Carol Kaye Controversey Solved?

[Phil Smith]

Originally posted by slugworth
Respect is something that is earned, and not easily. Respect can take years to earn, but can
be lost in a moment. People that beg for respect
are usually not deserving of it. When people
claim to be things they're not, done things they
never did, been places they've never been, earning
respect, or earning it back, becomes the hardest
thing in the world. Nobody loves an elitist.

Your perception of a person and whether you believe in them or not determines if you respect them and often times that has nothing to do if the person deserves it or not, it's all about what YOU perceive. There's no absolute to it, it's totally relative to you and your belief system. Moreover, everyone lies, even you, yes you, you can't even deny that and be truthful. See, gotcha!

Nobody loves an elitist??? People have been trying to get close to and worship elitist since the beginning of time. A person that leads is an elitist, operating at the top of the social heap and afforded special priviledges that those below are not privy to. Elitist control what you do and what you see and what you listen and who you can play with. If you're playing isn't at a certain level there are some people you just won't be playing with. It ain't personal, it's the way of the world.

Carol Kaye may be mistaken, wrong, call it whatever about the released versions of the tunes in dispute, but it's conceivable that she did play them, just not the released versions. To me that's a lot more than some baseless claim out of left field. The sheer volume of studio of work she's done leads me to believe that there's a good explanation for what's going on. The notion that she's just going around claiming credit for stuff with no basis, is to me, really unfair.

 

[PhatBasstard]

Originally posted by Phil Smith

Carol Kaye......but it's conceivable that she did play them, just not the released versions.

But isn't she claiming to be the bassist on the "released versions"? Isn't that the whole point of this thread?? Isn't this why she's getting such odd reactions from the guys that were actually there???

How did this get missed?

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Originally posted by Phil Smith


The notion that she's just going around claiming credit for stuff with no basis, is to me, really unfair.

Phil, I see nothing "unfair" about that, when the evidence seems to suggest that's exactly what's happening. IMO, her possibly having played on other versions of those tunes is completely and utterly irrelevant to the question of whether she played on THOSE versions; it is not any kind of basis for her claims to THOSE versions, and it gives them no legitimacy. It's a side issue, it's beside the point. At most, it may be some kind of explanation for why she makes the claims she does, but it's no kind of supporting evidence.

Now, as far as ascribing motives or making assumptions about psychological states, I agree with you that it would be unfair to do that. I don't presume to know why she makes those claims; I'm not saying she's fibbing, or malicious, or dishonest, or mistaken, or forgetful, or hallucinating, or whatever. I'm not qualified to make a judgment on any of that stuff. But I do have an opinion about who played THOSE versions, based on the evidence I've seen, which is that CK doesn't have a leg to stand on compared with the evidence pointing the other way. That's not "unfair," that's just going where the evidence seems to lead.

 

[slugworth]

It's not just her claims to have played on certain
songs; that's just a small part part of it. It's
her *attitude* and the way she perceives herself
and the way she treats others. This woman can
be incredibly mean, stubborn, and WRONG. The way
she claims to have a monopoly on proper bass
pedagogy, her unfathomable close-mindedness on
musical topics and genres she doesn't like or understand, the manner in which she disagrees
with others, her preachy, holier-than-though
opining on everything under the sun from animal
husbandry to sociology, economics and medicine,
her constant "woe is me, I-didn't-get-any-album-
credits-studio-musicians-are-gods" crap is a huge
load of off-putting codswallop. She played on a bunch of hit records 40 years ago. Fantastic. She made a ton of money fueling herself on caffeine and put her kids thru college. Superb! She's got a website full of sycophants and admirers that
sit on the edge of their chairs waiting for her
next questionable piece of advice or partially
recalled anecdote from 40 years ago. Even better.
The cult of personality. Funny thing, there are
so many musicians and bassists with equal or even greater talents, accomplishments, and credits to their names that aren't always trying direct the spotlight in their direction, or go outside of themselves trying to convince others they are right or gain accolades they think they're entitled to. As I said, nobody loves an elitist.
Or more specifically, nobody loves an elitist attitude. What most people do admire and respect however are character, integrity, and humility.
A little goes a long way.

 

[Captain Scarlet]

Originally posted by PhatBasstard
PS. I don't consider posting (lots) of material that seems to refute CK's claims by (lots) of people who were there, as "bashing" either.

I for one would like to see lots of posts of solid material and real hard evidence that backs up CK's claims. Unfortunately, it's not likely to happen because this evidence is just not out there. All we really have is Carol's testimony to having been there and having played those original tunes (not demos). The main brunt of her case is not much more than 'argument through vigorous assertion'.

On the other hand, the case for JJ playing on those tunes is fairly tight, with a lot of people that were there attesting to it.

 

[Phil Smith]

Originally posted by PhatBasstard


But isn't she claiming to be the bassist on the "released versions"? Isn't that the whole point of this thread?? Isn't this why she's getting such odd reactions from the guys that were actually there???

How did this get missed?

