In today’s
society, there is a relatively widespread cultural awareness that white
musicians have been appropriating, or unscrupulously stealing for their own
gain, the music of their black counterparts. Many people who believe that such
phenomenon is occurring also often subscribe to the idea that white performers
who appropriate black music become more successful using the black artists’
creation. Moreover, some scholars and journalists who have written on this
subject possess the same view, showing that this perception of white
appropriation of black music exists in the academic and professional spheres as
well. It is true that white appropriation of black music, regrettably, has been
transpiring throughout history in various forms. Blackface and minstrelsy in
the 19th and 20th century were more egregious types of
appropriation, as they cemented and proliferated racist views and ideas. Less
appalling, compared to the aforementioned practices, cases of appropriation frequently
happened in the 20th century through stealing black musicians’
songs, one of the most famous participants being Elvis Presley. Moreover, it is
also generally true that the iterations performed by white musicians became
more successful and popular than those sung by black performers, raising the
question of what elements of a song were conducive to achieving commercial
success and why. Assessing the characteristics of a song and potential reasons
for its success will be carried out by juxtaposing several songs from the 1940s
and 60s that were performed both by white and black performers. However, the
noteworthy cases in which versions performed by black artists gained more
mainstream success and popularity than those by their white counterparts suggest
that the racial barrier, which stemmed from cultural, social, and financial
disparities, in the music industry, although it certainly existed to a
significant degree, has perhaps been hyperbolized.
To
begin with, popular perceptions of white appropriation of black music reflect
the idea that white musicians have been unjustly stealing the songs of their
black counterparts to achieve more success and gain more popularity at the at
the expense of black artists. The general public believes that this trend has
been transpiring for a long period of time and is still prevalent in society. The
advent of the Internet and social media has facilitated the dissemination of
such notion since numerous people are given various platforms to voice their
opinions and pay attention to other people’s thoughts. According to the
research conducted by Alexa Internet, an Amazon.com company, one of the most
visited websites today is Wikipedia, being ranked at number seven.
[i] Many
people utilize the services of Wikipedia since they perceive the website as
being informative as well as generally credible. In addition, the fact that one
is able to find a myriad of information with a few clicks of a button greatly contributes
to its popularity. Unless the reader is conducting a research, there is rarely
a need to look further than Wikipedia, which offers relatively detailed
information on various topics.
In the Wikipedia
article on “African-American Music,” an anonymous contributor states, “By the
1940s, cover versions of African-American songs were commonplace, and
frequently topped the charts, while the original musicians found success among
their African-American audience, but not in mainstream.”
[ii]
This quote exemplifies the popular belief that white musicians often
appropriated black music and garnered more success and popularity as a result.
Even though this statement appears to be true in most cases, it highlights
several dangers of relying on Wikipedia. Wikipedia provides a sense of
authority, but the reader actually has no idea who presented the information.
The contributors could include a middle school student, a university professor,
or both, but it is nearly impossible to ascertain their identity, and thus some
are perhaps granted unfounded ethos. Moreover, the author of this particular
statement fails to support it with any sources, meaning it could also be an
isolated view held only by the anonymous contributor. However, since the
general public regards Wikipedia as credible, many readers will believe and
circulate this simple and perhaps overgeneralized idea, solidifying the popular
perception of white appropriation of black music.
Josh Gondelman, a
writer and comedian with approximately 42,000 followers and 92,000 favorites on
Twitter, tweeted during the 2013 MTV Video Music Awards, “No one moment has
ever gentrified Brooklyn as hard as Macklemore winning Best Hip Hop Video at
the VMA’s.”
[iii] This
Twitter post voices his disapproval of the winner of Best Hip Hop Video. He asserts
that Macklemore, a white hip-hop artist, has appropriated the traditionally
black genre of hip-hop and unfairly won an award at the expenses of talented
black musicians, reflecting the aforementioned popular perception of white
appropriation of black music. This post holds a significant influence owing to
his incendiary language and fairly large following. Moreover, such provocative
diction greatly contributes to the post’s popularity, generating 313 retweets
and 211 favorites. Inflammatory language, coupled with Twitter’s word limit,
prevents meaningful discussions, about appropriation in this case, shifting the
focus to emotional, visceral reaction. Therefore, it fails to advance the
status of black musicians or promote equality in general and results only in
generating similarly provocative statements.
