|
|
Post by Rich on Feb 12, 2016 4:17:56 GMT
Apparently, this is album is really rare because it didn't sell. My question is: Why didn't it sell? It rules! This album is so great to me, start to finish, and for a while I couldn't understand why it wouldn't be a hit with Morgan fans in 1958.
Well I came up with a theory today: The album is all covers, no originals. Maybe the audience at that time was very familiar with all the songs on the album, and when they were in the record store looking it over, they passed because they didn't see anything new? Me personally, I wasn't familiar with any of these songs before I heard this album so the material was all very fresh and new to me, and despite it being an album of covers, they are all great songs regardless!
It would be really cool to read the Downbeat review of it from back in '58. The Penguin Guide to Jazz Recordings gave it 3 stars and didn't make mention of the all-covers track listing. What do you guys think?
|
|
|
|
Post by bassman on Feb 12, 2016 11:38:40 GMT
Apparently, this is album is really rare because it didn't sell. My question is: Why didn't it sell? It rules! This album is so great to me, start to finish, and for a while I couldn't understand why it wouldn't be a hit with Morgan fans in 1958. Well I came up with a theory today: The album is all covers, no originals. Maybe the audience at that time was very familiar with all the songs on the album, and when they were in the record store looking it over, they passed because they didn't see anything new? Me personally, I wasn't familiar with any of these songs before I heard this album so the material was all very fresh and new to me, and despite it being an album of covers, they are all great songs regardless! It would be really cool to read the Downbeat review of it from back in '58. The Penguin Guide to Jazz Recordings gave it 3 stars and didn't make mention of the all-covers track listing. What do you guys think? Rich, I only started to subscribe to Downbeat a few years later, but I can help with a review by Eric T. Vogel from the January 1959 edition of Germany's best-known jazz magazine, "Jazz Podium". Not much of a revelation - but better than nothing at all. (I will skip the part that's about Lee's early career.) "20-year-old Lee Morgan is seen by many as one of the most talented trumpet players on the American jazz scene. ( ...) On this record, he is able to prove his talent in a most appealing way. Unlike most contemporary jazz musicians, he sometimes chooses to start with a note-by-note statement of a song melody followed by variation and improvisation. His lyrical talent is evident on slow numbers such as Since I Fell For You and All The Way, while fast titles are played with considerable fire and technical mastery. His sidemen - especially the brilliant Sonny Clark on piano - are given ample opportunity to shine." Still, he gave the album only three stars (out of six). My guess is he just didn't want to be too enthusiastic about a newcomer. Or maybe it was just a mistake made by the typesetter (which did happen at times!). |
|
|
|
Post by gregorythefish on Feb 13, 2016 12:23:56 GMT
lee morgan was not in a genre recieving a lot of radio play at the time, and radio play was ALL there was back then. so buyers would have had to know him, know blue note, etc.
and that cover didn't help things.
|
|
|
|
Post by dottorjazz on Feb 16, 2016 11:21:55 GMT
interesting post: many cats couldn't sell their records for different reasons, the first comin' to mind is the pianist in this session, Sonny Clark. but now: who would neglect their work? I won't say Morgan was out of his time, full hard bop era. Albert Ayler was, and didn't sell. always in all ARTS, there have been great artists who didn't sell, one for all: Vincent Van Gogh, almost 900 paintings, sold 1 (one) only, to the sister of one of his friends, both painters. people's taste different? critics' sleeping? no promotion? ignorance? Candy is my most expensive purchase.    |
|
|
|
Post by gregorythefish on Feb 16, 2016 18:09:18 GMT
You seem to have included "Leeway" in image 1 by accident there.  Nice record, though, in both cases! But man, I hate that idiotic cover. |
|
|
|
Post by dottorjazz on Feb 16, 2016 18:26:28 GMT
thx, fixed!
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich on Feb 17, 2016 6:17:16 GMT
You seem to have included "Leeway" in image 1 by accident there. Nice record, though, in both cases! But man, I hate that idiotic cover. I know people generally don't like the cover. Though I'm typically pretty sensitive to what I think of as poor album art, I don't hate this cover. The photo of Morgan is fun (by the trench coat I'm wondering if it's from the same photoshoot as City Lights?), which I feel compliments much of the mood on this record, and I (perhaps oddly) enjoy the juxtaposition of the majority of grey with the bold orange type. Weird I know...for some reason it speaks to me. Here's some food for thought: would the cover have been better in color?? |
|
|
|
Post by Rich on Feb 17, 2016 6:19:27 GMT
interesting post: many cats couldn't sell their records for different reasons, the first comin' to mind is the pianist in this session, Sonny Clark. but now: who would neglect their work? I won't say Morgan was out of his time, full hard bop era. Albert Ayler was, and didn't sell. always in all ARTS, there have been great artists who didn't sell, one for all: Vincent Van Gogh, almost 900 paintings, sold 1 (one) only, to the sister of one of his friends, both painters. people's taste different? critics' sleeping? no promotion? ignorance? Candy is my most expensive purchase. Those labels are so clean, Dott! |
|
|
|
Post by bassman on Feb 17, 2016 7:31:20 GMT
You seem to have included "Leeway" in image 1 by accident there. Nice record, though, in both cases! But man, I hate that idiotic cover. I know people generally don't like the cover. Though I'm typically pretty sensitive to what I think of as poor album art, I don't hate this cover. The photo of Morgan is fun (by the trench coat I'm wondering if it's from the same photoshoot as City Lights?), which I feel compliments much of the mood on this record, and I (perhaps oddly) enjoy the juxtaposition of the majority of grey with the bold orange type. Weird I know...for some reason it speaks to me. Here's some food for thought: would the cover have been better in color?? NO! |
|
|
|
Post by gregorythefish on Feb 17, 2016 18:44:20 GMT
yeah, gotta say. see "fat jazz" for likely result. no color on that one.
|
|
|
|
Post by SPENCER on Feb 18, 2016 22:27:42 GMT
It did not sell because of the album title. The title suggested that it might be a light weight album.
just my working theory...
|
|
|
|
Post by alunsevern on Feb 23, 2016 11:46:43 GMT
Maybe it wasn't well promoted, or perhaps the market was saturated with hard bop dates at the time? Had Morgan released a lot prior to Candy? Might people just have been fed up? (I genuinely don't know because I rarely if ever listen to Morgan -- he isn't really to my taste.)
However, I wouldn't mind that the cover played at least some part -- it has to be the worst Blue Note cover, surely. Not just amateurish but also out of character with the house style...
|
|
arick
New Member
Posts: 30 
|
Post by arick on Sept 14, 2016 1:04:41 GMT
It really is a decent album, but that cover is indeed terrible.
|
|
