Talk:Freddie King

Bizarre Christgau quote

What is the basis for Christgau's comment "Although Freddie's renown as the inventor of electric blues guitar is a reward for his shameless Anglophilia ... he did cut some acute r&b sides ... in the '50s. Forget what the Anglophiles claim for his recent [1970s] work—he's been coasting for years"? "Inventor of the electric blues guitar", "Anglophilia", etc., are not mentioned in several blues encyclopedias, bios, etc. This is Christgau's careless, two or three sentence toss off "review" of an album at its worst and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Another ignorant anti-Christgau presumption... Dan56 (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

From his review: "...shameless Anglophilia (here documented on 'Palace of the King')...": the lyrics of that song go "I played the blues in England, I visit the queen / She really dug my style..." Dan56 (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Passages about Freddie King in How Britain Got the Blues: The Transmission and Reception of American Blues, by musicologist Roberta Freund Schwartz, to contextualize Christgau's "Anglophilia" remark. Dan56 (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Dan, you're kidding, right?

Funny, the same thought occurred for me when I saw this post... Dan56 (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• 1) One obviously joking line in a song not even written by King (written by Leon Russell, Don Nix, Duck Dunn)[1] is supposed to document his "shameless Anglophilia"?
  • And "Shameless Anglophilia" isn't a bit joking?... you're getting too weighed down by specifics to parse through the rhetoric. He is just referring to King's embrace of the British scene, which other more encyclopedic sources clearly make a connection to. Dan56 (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• 2) Nothing supports a misconception of "Freddie's renown as the inventor of electric blues guitar". He was popular in England, but only the ignorant would consider him the "inventor of electric blues guitar".
  • You are being pedantic; it is just a reference (and possibly sarcastic exaggeration) of King's reputation as one of the pioneering electric blues guitarists: he is often mentioned as one of the three kings of electric blues guitar. Dan56 (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• 3) Also nothing seems to support what "Anglophiles claim for his recent [1970s] work" (nothing in Schwartz, but I don't have access to Corcoran's book). I assume RC is talking about his Shelter/RSO albums – note that two of them appeared on the R&B charts (not an audience normally associated with "Anglophilia").
  • Black artists usually appear on those charts... Dan56 (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, if this is how Christgau forms his views, then they should be relegated to album reviews only, where nonsense is more easily tolerated.

—Ojorojo (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• • They are observations; he was around in the 1970s, you weren't. I'll take his word over yours. And once again, the absence of evidence (in wherever you're looking around) is not the evidence of absence. And once again, you are trying to discredit a source that opposes your perspective on a topic you have affection for, nothing to do with the merits of the source. Dan56 (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• • • Furthermore, the source--Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the Seventies--is a reputable, widely acclaimed publication and famous for music-lit sources, so it stands to reason it is a relevant source for the kind of critique and critical interpretation outlined by WP:SUBJECTIVE. Dan56 (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Including baseless mocking and sarcastic off-the-cuff quotes to counter King's appearance in Rolling Stone's list of greatest guitarists, his induction into the R&R Hall of Fame, and the governor's proclamation does not impart any real critical insight. It is completely irresponsible and has no place in an encyclopedia. RC has plenty of detractor's and seems to want to provoke rather than inform. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The only quoted material included is "acute R&B (sides)" (compliment) and "his voice blurred, his guitar all fake and roll" (criticism, no less provocative than, on the flip side, proclaiming someone among the greatest, which is what Rolling Stone does); the rest is paraphrased appropriately, including an analytical comment on King's critical reputation. And, what detractors? (Trolls lurking in the dark corners of online forums?) Your priggish take on this has no place in editorial decisions on content here. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, because I removed what was originally added. For balance, his early influence should be included. In the US, he was an early guitar hero; his early singles didn't chart in the UK, where he was recognized later. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources reinforcing Christgau's opinion that King was "coasting over the years"