The same tweet is
also featured in a Huffington Post article titled “2013 MTV VMA’s: Everything
Was Black, Except The Winners.”
[iv]
In the article, written a day after the event, Danielle Cadet argues, “Let’s
face it, this isn’t the first time black culture has been popularized by white
entertainers––Elvis anyone? But something about it was so obvious last night.
It felt like someone took a white bucket of paint and spilled it all over the
BET awards. It was messy and offensive, and quite frankly, pretty sad.”
[v] Again,
the popular perception of white appropriation is reiterated and therefore
further disseminated. She recognizes that white appropriation of black music has
repeatedly occurred in history and attributes this to racism by utilizing
“white bucket of paint” metaphor as well as characterizing the event as
offensive. Evidently, there is a relatively widespread belief that white
musicians are exploiting the works of their black counterparts, and racism
plays a significant role in people’s explanation and reaction to the idea.
Some figures in the professional and academic
community mirror the popular perception of white appropriation of black music. In
a 1989 issue of
Calgary Herald, an
American media company, Knight Ridder, features an article titled “Stones built
on black music.”
[vi]
The article introduces jazz authority Chris Albertson’s thoughts on “Love in
Vain” by the Rolling Stones, stating that the recording made 40 years earlier
by Robert Johnson, an African-American blues singer, and the Rolling Stones’
version are “practically verbatim.”
[vii]
In addition, Henry Pleasants, a music critic, finds hearing “English boys
speaking cockney and various other regional inflections but singing in pure
American urban Negro without a trace of English accent” astounding.
[viii]
These two quotes, along with numerous other examples in history, demonstrate
that white musicians have been blatantly emulating not only black artists’ works
but also their mannerisms and techniques. Not only that, the quotes also reveal
some reasons as to why the general public’s view of appropriation has formed in
the existing manner. Pleasants’ astonishment highlights the fact that it is
even difficult for established music critics to determine all of the reasons
that white artists mimicked the behavior and characteristics of black
performers. Therefore, it becomes more challenging for the average listener to
understand the possible reasons behind it, taking the simple way out by solely attributing
it to racism. Consequently, the popular perception of racial barrier in the
music industry grows increasingly oppressive, potentially to the point of
diametrical divide between unscrupulous white musicians and innocent black
artists.
Craig Warner, in
A Change is Gonna Come, provides an
explanation to the relationship between white and black musicians. He agrees
with Ralph Ellison’s point of view that states, “Many black-white cultural
exchanges can be understood as an elaborate minstrel show.”
[ix]
Warner further argues that the minstrel dynamic was demonstrated by “pure
theft” of black musicians’ ideas for financial gain––a repeat of history of
minstrelsy starting in 1828 by a white man named Thomas “Daddy” Rice.
[x] He
alludes to the Beach Boys’ rip-off of Chuck Berry’s “Sweet Little Sixteen” to
corroborate his claim of pure theft. The Beach Boys’ song “Surfin’ USA” copied
“Sweet Little Sixteen” note for note, but the record label credited the song to
Brian Wilson.
[xi]
Although both Ellison’s and Warner’s claim of minstrelsy seems understandable
after examining their reasoning and examples, it is also possible that only the
statement supported by ardent rhetoric, not the reasoning or explanation behind
it, has seeped through the holes between academia and popular culture, distorting
the perception of the general population.
