Are These Vocal Group Records?

[Bruce]

Are these vocal group records? I say yes to all three.

[bbug]

And I say you're varying degrees of nuts on all three.

For The Longest Time is where you are nuts, cuckoo and whacko. All the
voices are Billy Joel and there is no vocal group, period!

[bbug]

If one guy doing all the voices can make a vocal group record, I'd like
an answer to a question I posted previously in jest. Is "Ain't Got No
Home" a vocal group record? I remember you saying there had to be three
voices to make one.

[Bruce]

Post by bbug
If one guy doing all the voices can make a vocal group record, I'd like
an answer to a question I posted previously in jest. Is "Ain't Got No
Home" a vocal group record? I remember you saying there had to be three
voices to make one.

[Bruce]

Post by bbug
If one guy doing all the voices can make a vocal group record, I'd like
an answer to a question I posted previously in jest. Is "Ain't Got No
Home" a vocal group record? I remember you saying there had to be three
voices to make one.

There has to be at least 3 voices singing together. Three different
voices that never sing together at the same time is not a vocal group,
whether they are 3 different people or are 3 different voices provided
by the same person, or by AI.

"The Class" by Chubby Checker is NOT a vocal group record.

This one here is certainly a vocal group record:

[Bruce]

Post by bbug
And I say you're varying degrees of nuts on all three.
For The Longest Time is where you are nuts, cuckoo and whacko. All the
voices are Billy Joel and there is no vocal group, period!

That does not matter. It only matters what the record sounds like, not
who is doing the singing. Even A1 records are vocal group records if
they feature the sound of a vocal group, and there's no actual person
singing on those. A computer program is creating the vocal group sound.

All the voices on this one below are from the same guy, and it's still a
vocal group record. It's listed in the "Vocal Group Record Guide," by
Jeff Kreiter.

[Bruce]

Is this a vocal group record?

The artist just shows Huey Smith. The Clowns are not even mentioned. I
say it's a vocal group record, and is listed in Jeff Kreiter's Vocal
Group Record Guide. As are "Don't You Just Know It" and others.

And this too is a vocal group record, even though the lead artist does
not sing on the record. He is just the band leader.

[bbug]

Bruce wrote:'

Post by Bruce
Even A1 records are vocal group records if

they feature the sound of a vocal group, and there's no actual person

Post by Bruce
singing on those. A computer program is creating the vocal group sound

These and other examples you give such as multiple voices by the same
artist as vocal group records are not vocal group records. They are
IMITATION vocal group records.

[Bruce]

Post by bbug
Bruce wrote:'

Post by Bruce
Even A1 records are vocal group records if

they feature the sound of a vocal group, and there's no actual person

Post by Bruce
singing on those. A computer program is creating the vocal group sound

These and other examples you give such as multiple voices by the same
artist as vocal group records are not vocal group records. They are
IMITATION vocal group records.

If they were not vocal group records then you should be able to discern
that just by hearing them. The fact that you only declare them not be
vocal group records is when you learn where those vocal sounds came from
shows that they ARE vocal group records.

And method of classification of a sound recording that requires more
than just hearing it is a cop out IMO. If I played you the Blue Sky Boys
record and said that it was an unissued track from the 50s by an unknown
group you would surely agree that it's a vocal group record. It's got a
lead, first tenor, a second tenor, a baritone and a bass singing on it.

The fact that you would reverse your classification only upon
discovering that the same person is singing all 5 parts just shows how
illogical your method is.

ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS!

[RWC]

Post by Bruce
If they were not vocal group records then you should be able to discern
that just by hearing them. The fact that you only declare them not be
vocal group records is when you learn where those vocal sounds came from
shows that they ARE vocal group records.
The fact that you would reverse your classification only upon
discovering that the same person is singing all 5 parts just shows how
illogical your method is.
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS!

Despite this wise principle, Bill and Roger will persist in promoting
their own *idiosyncratic* definitions of what a vocal group record(ing)
is.

[Bruce]

Post by RWC

Post by Bruce
If they were not vocal group records then you should be able to discern
that just by hearing them. The fact that you only declare them not be
vocal group records is when you learn where those vocal sounds came from
shows that they ARE vocal group records.
The fact that you would reverse your classification only upon
discovering that the same person is singing all 5 parts just shows how
illogical your method is.
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS!

Despite this wise principle, Bill and Roger will persist in promoting
their own *idiosyncratic* definitions of what a vocal group record(ing)
is.

It seems that both Bill and Roger are exceedingly rigid in their way of
thinking. Stuck in a box, if you will.

I think they both need to learn to think outside the box.

[bbug]

Post by Bruce
It seems that both Bill and Roger are exceedingly rigid in their way of
thinking. Stuck in a box, if you will.

How ridiculous! To require an actual vocal group for a record to be
considered a vocal group record.

IMITATION vocal group records are just that. IMITATIONS!

[bbug]

Bruce and you will soon be claiming margarine is butter, tribute bands
are the original artists, Elvis is alive and other such ridiculous
extensions of the belief that imitations are what they are imitating.

And it doesn't matter how good the imitations are. They could even be
better than the originals. But they can never be the originals!


You two make a good team.

[Bruce]

Post by bbug

Post by Bruce
It seems that both Bill and Roger are exceedingly rigid in their way of
thinking. Stuck in a box, if you will.

How ridiculous! To require an actual vocal group for a record to be
considered a vocal group record.

So if Willie Winfield, Sonny Til, Gerald Gregory, Rudy West and Tony
Williams got together and made a group harmony recording they would not
be an "actual" vocal group?

Suppose they gave themselves a name like the Harmony All-Stars, would
they then be an "actual" vocal group?

Suppose they got together a second time a year later and made another
group harmony recording? Would they then qualify as an "actual" vocal
group?

