20 FAVE DUET RECORDS
8. BABY (YOU’VE GOT WHAT IT TAKES) – DINAH WASHINGTON & BROOK BENTON https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qHocO2Ipmk
Much superior remake of the Dorothy Pay number from 1958 this was the
first Dinah/Brook collaboration. #5 BBpop #1BBr&b
9. YOU DRINK TOO MUCH BOOZE – JIMMY RANEY & SLIM SLAUGHTER https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWm1VUZJPJk
10. PRETTY BABY ROCK – JIM MYERS & TEX REGAN https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnVX0dBoZdU
12. BLUES STAY AWAY FROM ME – DORSEY & JOHNNY BURNETTE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oA3vZb-nP88
16. LOUISIANA MAN – RUSTY & DOUG https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4bf-Dd5Xa4
BUBBLING UNDER
23. HEAVENLY BABY – ALLEN & ALLEN
24. LIKE YOU USED TO DO – SHIRLEY & LEE
25. ALWAYS IT’S YOU – THE EVERLY BROTHERS
On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 19:32:18 +0000, Bruce wrote:
ALWAYS IT’S YOU – THE EVERLY BROTHERS
My first DJ job in 1979 on Wednesdays in a dump called Shortway's
Frankie C. requested this and I told him I didn't have it. He wasn't
happy when he later saw that I did have it. Did not want to play an off
record like this
On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 19:32:18 +0000, Bruce wrote:
ALWAYS IT’S YOU – THE EVERLY BROTHERS
My first DJ job in 1979 on Wednesdays in a dump called Shortway's
Frankie C. requested this and I told him I didn't have it. He wasn't
happy when he later saw that I did have it. Did not want to play an off
record like this that nobody else in the place would know.
With that guy, always it's obscurities. Typical collector.
On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 8:04:43 +0000, Roger wrote:Thanks Roger (and Bruce for his 2 links)
20 FAVE DUET RECORDS
9. YOU DRINK TOO MUCH BOOZE � JIMMY RANEY & SLIM SLAUGHTER
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWm1VUZJPJk
Never heard of this one either, it's good. There's a better sounding one
on YT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlNsvxO0PLA
16. LOUISIANA MAN � RUSTY & DOUG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4bf-Dd5Xa4
I get it now. The record collector in you likes to use the video that
shows the original 45 even though there may be another one that sounds a >little better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khtohhm-oFM
On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 8:04:43 +0000, Roger wrote:
20 FAVE DUET RECORDS
9. YOU DRINK TOO MUCH BOOZE – JIMMY RANEY & SLIM SLAUGHTER
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWm1VUZJPJk
Never heard of this one either, it's good. There's a better sounding one
on YT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlNsvxO0PLA
16. LOUISIANA MAN – RUSTY & DOUG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4bf-Dd5Xa4
I get it now. The record collector in you likes to use the video that
shows the original 45 even though there may be another one that sounds a little better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khtohhm-oFM
BUBBLING UNDER
23. HEAVENLY BABY – ALLEN & ALLEN
Another good one I did not have. I know it's a Toussaint thing, but
who is the other Allen?
On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 19:32:18 +0000, Bruce wrote:
On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 8:04:43 +0000, Roger wrote:Thanks. This did not show for me on a YT search but works OK from here
20 FAVE DUET RECORDS
9. YOU DRINK TOO MUCH BOOZE – JIMMY RANEY & SLIM SLAUGHTER
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWm1VUZJPJk
Never heard of this one either, it's good. There's a better sounding one
on YT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlNsvxO0PLA
16. LOUISIANA MAN – RUSTY & DOUG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4bf-Dd5Xa4
I get it now. The record collector in you likes to use the video that
shows the original 45 even though there may be another one that sounds a
little better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khtohhm-oFM
I must admit that just like Larry in his YT posts I do like seeing the
actual record if possible,yes
BUBBLING UNDER
23. HEAVENLY BABY – ALLEN & ALLEN
Another good one I did not have. I know it's a Toussaint thing, but
who is the other Allen?
Possibly Allen "Fats" Matthews? Otherwise ...no idea
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 5:34:18 +0000, Roger wrote:
On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 19:32:18 +0000, Bruce wrote:
On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 8:04:43 +0000, Roger wrote:
20 FAVE DUET RECORDS
23. HEAVENLY BABY – ALLEN & ALLEN
Another good one I did not have. I know it's a Toussaint thing, but
who is the other Allen?