To me it's entirely feasible for her to think that she played on the released versions even if in fact they were demos. That's not really a stretch to me and not anything nefarious either. And if she did play on the demos it can argued that she and the other musicians that worked with her set the ball rolling for the actual release.

 

[jerry]

Carol is the one who is being disrespectful by claiming songs she hasn't played on!!!!! You can't make those claims and expect bassist not to say ***!! I think Brad made the best case by pointing out if she can improvise like that on the Motown recordings, how come she never played that well again.......like I said before, she is just like somebodys senile uncle, who's war stories get bigger at every family gathering.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Originally posted by Phil Smith


To me it's entirely feasible for her to think that she played on the released versions even if in fact they were demos. That's not really a stretch to me and not anything nefarious either. And if she did play on the demos it can argued that she and the other musicians that worked with her set the ball rolling for the actual release.

But Phil, nefarious or innocent, it's still completely beside the main point.

The issue is NOT "Can you understand why she might think she played on these tracks?"

The issue is "Did she play on them, or not?"

And as far as playing on the demos "setting the ball rolling," I don't see how that matters at all unless you have *good* reason to believe that the Funk Brothers actually (1) heard those demos and (2) were influenced by them. If they were publishing demos, as has been suggested, there's no reason to suppose this would necessarily ever have happened, though of course it's not at all impossible. In any case, it's *still* beside the point. If CK didn't play on the tracks, she didn't play on them, no matter how many demos she may have done!

 

[Phil Smith]

Originally posted by slugworth
It's not just her claims to have played on certain
songs; that's just a small part part of it. It's
her *attitude* and the way she perceives herself
and the way she treats others. This woman can
be incredibly mean, stubborn, and WRONG. The way
she claims to have a monopoly on proper bass
pedagogy, her unfathomable close-mindedness on
musical topics and genres she doesn't like or understand, the manner in which she disagrees
with others, her preachy, holier-than-though
opining on everything under the sun from animal
husbandry to sociology, economics and medicine,
her constant "woe is me, I-didn't-get-any-album-
credits-studio-musicians-are-gods" crap is a huge
load of off-putting codswallop. She played on a bunch of hit records 40 years ago. Fantastic. She made a ton of money fueling herself on caffeine and put her kids thru college. Superb! She's got a website full of sycophants and admirers that
sit on the edge of their chairs waiting for her
next questionable piece of advice or partially
recalled anecdote from 40 years ago. Even better.
The cult of personality. Funny thing, there are
so many musicians and bassists with equal or even greater talents, accomplishments, and credits to their names that aren't always trying direct the spotlight in their direction, or go outside of themselves trying to convince others they are right or gain accolades they think they're entitled to. As I said, nobody loves an elitist.
Or more specifically, nobody loves an elitist attitude. What most people do admire and respect however are character, integrity, and humility.
A little goes a long way.

Like a said before, I'm sorry that you weren't treated fairly by her, but it doesn't mean that's everyone's experience. I don't know who you are and I don't know if your experience is real or not, but there will always be someone that has a different take on an individual and that's okay. I don't know Carol, never met her, and a lot of what you describe I think would account for a lot of the elite that you like or don't like especially if they have an opinion that they are not afraid of airing. Are all bassists espousing all styles and techniques? Hell no, they're not, that's common knowledge. Everyone thinks they way is the way, like I'm sure you think your way is the way, nothing new or horrible about that.

 

[Phil Smith]

Originally posted by Richard Lindsey But Phil, nefarious or innocent, it's still completely beside the main point.

The issue is NOT "Can you understand why she might think she played on these tracks?"

The issue is "Did she play on them, or not?"

That's not the issue for you, but the issue for me is why is she making the claims, I would like to understand that as opposed to dismissing her as a crackpot or a loon.

And as far as playing on the demos "setting the ball rolling," I don't see how that matters at all unless you have *good* reason to believe that the Funk Brothers actually (1) heard those demos and (2) were influenced by them. If they were publishing demos, as has been suggested, there's no reason to suppose this would necessarily ever have happened, though of course it's not at all impossible. In any case, it's *still* beside the point. If CK didn't play on the tracks, she didn't play on them, no matter how many demos she may have done!

What's the point of the demos, prosperity, formality?

 

[Phil Smith]

Originally posted by jerry
Carol is the one who is being disrespectful by claiming songs she hasn't played on!!!!! You can't make those claims and expect bassist not to say ***!! I think Brad made the best case by pointing out if she can improvise like that on the Motown recordings, how come she never played that well again.......like I said before, she is just like somebodys senile uncle, who's war stories get bigger at every family gathering.

That's a good case and I don't know what the answer is as I haven't listened to everything that she's done, I haven't studied her work and I'm assuming that anyone that's making that case has and if they haven't, oh well.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Originally posted by Phil Smith


That's not the issue for you, but the issue for me is why is she making the claims, I would like to understand that as opposed to dismissing her as a crackpot or a loon.



What's the point of the demos, prosperity, formality?