What are the requirements for a vocal group like this to become an
"actual" vocal group?

Is this an "actual" vocal group or an "imitation" vocal group?

Loading Image...

[bbug]

Post by Bruce
So if Willie Winfield, Sonny Til, Gerald Gregory, Rudy West and Tony

Williams got together and made a group harmony recording they would not
be an "actual" vocal group?

They would be.

Post by Bruce
Suppose they gave themselves a name like the Harmony All-Stars, would

they then be an "actual" vocal group?

Even without a name.

Post by Bruce
Suppose they got together a second time a year later and made another

group harmony recording? Would they then qualify as an "actual" vocal
group?

Still, yes

Post by Bruce
What are the requirements for a vocal group like this to become an

"actual" vocal group?

First and foremost, THEY HAVE TO BE ALIVE.

[Bruce]

Post by Bruce

Post by Bruce
So if Willie Winfield, Sonny Til, Gerald Gregory, Rudy West and Tony

Williams got together and made a group harmony recording they would not
be an "actual" vocal group?
They would be.

Post by Bruce
Suppose they gave themselves a name like the Harmony All-Stars, would

they then be an "actual" vocal group?
Even without a name.

Post by Bruce
Suppose they got together a second time a year later and made another

group harmony recording? Would they then qualify as an "actual" vocal
group?
Still, yes

Post by Bruce
What are the requirements for a vocal group like this to become an

"actual" vocal group?
First and foremost, THEY HAVE TO BE ALIVE.

Billy Joel was alive when he made his vocal group record of "The Longest
Time."

[Bruce]

Post by Bruce

Post by Bruce
So if Willie Winfield, Sonny Til, Gerald Gregory, Rudy West and Tony

Williams got together and made a group harmony recording they would not
be an "actual" vocal group?
They would be.

Okay, so why when Al Cleveland, J.R. Bailey, Harold Johnson, Arthur
Crier and Curtis Lee got together and recorded "Pretty Little Angel
Eyes" why were they NOT a vocal group?

[bbug]

Post by Bruce
Billy Joel was alive when he made his vocal group record of "The Longest

Time."

But he is only one person. Where I live, a group means three or more.

Post by Bruce
so why when Al Cleveland, J.R. Bailey, Harold Johnson, Arthur

Crier and Curtis Lee got together and recorded "Pretty Little Angel

Post by Bruce
Eyes" why were they NOT a vocal group?

This is a tough call. I'm not sure where I stand on it. I lean to a
vocal group backing Curtis Lee.

Enough questions. This is what you always do when you're losing a
debate. Raise question after question to obfuscate the point.

I see you haven't replied to my statement that many of the records you
believe are vocal group records, such as The Longest Time and every AI
generated record, are merely IMITATIONS of vocal group records. What do
you have to say to this?

[Bruce]

Post by Bruce

Post by Bruce
Billy Joel was alive when he made his vocal group record of "The Longest

Time."
But he is only one person. Where I live, a group means three or more.

Post by Bruce
so why when Al Cleveland, J.R. Bailey, Harold Johnson, Arthur

Crier and Curtis Lee got together and recorded "Pretty Little Angel

Post by Bruce
Eyes" why were they NOT a vocal group?

This is a tough call. I'm not sure where I stand on it. I lean to a
vocal group backing Curtis Lee.
Enough questions. This is what you always do when you're losing a
debate. Raise question after question to obfuscate the point.

No, that's how I illustrate that my opponent is wrong. By showing them
examples that don't fit with their rigid ideas.

Post by Bruce
I see you haven't replied to my statement that many of the records you
believe are vocal group records, such as The Longest Time and every AI
generated record, are merely IMITATIONS of vocal group records. What do
you have to say to this?

It's too absurd to answer, but if you insist, they are all vocal group
records. Lots of vocal group records are imitations of previous vocal
group records. That in no way invalidates them as vocal group records.
How they sound is the only thing that matters. Everything else is
irrelevant IMO.

[bbug]

Post by bbug

Post by bbug
I see you haven't replied to my statement that many of the records you

believe are vocal group records, such as The Longest Time and every AI

Post by bbug
generated record, are merely IMITATIONS of vocal group records. What do

you have to say to this?
It's too absurd to answer, but if you insist, they are all vocal group

records. Lots of vocal group records are imitations of previous vocal

Post by bbug
group records. That in no way invalidates them as vocal group records.

How they sound is the only thing that matters. Everything else is

Post by bbug
irrelevant IMO.

The big word being opinion. Your opinion is based on what the final
product sounds like. Mine is based on the English language and the
facts.

A live vocal group imitating a live vocal group is not the question
here. Of course, they're vocal group recordings. More obfuscation.

[Bruce]

Post by Bruce

Post by bbug

Post by bbug
I see you haven't replied to my statement that many of the records you

believe are vocal group records, such as The Longest Time and every AI

Post by bbug
generated record, are merely IMITATIONS of vocal group records. What do

you have to say to this?
It's too absurd to answer, but if you insist, they are all vocal group

records. Lots of vocal group records are imitations of previous vocal

Post by bbug
group records. That in no way invalidates them as vocal group records.

How they sound is the only thing that matters. Everything else is

Post by bbug
irrelevant IMO.

The big word being opinion. Your opinion is based on what the final
product sounds like. Mine is based on the English language and the
facts.

The problem is that when you first hear certain records you would be
unable to tell us if it is a vocal group record or not until you
ascertain (if possible) who the singers are.

So if you heard "The Longest Time" without knowing who the artist is,
you would definitely say that it was a vocal group record, no?

So what happens if you never discover who the artist is? Does it remain
a vocal group record forever?

The rigidness of your definition ends up tying you up in circles with
all kinds of circumstances.

