most buyers don't even know the difference. Well, consider this. Everybody is crying about being ripped off by bootleggers selling cheap ripoff copies of their music but...are some of these complainers, in a sense, releasing their own bootlegs? "I call them duplicates", says Lawrence J. Henry of The Record Finders. "I see no problem with releasing them as promos but to make them commercially available is another story- it's like a first cousin to a bootleg". Henry feels if this habit of releasing CD-Rs or "duplicates" as official product becomes pervasive enough it would blur the line between the real deal and the bootleg. "How can a buyer tell the difference if you're releasing the same flimsy product as the bootlegger? If it ain't legit I don't deal with it." "I flat out won't play no CD-R," says radio legend Vernon Campbell of K-105.9FM Oklahoma City, OK. "If they send me one I stick 'em in a box in the corner. That's where they stay. I'm playing songs on the air I can't have no skipping. I don't trust 'em." Meanwhile, soulman Garland Green has a slightly more sympathetic take. He said like most people he wasn't aware of the difference but didn't see the big deal. "Black artists have been pushed in a corner," says Green, singer of classics like "Jealous Kinda Fella" who is about to make an overdue comeback. Although Green doesn't plan to release CD-Rs commercially he understands why independent artists might need to cut costs just to get the product out there. One Southern Soul star (Mr. "Stand Up In It") recently felt the backlash from some retailers when they discovered the CDs they purchased from him were CD-Rs. "They were like, 'we paid you 8 bucks a pop for these'? They refused to carry them", said Henry, who also has his own record label, My Time Entertainment. "You don't see this kinda shoddy product in stores like Tower or Barnes & Noble. Why? Because they have a reputation to protect. If they sell inferior product people will be bringing it back and that would hurt their credibility." I ordered a "CD" from Stand Up In It Man's website. I paid $14.99 plus shipping for something I could make at home on my computer for less than a buck! (Truthfully, I didn't mind all that much. People send Blues Critic CD-Rs all the time to review and as long as that's what they're officially putting out it's cool with me). But then this cat had the nerve to call me up and tear me a new one because I was selling it on ebay- the very same "official" CD-R he sold me. Not a copy. I paid for it and now owned it and wanted to sell it to recoup my dough. I didn't even complain that he sold me a CD-R. I could understand his angst if I had made a copy and was selling the copy on ebay...heck, I should've asked him if he could tell the difference because I could've bootlegged it myself. (Homey, don't play that though). Vernon Campbell also objected to being shipped inferior product. "I told him it was bulls-t", he said. Henry added, "With all the money he made off that one song you mean to tell me he couldn't afford the real thing?" Now I'm not out to bash this particular artist. I like his music and I wish him the best. In fact I wrote a favorable review of the CD (R) in question. Dorothy Moore, whose latest independent Farish Street CDs are not CD-Rs, deserves props for her PSA spot and she's right: Don't buy bootlegs and/or pirates! Don't support these parasites leeching off the backs of artists and those who promote them. Like it or not you're hurting your favorite singers and the soul/blues world in general by buying bootleg CDs. So how do you know if it's a bootleg or not? Hmmm...that's a potential problem. Should you ask for proof your purchase will be counted by SoundScan? If you buy it directly from the artist or record label you're likely safe. But the biz needs retail so don't boycott record stores!! I know I'm worried the Internet's gonna kill mom-and-pop record stores and that would be a shame. Just keep in mind, if you unwrap the package and you got yourself a CD-R or duplicate... that doesn't necessarily mean it's a bootleg (anymore.). So what's the solution? Should the public be made aware when the product they're buying is a CD-R? Should artists and labels sell CD-Rs for cheaper than standard CDs? After all, it's not illegal to release your music in CD-R format. But is it wrong to do so? I don't know...time will tell. One thing's for sure it don't help matters much. In the meantime what can we do about file sharing over the Internet- downloading MP3's for free?
Go back to Commentary
Everything on this site is copyright 2007 by Blues Critic Media unless indicated otherwise. May be used if web address www.bluescritic.com and company name are included. |
