Jamerson Kaye Dunn etc

[lowdown]

PC Plod jacked it all in to go pedestrian on 'Chump Change'....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6OHSfBfCe4

[chris_b]

They used to read those sessions.

Apparently you got 2 takes.

If you needed anymore than that your chances of getting the call for the next session rapidly diminished.

[Burns-bass]

Hi all, i've got the stuff from Carol Kaye. Rather than post an open link, if you want me to share it with you, then pop me a PM. All free etc.

[SpondonBassed]

[quote name='Burns-bass' timestamp='1505037460' post='3368964']
Hi all, i've got the stuff from Carol Kaye. Rather than post an open link, if you want me to share it with you, then pop me a PM. All free etc.
[/quote]

Many thanks.

[lowdown]

PM sent. Thanks.

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='SpondonBassed' timestamp='1504870484' post='3367887']
Where would you get that sort of information from anyway? I'd love to know too.
[/quote]

In Duck's case, ask someone who knew him almost his entire life and was his best friend as well as a bandmate for decades.

[SpondonBassed]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1505164520' post='3369983']
In Duck's case, ask someone who knew him almost his entire life and was his best friend as well as a bandmate for decades.
[/quote]

Gosh I hadn't thought of that. (Reaches for little black book)

I do have [i]Soul Fingers[/i] though. I also have lots of material to read through thanks to the kindness of a fellow member.

It seems that producers allowed significant creative input from their studio players. Is that the same as musical input as asked in the OP? I'd say there is a fine line between the two and you'd see that fine line differently depending on whether you were a producer or a musician.

Edited September 12, 2017 by SpondonBassed

[pfretrock]

This may be of interest


The playing of James Jamerson, broken down and analysed:

[url="http://www.jamersonanalysed.co.uk/"]http://www.jamersonanalysed.co.uk/[/url]

[only4]

[quote name='lowdown' timestamp='1504879505' post='3368010']
Looks like full length version of 'The Wrecking Crew' has been posted up on YouTube - Well worth a watch.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0UJoSw57JU[/media]
[/quote]

Just finished watching, very enjoyable afternoon in the office ;-)

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='SpondonBassed' timestamp='1505196065' post='3370045']
Gosh I hadn't thought of that. (Reaches for little black book)

I do have [i]Soul Fingers[/i] though. I also have lots of material to read through thanks to the kindness of a fellow member.

It seems that producers allowed significant creative input from their studio players. Is that the same as musical input as asked in the OP? I'd say there is a fine line between the two and you'd see that fine line differently depending on whether you were a producer or a musician.
[/quote]

It's my understanding, from someone who was there, that with Booker T & The MGs "Green Onions" as an example was a jam started by Booker, which the others went into and Jim Stewart recorded on the sly. Though obviously for that particular track Duck wasn't there at the time. The band were four colleagues/mates who just worked things out together; as the main backing band for Stax at it's peak Cropper was frequently the writer and/or producer too so it was very much a less rigid session.

[FinnDave]

[quote name='SpondonBassed' timestamp='1504956003' post='3368535']
I just found out that Donald Dunn wasn't actually a duck.
[/quote]

If you believe that, you must be quackers.

[SpondonBassed]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1505242608' post='3370501']
It's my understanding, from someone who was there, that with Booker T & The MGs "Green Onions" as an example was a jam started by Booker, which the others went into and Jim Stewart recorded on the sly. Though obviously for that particular track Duck wasn't there at the time. The band were four colleagues/mates who just worked things out together; as the main backing band for Stax at it's peak Cropper was frequently the writer and/or producer too so it was very much a less rigid session.
[/quote]

That sounds about right.

I'd draw a parallel between that and the practice of copying the patches that bashers (sheet metalwork experts) make when they do, for example, an aircraft skin repair. When there has been damage to a part of an aircraft for which a repair scheme has not been drafted, they let the senior basher loose with his tin snips and rivet blocks. Then, when the patch has been completed to the basher's satisfaction, someone comes down from the drawing office with tracing paper. Within hours the tracing becomes an approved drawing complete with instructions on materials and heat treatments etc and is then published.

The only names you see on the drawing are those of the draftsman and the officials who sign it off. The basher is expected to do this under the terms of the contract which owns your intellectual rights if you come up with anything original on works time. I had one contract that extended that to my free time too.

In most industrial situations this is normal. The unions are okay with it. The musician's union in America wasn't much different it seems. For all the complaints that impoverished musicians and their families make about loss of royalties on hit records, I think it works out the same. When you work you are just one small cog in a massive machine. If you don't like it, take a walk.

I sympathise with those who get left out of the hitmakers' dividends when music becomes popular beyond expectations. It's only natural to feel slighted if you've been part of the creative process. I doubt that anyone would volunteer to share in the loss that a production makes if it plummets towards oblivion however.

[SpondonBassed]

[quote name='FinnDave' timestamp='1505243410' post='3370511']
If you believe that, you must be quackers.
[/quote]

There is only the one funky duck though;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViwdoJZWzcY

That wasn't it.

[FinnDave]

Strangely enough, I quite enjoyed that! They looked like they were having fun, too.

[chris_b]

[quote name='SpondonBassed' timestamp='1505284349' post='3370663']
I sympathise with those who get left out of the hitmakers' dividends when music becomes popular beyond expectations. It's only natural to feel slighted if you've been part of the creative process. [/quote]

Happens a lot. In the US (and maybe else where) scientists etc used to get $1 when they join a company. That buys them out of ownership of anything they invent while they are working for that company. I read that Marconi didn't invent half the stuff he claimed. The guys working for him invented a lot but Marconi took the credit as it was his company.

Session musicians in the US now do get a share of the royalties of the records they played on. The knife in the back for those guys was that they could only get paid if they applied and registered the songs they played on by a date and the weren't given much time to do that. So the disorganised ones didn't get what they deserved and the organised ones claimed and now get royalty payments. Maybe this is where the Carol Kaye vs Motown controversy comes from. Apparently record companies paid less to the musicians for recording demo tracks. I've seen that Motown were accused of using LA musicians to record demo tracks and then using the tapes as masters, so getting those sessions on the cheap. A lot of murky and probably unfair stuff went on back then.

The session guys at Fame studios used to arrange the songs and come up with their parts, for which they didn't get paid. I'd guess Stax was the same. Artists and musicians were, and still are, at the end of a long line of people being ripped off in the music and entertainment business.

[SpondonBassed]

Amen