Discussion:
Obscure 1950s Recordings Tournament - April - Round 1 - Group 6
(too old to reply)
SavoyBG
2019-04-12 14:56:40 UTC
Permalink
Group 6 is now open. Please rank these from best to worst.


Never Knew - Hank Ballard & the Midnighters


You Move Me, Baby! - Otis Blackwell


Kiss Me, Baby - Four Tops


Slow Down - Lou Mac

Roger Ford
2019-04-12 15:01:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by SavoyBG
Group 6 is now open. Please rank these from best to worst.
Slow Down - Lou Mac
You Move Me, Baby! - Otis Blackwell
Kiss Me, Baby - Four Tops
Never Knew - Hank Ballard & the Midnighters


ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (***@bblueyonder.co.uk) Please
delete same before responding.Thank you!
SavoyBG
2019-04-12 15:05:02 UTC
Permalink
MY RANKINGS

1. Slow Down - Lou Mac
2. You Move Me, Baby! - Otis Blackwell
3. Never Knew - Hank Ballard & the Midnighters
4. Kiss Me, Baby - Four Tops

Otis Blackwell can't sing and Hank Ballard can really sing, but the Blackwell record has the countermelody being played with the saxes that I really like and the Ballard is a strange one for him.
Dennis C
2019-04-12 15:20:18 UTC
Permalink
So strange it's singularly good

Ballard's vocal soars above a haunting beat and background singing.

Nobody's thinking about doing the twist, baby!!

I like it!!
Steve Mc
2019-04-12 16:14:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis C
So strange it's singularly good
Ballard's vocal soars above a haunting beat and background singing.
Nobody's thinking about doing the twist, baby!!
I like it!!
Well said, and agreed.
--
Steve Mc

DNA to SBC to respond
Steve Mc
2019-04-12 16:00:28 UTC
Permalink
This is the hardest one for mew. I really like them all.
And 3 are 4 are new keepers for me.


1. Never Knew - Hank Ballard & the Midnighters

2. Slow Down - Lou Mac

3. You Move Me, Baby! - Otis Blackwell

4. Kiss Me, Baby - Four Tops
--
Steve Mc

DNA to SBC to respond
Dennis C
2019-04-12 15:16:40 UTC
Permalink
In the order presented.

1- Hank Ballard

2- Otis Blackwell

3- Four Tops

4- Lou Mac
OleManRiver
2019-04-12 16:35:16 UTC
Permalink
1. Never Knew - Hank Ballard & the Midnighters
2. You Move Me, Baby! - Otis Blackwell
3. Kiss Me, Baby - Four Tops
4. Slow Down - Lou Mac
Bob Roman
2019-04-12 17:52:56 UTC
Permalink
1. Lou Mac
2. Blackwell
3. Tops
4. Ballard

--
BR
Bill B
2019-04-12 18:05:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by SavoyBG
Group 6 is now open. Please rank these from best to worst.
1 Never Knew - Hank Ballard & the Midnighters
Post by SavoyBG
http://youtu.be/gBoBFwXCDzk
2 Slow Down - Lou Mac
Post by SavoyBG
http://youtu.be/NbPP4dFtxSk
3 You Move Me, Baby! - Otis Blackwell
Post by SavoyBG
http://youtu.be/zAlCmZLt0cI
4 Kiss Me, Baby - Four Tops
Post by SavoyBG
http://youtu.be/O7abipWiQIM
Jim Colegrove
2019-04-12 18:22:48 UTC
Permalink
1. You Move Me, Baby! - Otis Blackwell

2. Kiss Me, Baby - Four Tops

3. Slow Down - Lou Mac

4. Never Knew - Hank Ballard & the Midnighters
Mark Dintenfass
2019-04-12 21:16:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by SavoyBG
Group 6 is now open. Please rank these from best to worst.
Weak group.


Never Knew - Hank Ballard & the Midnighters
You Move Me, Baby! - Otis Blackwell
Slow Down - Lou Mac
Kiss Me, Baby - Four Tops
--
--md
_________
Remove xx's from address to reply
Rick Schubert
2019-04-12 21:28:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by SavoyBG
Group 6 is now open. Please rank these from best to worst.
1. Kiss Me, Baby - Four Tops
2. You Move Me, Baby! - Otis Blackwell
3. Slow Down - Lou Mac
4. Never Knew - Hank Ballard & the Midnighters
Dennis C
2019-04-12 21:36:45 UTC
Permalink
Hank Ballard!!

Love him or piss on him, baby!!
DianeE
2019-04-12 23:57:35 UTC
Permalink
4 good 'uns this time.