However, juxtaposing
several songs from the 1940s and 60s that were performed by both white and
black performers evidently exhibits the fact that white artists appropriated
songs of black musicians, and the cover versions or rip-offs mostly gained more
success and popularity (which are measured, in this essay, by the Billboard chart placements or album
sales) than the originals, displaying that racial barrier indeed existed to a
significant extent. Furthermore, it should be noted that crucial differences
exist between “cover versions” and “rip-offs.” Cover versions refer to the
succeeding iterations of an original that hold unique or different interpretations
by the covering artist. By contrast, rip-offs contain no perceptibly new takes
or interpretations that positively affect the song and/or try to emulate
exactly the notes of the song and the technique of the singer. Therefore, it
becomes clear not every instance of cultural integration or merging is bad.
Cover songs and other organic developments, stemming from being inspired and
influenced by other cultures, are a natural phenomenon and should not
necessarily be criticized. On the other hand, rip-offs, or appropriation, are a
blatantly contemptible offense, as they harm someone who should be rewarded and
require minimal work to gain as much as, if not more, success than the
original.
Adhering to the
guideline established in the previous paragraphs, one of the most notorious
rip-offs created in the 1940s is “Rum and Coca-Cola,” which stayed as the
number one record for eight weeks in 1945, by the Andrews Sisters.
[xii] The
original, written by Lionel Belasco and Lord Invader, was a local hit in
Trinidad but was never introduced in the United States.
[xiii]
This calypso contains meaningful lyrics that provide social commentary, dealing
with the issue of American soldiers’ various involvements in the social scene
of Trinidad. Lord Invader sings, “They said that the Yankees treat them nice/And
they give them a better price,” referring to the growing market of prostitution
for American soldiers.
[xiv]
Moreover, Lord Invader also reveals the problem of adultery between local women
and American soldiers, vocalizing “I know a couple who got married one
afternoon/And was to go Miami on a honeymoon/But the bride run away with a
soldier lad.”
[xv]
However, the rip-off by the Andrews Sisters fails to discuss the social issues
that were plaguing Trinidad at the time. Although the Andrews Sisters’ version
retains the line “Both mother and daughter working for the Yankee dollar,” it
removes all of the explicit references to prostitution or adultery committed by
the American soldiers. For instance, the line “And they give them a better
price” is changed to “Make Trinidad like paradise” to paint the stereotypical
picture of a peaceful, exotic location for vacation.
[xvi] Therefore,
even the aforementioned line becomes ambiguous––it could mean that the
tourism industry is flourishing in Trinidad, which is the general feeling one
gets from listening to this version of the song owing to the simplified lyrics
and slightly altered melody.
The melody is similar
overall between the two versions, but it is much more subdued in the original,
demonstrating the importance of the lyrics in the original song. The melody of
the Andrews Sisters’ iteration is groovier, more light-hearted, tropical, and
pronounced to convey the aforementioned image of an island paradise. Moreover,
the harmony created by three female vocalists, compared to one male singer,
makes the song sound easygoing and livelier, which is a misinterpretation of
“Rum and Coca-Cola,” missing its principal message. In order to make it relatable
to an average American and thus commercially successful and popular, the
changes might have been necessary, but they nonetheless remove the features
that make this song unique and great. Evidently, the Andrews Sisters’ recording
can be characterized as a rip-off since it not only fails to add interpretations
that positively affect the song but also the adjustments detracts from the
overall quality of the song and its original message.
Evelyn Knight’s “A
Little Bird Told Me” is another rip-off generated in the 1940s. The original,
sung by Paula Watson in 1948, lasted on
Billboard’s
R&B chart for 14 weeks, peaking at number two.
[xvii]
This list was different from the main chart titled Billboard’s
Best Seller, which was consisted of what
the editors and the general public perceived as mainstream songs. However,
Watson’s version also placed on the pop charts at number six, albeit less
successful than Evelyn Knight’s.
[xviii]
Her iteration lasted on the mainstream chart for 11 weeks, peaking at number
one. Knight’s version was more successful and popular, but it is a direct copy
of the original. Recognizing this fact, Supreme, an independent label, sued the
powerhouse Decca Records. It claimed that Knight’s version plagiarized the
original song’s arrangement, texture, and vocal style, which was emulated by
Knight to the extent that it fooled musical experts brought in as witnesses.
