English Soul

Robin

The concept of "soul" as indeed the concept of black American music being in some form more "soulful" than the non-existent "soul" or even soul (and therefore soulful can also drop the inverted commas as well) is incorrect and outdated as I am sure you know.

Nevertheless the idea that Kate Bush - the big haired Pink Floyd mate - is in anyway more soulful or even "soulful" than any other soully thing or band or stuff is frankly nonsensical.

As you know.

Reynolds is confusing torch singers (K. Bush) with soul singers (early black artists). But more importantly, the idea of a Soul singer/musician/artist is more indicative of a time where albums and 45's with black music were referred to as "Race Records." All the little white kids would go down to the border where record dealers would set up shop on the side of the road and sell out of the back of a van.

These songs had a sound that was based around early, true R&B that contained guitars, bass, sometimes organ, always drums and, most importantly, RHYTHM AND BLUES -- both in lyrical content and sound.

This sort of thing doesn't exist anymore 'coz of sampling, electronic instruments and general lack of musicianship. If you were to forget the silly idea that Kate Bush is a soul singer and instead call D'Angelo a Soul singer, for example, you would see that there is something inherently OFF KILTER about it. He's really not. He's not even an R&B singer, at least based on the definition I've submitted. There is a murky area that has been created by the hyper-commodified American Music Distribution House wherein R&B came to be anything with a drum track and a vocalist (as in 'one who uses their voice an instrument') and Soul has, effectively died as a term to describe music.

Go into a record store: There is a "Rock-Pop and Soul" section and then there is an "R&B" section (along with Rap/Hip-Hop). If you look under "Rock/Pop/Soul," eight or nine times out of ten you fill find Aretha Franklin, Marvin Gaye, Lou Rawls, the Temptations and all the rest of the Cannon listed next to AC-DC, Blink 182 and whomever else you can think of.

Under "R&B" is Destiny's Child, Christina A, Mariah Carey and all of today's modern radio staples who are NOT R&B singers or artists.

Now, having gone totally tangential, I would like to respond, once and for all, to the posed question:

Kate Bush is not a Soul singer, English or otherwise. And I strain to find ANY English soul singers either now, or from the past... although I'm prolly gonna be suprised when the sames start to come.... Seal isn't a Soul singer either, and that's not just because he has no range.

Robin, I'm think there may have been earlier instances of the use of phrases like "English Soul" to describe English performers who were *not* trying to emulate what was originally called "R&B", was then called "Soul", and is now called "R&B" again. Unfortunately I can't think of what they might be. However Dexy's Midnight Runners are an example where, although they *were* to some extent "soul/r&b" copyists, there was an attempt by Kevin Rowland and some journalistic opinion to refer to "Soul" in some non-musical, angst-ridden English sense.

The Fall, possibly? (actually I can imagine MES circa 1980 / 81 defining them as such *himself*).

I'm sure you're right, David. I think I really should be asking Simon himself though, if *he* can remember who had used the phrase before him ...

The Fall - yes. Some other artists that spring to mind that could have brought forth this phrase in reviews at the time are John Martyn, Kevin Coyne, Public Image, Echo & The Bunnymen, the Smiths, Stone Roses.

It seems pretty clear to me that when the word "soul" is applied to Kate Bush it *does not mean* soul of the Stax variety. Jeez. If anything, the soul that is subsequently being referred to would have to be almost diametrically opposed to it. But the key to it is (judging from the original comparison) vocalists who fill their singing with the kind of heartfelt emotional hand-wringing that makes Otis Reading not a good singer conventionally but a hell of a performer.

So Kate Bush, yeah. And Brian Ferry. And mid-seventies David Bowie (I'm thinking "Sorrow" for example). The Associates. The Blue Nile. etc. etc.

Now of course this is not soul as it's traditionally imagined, but soul is a geographically distinct term, so it could never be. All the acts I mentioned share a certain feyness/archness/theatricality that ties in to archetypes/stereotypes of Britishness as much as Franklin/Reading/Gaye tie into visions of black America.

Of course it gets confusing when you start adding British black culture to the mix. How do Soul II Soul or McAlmont & Butler (who respectively encompass two deliberately distinct concepts of "soul") fit into the equation. Or fucking Jamiroquai? Is soul a musical style or a feeling? Or do you need both. Is it *impossible* to make soul music after, I don't know, the late 1970s?

David, I'm sure all the above could well have inspired "English Soul" as a critical description, but I was thinking of it more as a self- definition, and I can't really imagine Morrissey or John Lydon or John Martyn referring to themselves as such (though, for varying reasons, they'd have had reason to, and indeed Reynolds mentions the first two in the article that started this thread off).

Mark E. Smith, on the other hand, could easily have used the phrase to promote and define his band's uniqueness; admittedly I mentioned him at least partially because I've been playing "Hex Enduction Hour" a lot recently, but I think it still holds up.

Tim, you seem to have internalised this thread slightly too much. I really ought to have asked Simon Reynolds personally whether he could remember who he took the concept from, though I appreciate the responses thus far.

But I do have to say that I would reply with a vociferous "no" to the last question. "Soul" for me is a mental concept, not a fossilised genre, though of course as David mentioned the term has gone out of use in recent years, replaced by its predecessor-term "R&B".

Perhaps we ought to refer to "period soul" and "individualist soul" or "pastiche soul" and "modern soul", or whatever, to refer to the difference between stylistic imitations and genuine vocal progression ...

Internalised, hmm? How could any posting I make at Christmas not be slightly snarky? ;-)

Anyway, I reckon that there is an enormous amount of difficulty in policing the definition of a term as nebulous as "soul", particularly when the whole "soul is a feeling" argument comes in. I'm not saying that it's not a valid argument, far from it (and it's ten times more believable than for any other genre eg. "techno is a feeling blah blah blah") but it does make things confusing. Especially since the "feeling" in question seems to be tied up inextricably with a certain type of black American experience. Which is why the modifying term "blue-eyed soul" was invented, I guess (it was certainly not *only* to explain Simply Red's existance).

Which is why I like the idea of "English Soul". It makes things even more confusing. Which is cool.

I love confusion. Confusion is cool. Confusion is an aesthetic.

Seriously, I think the phrase "blue-eyed soul" dates from the 60s.

Oh, and wasn't it initially used to refer to the Righteous Brothers, of all (over-mythologised) people?

the pinefox: deacon blue?

More so-called blue-eyed soul: Dusty Springfield?

The Rascals, Hall & Oates.

English "soul" singers (in the conventional sense of the word): Eric Burdon, Joe Cocker, Rod Stewart, Paul Rogers, Steve Marriott.

I understand what Reynold's meant (Nick Drake? Syd Barrett?) and I think people here are nitpicking about his use of the word "soul"