The opinion that King's music got lackluster over the years after his early singles even is reflected by AllMusic's reviews: studio discography; after the 1961 LP (given four-and-a-half stars), the rest are generally rated three-stars, some one or two. Dan56 (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Another opinion echoing the criticism of the later recordings, from PopMatters: "[King] re-emerged in '68 with a much more rock oriented sound. There was a new audience and King, as produced by Leon Russell, became the Woodstock generation's blues man. Received wisdom on these recordings, which form the bulk of the rest of this set, is that they are weak, finding King struggling with ponderous and densely filled arrangements." Dan56 (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

In John Swenson's Rolling Stone Jazz & Blues Album Guide, his late 1960s Cotillion albums are regarded as "commercial and aesthetic failures" ([2]), while his 1970s studio work is called "lackluster" ([3]). Dan56 (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The same can be said about most 1950s bluesmen. Just because Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, et al., put out some turkeys later in their careers (influenced by their record companies to "broaden" their appeal) doesn't diminish their importance to the genre or their influence. Artists should be judged on their overall career achievements, rather than some small sliver of it. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

So let it be said... critical aesthetic opinions do not diminish otherwise documented importance or influence, which judging by the content appears to be only because of those "acute R&B sides", which really are the "small sliver" of his total recording career (the above critical points target at least a third or a half of his recorded output). As it stands, the ratio of laudatory content to the critical content (represented by Christgau's traverse from early-career "acute R&B" to "coasting" later work) is, on my screen, 10 lines to 3. Dan56 (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice that the section is "Recognition and influence". The opinions you've cited are from album reviews and not from serious attempts to address King's career. Why not include them in the discussion of his albums? This is an ongoing problem: two or three sentence blurb-type opinions are receiving too much emphasis in areas outside of what they were meant to address. Additionally, there is too much focus on albums and recordings – for many artists, their live performances are far more important. Artists like James Brown did not "coast" after their peak recording years. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing in that section about his live performances influencing anyone; the studio recordings and their reach across the pond is discussed. And the sources you are diminishing intend to address (compilation/retrospective) albums that intend to present an overview of King's recording career, and in doing so, the reviews do the same; the entry in Swenson's guide on King is even biographical and almost identical to Koda's for AllMusic (cited in the section, unopposed by you). Again, you seem to be grasping at straws to protect this topic's reputation (which will be marred by a two-and-a-half-line paragraph representing minority views??); first it is a matter of judging their "overall career achievements", now "their live performances are far more important"... and James Brown not coasting after the mid '70s? This is an on-going problem: inability to leave your personal opinions out of content discussions. Not a serious attempt at addressing the content. Dan56 (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

What is not being made clear in the article is that RC is reviewing one album, The Best of Freddie King: The Shelter Records Years, that spans recordings for that label from 1971 to 1973. Contrary to your claim above, it does not "intend to present an overview of King's recording career", but a rather short time span (the Pop Matters article also focuses its criticism on the Russell/Shelter material) . So, without showing the context up front, the sentence "Robert Christgau was less enthusiastic about King's critical recognition and renown as an electric blues guitar pioneer, finding them to be products of the guitarist's embrace of the British scene" leads one to believe that this is his characterization of King's overall career. You tried this initially with the ridiculous "Freddie's renown as the inventor of electric blues guitar is a reward for his shameless Anglophilia" quote; it seems that you are stuck on getting a dig in by your boy Robert. Again, this does not belong in a "Recognition and influence" section, but with a discussion about his albums. Rolling Stone, the R&R Hall of Fame, and the others are attempting to show his overall achievement/influence/impact – Christgau is clearly not. Additionally, if you look at the AllMusic reviews for the original 1969–1974 albums (not compilations, etc.), they all receive three out of five stars, except Burglar, which received four stars. So, "commercial and aesthetic failures" is not a universal view and although maybe "lackluster", two 1970s album did reach the charts. —Ojorojo (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

If it "leads one to believe that this is his characterization of King's overall career", then you might be the only "one". Dan56 (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Why are Christgau's idiosyncratic and heavily biased views given so much profile on Wikipedia? His broad views of artists rarely seem to align with the consensus of other reviewers and his prejudices give him some huge blind spots. He appears to have had had little real interest in King and used a sub-standard album as an opportunity to 'take a pot shot' that is unfair in the context of his wider career. Stub Mandrel (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)