[xix] Even
though the lawsuit ended in favor of Decca Records, based on the ruling that
“musical arrangements were not copyrighted property and therefore not under
legal protection,” the fact that both songs sound essentially identical remains
true.
[xx] Evelyn
Knight made no positive changes or improvements to Watson’s original; she
simply copied Watson’s style because she knew it was successful among diverse
groups of people, serving as an archetypal example of a rip-off. Both songs
contain identical traits, but the version performed by the white artist became
more popular upon release. The discrepancy in the reception of the songs suggests
a racial barrier, whether it be financial, ideological, or both, clearly
existed in the music industry.
In the 1960s, this
regrettable trend of blatantly stealing other musicians’ works continued, and
the Beatles were no exception. The Beatles recorded a song called “A Taste of Honey,”
which is originally an instrumental written by Bobby Scott and Ric Marlow, but
Lenny Welch performed the first vocal version in 1962.
[xxi][xxii]
However, Welch’s version failed to gain popularity until the Beatles created their
own version and introduced in the U.S. through the album
Introducing… The Beatles. Veejay Records released the album in the
U.S. in January 1964, but due to legal issues, it was allowed to sell the album
only until late 1964. However, the album still sold more than 1.3 million
copies in the United States.
[xxiii]
Granted, the album contains other songs as well, so its popularity cannot be
solely attributed to this song. It is also possible that people bought the
album without knowing its content just because the Beatles produced it.
Regardless, this iteration still was able to gain more popularity and success
than Welch’s version, which never charted.
Lenny Welch’s
recording of “A Taste of Honey” relies on a melancholy and atmospheric tone,
which is appropriate since the song recounts a sweet kiss between a couple that
are currently separated. The song begins with the chorus that tells the main
idea of the song––the lover’s kiss is more romantic and delightful than wine.
Welch’s deep and smooth voice accurately reflects the sweet taste and thick, yet
soft, texture of honey. The listener can imagine and experience the feel and
taste of the kiss by paying attention to his voice, uttering the lines “A taste
of honey/A taste much sweeter than wine.”
[xxiv]
His voice and technique are ideal for this song, raising the unanswerable
question of why it failed to succeed. Paul McCartney recognized how impeccably
his technique and voice fit with this song, so he attempted to mimic Welch’s
style. He was able to execute a very similar style of singing, and the Beatles
also made minimal changes to the lyrics of the song. However, although
McCartney possesses the ability to sing in a soft, clear voice, as evidenced by
“Yesterday” or “Hey Jude,” the very beginning of the song, where Welch
establishes the connection between his voice and honey, sounds a bit husky and gravelly.
Therefore, he failed to capture the same emotions that Welch was able to,
creating an inferior rendering of the original. Some might argue that imitation
is the highest form of flattery and thus Welch, along with the other black
artists, should be pleased; however, when financial consequences and racial
undertones are factored into the equation, the so-called flattery becomes
stealing and appropriation.
The originals of
the aforementioned songs are seemingly superior, in terms of musicality or main
ideas and themes, to the appropriated versions, but they failed to gain as much
success as the inferior iterations, raising the question of why. Although it is
impossible to provide an exhaustive list of all the reasons that most black
artists became less successful than white musicians, it is feasible to focus on
several elements. To begin with, Larry Starr and Christopher Waterman, in
American Popular Music, attribute the
eclipsing of Watson’s “A Little Bird Told Me” by Knight to the “promotional
power of Decca Records and the fact that white performers enjoyed privileged
access to radio and television play.”
[xxv]
Similarly, in a 1971 issue of
The Washington Post, Hollie West authors
an article titled “Black Music: Paled in the White Tradition: Commentary.”
[xxvi]
In it, West contends,
“Blacks create
it [black music] and whites control it,” meaning black music “has been in the
hands of white booking agents, nightclub owners and record company officials.”
[xxvii]
Both of those arguments are from a socioeconomic standpoint. Because black
artists had fewer opportunities to be heard or promote their records, it was
logical for the white performers, who had better access and exposure, to be
more successful. One might argue that these criteria can be based on racism.