If we suddenly discovered that a famous vocal group record like "In The
Still Of The Night" was not sung by Freddie Parris, but rather by Roy
Hamilton, who took Fred's place that day because Freddie was sick. Would
it then NOT be a vocal group record anymore?

[Bruce]

Post by Bruce

Post by Bruce
Billy Joel was alive when he made his vocal group record of "The Longest

Time."
But he is only one person. Where I live, a group means three or more.

Post by Bruce
so why when Al Cleveland, J.R. Bailey, Harold Johnson, Arthur

Crier and Curtis Lee got together and recorded "Pretty Little Angel

Post by Bruce
Eyes" why were they NOT a vocal group?

This is a tough call. I'm not sure where I stand on it. I lean to a
vocal group backing Curtis Lee.

So if Willie Winfield made a record along with Sonny Til, Alexander
Sharp, Johnny Reed and George Nelson, that would not be a vocal group
record, but rather Willie Winfield backed by the Orioles. I don't get
why that would be different than Willie making a record with Rudy West,
Gerald Gregory, Tony Williams and Sonny Til, which you sa IS a vocal
group record.

I guess you are claiming that if the rest of the guys there happen to
also be the members of a different vocal group, that this new assemblage
of members can't also be a vocal group?

Suppose Willie is on the record but is not the lead singer. Does it then
become a vocal group record?

How about if Curtis Lee sang on "Pretty Little Angel Eyes," but did not
sing lead. The producer Phil Spector wanted an extra voice in the group.
Would it then be a vocal group record?

If the record as it was recorded was issued as by the Halos rather than
as by Curtis Lee, would it then be a vocal group record?

By the way, some of the Spector records by the Crystals and Ronettes
also included other voices besides members of the group. Are they still
vocal group records?

[bbug]

Let me cut through your obfuscation and hundreds of questions with a
simple definition of what a vocal group recording is. After this, there
will be no more response to your obfuscations and hundreds of questions.

A vocal group record is a recording by a self contained group of three
or more live and present singers.

[Bruce]

Post by bbug
Let me cut through your obfuscation and hundreds of questions with a
simple definition of what a vocal group recording is. After this, there
will be no more response to your obfuscations and hundreds of questions.
A vocal group record is a recording by a self contained group of three
or more live and present singers.

self contained - The dictionary meaning is complete, or having all that
is needed, in itself.

You've already said that the recording by Willie Winfield, Rudy West,
Sonny Til, Gerald Gregory and Tony Williams would be a vocal group
recording, so why do they qualify as a "self contained" vocal group?

What about "I'm Gonna Make You Love Me," by the Supremes and Temptations
together? Is that a "vocal group record?"

[bbug]

After this, there
will be no more response to your obfuscations and hundreds of questions.

[Bruce]

Post by bbug
After this, there
will be no more response to your obfuscations and hundreds of questions.

Okay, Senator Bugge.

[bbug]

Post by Bruce
Lots of vocal group records are imitations of previous vocal
group records. That in no way invalidates them as vocal group records.
In this debate, Bruce has not been obfuscating

Apparently, you prefer to wax eloquently without knowing the meaning of
obfuscating. Obfuscate means to make something less clear and harder to
understand, especially intentionally.

What else would you call Bruce's introducing live vocal groups imitating
other live vocal groups into a debate when it's obvious not an issue? Or
bombarding us with questions after questions after questions which can
call up many interpretations and make it extremely difficult to
concentrate on the point at hand?

I suggest you keep your misguided defense of Bruce by insulting Roger
and me to yourself. It wouldn't be so bad if you had even the faintest
clue as to what you are talking about.

By the way, when I stated that you and Bruce make a good team, I
expected him to disavow you immediately, but he has apparently been too
busy obfuscating to realize he's now in bed with the group's resident
kook.

[RWC]

Post by bbug

Post by Bruce
Lots of vocal group records are imitations of previous vocal
group records. That in no way invalidates them as vocal group records.
In this debate, Bruce has not been obfuscating

Gee, Bill, you seem quite upset. It's was your brusque and imperious
rejection of Bruce's debating points which prompted my initial response.

Post by bbug
Apparently, you prefer to wax eloquently without knowing the meaning of
obfuscating. Obfuscate means to make something less clear and harder to
understand, especially intentionally.

I want to reiterate that Bruce was not obfuscating. If Bill believes
Bruce was intentionally making the debate less clear, I think that
is a serious misunderstanding.

Post by bbug
What else would you call Bruce's introducing live vocal groups imitating
other live vocal groups into a debate when it's obvious not an issue?

The possessive form "Bruce’s" is not necessary here. "Bruce introducing"
is clearer and grammatically correct. "Obviously" is the correct adverb
form to modify the verb phrase "not an issue."

Post by bbug
Or bombarding us with questions after questions after questions which can
call up many interpretations and make it extremely difficult to
concentrate on the point at hand?

Bill, it seems like you might be misunderstanding the situation, which
could be affecting your comprehension.

Post by bbug
I suggest you keep your misguided defense of Bruce by insulting Roger
and me to yourself.

People who try to crudely suppress their opponents, like you,
Bill, can be described as domineering or authoritarian - someone who
seeks to control the conversation through bullying (aggressive behavior
intended to *belittle* or overpower their opponent).

Bill, it seems like you're trying to involve Roger in this complex
situation. Let's try to keep the focus on the main points of the debate.

Post by bbug
It wouldn't be so bad if you had even the faintest clue as to what
you are talking about.

Bill, obviously you're very upset (like Trump at his rallies).

Post by bbug
By the way, when I stated that you and Bruce make a good team, I
expected him to disavow you immediately, but he has apparently been too
busy obfuscating to realize he's now in bed with the group's resident
kook.

I'd rather be considered a kook, if that's true, than be someone like
you, Bill, who struggles with comprehension and self-esteem issues.