1- Slow Down - Lou Mac
2- Kiss Me, Baby - Four Tops
3- Never Knew - Hank Ballard & the Midnighters
4- You Move Me, Baby! - Otis Blackwell
SavoyBG
2019-04-13 02:37:15 UTC
Permalink
FINAL RANKINGS

1- Slow Down - Lou Mac - 30
2- You Move Me, Baby! - Otis Blackwell - 30

3- Never Knew - Hank Ballard & the Midnighters - 28
4- Kiss Me, Baby - Four Tops - 22

Lou Mac wins the tie breaker as her record was rated higher than the Otis Blackwell on 6 of the 11 ballots. Both records advance to Round 2, while the Hank Ballard and the Four Tops are done.
Bill B
2019-04-13 11:02:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by SavoyBG
FINAL RANKINGS
1- Slow Down - Lou Mac - 30
2- You Move Me, Baby! - Otis Blackwell - 30
3- Never Knew - Hank Ballard & the Midnighters - 28
4- Kiss Me, Baby - Four Tops - 22
Lou Mac wins the tie breaker as her record was rated higher than the Otis Blackwell on 6 of the 11 ballots. Both records advance to Round 2, while the Hank Ballard and the Four Tops are done.
Does coming in third have any benefit versus coming in fourth?
SavoyBG
2019-04-13 12:48:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill B
Post by SavoyBG
FINAL RANKINGS
1- Slow Down - Lou Mac - 30
2- You Move Me, Baby! - Otis Blackwell - 30
3- Never Knew - Hank Ballard & the Midnighters - 28
4- Kiss Me, Baby - Four Tops - 22
Lou Mac wins the tie breaker as her record was rated higher than the Otis Blackwell on 6 of the 11 ballots. Both records advance to Round 2, while the Hank Ballard and the Four Tops are done.
Does coming in third have any benefit versus coming in fourth?
In the Prelims it does. Here it's just for pride :-)
RWC
2019-04-14 01:54:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by SavoyBG
Here it's just for pride :-)
- revealing a strong 'identity' relationship between a nomination and it's
owner (leaving aside robo-Bob :-). Further evidence / acknowledgement of
personal involvement is the habit of highlighting successful nominators (which
also identifies the not so successful :-).

There's nothing wrong with this, it's completely normal, but it has
ramifications for Obscurities which were practically non-existent in the Battle
tournaments - the "Mona Lisa" observation is a misleading red herring, the
*degree* of personal association is not comparable to say "Slow Down {Lou Mac}",
and there are other major differences between the Battle and Obscurities
tournaments (for a start, all candidate Battle songs were chosen by just one,
well accepted by all, chart and r&b expert).

(OT: with a different meaning, several years ago I coined the word "robo-poli" -
a politician, who in interviews and speeches is very adept at just parroting
his/her party's current political playbook on policies and criticisms of the
opposition - **even if it doesn't answer a specific question put to them**.
These robo-polies are so predictable (for regular consumers of political
discourse) that one 'groans', and turns off, before they even open their mouths.
These party hacks are probably highly valued by their political cohorts for
being very dependable party mouthpieces. Just recently, another equivalent word
popped into my mind - poli-parrot. It seems that many politicians are so living
in a 'bubble' that they are not aware of the extent to which modern audiences
critique what they say - the same goes for advertising, increasingly people are
analyzing the adverts they watch, trying to guess target demographics and the
persuasion techniques used by the creators.)
SavoyBG
2019-04-14 02:01:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by RWC
Post by SavoyBG
Here it's just for pride :-)
- revealing a strong 'identity' relationship between a nomination and it's
owner (leaving aside robo-Bob :-). Further evidence / acknowledgement of
personal involvement is the habit of highlighting successful nominators (which
also identifies the not so successful :-).
There's nothing wrong with this, it's completely normal, but it has
ramifications for Obscurities which were practically non-existent in the Battle
tournaments - the "Mona Lisa" observation is a misleading red herring, the
*degree* of personal association is not comparable to say "Slow Down {Lou Mac}",
and there are other major differences between the Battle and Obscurities
tournaments (for a start, all candidate Battle songs were chosen by just one,
well accepted by all, chart and r&b expert).
No, Roger took nominations for songs to be included from anyone who wanted to provide them.
RWC
2019-04-14 04:16:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by SavoyBG
Post by RWC
all candidate Battle songs were chosen by just one,
well accepted by all, chart and r&b expert).
No, Roger took nominations for songs to be included from anyone who wanted to provide them.
I vaguely remember that now, Bruce, but I still claim that by the end of any
Battle contest, any association, in the minds of *other* participants, of a song
with a nominator, is either unknown (didn't register at the start), is
forgotten, or anyway has next to no meaningfulness. With the Obscurities
tournament, I bet everyone remembers that Steve won the first contest with a
Walker instrumental - but how many voters can remember the name of the song [yes
we know Bruce and Roger likely can with their prodigious memories] :-)

Here's another difference, no song in a Battle contest is abruptly eliminated
into oblivion. IIRC all Battle candidates are listed in the final result, below
the winner. Again, elimination is okay, but it amplifies the importance of
matchups.
Bob Roman
2019-04-14 03:30:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by RWC
(leaving aside robo-Bob :-).
several years ago I coined the word "robo-poli" -
a politician, who in interviews and speeches is very adept at just parroting
his/her party's current political playbook
How 'bout that. I'm the first person in history criticized for parroting myself.