Possibly Allen "Fats" Matthews? Otherwise ...no idea
Okay, both sides are written by A. Orange and A. Toussaint. Flip is
"Tiddle Winks." It's not as good as HB.
Allen Orange
Real Name:
Allen Julian Orange
https://i.discogs.com/oO_yHKzzOTOJfwTQilhiYIOspDuC_hqHokKg4Uo1IV8/rs:fit/g:sm/q:90/h:400/w:320/czM6Ly9kaXNjb2dz/LWRhdGFiYXNlLWlt/YWdlcy9BLTQ3ODk4/Mi0xMzgxNDgyMjU2/LTUyODMuanBlZw.jpeg
Profile:
R&B artist who worked with Allen Toussaint (billed together as "Allen
& Allen") and other artists through the 1960s and 1970s. He also owned/managed the label House Of Orange in the 1970s.
Here is what I have:
15 ¦ A Rockin' Good Way ¦ Brook Benton & Dinah Washington
22 ¦ Blue Angel ¦ Roy Orbison (Joe Melson)
26 ¦ Only The Lonely ¦ Roy Orbison (Joe Melson)
36 ¦ Baby (You Got What It Takes) ¦ Brook Benton & Dinah Washington
37 ¦ When Will I Be Loved ¦ Everly Brothers
45 ¦ Cathy's Clown ¦ Everly Brothers
70 ¦ A Fool In Love ¦ Ike & Tina Turner
72 ¦ You're The Boss ¦ LaVern Baker & Jimmy Ricks
92 ¦ Cause I Love You ¦ Carla and Rufus
104 ¦ The Big Time Spender ¦ Cornbread & Biscuits
197 ¦ I Idolize You ¦ Ike & Tina Turner
214 ¦ You've Got The Power ¦ James Brown
249 ¦ That's All I Want Baby ¦ Memphis Slim & Willie Dixon
252 ¦ Gee Baby ¦ Joe & Ann
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 5:34:18 +0000, Roger wrote:
On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 19:32:18 +0000, Bruce wrote:Okay, both sides are written by A. Orange and A. Toussaint. Flip is
On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 8:04:43 +0000, Roger wrote:
20 FAVE DUET RECORDS
BUBBLING UNDER
23. HEAVENLY BABY – ALLEN & ALLEN
"Tiddle Winks." It's not as good as HB.
Allen Orange
Real Name:
Allen Julian Orange
https://i.discogs.com/oO_yHKzzOTOJfwTQilhiYIOspDuC_hqHokKg4Uo1IV8/rs:fit/g:sm/q:90/h:400/w:320/czM6Ly9kaXNjb2dz/LWRhdGFiYXNlLWlt/YWdlcy9BLTQ3ODk4/Mi0xMzgxNDgyMjU2/LTUyODMuanBlZw.jpeg
Profile:
R&B artist who worked with Allen Toussaint (billed together as "Allen & Allen") and other artists through the 1960s and 1970s. He also
owned/managed the label House Of Orange in the 1970s.
This is a fave of mine not on Roger's list or on Bruce's list
Billy and Lillie - Over The Mountain, Across The Sea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igIM9c_b8t0
(despite the surface noise, for me this is the best sounding YT copy)
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 19:03:41 +0000, RWC wrote:
This is a fave of mine not on Roger's list or on Bruce's list
Billy and Lillie - Over The Mountain, Across The Sea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igIM9c_b8t0
(despite the surface noise, for me this is the best sounding YT copy)
FOUL AS FUCK!
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 19:10:11 +0000, [email protected] (Bruce) wrote:
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 19:03:41 +0000, RWC wrote:
This is a fave of mine not on Roger's list or on Bruce's list
Billy and Lillie - Over The Mountain, Across The Sea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igIM9c_b8t0
(despite the surface noise, for me this is the best sounding YT copy)
FOUL AS FUCK!
Thanks for listening.
All *your* fave duets for 1960 are good or better.
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 1:55:33 +0000, RWC wrote:
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 19:10:11 +0000, [email protected] (Bruce) wrote:
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 19:03:41 +0000, RWC wrote:
This is a fave of mine not on Roger's list or on Bruce's list
Billy and Lillie - Over The Mountain, Across The Sea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igIM9c_b8t0
(despite the surface noise, for me this is the best sounding YT copy)
FOUL AS FUCK!