[Roger]

Post by RWC

Post by bbug

Post by Bruce
Lots of vocal group records are imitations of previous vocal
group records. That in no way invalidates them as vocal group records.
In this debate, Bruce has not been obfuscating

Gee, Bill, you seem quite upset. It's was your brusque and imperious
rejection of Bruce's debating points which prompted my initial response.

Post by bbug
Apparently, you prefer to wax eloquently without knowing the meaning of
obfuscating. Obfuscate means to make something less clear and harder to
understand, especially intentionally.

I want to reiterate that Bruce was not obfuscating. If Bill believes
Bruce was intentionally making the debate less clear, I think that
is a serious misunderstanding.

Post by bbug
What else would you call Bruce's introducing live vocal groups imitating
other live vocal groups into a debate when it's obvious not an issue?

The possessive form "Bruce’s" is not necessary here. "Bruce introducing"
is clearer and grammatically correct. "Obviously" is the correct adverb
form to modify the verb phrase "not an issue."

Post by bbug
Or bombarding us with questions after questions after questions which can
call up many interpretations and make it extremely difficult to
concentrate on the point at hand?

Bill, it seems like you might be misunderstanding the situation, which
could be affecting your comprehension.

Post by bbug
I suggest you keep your misguided defense of Bruce by insulting Roger
and me to yourself.

People who try to crudely suppress their opponents, like you,
Bill, can be described as domineering or authoritarian - someone who
seeks to control the conversation through bullying (aggressive behavior
intended to *belittle* or overpower their opponent).
Bill, it seems like you're trying to involve Roger in this complex
situation. Let's try to keep the focus on the main points of the debate.

Post by bbug
It wouldn't be so bad if you had even the faintest clue as to what
you are talking about.

Bill, obviously you're very upset (like Trump at his rallies).

Post by bbug
By the way, when I stated that you and Bruce make a good team, I
expected him to disavow you immediately, but he has apparently been too
busy obfuscating to realize he's now in bed with the group's resident
kook.

I'd rather be considered a kook, if that's true, than be someone like
you, Bill, who struggles with comprehension and self-esteem issues.

Neither of you two really strange bedfellows pushing these often
ridiculous revisionist ideas have so far explained clearly how or why
they weren't expressed in even the TEENIEST SLIGHTEST form at the time
of the two Vocal Group battles (and saying the contests were compiled
under "my rules" is a copout since I remember saying more than once that
operating suggestions in all of them were welcome)

[Bruce]

Post by Roger
Neither of you two really strange bedfellows pushing these often
ridiculous revisionist ideas have so far explained clearly how or why
they weren't expressed in even the TEENIEST SLIGHTEST form at the time
of the two Vocal Group battles (and saying the contests were compiled
under "my rules" is a copout since I remember saying more than once that
operating suggestions in all of them were welcome)

I've already explained that I knew that including all vocal group
records according to my methods would just be way too much work for you.
Same reason that I did not bring it up when George and I did the Relic
Surveys. I was the one who was doing the work involved to come up with
the eligible records. It was very time consuming already with only
listing things that we BY groups. It would have taken forever to come up
with every record from that year that featured vocal group harmony.

By the way, your vocal group battles included "Double Crossing Blues" by
Little Esther and the Robins, which you would now say would not be a
vocal group record under your rules, so who is the revisionist here?

It also included these other items which you would now say are not vocal
group records.

Joe Weaver & The Don Juans -- Baby I Love You So
Little Esther & The Dominoes -- The Deacon Moves In
Lil Greenwood & The Four Jacks -- Grandpa Can Boogie Too
Dinah Washington & The Ravens -- Out In The Cold Again
Little Esther & The Dominoes -- Heart To Heart
Savannah Churchill & The Four Tunes -- I Want To Cry
Dinah Washington & The Ravens -- Hey Good Lookin'
Savannah Churchill & The Four Tunes -- Time Out For Tears

[Roger]

Post by Bruce

Post by Roger
Neither of you two really strange bedfellows pushing these often
ridiculous revisionist ideas have so far explained clearly how or why
they weren't expressed in even the TEENIEST SLIGHTEST form at the time
of the two Vocal Group battles (and saying the contests were compiled
under "my rules" is a copout since I remember saying more than once that
operating suggestions in all of them were welcome)

I've already explained that I knew that including all vocal group
records according to my methods would just be way too much work for you.
Same reason that I did not bring it up when George and I did the Relic
Surveys. I was the one who was doing the work involved to come up with
the eligible records. It was very time consuming already with only
listing things that we BY groups. It would have taken forever to come up
with every record from that year that featured vocal group harmony.
By the way, your vocal group battles included "Double Crossing Blues" by
Little Esther and the Robins, which you would now say would not be a
vocal group record under your rules, so who is the revisionist here?
It also included these other items which you would now say are not vocal
group records.
Joe Weaver & The Don Juans -- Baby I Love You So
Little Esther & The Dominoes -- The Deacon Moves In
Lil Greenwood & The Four Jacks -- Grandpa Can Boogie Too
Dinah Washington & The Ravens -- Out In The Cold Again
Little Esther & The Dominoes -- Heart To Heart
Savannah Churchill & The Four Tunes -- I Want To Cry
Dinah Washington & The Ravens -- Hey Good Lookin'
Savannah Churchill & The Four Tunes -- Time Out For Tears

These are all fringe items I don't deny which is all the more reason why
I don't understand how you didn't push at the time for the inclusion of
more such examples

To show I will freely admit my fuck ups one BIG one is that I guess I
should have included "Double Crossing Blues" in my 1950 list in the
current series---and at #1 I think :-(

[Bruce]

Post by Roger

Post by Bruce

Post by Roger
Neither of you two really strange bedfellows pushing these often
ridiculous revisionist ideas have so far explained clearly how or why
they weren't expressed in even the TEENIEST SLIGHTEST form at the time
of the two Vocal Group battles (and saying the contests were compiled
under "my rules" is a copout since I remember saying more than once that
operating suggestions in all of them were welcome)