--
BR
RWC
2019-04-14 06:10:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Roman
Post by RWC
(leaving aside robo-Bob :-).
several years ago I coined the word "robo-poli" -
a politician, who in interviews and speeches is very adept at just parroting
his/her party's current political playbook
How 'bout that. I'm the first person in history criticized for parroting myself.
Bob, you've ignored the prefix "with a different meaning". The first meaning
referred to robots / androids (like that pleasant guy Data in Star Trek), who do
not have the full gamut of human emotions/ego.

"the songs themselves are the point. The outcome is just a by-product"

But in reality (which can't be escaped) the songs are not the sole point, and,
in conjunction with the brusque dismissive remark that follows, you effectively
ignore significant human factors, which come about as a result of the way the
tournament is designed and hosted. Quite frankly, while Bruce is
genuinely interested in 'new' semi-obscure songs, I suspect he also wanted the
tournament, in a secondary way, to be a contest between nominators, to add extra
spice and interest, etc. As soon as you have a contest between humans (and not
just songs), feelings are involved to a lesser or greater degree.

If a mainstream android *was* to be affected by the tournament, it would be
because the results of many matchup contests "do not compute", causing its
circuitry to overheat and wear out more quickly :-)
Bob Roman
2019-04-14 12:28:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by RWC
But in reality (which can't be escaped) the songs are not the sole point, and,
in conjunction with the brusque dismissive remark that follows, you effectively
ignore significant human factors, which come about as a result of the way the
tournament is designed and hosted. Quite frankly, while Bruce is
genuinely interested in 'new' semi-obscure songs, I suspect he also wanted the
tournament, in a secondary way, to be a contest between nominators, to add extra
spice and interest, etc. As soon as you have a contest between humans (and not
just songs), feelings are involved to a lesser or greater degree.
I suppose you could say there is a spectrum of possible responses to these contests.

On one end, there is the response of caring NOT AT ALL about the winner and just enjoying hearing unfamiliar songs. You can put me as defining that end (although others have said similar things).

At the other end is your response, which is to care so deeply about the winner that you can't bring yourself to participate in a process that you wish were handled differently.

Your response is legitimate for you. But objectively -- given that others are participating -- most people are closer to my allegedly inhuman "android" response.

--
BR
DianeE
2019-04-14 17:43:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Roman
Post by RWC
But in reality (which can't be escaped) the songs are not the sole point, and,
in conjunction with the brusque dismissive remark that follows, you effectively
ignore significant human factors, which come about as a result of the way the
tournament is designed and hosted. Quite frankly, while Bruce is
genuinely interested in 'new' semi-obscure songs, I suspect he also wanted the
tournament, in a secondary way, to be a contest between nominators, to add extra
spice and interest, etc. As soon as you have a contest between humans (and not
just songs), feelings are involved to a lesser or greater degree.
I suppose you could say there is a spectrum of possible responses to these contests.
On one end, there is the response of caring NOT AT ALL about the winner and just enjoying hearing unfamiliar songs. You can put me as defining that end (although others have said similar things).
-----------
That would be me.
RWC
2019-04-14 20:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Bob Roman
On one end, there is the response of caring NOT AT ALL about the winner and just enjoying hearing unfamiliar songs. You can put me as defining that end (although others have said similar things).
-----------
That would be me.
After saying:

"I'm not real happy with the way this contest is going."
DianeE
2019-04-15 13:00:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by RWC
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Bob Roman
On one end, there is the response of caring NOT AT ALL about the winner and just enjoying hearing unfamiliar songs. You can put me as defining that end (although others have said similar things).
-----------
That would be me.
"I'm not real happy with the way this contest is going."
----------
Yes, I'm not happy with the "tournament" *format* because it doesn't do
what it purports to do, which is to declare the group's *favorites*.

(As I said, the only way to do that AFAIK would be to have all
participants rank the 44 nominees from 1 to 44, much like Bruce's Ray
Charles and Rolling Stones "surveys.")