Black artists needed to solicit the services of white booking agents and were
not able to receive a huge record deal with major labels because of the
structural racism that was plaguing society. Granted, this might have been the
case. However, no one can be undoubtedly certain that racism prevented those
artists from gaining record deals or their relative lack of talent compared to
other performers did. After all, there have been popular black artists that
gained more popularity than their white counterparts performing the same songs.
Richard Crawford
presents another argument in
America’s
Musical Life. He asserts that another factor that contributed to white
success was the difference in ideology and culture. For instance, when Alan
Freed introduced rhythm and blues to teenagers as “rock and roll,” which they
erroneously believed to be free of racial overtones, the genre became more
popular among young white audiences.
[xxviii]
Moreover, in the early 20
th century, Irving Berlin elevated the
popularity of ragtime by removing black dialect and characters.
[xxix]
Therefore, it can be said that racial barrier existed in the music industry in
the forms of socioeconomics, ideology, and culture. Again, one might argue that
the fact that a genre’s popularity increased after removing racial dialect and
characteristics can be attributed to racism. However, listening to music is for
one’s pleasure. Even though sometimes being exposed to the unexpected can be
pleasantly surprising, most of the times, people usually find comfort and pleasure
in familiarity. Many do not find it worth their time and effort to venture out
of their comfort zone to experience new, strange things, when they can simply
relish the ones they know and love. Therefore, even if the listeners possessed
no racist thoughts or opinions, the genre’s unfamiliar, unknown sound could
well have deterred them from enjoying it.
Moreover, rather
than arbitrarily assigning a blanket term that might hold varying definitions
for different people, identifying specific issues and aspects promotes a
healthier and more profound dialogue that can efficiently tackle the issue. It
is extremely difficult, time-consuming, and even foolish to combat a problem
without breaking it down to individual, distinguishable components to which
appropriate solutions can be tailored. Thus, even if the socioeconomic,
ideological, and cultural barriers were stemming from racism, it is imperative
to delineate which specific aspects of society undermined the success of black
musicians, instead of vaguely mentioning racism every time this issue emerges.
Through
juxtaposing several songs from two distinct time periods and examining
scholarly literature, the existence of socioeconomic, ideological, and cultural
hindrance to the success of black musicians in the music industry has been
established. However, a further analysis of certain black artists and songs
suggests that the extent to which such obstacle oppressed black performers has
perhaps been exaggerated. From the 1940s to 50s, there were three prominent
black artists that often achieved mainstream success. Nat King Cole ranks
seventh on the list of top recording artists between 1940 and 1955.
[xxx]
On the same list, the Mills Brothers and the Ink Spots are ranked 25
th
and 34
th, respectively.
[xxxi]
Furthermore, these three artists also garnered more or equal success compared
to their white counterparts by performing the same songs. The Mills Brothers’
“Till Then” and Nat King Cole’s “Nature Boy” charted at a higher position than
the versions sung by white artists.
[xxxii][xxxiii][xxxiv][xxxv]
The Ink Spots’ “To Each His Own” and the same song performed by two white
artists all reached number one on the mainstream chart.
[xxxvi]
In order to
examine why they were unusually successful, the same method––juxtaposing the
two versions––that has been utilized throughout this paper should suffice. The
Mills Brothers’ “Till Then,” released in 1944, reached number eight on the
mainstream chart.
[xxxvii]
The Hilltoppers, a white popular music group based in Kentucky, released a
recording of the song in 1954, which peaked at number ten.
[xxxviii]
The Mills Brothers were under Decca Records, so they were able to utilize the
company’s massive resources to promote their songs, as opposed to Paula Watson,
who could not enjoy the same luxuries for her song “A Little Bird Told Me.”
[xxxix]
This would have greatly increased the sales of their song since it allowed for
easy access to mainstream exposure. Clearly, each member was a talented singer,
but previous examples have shown that white artists frequently overshadowed many
skilled black musicians, regardless of their song’s musical quality. Therefore,
there must be certain unique qualities to this tune that allowed the Mills
Brothers to overcome such difficulties.