I've already explained that I knew that including all vocal group
records according to my methods would just be way too much work for you.
Same reason that I did not bring it up when George and I did the Relic
Surveys. I was the one who was doing the work involved to come up with
the eligible records. It was very time consuming already with only
listing things that we BY groups. It would have taken forever to come up
with every record from that year that featured vocal group harmony.
By the way, your vocal group battles included "Double Crossing Blues" by
Little Esther and the Robins, which you would now say would not be a
vocal group record under your rules, so who is the revisionist here?
It also included these other items which you would now say are not vocal
group records.
Joe Weaver & The Don Juans -- Baby I Love You So
Little Esther & The Dominoes -- The Deacon Moves In
Lil Greenwood & The Four Jacks -- Grandpa Can Boogie Too
Dinah Washington & The Ravens -- Out In The Cold Again
Little Esther & The Dominoes -- Heart To Heart
Savannah Churchill & The Four Tunes -- I Want To Cry
Dinah Washington & The Ravens -- Hey Good Lookin'
Savannah Churchill & The Four Tunes -- Time Out For Tears

These are all fringe items I don't deny which is all the more reason why
To show I will freely admit my fuck ups one BIG one is that I guess I
should have included "Double Crossing Blues" in my 1950 list in the
current series---and at #1 I think :-(

So you have your rules, unless you decide to break them. Why is Little
Esther and the Robins (or Dominoes) any different than Elvis and the
Jordanaires? Both groups are shown on the labels of the records. Clearly
Esther was not a member of the Robins just as Elvis was not a member of
the Jordanaires. Both should be handled the same way.

Post by Roger
I don't understand how you didn't push at the time for the inclusion of
more such examples.

I'm sorry that you still don't understand this explanation.

I've already explained that I knew that including all vocal group
records according to my methods would just be way too much work for you.
Same reason that I did not bring it up when George and I did the Relic
Surveys. I was the one who was doing the work involved to come up with
the eligible records. It was very time consuming already with only
listing things that we BY groups. It would have taken forever to come up
with every record from that year that featured vocal group harmony.

[RWC]

Post by bbug
After this, there
will be no more response to your obfuscations and hundreds of questions.

Senator Bill, in this debate at least, Bruce has not been obfuscating.

This is your, Bill's, simple and misleading joint attack-defence
stance forced upon you because of the superior and rational intellect
that Bruce has applied in *this* debate. At the end of the day, Bruce
has in affect asked only a few questions, not "hundreds" or even tens
(Bill, are you related to Trump?). Bruce has clearly outwitted you in
*this* debate and in a last desperate fling you have resorted to a sly
libelous attack and thrown in the towel by simply repeating your opening
flawed definition of what a vocal group record is. It's as if you are
making loud silly noises to drown out an opposing view, which amounts
to displaying willfull ignorance or deliberate avoidance of the relevant
issues Bruce has raised. Yes, to pre-empt you, this is just my opinion,
but which might be shared by thousands of folks (with college degrees)
if they ever got to follow this debate.

[Roger]

Post by Bruce

Post by Bruce

Post by Bruce
Billy Joel was alive when he made his vocal group record of "The Longest

Time."
But he is only one person. Where I live, a group means three or more.

Post by Bruce
so why when Al Cleveland, J.R. Bailey, Harold Johnson, Arthur

Crier and Curtis Lee got together and recorded "Pretty Little Angel

Post by Bruce
Eyes" why were they NOT a vocal group?

This is a tough call. I'm not sure where I stand on it. I lean to a
vocal group backing Curtis Lee.

So if Willie Winfield made a record along with Sonny Til, Alexander
Sharp, Johnny Reed and George Nelson, that would not be a vocal group
record, but rather Willie Winfield backed by the Orioles. I don't get
why that would be different than Willie making a record with Rudy West,
Gerald Gregory, Tony Williams and Sonny Til, which you sa IS a vocal
group record.
I guess you are claiming that if the rest of the guys there happen to
also be the members of a different vocal group, that this new assemblage
of members can't also be a vocal group?
Suppose Willie is on the record but is not the lead singer. Does it then
become a vocal group record?
How about if Curtis Lee sang on "Pretty Little Angel Eyes," but did not
sing lead. The producer Phil Spector wanted an extra voice in the group.
Would it then be a vocal group record?
If the record as it was recorded was issued as by the Halos rather than
as by Curtis Lee, would it then be a vocal group record?
By the way, some of the Spector records by the Crystals and Ronettes
also included other voices besides members of the group. Are they still
vocal group records?

What if pigs could fly?

[Roger]

Post by Bruce

Post by Bruce

Post by Bruce
Billy Joel was alive when he made his vocal group record of "The Longest

Time."
But he is only one person. Where I live, a group means three or more.

Post by Bruce
so why when Al Cleveland, J.R. Bailey, Harold Johnson, Arthur

Crier and Curtis Lee got together and recorded "Pretty Little Angel

Post by Bruce
Eyes" why were they NOT a vocal group?

This is a tough call. I'm not sure where I stand on it. I lean to a
vocal group backing Curtis Lee.

So if Willie Winfield made a record along with Sonny Til, Alexander
Sharp, Johnny Reed and George Nelson, that would not be a vocal group
record, but rather Willie Winfield backed by the Orioles. I don't get
why that would be different than Willie making a record with Rudy West,
Gerald Gregory, Tony Williams and Sonny Til, which you sa IS a vocal
group record.
I guess you are claiming that if the rest of the guys there happen to
also be the members of a different vocal group, that this new assemblage
of members can't also be a vocal group?
Suppose Willie is on the record but is not the lead singer. Does it then
become a vocal group record?
How about if Curtis Lee sang on "Pretty Little Angel Eyes," but did not
sing lead. The producer Phil Spector wanted an extra voice in the group.
Would it then be a vocal group record?
If the record as it was recorded was issued as by the Halos rather than
as by Curtis Lee, would it then be a vocal group record?
By the way, some of the Spector records by the Crystals and Ronettes
also included other voices besides members of the group. Are they still
vocal group records?