Thanks for listening.
All *your* fave duets for 1960 are good or better.
The reason its not on my list is that it is utter crap of the first
order.
And I say that as someone who has their "La Dee Dah" on my 1958 list
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 6:10:21 +0000, Roger wrote:
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 1:55:33 +0000, RWC wrote:
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 19:10:11 +0000, [email protected] (Bruce) wrote:
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 19:03:41 +0000, RWC wrote:
FOUL AS FUCK!
This is a fave of mine not on Roger's list or on Bruce's list
Billy and Lillie - Over The Mountain, Across The Sea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igIM9c_b8t0
(despite the surface noise, for me this is the best sounding YT copy) >>>>
Thanks for listening.
All *your* fave duets for 1960 are good or better.
The reason its not on my list is that it is utter crap of the first
order.
And I say that as someone who has their "La Dee Dah" on my 1958 list
I hope that's a typo. "La De Dah" is from 1957.
Since hearing Johnny & Joe's 1957 version, I've much liked the songitself (the melody, etc)...
I also enjoy the version by The Orlons (girl group).
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 1:55:33 +0000, RWC wrote:
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 19:10:11 +0000, [email protected] (Bruce) wrote:
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 19:03:41 +0000, RWC wrote:
This is a fave of mine not on Roger's list or on Bruce's list
Billy and Lillie - Over The Mountain, Across The Sea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igIM9c_b8t0
(despite the surface noise, for me this is the best sounding YT copy)
FOUL AS FUCK!
Thanks for listening.
All *your* fave duets for 1960 are good or better.
The reason its not on my list is that it is utter crap of the first
order.
RWC wrote:
Since hearing Johnny & Joe's 1957 version, I've much liked the songitself (the melody, etc)...
I also enjoy the version by The Orlons (girl group).
Two sentences; 2 errors.
It's Johnnie & Joe
The Orlons had a male member, and he's featured often.
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 06:10:21 +0000, [email protected] (Roger)
wrote:
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 1:55:33 +0000, RWC wrote:Thanks for your subjective opinion, Roger.
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 19:10:11 +0000, [email protected] (Bruce) wrote:
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 19:03:41 +0000, RWC wrote:
FOUL AS FUCK!
This is a fave of mine not on Roger's list or on Bruce's list
Billy and Lillie - Over The Mountain, Across The Sea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igIM9c_b8t0
(despite the surface noise, for me this is the best sounding YT copy) >>>>
Thanks for listening.
All *your* fave duets for 1960 are good or better.
The reason its not on my list is that it is utter crap of the first
order.
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 15:15:30 +0000, RWC wrote:
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 06:10:21 +0000, [email protected] (Roger)ALL opinions on here about different records are subjective. Nobody's is objective or else it could not be challenged or disputed.
wrote:
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 1:55:33 +0000, RWC wrote:Thanks for your subjective opinion, Roger.
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 19:10:11 +0000, [email protected] (Bruce) wrote:
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 19:03:41 +0000, RWC wrote:
FOUL AS FUCK!
This is a fave of mine not on Roger's list or on Bruce's list
Billy and Lillie - Over The Mountain, Across The Sea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igIM9c_b8t0
(despite the surface noise, for me this is the best sounding YT copy) >>>>>
Thanks for listening.
All *your* fave duets for 1960 are good or better.
The reason its not on my list is that it is utter crap of the first >>>order.
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 16:15:28 +0000, Roger wrote:
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 15:15:30 +0000, RWC wrote:
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 06:10:21 +0000, [email protected] (Roger)ALL opinions on here about different records are subjective. Nobody's is
wrote:
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 1:55:33 +0000, RWC wrote:Thanks for your subjective opinion, Roger.
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 19:10:11 +0000, [email protected] (Bruce) wrote:
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 19:03:41 +0000, RWC wrote:
FOUL AS FUCK!
This is a fave of mine not on Roger's list or on Bruce's list
Billy and Lillie - Over The Mountain, Across The Sea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igIM9c_b8t0
(despite the surface noise, for me this is the best sounding YT copy) >>>>>>
Thanks for listening.
All *your* fave duets for 1960 are good or better.
The reason its not on my list is that it is utter crap of the first >>>>order.
objective or else it could not be challenged or disputed.