If you thought I meant I wasn't happy because the songs I nominated
weren't "winning," you thought wrong.
RWC
2019-04-14 21:31:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Roman
But objectively -- given that others are participating -- most people are closer to my allegedly inhuman "android" response.
No right thinking person would accept your premise, Bob.

To spell it out. Participating does not necessarily mean that folk have no
feelings surrounding the progress of their songs *and other songs* and/or about
other features of the tournament - they, the participators, are simply of a
nature not to communicate publicly about these things. We don't know where 7 of
the 10 remaining participants are on the spectrum of feelings.
Post by Bob Roman
At the other end is your response, which is to care so deeply about the winner...
I don't mind which song wins as long as it's not mediocre or worse *for its
genre*.
Mark Dintenfass
2019-04-15 00:24:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by RWC
Post by Bob Roman
But objectively -- given that others are participating -- most people are
closer to my allegedly inhuman "android" response.
No right thinking person would accept your premise, Bob.
To spell it out. Participating does not necessarily mean that folk have no
feelings surrounding the progress of their songs *and other songs* and/or about
other features of the tournament - they, the participators, are simply of a
nature not to communicate publicly about these things. We don't know where 7 of
the 10 remaining participants are on the spectrum of feelings.
I with Bob, if you think we're supposed to chime in.
Post by RWC
Post by Bob Roman
At the other end is your response, which is to care so deeply about the winner...
I don't mind which song wins as long as it's not mediocre or worse *for its
genre*.
You've been around here long enough to know there's a spectrum of
opinions, even among this small group, about what is "mediocre" or a
weak example of a genre (if that's what you meant). We all think that
other people here sometimes have lousy taste. I, for example, think
that those who most favor group vocals tend to undervalue other r&b
genres, and I'm sure they think I often fail to appreciate doowop sides
they like. And that's part of the fun. Unless you think it's a better
world if we only talk to people who share our opinions, the way
Trump-lovers and Trump-haters only talk to those who agree with them.

BTW, thanks for making those mp3s of the entries available. It
certainly made faster and easier (for my old wrists, if nothing else)
to hear the entries.
--
--md
_________
Remove xx's from address to reply
RWC
2019-04-15 04:42:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Dintenfass
We don't know where 7 of the 10 remaining participants are on the spectrum of feelings.
I with Bob, if you think we're supposed to chime in.
I didn't *expect* anyone else to opine, but thanks for your feedback, Mark.
Post by Mark Dintenfass
I don't mind which song wins as long as it's not mediocre or worse *for its
genre*.
You've been around here long enough to know there's a spectrum of
opinions, even among this small group, about what is "mediocre" or a
weak example of a genre (if that's what you meant).
By 'mediocre' I'm referring to my perception of the 'likeability' of a song
within it's sub-genre. (I should have said sub-genre). I enjoy the best of all
40s and 50s sub-genres with the exception of improvised (unstructured) jazz.
Post by Mark Dintenfass
We all think that other people here sometimes have lousy taste.
True :-)
'Taste' can be a complicated thing; some people might not have much of an 'ear'
for music, they might choose records based mainly on intellectual, ideological
(eg identifying with and wanting to support repressed blacks), or calculated
thought (eg wanting to impress certain others). I've always chosen music based
purely on instinctive personal 'feelings', and for me this is the only fair and
acceptable kind of taste in a contest. If anyone does not agree, we can agree to
differ.
Post by Mark Dintenfass
Unless you think it's a better world if we only talk to people who share our opinions, the way
Trump-lovers and Trump-haters only talk to those who agree with them.
Indeed, a better and safer world might be one in which we don't get verbally or
physically bashed by extremists with opposing opinions. That's not fun. Just
saying.
Post by Mark Dintenfass
BTW, thanks for making those mp3s of the entries available. It
certainly made faster and easier (for my old wrists, if nothing else)
to hear the entries.
I'm pleased Rick and yourself found the tournament mp3s useful, thanks for your
uplifting comment.
SavoyBG
2019-04-15 12:44:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by RWC
By 'mediocre' I'm referring to my perception of the 'likeability' of a song
within it's sub-genre.
KEY WORDS "my perception."

That's why we have the group vote. But if you'd rather go by one person's perception we can have everybody nominate their songs and I will just announce the winner based on "MY" perception.
RWC
2019-04-15 22:05:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by SavoyBG
Post by RWC
By 'mediocre' I'm referring to my perception of the 'likeability' of a song
within it's sub-genre.
KEY WORDS "my perception."
That's why we have the group vote. But if you'd rather go by one person's perception we can have everybody nominate their songs
and I will just announce the winner based on "MY" perception.
Might as well, Brucie. That would save a lot of time, and we, the group, can
move smartly on to enjoy another batch of nominated/promoted obscurities.
Loading...