Introduction:

Only Solitaire: G. Starostin's Record Reviews, Reloaded Intro Notes Beyond this page the reader will find a bunch of superficial reviews
of pop music records, spanning the chronological distance of about a
century's worth of recording and of the tastes and judgements of one
individual. If there is a primary purpose to all this writing, it can be
described as inescapable egotistic self-assertion over one's record
collection, something that each and every individual with a record
collection, a computer, and an ability to string together a few coherent
lines of text is entitled to as long as «freedom of speech» has any
meaning. Each review tends to consist of a small bundle of facts about the
recording (for larger bundles of facts, please refer to specialized
literature on the artist), a self-honest attempt to describe the music in
accessible and meaningful terms, and a few subjective, but systematic,
opinions on the overall value of the record. No «ratings» are given -
rating the value of any record on a numeric scale is fun, but not
necessarily harmless fun - except for an overall «thumbs up» or «thumbs
down» decision, triggered by considerations of direct, irrational
likeability (the «heart» reaction) or by more rational ideas of «artistic
importance», «relevance», and «innovation» (the «brain» reaction). A record
may be liked, but not respected, or vice versa. However, it does not
necessarily need to be both liked and respected to get the thumbs in an
upward position. Reviews are separated in seven chronological categories - artists of
the pre-Beatles era covering everything (mostly blues, R&B, and rockabilly)
from the 1920s, then six more sections covering relatively distinct
chronological periods. Within these, artists are slowly reviewed in
alphabetic order. At the current rate, I may never get beyond the letter B,
but I do not really care. This is not science, and getting anywhere is not
the main purpose. Potential readers are encouraged to browse through these texts, and,
perhaps, even to follow certain recommendations (if they have not yet heard
the record in question), provided they have at least a few points of
intersection with the opinions offered below. If, on the other hand, it
turns out that we come from different planets, there is no reason
whatsoever for you, dear reader, to waste your time on what you will
unquestionably label as «drivel». There may be other, better reviews
waiting for you out there, or, perhaps, you would like to follow your own
uninfluenced destiny in this matter. By all means, then, I welcome you to
do just that. Contra my past experience with the HTML version of Only Solitaire, I
do not add any more reader comments to my reviews. However, I welcome
additional or dissenting opinions on the forum, and I promise to correct
any factual, grammatical, or stylistical mistakes and/or typos that you
spot (fairly easy to do when it is all in a single file). Last note: for fun and additional entertainment value, some of the
songs in the track list preceding the review are hyperlinked to Youtube
videos - but only in cases where there really is an accompanying video clip
or live performance that I think is worth one's love (or hate), not when
it's just an audio track over a bunch of boring photos. Enjoy - or don't
enjoy. The «Two Cents» Page.
For those who have no need of lengthy reviews, here's just one or two quick
thoughts and summaries on all the artists I have covered. Do not forget,
though, that even Britney Spears cannot be fully described in two
sentences, so these should by no means be taken for final and definitive
judgements. Build or burn at your own risk. Note: ? Smileys indicate artists well worth getting acquainted with; ?
blank circles are for okay ones who may have reasons to own fan bases but
do not rise beyond "decent"; ? anti-smileys are just what they are -
artists who are only here because of public notoriety and (perhaps) limited
historical significance, but they can also be great fodder to make fun of.
I'm sure they don't mind - they're supposed to be cool, understanding
people in any case. 1920-1960 ?Albert King: On a good day, this could be my favourite of all the «big fat
electric blues gurus». The man had a long, fluctuating, career, but one
that is actually worth following for at least one whole decade, unlike that
of so many blues purists; in the mid-1970s Fate ceased to mate him with
good supporting musicians, but for a whole ten years before that, he was
the blues spirit of Stax Records, providing a unique synthesis of the
Chicago style with classic R'n'B that, as strange as it may sound, nobody
else at the time was willing, or able, to replicate. Plus, he really was
one of Eric Clapton's most respected teachers circa the Cream period - it
is a downright injustice to love Disraeli Gears and ignore this guy.
