• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Carol Kaye Controversey Solved?

Status
Not open for further replies.
#141
Originally posted by Josh Walsh
I bought the DVD a few weeks ago and finally had time to watch it last night (just the movie - haven't looked at Disc 2 yet).

Awesome!

And just a thought on the "controversy", couldn't JJ have recorded a scratch track which was then transcribed and given to CK to read verbatim.

When I create a bassline I don't sound anything like JJ (who does?), but if you give me the sheet music (and about a year to work out the nuances!) I can sound (somewhat) like him. And I'm willing to bet that CK is a heck of a lot better of a sight reader than I am.

That would be one heck of a chart. I think you hit on the key... a year to work out the nuances;)

You'd need not only notation to reflect pitch and time but also "how" he played each note and phrase. Charts don't typically deal with the little things like the bounce he got off of some notes or how he let some decay and stopped others.

It's like Rocco... I've heard a ton of people try and cop his note choices and feel but I can't honestly say I've heard anyone sound exactly like him. Whoever recorded the "hit versions" (VERY IMPORTANT!!) of the songs in question either was Jamerson or someone trying like hell and succeeding to sound just like him. With that in mind I guess he should get the credit either way;)

There, I solved it:D

Personally, I'm pretty sure that it's JJ, but I wouldn't bet my mortgage payment on it.

I would.... and I'd have no problem losing it if someone could prove to me that CK played with not only a Jamerson feel but on some of the best Jamerson-esque recordings that we know of. It'd be worth it to put an end to this.

Side note... there was mention that JJ playing a particular song laying on the floor wasn't a big deal. I'd be willing to bet another month's mortgage that you can't find anyone else who could do it... on the floor, drunk, with one finger:D
Click to expand...
 
#142
Originally posted by tuBass


I know her profile is still there, but go to the user search function and type in her name. It's not there. never having seen an actual banned poster, I don't know if this is normal or not.
Click to expand...

I've seen many banned poster over the years!! ;)

In the space where it says member, it usually says "Banned" or something equivalent. It's pretty obvious anyway...which is not the case here.
 
#145
#147
Originally posted by Josh Walsh


I certainly hope you are not grouping my statement into the "vague inferences, murky what-ifs, half-baked conspiracy theories, and unsupported claims".

No, that post was a kinda sarcastic response to something Craig said. Not in reference to your post.

That said; what exactly about my theory is more complex? It was admitted in the film that JJ had demons he fought for some time. If his original line was great but had a few too many "nuances" in it for the powers that be at Motown, maybe they didn't want to deal with the potential hassle of JJ rerecording it and instead just hired a pro to dupe the transcribed line (who knows whether JJ was in a good or bad swing when these songs were recorded). Hiring "ghosts" is hardly groundbreaking news in the music biz.

Looks pretty simple when you say it like that...
Click to expand...

Here's the more simple theory. Everybody but Kaye says Jamerson did the tracks. He did them. Eleven words.

The theory you gave involves a couple of extra steps and a few maybes. It involves a supposition about the potential quality of Jamerson's original line, the hiring of a pro to transcribe it, the shipping of the tape to LA, etc. These are additional steps, and how could they not make the theory more complex? When you add more elements to a theory you make it more complex, that's just the way it is. That doesn't make it wrong of course, but there's just no real evidence for it that I can see.

And as for Jamerson on a good or bad swing, I've heard nothing to indicate that his playing was anything other than pretty consistently stellar *at this point in his career*. Remember, we're not talking 1979 here, we're talking mid-1960s.

As for ghosts, you usually use those when someone can't cut his or her part. When the Funk Brothers were peaking, which is when the disputed tracks were recorded, they were working all the time booked solid. I think they were cutting it most of the time during that period. And from the way Jamerson's peers talked about him, if anyone would be on top of his game at this time, it would be JJ. Finally, the producers, and sometimes various record company people, were right there in the room with the musicians. If the track wasn't happening, why wouldn't they just have them do it over on the spot? Or if they later found something they didn't like, why wouldn't they just bring the song back in the next time the Bros had a slot open?

Sure, I saw that you were pretty convinced that it was JJ. I just didn't think the alternative theory you proposed seemed plausible. Nothing personal, and no offense meant. If I came off as attacking you personally, I apologize sincerely. Maybe I feel a little more vehement than usual today having just seen SITSOM last night.
 