The song is
stylistically and lyrically a pleasant love song that illustrates one’s yearning
for his or her loved ones, which is a universally popular topic. The beautiful
harmony created by the four members, when singing “Our dreams will live though
we are apart/Our love, I know it’ll live in our hearts,” instills a sense of
hope and positive anticipation that are matched by the lyrics.
[xl]
They also perfectly execute the precarious and threatening tone of the next
verse in which there are “oceans to cross” and “mountains to climb.”
[xli] However, the lyrics can also be interpreted as
about a soldier asking for his loved ones to remain safe and wait for him until
his return. The lines “when of the world will be free” and “although there are
oceans we must cross” strongly suggest the desire for a world without war as
well as America’s overseas involvement during World War II.
[xlii]
Therefore, the Mills Brothers released the song at an opportune moment, and the
circumstances at home could have greatly contributed to the success of this
song, which might explain the moderate success of the Hilltoppers’ version,
released ten years later in 1954.
Moreover, those lyrics, as mentioned previously, can also be understood
in a more general sense of imagining a safe place in which to live with his or
her loved ones and overcoming difficulties that prevent their reunion. The song
thus provides a narrative that almost everyone can relate to in some aspects,
which is another factor that is conducive to success.
The proponents of
unbreakable racial barrier theory might present the following counterargument. The
Mills Brothers were a more popular group than the Hilltoppers; therefore, the
success of the song should be attributed to the general popularity of the
group. If a more popular white musician covered the song, the results would be
different. This assertion alone should be sufficient reason for certain black
artists’ abilities to break the racial barrier. If the hindrance truly could
not be overcome, it would have been impossible for a black artist to become
more popular than a white artist in the first place. Furthermore, Nat King
Cole’s “Nature Boy” was covered by Frank Sinatra, who was equally, if not more
popular, than Cole. Sinatra’s version, however, only reached number 18, whereas
Cole’s version remained number one for 15 weeks.
[xliii][xliv]
Thus, the counterargument based on an artist’s popularity is unsubstantiated.
Another
fascinating example is the song “All Along the Watchtower,” which was
originally written by Bob Dylan in 1967 and performed by the Jimi Hendrix
Experience in 1968.
[xlv][xlvi]
The original piece by Dylan failed to chart, whereas the Hendrix’s version
reached number 20 in America, demonstrating an interesting role reversal.
[xlvii]
This version by Hendrix is a great example of a cover song, rather than a
rip-off, according to the aforementioned guideline that established the
differences between the two. From the beginning, Hendrix inserts his own
interpretations of the song, establishing a hard rock sound. The original is
characterized by Bob Dylan’s signature harmonica playing, and Dylan engages in
a nasally singing technique that is not mirrored by Hendrix, whose voice sounds
groovier. In addition, the end of Hendrix’s utterances almost resembles a quick
sigh that is projected forward. Hendrix’s masterful guitar solos also substitute
Dylan’s harmonica sound. The second guitar solo creates a temporary tone change
into a more psychedelic sound, precisely two minutes into the song, whereas
Dylan’s harmonica solos maintain the same tone throughout the song. These are
some of the easily noticeable and unique changes that Hendrix made, constructing
his version to be a worthy cover song and not an example of gross appropriation.
It is important to note that because this is such a unique case, it is very
difficult to explain why Hendrix’s version became more successful than Dylan’s.
However, it serves as another example that questions the perceived strength of
the so-called racial barrier in the music industry.