Enough with the "if's" !!!!

[Bruce]

Post by Roger
Enough with the "if's" !!!!

This is how us scientists debate. We propose a bunch of "what ifs" so we
are able to look at the issue from all sides and consider every
possibility. There is no room for emotion.

Waiting to hear why you see Little Esther and the Robins differently
than you see Elvis Presley and the Jordanaires. Why is Double Crossing
Blues" a "vocal group record," but "Love Me" not a vocal group record?
This is not an if.

[Roger]

Post by Bruce

Post by Roger
Enough with the "if's" !!!!

This is how us scientists debate. We propose a bunch of "what ifs" so we
are able to look at the issue from all sides and consider every
possibility. There is no room for emotion.
Waiting to hear why you see Little Esther and the Robins differently
than you see Elvis Presley and the Jordanaires. Why is Double Crossing
Blues" a "vocal group record," but "Love Me" not a vocal group record?
This is not an if.

On "Double Crossing Blues" the Robins are making a definite contribution
to the whole structure of the record trading whole verses on their own
volition and physically SHARING the song with Esther and very much
adding another dimension to the finished record

Much more so than The Jordanaires on "Love Me" where they merely back up
Elvis---adequately yes of course---but without really adding anything
new

I hope you been and voted and helped the Donald out :)

[bbug]

Post by Bruce
This is how us scientists debate.

So now you bestow the title of scientist upon yourself. Where did you
get your degree and in what subject? Per Wikipedia:

Natural science can be divided into two main branches: life science and
physical science. Life science is alternatively known as biology, and
physical science is subdivided into branches: physics, chemistry, earth
science, and astronomy. Here are lists of professions in both branches:
Physical Science
Chemist
Agrochemist
Analytical chemist
Astrochemist
Atmospheric chemist
Biophysical chemist
Clinical chemist
Computational chemist
Electrochemist
Femtochemist
Geochemist
Green chemist
Chemical laboratory technician
Inorganic chemist
Medicinal chemist
Nuclear chemist
Organic chemist
Organometallic chemist
Pharmacologist
Physical chemist
Quantum chemist
Solid-state chemist
Stereochemist
Structural chemist
Supramolecular chemist
Theoretical chemist
Thermochemist
Earth scientist
Astrogeologist
Biogeochemist
Climatologist
Dendroarchaeologist
Dendrologist
Edaphologist
Gemologist
Geoarchaeologist
Geobiologist
Geographer
Geologist
Geomicrobiologist
Geomorphologist
Geophysicist
Glaciologist
Hydrogeologist
Hydrologist
Hydrometeorologist
Limnologist
Meteorologist
Mineralogist
Oceanographer
Paleoclimatologist
Paleoecologist
Paleogeologist
Paleoseismologist
Palynologist
Petrologist
Sedimentologist
Seismologist
Speleologist
Volcanologist
Physicist
Acoustician
Agrophysicist
Astrophysicist
Atmospheric physicist
Atomic physicist
Biological physicist
Chemical physicist
Computational physicist
Cosmologist
Condensed-matter physicist
Engineering physicist
Material physicist
Molecular physicist
Nuclear physicist
Particle physicist
Plasma physicist
Polymer physicist
Psychophysicist
Quantum physicist
Theoretical physicist

Life science
Main article: List of life sciences
Biologist
Acarologist
Aerobiologist
Anatomist
Arachnologist
Bacteriologist
Bioclimatologist
Biogeographer
Bioinformatician
Biotechnologist
Bioarcheologist
Biochemist
Biolinguist
Biological anthropologist
Biophysicist
Biostatistician
Botanist
Cell biologist
Chronobiologist
Cognitive biologist
Computational biologist
Conservation biologist
Dendrochronologist
Developmental biologist
Ecologist
Electrophysiologist
Embryologist
Endocrinologist
Entomologist
Epidemiologist
Ethologist
Evolutionary biologist
Geneticist
Hematologist
Herbchronologist
Herpetologist
Histologist
Human behavioral ecologist
Human biologist
Ichnologist
Ichthyologist
Immunologist
Integrative biologist
Lepidopterist
Mammalogist
Marine biologist
Medical biologist
Microbiologist
Molecular biologist
Mycologist
Neuroendocrinologist
Neuroscientist
Neuropsychologist
Ornithologist
Osteologist
Paleoanthropologist
Paleobotanist
Paleobiologist
Paleontologist
Paleopathologist
Parasitologist
Pathologist
Physiologist
Phytopathologist
Population biologist
Primatologist
Quantum biologist
Radiobiologist
Sclerochronologist
Sociobiologist
Structural biologist
Theoretical biologist
Toxicologist
Virologist
Wildlife biologist
Zoologist

And more for other sciences:
Social science
Anthropologist
Archaeologist
Cultural anthropologist
Linguistic anthropologist
Communication scientist
Criminologist
Demographer
Economist
Management scientist
Political economist
Political scientist
Psychologist
Behavioral geneticist
Clinical psychologist
Cognitive psychologist
Developmental psychologist
Educational psychologist
Evolutionary psychologist
Experimental psychologist
Forensic psychologist
Health psychologist
Industrial and organizational psychologist
Medical psychologist
Social psychologist
Sport psychologist
Sociologist
Formal science
Computer scientist
Computational scientist
Data scientist
Mathematician[36]
Algebraist
Analyst
Geometer
Logician
Probabilist
Statistician
Topologist
Systems scientist
Applied
Agriculturist
Applied physics
Health physicist
Medical physicist
Biomedical scientist
Engineering scientist
Environmental scientist
Food scientist
Kinesiologist
Nutritionist
Operations research and management analysts
Physician scientist
Interdisciplinary
Materials scientist
Mathematical biologist
Mathematical chemist
Mathematical economist
Mathematical physicist
Mathematical sociologist


I don't see umpire or referee listed.