Not really. If someone were trying to objectively pick the greatest
records of the year, that opinion could be challenged. That's what I
tried to do on my DDD yearly lists, but no 2 people would entirely agree
on any objective list.
--
RWC wrote:
Since hearing Johnny & Joe's 1957 version, I've much liked the songitself (the melody, etc)...
I also enjoy the version by The Orlons (girl group).
Two sentences; 2 errors.
It's Johnnie & Joe
The Orlons had a male member, and he's featured often.
Diane and I often disagree on colors. She'll say something is red and I
will say that it's maroon. We are both being objective, but see it differently.
On Dec 9, 2024 at 11:07:59 AM CST, "Bruce" <Bruce> wrote:
Diane and I often disagree on colors. She'll say something is red and I
will say that it's maroon. We are both being objective, but see it
differently.
Sorry, but what we see (or hear or taste or smell) is not necessarily objective. An objective statement is purely factual and provable. Our
senses
can give us only subjective info since a) we can't demonstrate that
they're
not just particular to ourselves because of brains possibly "sensing"
the same
stimulus differently.
--md
On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 22:02:37 +0000, Mark wrote:
On Dec 9, 2024 at 11:07:59 AM CST, "Bruce" <Bruce> wrote:
Diane and I often disagree on colors. She'll say something is red and I
will say that it's maroon. We are both being objective, but see it
differently.
Sorry, but what we see (or hear or taste or smell) is not necessarily
objective. An objective statement is purely factual and provable. Our
senses
can give us only subjective info since a) we can't demonstrate that
they're
not just particular to ourselves because of brains possibly "sensing"
the same
stimulus differently.
--md
So you can't say that a statement is objective until you research
whether or not it's factual and provable?
And this can change over time, like at one time if you said "Pluto is a planet in our solar system" that would have been factual and provable 50 years ago, but now the scientific community has said that Pluto is not a planet.
On Dec 10, 2024 at 4:54:33 PM CST, "Bruce" <Bruce> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 22:02:37 +0000, Mark wrote:
On Dec 9, 2024 at 11:07:59 AM CST, "Bruce" <Bruce> wrote:
Diane and I often disagree on colors. She'll say something is red and I >>>> will say that it's maroon. We are both being objective, but see it
differently.
Sorry, but what we see (or hear or taste or smell) is not necessarily
objective. An objective statement is purely factual and provable. Our
senses
can give us only subjective info since a) we can't demonstrate that
they're
not just particular to ourselves because of brains possibly "sensing"
the same
stimulus differently.
--md
So you can't say that a statement is objective until you research
whether or not it's factual and provable?
Read again. I said that our senses generally aren't reliable when it
comes to
objectivity. If one person says it's red and another says it's purple
the
argument has to stop since there is no "objective" way for them discover
who
it "right." Colors are produced in our brains. What's actually out there
are
just light rays with different wavelengths.
And this can change over time, like at one time if you said "Pluto is a
planet in our solar system" that would have been factual and provable 50
years ago, but now the scientific community has said that Pluto is not a
planet.
This is merely a matter of definition being changed by the scentists.
Pluto,
and our "objective" ideas about how big it is and what it's orbit is
remain
unchanged.
--md
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 3:09:31 +0000, Mark wrote:
On Dec 10, 2024 at 4:54:33 PM CST, "Bruce" <Bruce> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 22:02:37 +0000, Mark wrote:
On Dec 9, 2024 at 11:07:59 AM CST, "Bruce" <Bruce> wrote:
Diane and I often disagree on colors. She'll say something is red and I >>>>> will say that it's maroon. We are both being objective, but see it
differently.
Sorry, but what we see (or hear or taste or smell) is not necessarily
objective. An objective statement is purely factual and provable. Our
senses
can give us only subjective info since a) we can't demonstrate that
they're
not just particular to ourselves because of brains possibly "sensing"
the same
stimulus differently.
--md
So you can't say that a statement is objective until you research
whether or not it's factual and provable?
Read again. I said that our senses generally aren't reliable when it
comes to
objectivity. If one person says it's red and another says it's purple
the
argument has to stop since there is no "objective" way for them discover
who
it "right." Colors are produced in our brains. What's actually out there
are
just light rays with different wavelengths.
And this can change over time, like at one time if you said "Pluto is a
planet in our solar system" that would have been factual and provable 50 >>> years ago, but now the scientific community has said that Pluto is not a >>> planet.