Throughout this
paper, there were several hints about the possibility of a hyperbolized racial
barrier in the music industry. Many ordinary people believe that unscrupulous
white artists have been utilizing the racial barrier to steal black artists’
songs in order to advance their financial agenda. The ease with which people
can navigate through social media and obtain information facilitates the
circulation of such thought. Strong rhetoric, which fails to be properly
communicated to the general public, employed by certain influential figures,
professionals, and academics might also exacerbate the problem. However,
examining the potential reasons why the white versions of a song generally
garner more popularity and success revealed that attributing this issue in its entirety
to the blanket term of racial barrier, like popular perception does, is an oversimplified
and overgeneralized view. The relatively small sample size of black artists and
songs that surpassed the success and popularity of their white counterparts nonetheless
indicates that the so-called racial barrier, which can be divided into
socioeconomics, ideology, and culture, was indeed formidable. Even with such
difficulties, black artists were able to overcome the barrier by engaging in
the same tactics and practices that the white musicians have been using for a
long time, such as making the genre more accessible by removing racial dialect
and undertones, choosing more universal or timely topics to sing about, and
utilizing the resources of a major record label to promote their work. This
suggests that the main components of the barrier were the listener’s
familiarity with certain characteristics of a genre or culture and socioeconomic
status. Therefore, it is necessary to recognize the effects of racism in the
music industry, but identifying other major factors that hindered the growth of
black music is equally, if not more, imperative in order to avoid repeating the
same mistake.
[i]
“The top 500 sites on the web,” Alexa Internet, accessed March 5, 2016, http://www.alexa.com/topsites.
[ii]
“African-American Music,” Wikipedia, accessed March 5, 2016, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_music
[iii]
Josh Gondelman, tweet on Macklemore, Twitter, August 25, 2013
[iv]
“2013 MTV VMA’s: Everything Was Black, Except The Winners,” The Huffington
Post, accessed March 4, 2016, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/26/2013-mtv-vmas-was-black-except-the-winners_n_3819632.html
[vi]
Knight-Ridder, “Stones built on black music,”
Calgary Herald, September 01, 1989, E2.
[ix]
Craig Warner,
A Change is Gonna Come:
Music, Race & the Soul of America (Ann Arbor: The University of
Michigan Press, 2006), 85.
[xii]
Joel Whitburn,
Top Pop Records 1940-1955 (Menomonee
Falls, WI: Record Research, 1973), 77.
[xiii]
Louis Nigel,
My Life in Court (Garden
City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1961), 233-286.
[xiv]
Lord Invader with Lionel Belasco, “Rum and Coca-Cola,” n.d.
[xvi]
The Andrews Sisters, vocal performance of “Rum and Coca-Cola” by Lord Invader
and Lionel Belasco, n.d., Decca 18638.
[xvii]
Larry Starr and Christopher Waterman,
American
Popular Music: From Minstrelsy to MP3 (New York: Oxford University Press,
2007), 201.
[xviii]
Starr and Waterman,
Popular Music,
201.
[xix]
Starr and Waterman,
Popular Music,
201.
[xxi]
Lenny Welch, vocal performance of “A Taste of Honey” by Bobby Scott and Ric
Marlow, 1962, Cadence Records 1428.
[xxii]
“45 Discography for Cadence Records,” Global Dog Productions, accessed March 5,
2016.
[xxiii]
Bruce Spizer,
The Beatles Are Coming!:
The Birth of Beatlemania in America (New Orleans: 498 Productions, 2004),
98.
[xxiv]
Welch, “A Taste of Honey”
[xxv]
Starr and Waterman,
Popular Music,
201.
[xxvi]
Hollie West, “Black Music: Paled in the White Tradition: Commentary,”
The Washington Post, Times Herald, September 19, 1971, G2.
[xxviii]
Richard Crawford,
America’s Musical Life:
A History (New York: W.W. Norton & Company), 726.
[xxx]
Whitburn,
1940-1955, 83.
[xl]
The Mills Brothers, “Till Then,” n.d., Decca 18599.
[xlv]
Bob Dylan, “All Along the Watchtower,” recorded November 6, 1967, on
John Wesley Harding, Columbia.
[xlvi]
The Jimi Hendrix Experience, “All Along the Watchtower” by Bob Dylan, recorded
January 21, 1968, Olympic Studios.
[xlvii]
Joel Whitburn,
Top Pop Singles 1955-2002 (Menomonee
Falls: Record Research), 794.