[Bruce]

Post by bbug

Post by Bruce
This is how us scientists debate.

So now you bestow the title of scientist upon yourself.

Didn't you post this earlier today?

Post by bbug
After this, there will be no more response to your obfuscations and
hundreds of questions.

Why are you back in this thread already just a few hours later?

[bbug]

I am not responding to your obfuscations or questions, just to a blatant
puffing out of your chest. Like something Trump does.

[Bruce]

Post by bbug
I am not responding to your obfuscations or questions, just to a blatant
puffing out of your chest. Like something Trump does.

[Bruce]

Post by bbug
I am not responding to your obfuscations or questions, just to a blatant
puffing out of your chest. Like something Trump does.
After this, there will be no more response to your obfuscations and

hundreds of questions.

such as:

"There will be no more debates," after he gets his ass shredded in a
debate like you getting done to you in this thread. And he also declares
himself the winner of the debate as he bows out, like you did.

You both just take your ball and go home.

[Bruce]

Post by bbug

Post by Bruce
This is how us scientists debate.

So now you bestow the title of scientist upon yourself. Where did you
Natural science can be divided into two main branches: life science and
physical science. Life science is alternatively known as biology, and
physical science is subdivided into branches: physics, chemistry, earth
Physical Science
Chemist
Agrochemist
Analytical chemist
Astrochemist
Atmospheric chemist
Biophysical chemist
Clinical chemist
Computational chemist
Electrochemist
Femtochemist
Geochemist
Green chemist
Chemical laboratory technician
Inorganic chemist
Medicinal chemist
Nuclear chemist
Organic chemist
Organometallic chemist
Pharmacologist
Physical chemist
Quantum chemist
Solid-state chemist
Stereochemist
Structural chemist
Supramolecular chemist
Theoretical chemist
Thermochemist
Earth scientist
Astrogeologist
Biogeochemist
Climatologist
Dendroarchaeologist
Dendrologist
Edaphologist
Gemologist
Geoarchaeologist
Geobiologist
Geographer
Geologist
Geomicrobiologist
Geomorphologist
Geophysicist
Glaciologist
Hydrogeologist
Hydrologist
Hydrometeorologist
Limnologist
Meteorologist
Mineralogist
Oceanographer
Paleoclimatologist
Paleoecologist
Paleogeologist
Paleoseismologist
Palynologist
Petrologist
Sedimentologist
Seismologist
Speleologist
Volcanologist
Physicist
Acoustician
Agrophysicist
Astrophysicist
Atmospheric physicist
Atomic physicist
Biological physicist
Chemical physicist
Computational physicist
Cosmologist
Condensed-matter physicist
Engineering physicist
Material physicist
Molecular physicist
Nuclear physicist
Particle physicist
Plasma physicist
Polymer physicist
Psychophysicist
Quantum physicist
Theoretical physicist
Life science
Main article: List of life sciences
Biologist
Acarologist
Aerobiologist
Anatomist
Arachnologist
Bacteriologist
Bioclimatologist
Biogeographer
Bioinformatician
Biotechnologist
Bioarcheologist
Biochemist
Biolinguist
Biological anthropologist
Biophysicist
Biostatistician
Botanist
Cell biologist
Chronobiologist
Cognitive biologist
Computational biologist
Conservation biologist
Dendrochronologist
Developmental biologist
Ecologist
Electrophysiologist
Embryologist
Endocrinologist
Entomologist
Epidemiologist
Ethologist
Evolutionary biologist
Geneticist
Hematologist
Herbchronologist
Herpetologist
Histologist
Human behavioral ecologist
Human biologist
Ichnologist
Ichthyologist
Immunologist
Integrative biologist
Lepidopterist
Mammalogist
Marine biologist
Medical biologist
Microbiologist
Molecular biologist
Mycologist
Neuroendocrinologist
Neuroscientist
Neuropsychologist
Ornithologist
Osteologist
Paleoanthropologist
Paleobotanist
Paleobiologist
Paleontologist
Paleopathologist
Parasitologist
Pathologist
Physiologist
Phytopathologist
Population biologist
Primatologist
Quantum biologist
Radiobiologist
Sclerochronologist
Sociobiologist
Structural biologist
Theoretical biologist
Toxicologist
Virologist
Wildlife biologist
Zoologist
Social science
Anthropologist
Archaeologist
Cultural anthropologist
Linguistic anthropologist
Communication scientist
Criminologist
Demographer
Economist
Management scientist
Political economist
Political scientist
Psychologist
Behavioral geneticist
Clinical psychologist
Cognitive psychologist
Developmental psychologist
Educational psychologist
Evolutionary psychologist
Experimental psychologist
Forensic psychologist
Health psychologist
Industrial and organizational psychologist
Medical psychologist
Social psychologist
Sport psychologist
Sociologist
Formal science
Computer scientist
Computational scientist
Data scientist
Mathematician[36]
Algebraist
Analyst
Geometer
Logician
Probabilist
Statistician
Topologist
Systems scientist
Applied
Agriculturist
Applied physics
Health physicist
Medical physicist
Biomedical scientist
Engineering scientist
Environmental scientist
Food scientist
Kinesiologist
Nutritionist
Operations research and management analysts
Physician scientist
Interdisciplinary
Materials scientist
Mathematical biologist
Mathematical chemist
Mathematical economist
Mathematical physicist
Mathematical sociologist
I don't see umpire or referee listed.