This is merely a matter of definition being changed by the scentists.
Pluto,
and our "objective" ideas about how big it is and what it's orbit is
remain
unchanged.
--md
Other objective facts can change every day, for instance the transfer
rate between dollars and English pounds. On a Sunday when markets are
closed it may be a certain number all day, but sure to change by Monday night, even if only slightly.
On Dec 10, 2024 at 9:56:18 PM CST, "Bruce" <Bruce> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 3:09:31 +0000, Mark wrote:
On Dec 10, 2024 at 4:54:33 PM CST, "Bruce" <Bruce> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 22:02:37 +0000, Mark wrote:
On Dec 9, 2024 at 11:07:59 AM CST, "Bruce" <Bruce> wrote:
Diane and I often disagree on colors. She'll say something is red and I >>>>>> will say that it's maroon. We are both being objective, but see it >>>>>> differently.
Sorry, but what we see (or hear or taste or smell) is not necessarily >>>>> objective. An objective statement is purely factual and provable. Our >>>>> senses
can give us only subjective info since a) we can't demonstrate that
they're
not just particular to ourselves because of brains possibly "sensing" >>>>> the same
stimulus differently.
--md
So you can't say that a statement is objective until you research
whether or not it's factual and provable?
Read again. I said that our senses generally aren't reliable when it
comes to
objectivity. If one person says it's red and another says it's purple
the
argument has to stop since there is no "objective" way for them discover >>> who
it "right." Colors are produced in our brains. What's actually out there >>> are
just light rays with different wavelengths.
And this can change over time, like at one time if you said "Pluto is a >>>> planet in our solar system" that would have been factual and provable 50 >>>> years ago, but now the scientific community has said that Pluto is not a >>>> planet.
This is merely a matter of definition being changed by the scentists.
Pluto,
and our "objective" ideas about how big it is and what it's orbit is
remain
unchanged.
--md
Other objective facts can change every day, for instance the transfer
rate between dollars and English pounds. On a Sunday when markets are
closed it may be a certain number all day, but sure to change by Monday
night, even if only slightly.
Now you've got it. It is an objective fact that time changes things.
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 20:08:32 +0000, Mark wrote:
On Dec 10, 2024 at 9:56:18?PM CST, "Bruce" <Bruce> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 3:09:31 +0000, Mark wrote:
On Dec 10, 2024 at 4:54:33?PM CST, "Bruce" <Bruce> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 22:02:37 +0000, Mark wrote:
On Dec 9, 2024 at 11:07:59?AM CST, "Bruce" <Bruce> wrote:
Diane and I often disagree on colors. She'll say something is red and I >>>>>>> will say that it's maroon. We are both being objective, but see it >>>>>>> differently.
Sorry, but what we see (or hear or taste or smell) is not necessarily >>>>>> objective. An objective statement is purely factual and provable. Our >>>>>> senses
can give us only subjective info since a) we can't demonstrate that >>>>>> they're
not just particular to ourselves because of brains possibly "sensing" >>>>>> the same
stimulus differently.
--md
So you can't say that a statement is objective until you research
whether or not it's factual and provable?
Read again. I said that our senses generally aren't reliable when it
comes to
objectivity. If one person says it's red and another says it's purple
the
argument has to stop since there is no "objective" way for them discover >>>> who
it "right." Colors are produced in our brains. What's actually out there >>>> are
just light rays with different wavelengths.
And this can change over time, like at one time if you said "Pluto is a >>>>> planet in our solar system" that would have been factual and provable 50 >>>>> years ago, but now the scientific community has said that Pluto is not a >>>>> planet.
This is merely a matter of definition being changed by the scentists.
Pluto,
and our "objective" ideas about how big it is and what it's orbit is
remain
unchanged.
--md
Other objective facts can change every day, for instance the transfer
rate between dollars and English pounds. On a Sunday when markets are
closed it may be a certain number all day, but sure to change by Monday
night, even if only slightly.
Now you've got it. It is an objective fact that time changes things.
Is it an objective fact that Geoff is a white supremacist?
Diane and I often disagree on colors. She'll say something is red and I
will say that it's maroon. We are both being objective, but see it differently.
I think Roger and I both missed this one:
122 ¦ My Baby ¦ Ray Charles
--
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 27:49:29 |
| Calls: | 12,106 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,222 |