Possible starting point: Born Under A Bad Sign (1967).
? Alberta Hunter: Lady Gracious of 1920s vaudeville-blues and also the most
spectacular late comeback in blues history. A bit too refined to relate to
on a personal level, but well worth worshipping on a universal one.
Possible starting point: Any decent compilation that cleans the sound up
well enough, or, for the comeback period, Amtrak Blues (1980).
?Amos Milburn: One of the three or four kings of the «jump blues» craze of
the late 1940s / early 1950s, nicely distinguished from the others by his
tremendous piano playing - a forefather of the rock'n'roll form and one of
the first purveyors of the rock'n'roll spirit ('Down The Road Apiece'
certainly rocks the house down). Possible starting point: Blues,
Barrelhouse & Boogie-Woogie is an excellent 3-CD set that covers most of
the important points, but it's out of print; in its absence, any reasonable
compilation will do (even the short ones usually have all the classics, but
you gotta make sure that these are the original 1940s/1950s recordings).
? Arthur Crudup: One of the first electric bluesmen and, in a way, the
progenitor of Elvis ('That's All Right, Mama'; 'My Baby Left Me') -
unfortunately, he only performed (I cannot even say «wrote») two songs in
his lifetime, the Slow Blues one and the Fast Proto-Rockabilly one, and
once you have tasted the two, there is little reason to taste a hundred
more exactly like them. All around nice dude, though. Very clean. Possible
starting point: Any compilation that has the songs mentioned above. Go for
the original versions, not re-recordings - this guy is mostly treasurable
as a part of history, and why would you want to own fake history?
?B. B. King: Having reigned as active King of the blues-de-luxe style for
more than half a century - grand, flaring brass, piano, and strings
arrangements have been going hand-in-hand with the man's singing and
playing ever since the late 1940s - B. B. leaves us with such a huge legacy
that it is almost impossible to make recommendations. Possible starting
points: Live At The Regal (1965) is frequently considered a landmark in
live electric blues performance; Completely Well (1969) may be King at the
peak of his studio powers. Generally, though, a B. B. King album is as good
as are the musicians, songwriters, and producers involved with it. And if
you decide to simply stick with a best-of compilation, nobody is going to
blame you, either.
? Barbecue Bob: One of the earliest forefathers of «Piedmont Blues»,
whatever that means in a non-purely-geographical sense; cool voice, similar
in seductive power to Blind Willie McTell (but also capable of growling),
and an interesting, if notably limited, guitar playing technique in which
dum-drum-dum-drum «flailing» freely alternates with slide passages. Like
most of the ancient bluesmen, this one, too, is mighty repetitive, but he
only recorded for about three years before kicking the bucket, making this
more forgivable than in others. Possible starting point: Any compilation
that has the major classics - 'Mississippi Heavy Water Blues', 'Motherless
Child', and that ultimate Depression anthem, 'We Sure Got Hard Times'.
?Bessie Smith: The Empress. Perhaps not the most versatile, nuanced,
diverse, or seductive urban blues performer of the 1920s, but assuredly the
most «titanic» of them all, and the one who was the least afraid to pour
pure gut feeling into the material, no matter how old-fashioned or generic.
Also, probably, the easiest blues queen of the decade to get into - not
least because most of her records have been cleaned up and remastered so
well by Columbia. Possible starting point: Any single compilation will do,
as long as the early years are covered.
? Big Bill Broonzy: The overall nice gentleman of ye olde country blues
that afforded himself a solid place in history through three things: (a)
recording like crazy over three decades of a generally very monotonous
career; (b) being one of the first American bluesmen to heavily tour
overseas in the 1950s, thus procuring front row seats in the hearts of
blues-thirsty European audiences; (c) overall nice gentlemanship and all.
Hugely overrated, but still good enough for half a CD worth of solid guitar
technique and occasionally adequate songwriting.
?Big Joe Turner: A figure of tremendous historical importance and a
potential source of kick-ass entertainment even today, but proceed with
care: the Big Joe formula is a