Not everybody here is dismissing her as a crackpot or a loon. I don't know that she's either, though it's possible, anmd personally I'd rather not speculate. I would simply suggest that at this remove, without a closer personal acquaintance with the parties than most of us are likely to get, trying to figure out "why" may not be possible.

You can do demos for a lot of reasons. To convince an artist or producer to do a song, for instance. That doesn't mean they necessarily guide how the record gets done.

Also, as has been noted, Motown often recut hits over and over with different artists. No doubt Kaye did some of these. That still doesn't give her any right to claim Jamerson's work.

"d)There was lot's of demo and B-side work was also done in LA often for their frontline stars. Motown was first and foremost a publishing company. Every time they had a hit, they recut it several times with other acts to increase their Jobete royalties. (Jobete was Motown's publishing arm.) This gave rise to tracks like Smokey Robinson cutting "Beauty Is Only Skin Deep" or The Temps and Supremes cutting "I Second That Emotion" and "Ain't No Mountain High Enough" (from the album Diana Ross Join The Temptations & The Supremes). Both of the last two titles were also claimed by Carol, so again, this may explain it. "Ain't No Mountain High Enough" also falls into the same category. It was from the same Temps-Supremes album and was an album filler remake. Carol played on that version but didn't play either of the original Marvin Gaye or Diana Ross hit versions. Most of the titles described in the previous paragraph were produced by West Coast Motown producer Frank Wilson so we know they didn't come from Detroit."

 

[Captain Scarlet]

Originally posted by Phil Smith
That's not the issue for you, but the issue for me is why is she making the claims, I would like to understand that as opposed to dismissing her as a crackpot or a loon.

Why is she making these claims? I don't think we'll ever really know, and I don't see how trying to understand that would be productive. It's all speculation. I used to put a lot of stock in what Carol wrote on her forum until she said that body and neck woods have no bearing on bass tone, and that moving the bridge pieces all the way back has no effect on intonation. I don't know what was up with that.

The case for Jamerson playing on those tracks is pretty convincing, based on the documentation, the testimonies of those that worked with JJ, and the original recordings themselves.

 

[Phil Smith]

Originally posted by Captain Scarlet

Why is she making these claims? I don't think we'll ever really know, and I don't see how trying to understand that would be productive. It's all speculation. I used to put a lot of stock in what Carol wrote on her forum until she said that body and neck woods have no bearing on bass tone, and that moving the bridge pieces all the way back has no effect on intonation. I don't know what was up with that.

So what, she's not up on bass construction, setup and how they effect the sound of the bass, there's a whole lot of bassists that aren't up on that. Though I will say that most Alembic Series basses sound like Alembic Series basses despite the wood combinations, YMMV.

 

[12bass]

Phil,

I think the issue here is one of showing valid authority.

If someone makes a number of questionable assertions, we start to wonder about the whole body of their claims.

Yes, we all slip up from time to time, but to repeatedly make claims that others have shown to be false is questionable. Sometimes it is simply better to admit that you might be wrong or are uncertain than to fight.

Respect is earned, and integrity is shown through consistent behavior.

 

[jazzbo]

Originally posted by Phil Smith


So what, she's not up on bass construction, setup and how they effect the sound of the bass, there's a whole lot of bassists that aren't up on that. Though I will say that most Alembic Series basses sound like Alembic Series basses despite the wood combinations, YMMV.

I don't know Phil, you seem to be making an awful lot of excuses for her.

 

[slugworth]

SO WHAT MY A$$. If a person does not understand
bass construction or how tone wood choice contributes to sound, DON'T STEP UP TO THE BULLY PULPIT AND CLAIM TO BE AN EXPERT! If someone does
not understand how mathematics and logarithms affect an instrument's scale lengths or overtone series, DEFER TO AN EXPERT, LIKE A LUTHIER AND
EDUCATE YOURSELF. For a person to claim to be
an expert on something even when confronted with
hard physical evidence or facts to the contrary
is ignorant. To continue to labor under a false
premise or assumption is intellectually lazy.
To attack another personally not because of the
content of what they said, but rather simply
because they have said it is arrogant.

 

[jerry]

Like I said....she's koo koo for coco puffs

 

[Captain Scarlet]

Originally posted by Phil Smith
So what, she's not up on bass construction, setup and how they effect the sound of the bass, there's a whole lot of bassists that aren't up on that. Though I will say that most Alembic Series basses sound like Alembic Series basses despite the wood combinations, YMMV.

It's one thing for her not to be up on bass construction and setup; I'm fine with that. However, it's a whole other thing for her to speak about such topics as an an authority when she's wrong about them, as she does on her site. That's what bugs me.

 

[PhatBasstard]

Originally posted by Captain Scarlet

I used to put a lot of stock in what Carol wrote on her forum until she said that body and neck woods have no bearing on bass tone, and that moving the bridge pieces all the way back has no effect on intonation.

Exactly! How can you put any stock in her other statements about anything when she makes quotes like these???