In chapter 22, there is a section with an interview with Sam Phillips that I found to be very interesting. Here, he talks about Elvis Presley and how he and Sam got along and what their relationship was along with a little bit about some of his songs. A few questions that Sam was asked which I found particularly interesting were, “What were you trying to achieve with Elvis?” His response was somewhere along the lines of Elvis was the most unique individual that stepped foot into the studio. He says that he needed to “establish a direction” for him. I think it’s awesome how excited he really was about maybe getting a chance to better guide Elvis in the right direction as an artist, being that he did not really belong to any specific band or anything of that nature. He wanted to do something “different” than ever before with Elvis.

In this ‘interview’ article with Sam Phillips, I thought it was great how he was able to see so much potential and originality in Elvis’ style. Enough to be able to decide that he wanted to be the one to take Elvis and try to make something great of him. I also thought it was very interesting how he wanted Elvis so bad, and yet he let him go even though he was a huge success. However, in this article, Sam says that he feels letting Elvis go was the best judgement call he could of made. Sam says that when Elvis finally ‘made it’ he was the happiest man in the world. He really believed in Elvis as a blues singer mainly.

I think through everything that Sam is saying, it would be cool if maybe they would of gotten to have an interview with Elvis as well as Sam to hear his side of the story, and his reactions to everything. I know that Sam believed in Elvis a lot and was very proud of him, but I can’t help wondering if Elvis felt the same way, being that Sam had more of the ‘creator’ role, and Elvis was more of the ‘creation.’ I would like to know if Sam Phillips’ methods and ideas were effective for Elvis and how much he really felt that Sam could help him.

This week I started to read the article entitled, “Rock n’ Roll MeetsTthe Popular Press.” As I was reading, I noticed that the article says that people thought rock’n’roll to be just as suggestive as swing, if not more. So, I thought I might look more into swing music and see if it is as “suggestive” as it is said to be.

The first thing I learned about swing style music is that there a shit ton of instruments involved including, drums, brass instruments like trumpets and trombones, as well as stringed instruments like violin and guitar, along with many more. The emphasis for swing is mostly all of the time on the off beat, earlier know as “swing-time rhythm”. The term ‘Swing’ also refers to the feel of the song, and in this case swing means ‘having a strong groove, or drive.’ However, during World War II is when Swing music began to decline because of all of the musicians that were scheduled overseas in the war.

One thing I found very interesting about swing style music, is that while all of these different varieties of instruments are playing god knows what…there was usually a soloist who would take center stage and improvise for practically the entire time the band was playing. I could never even try to imagine completely improvising a solo over a huge band. Whoever had that job had to of been amazing!

I could not find much about how “suggestive” swing music was thought to be. However, I did find a little bit about how surprised people were about the style change from romantic arrangements such as waltzes like they had been used to. Many people of the late 1930’s were taken back by the sound of the popular, edginess and often erratic new swing music style.

In my opinion from what I have heard of both swing and rock’n’roll music, rock’n’roll has swing beat. If i was to look at both musical styles from the world’s perspective now, I would have to say neither are very offensive. Especially if I were looking at early style rock’n’roll, the suggestiveness is very suttle; but probably not to the average person back when rock’n’roll first originated.

This rather short reading focuses on the ways and the style of Johnny Otis. At the beginning of the reading, it starts out telling about Johnny Otis’ life and giving some pretty basic information about him. The article says that he played the drums, and it also tells about many of his different jobs. But, as the article continues, it begins to focus on more jazz performers, and also goes into some more detail, telling more about his music and style.

First we hear about a “breed of musicians.” One that could inhabit the “musical never-never land that exists between southern blues, and “so-called” jazz. I think that this is an excellent way to describe the way someone impresses their style of music. It almost gave me the sense that it is a type of music only made by this “breed of musicians.” A style which no body has ever discovered before. The reading says it is between “so-called” jazz and the southern blues; which seems to mean a little bit of both.

The reading also says that many of the blues performers who starred at the Alabam had a very uninhibited, laid back approach to their music. This made me feel like maybe they were so laid back because they knew they could be. Maybe they felt like they were just so good that they didn’t have to worry about anything. Or maybe it was just the fact that if you got to star at the Alabam, you really didn’t have anything to worry about…besides the money of course. They “usually worked for peanuts”. However, this didn’t seem to keep their spirits down. They always seemed to give their best performance, and are always full of enthusiasm. Yes. They THOUGHT they had a good thing going, so they saw themselves as “jazz players” or “singers” but they were really thought more of as “Jump music stylists.” The customers didn’t seem to care in the least about precise, beautiful music.. they just wanted “spirited entertainment and fun”.” It seems like back then, this was the case with lots of people. I find that comedy is appealing to most people even nowadays. Most people just want something that they can dance like idiots to. The article says that they liked “bawdy” lyrics as well. This was probably so that they could get a good laugh out of whatever was being sung; (and the music would no doubt help with that).

Something else I found very interesting is their meaning of “bawdy”, and what bawdy lyrics actually were to them. What would be risque to us now, would have been appalling to them back then. However, their idea of “bawdy” is barely, if at all offensive to us now. Their idea of offensive or “bawdy” almost sounds like baby talk to me. I am sure that they had somewhat offensive phrases in that time, but after hearing even half of the stuff that people say today, their language seems like nothing.