#148
Originally posted by Richard Lindsey None of this means that I don't deeply respect the contributions *both* Kaye and Jamerson have made to our instrument. I do, and so, I'd venture to say, do most if not all of the posters on this thread. It's quite possible to feel that way, with full sincerity, and still feel that this controversy is a crock.
Click to expand...

I think thats a big part of the problem with this topic. More so on the part of the small few who believe Carol Kaye did the tracks in question. No one is trying to take away from Carols skills as a bassist, shes a damn good one. The evidence just simply points to Jamerson. So I dont see why people would think that because one disbelieves Carol, one wouldnt still respect her abilities. Its quite juvinile in my opinion.
 
#149
You'd need not only notation to reflect pitch and time but also "how" he played each note and phrase. Charts don't typically deal with the little things like the bounce he got off of some notes or how he let some decay and stopped others.
Click to expand...

A player who understood the style could take any chart and make that "kind" of performance out of it. Those who try to notate that kind of feel fail to realize that it doesn't come from the European school regarding notation. It comes from the individual not the chart.

That is one of the problems that I think Jamerson had when he came to California. He was used to having the luxury of heavily interpreting the music and CA is or was (because of the movie industry) a read the notes kinda situation when he got here. The arranger was king by that time.
 
#150
Originally posted by Josh Walsh


:D

Once again; I'm not saying she did these tracks, I'm just bringing up a (imo) viable possibility. Is it VERY viable? Nope. But it is certainly a possibility.
Click to expand...

Cool, I understand what you're saying. I guess my whole thing with this is, possibilities can be multiplied almost ad infinitum, and it doesn't really prove anything if there's no backup. Any of us could probably come up with a dozen alternative scenarios that *could have* happened. But ... to what end, you know what I'm saying? The main reason you look at alternative scenarios is that the existing one doesn't adequately explain what's there, and that doesn't seem to me to be the case here. Also, the alternative explanation should be able to explain the facts at least as well as and ideally better than the prevailing one. Which doesn't seem to be the case either. So I guess in this instance, I don't see how introducing theoretically possible but implausible scenarios would get us closer to figuring out what did happen, which presumably is what inquiring minds want to know!

Again, I don't mean this as personal, I mean it as part of a discussion of an idea.
 
#151
Originally posted by Josh Walsh


:D

Seriously, my last teacher (who was an excellent sight reader), could play the lines in SITSOM (the book) and sound just like JJ (or certainly VERY close). An experienced player could learn enough about JJ's style from a small sampling of his key tracks (arguably some of these "disputed" tracks included), to at least perform a good dupe with an accurate transcription. "Feel" can be duped, at least to an extent.

Here's a minor issue I have with that scenario... we're talking about someone today sounding just like JJ over thirty years later. They'd have the possible advantage of having heard his lines about a million times.

There are lots of folks who can play Jaco's stuff... now. How many could do it in 1978?

;)

Once again; I'm not saying she did these tracks, I'm just bringing up a (imo) viable possibility. Is it VERY viable? Nope. But it is certainly a possibility.

And even though I just refinanced and lopped 20% off my mortgage payment, I still ain't bettin'...
Click to expand...
 
#152
Brad,

I would say that Josh's point still holds since Bob Babbit's feel was close to Jamerson's to the point that some of the tunes that Bob played on are attributed to Jamerson. Moreover a very close approximation from an excellent sight reader and the rest of the arrangement will bring it in close enough for market purposes.
 
#153
Speaking of the money Josh...

One of Richard's great points is what sense would it make for Motown to pay the local cats to do these sessions, and then have LA session cats, at a higher cost mind you (union scale had to be higher in LA...forget that "cash" payment BS), re-record the tracks exactly as originally recorded so that no one would know that white session players were doing the sessions and not the black cats in Detroit (as Carol has suggested). Man that's just so looney I'm dumbfounded reading what I just typed.

You just heard the Funk Brothers, after 40 YEARS, play all that sh*t live, and it sounds as fresh as if they just did the sessions yesterday. Even the tempos are friggin' exact. Take special note of how Pistol Allen and Uriel Jones play in unison , as they often did on the original sessions (sometimes 3 drummers!), and you cannot hear two drum parts if you close your eyes.

These cats' playing is so ridiculously awesome now, it's absolutely ludicrous for anyone to believe these guys were "tracked over" back in the day. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
#154
Originally posted by Josh Walsh


Good point, but my point was that JJ might have been "subpar" on his part. Maybe making a few too many glitches. Then, instead of risking the same mistakes, it would be cheaper to hire someone you know can do it in a pass off a transcription.