What is a scientist?

A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and
evidence, to make hypotheses and test them, to gain and share
understanding and knowledge. A scientist can be further defined by: how
they go about this, for instance by use of statistics (statisticians) or
data (data scientists).

I fit this description perfectly, and it does not say anything in the
description about needing to have a college degree to qualify.

Right now I am studying the science of vocal groups. I am using research
and evidence, to make hypotheses and test them, to gain and share
understanding and knowledge. Unfortunately some of the people I am using
for this process don't seem to have the patience that us scientists
require.

[Roger]

Post by Bruce

Post by bbug
Bruce wrote:'

Post by Bruce
Even A1 records are vocal group records if

they feature the sound of a vocal group, and there's no actual person

Post by Bruce
singing on those. A computer program is creating the vocal group sound

These and other examples you give such as multiple voices by the same
artist as vocal group records are not vocal group records. They are
IMITATION vocal group records.

If they were not vocal group records then you should be able to discern
that just by hearing them. The fact that you only declare them not be
vocal group records is when you learn where those vocal sounds came from
shows that they ARE vocal group records.
And method of classification of a sound recording that requires more
than just hearing it is a cop out IMO. If I played you the Blue Sky Boys
record and said that it was an unissued track from the 50s by an unknown
group you would surely agree that it's a vocal group record. It's got a
lead, first tenor, a second tenor, a baritone and a bass singing on it.
The fact that you would reverse your classification only upon
discovering that the same person is singing all 5 parts just shows how
illogical your method is.
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS!

I suppose you are entitled to your opinion but I don't share it--and I
don't think you (or anyone else here similarly minded) did until you
appear appear to have had this change of opinion of Damascene
proportions very recently.

Otherwise the questions still beg - why did NOBODY BUT NOBODY ever
query the case of the most famous and biggest selling artist of the
entire era now being proposed as having a whole shaft of "vocal group
records" to his name OMITTED ENTIRELY from BOTH Vocal Group Battles????

And why in God's name has it taken at least 25 years of this group for
this dispute to suddenly rear its ugly head? I don't recall ANYONE ever
bringing all this up before. Unkind folk might think that these new
opinions were only formed very very recently

[Bruce]

Post by Roger
I suppose you are entitled to your opinion but I don't share it--and I
don't think you (or anyone else here similarly minded) did until you
appear appear to have had this change of opinion of Damascene
proportions very recently.
Otherwise the questions still beg - why did NOBODY BUT NOBODY ever
query the case of the most famous and biggest selling artist of the
entire era now being proposed as having a whole shaft of "vocal group
records" to his name OMITTED ENTIRELY from BOTH Vocal Group Battles????

As I said before, it was your project so you set the rules. If you had
to actually include every vocal group record as I define them it would
have been way too much work to come up with the ballot.

Post by Roger
And why in God's name has it taken at least 25 years of this group for
this dispute to suddenly rear its ugly head? I don't recall ANYONE ever
bringing all this up before. Unkind folk might think that these new
opinions were only formed very very recently.

Well my vocal group lists that I have been posting in your threads are
at least 10 years old. Lots of the records that you say are not vocal
group records have been Kreiter's book and other vocal group
discographies since before this forum existed. I just opned a random
page and there are a shitload of them.

Ted Taylor on Soncraft
Chuck Foote on Soncraft
Allen Ryan on Sonic
Fontella Bass on Sonja
Lee Tillman on Sonora
Donald Height on Soozee
Deroy Green on Soozee
George Allen on Sotoplay
Gloria Mann on Sound
Ronnie Barron on Soundex
Dickie Wonder on Sound of Soul

That's just one page.

Lots of people have always considered these things to be vocal group
records.

[Roger]

Post by Bruce

Post by Roger
I suppose you are entitled to your opinion but I don't share it--and I
don't think you (or anyone else here similarly minded) did until you
appear appear to have had this change of opinion of Damascene
proportions very recently.
Otherwise the questions still beg - why did NOBODY BUT NOBODY ever
query the case of the most famous and biggest selling artist of the
entire era now being proposed as having a whole shaft of "vocal group
records" to his name OMITTED ENTIRELY from BOTH Vocal Group Battles????

As I said before, it was your project so you set the rules. If you had
to actually include every vocal group record as I define them it would
have been way too much work to come up with the ballot.

Post by Roger
And why in God's name has it taken at least 25 years of this group for
this dispute to suddenly rear its ugly head? I don't recall ANYONE ever
bringing all this up before. Unkind folk might think that these new
opinions were only formed very very recently.

Well my vocal group lists that I have been posting in your threads are
at least 10 years old. Lots of the records that you say are not vocal
group records have been Kreiter's book and other vocal group
discographies since before this forum existed. I just opned a random
page and there are a shitload of them.
Ted Taylor on Soncraft
Chuck Foote on Soncraft
Allen Ryan on Sonic
Fontella Bass on Sonja
Lee Tillman on Sonora
Donald Height on Soozee
Deroy Green on Soozee
George Allen on Sotoplay
Gloria Mann on Sound
Ronnie Barron on Soundex
Dickie Wonder on Sound of Soul
That's just one page.
Lots of people have always considered these things to be vocal group
records.

Lots of people can sometimes believe in the weirdest things as the
results of tomorrows US election may show in the next day or two

[RWC]

Post by Roger
Lots of people can sometimes believe in the weirdest things as the
results of tomorrows US election may show in the next day or two

The results of the upcoming US presidential election will not come about
because people believe in the weirdest things - this is a false analogy.

It is not weird to fear uncontrolled immigration.
It is not weird to want to protect the rights of women on the issue of
abortion.

Because it's such a tight race, nobody will view the final result as
being weird.