Josh, please...view the 2nd DVD from SITSOM. With the possible exception of Benny Benjamin, those cats were always ready to play and did minimum takes (usually four tunes in two hours, and mostly hits too!), especially Jamerson. Pay close attention to the Jamerson-so-drunk-he-had-to-do-the-take-lying-down story. The reason he was drunk was that Marvin Gaye decided in the middle of the night that he had to do as session RIGHT NOW (I believe it was "Whats Going On?"...no?), so they grabbed right off the bandstand at a gig at the end of the night. And he was gassed.

And always remember that these session charges were a mere pittance in comparison to what these huge hits brought in to Motown. A few extra sessions wouldn't mean a thing to their bottom line...

Again, watch the DVD again and check out how Barry Gordy felt about money.

One thing I don't understand though, is Carol making it a race or gender issue. That is flat out looney.

I don't think she can make up here mind on that one.
Click to expand...
 
#155
Originally posted by Josh Walsh


Good point, but my point was that JJ might have been "subpar" on his part. Maybe making a few too many glitches. Then, instead of risking the same mistakes, it would be cheaper to hire someone you know can do it in a pass off a transcription.
Click to expand...
But if the track wasn't happening, the cheapest as well as easiest thing would have been to just do another take (or six) while the band was there and the song was in their heads. The next cheapest would be to tackle the song another day. The third cheapest (or maybe the second) would be to bring in another Detroit-area bassist, like Babbitt or this other guy Chuck Rainey mentioned--Ron Brown. Seems to me that shipping it to CA, and either putting the song in the hands of another producer or sending the Detroit producer along (you normally don't change producers in the middle of a song--an album maybe, but typically not a song) would be at best the fourth cheapest thing they could do, and probably the most time-consuming. Sure, it's not impossible, if nothing else works, but wouldn't there be a number of folks still alive who'd remember that?

And if I remember what Slutsky said correctly, there are at least a *couple dozen* seminal JJ performances that CK claims, not just 9. Hmm, I think I need a shave ... hey, whose razor is this? Some guy named "Occam"?;)
 
#157
Originally posted by Josh Walsh


it would be cheaper to hire someone you know can do it in a pass off a transcription.
Click to expand...

One more thing: by all accounts, at that point in his career, as far as Motown was concerned, Jamerson WAS the "someone you know can do it"--and without needing an exact transcription. Not that he always played perfect, noone does, but he made a living for years getting things very right very quickly. Even when tired, stressed, or otherwise, um, impaired.
 
#158
Originally posted by Josh Walsh


And always remember that these session charges were a mere pittance in comparison to what these huge hits brought in to Motown. A few extra sessions wouldn't mean a thing to their bottom line...
Click to expand...

That certainly doesn't mean they didn't care about money. From what I've heard, Gordy was quite tight. Why do you think the Funk Bros were expected to crank out 2, 3, 4, or even 6 tunes a session? Because the company wanted things done that way! One the reasons the Bros lasted so long is because they could do things quickly--that is, cheaply. If Motown had had to do their tracks over with any kind of frequency, they would have let the Bros go in a hurry, because not being able to use their tracks would have defeated the purpose of having a good in-house band.
 
#159
Originally posted by Josh Walsh


I think you are making some wild assumptions about what is the cheapest methods, but your last sentence does support exactly what I was saying. I already said that my line of reasoning is harder to support the more songs we assume it covers...
Click to expand...

Spending another hour or two in a studio *you own* isn't cheaper than flying people and things to and from CA and booking time and musicians there? (Remember, time is money too.) Calling a local bassist into Hitsville isn't cheaper than hiring a transcriber, flying a tape, booking more recording time in an LA studio (which you may or may not own--e.g., Motown didn't own Armin Steiner's studio), and hiring yet another bassist? I can't see that my assumptions were that wild.
 
#160
Originally posted by Josh Walsh


The movie debates this point somewhat (at least imo). They were very quick to include JJ as having battled demons immediately into the story. They at least allude that it was more serious than you are assuming...
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't think the movie says quite what I think you're suggesting. I think you're confusing two things: personal demons and musical demons. You can be positively beset by personal demons and still play beautifully. Practically the first thing the movie says about JJ is that he's a "tormented genius." That doesn't mean his playing was erratic, it means his life was. Nothing I've heard suggests that he was screwing up much *musically* in his peak years, whatever his personal life may have been like.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back