Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

"Only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core." -- Hannah Arendt.


arts / rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1950s / Re: REVIEW - The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED IN HOLLYWOOD 165; AUGUST 1951

SubjectAuthor
* REVIEW - The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED INBruce
`* Re: REVIEW - The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED INDianeE
 +* Re: REVIEW - The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED INBruce
 |`* Re: REVIEW - The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED INDianeE
 | `- Re: REVIEW - The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED INBruce
 +- Re: REVIEW - The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED IN HOLLYWOOD 165Roger Ford
 +- Re: REVIEW - The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED IN HOLLYWOOD 165RWC
 `- Re: REVIEW - The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED IN HOLLYWOOD 165RWC

1
REVIEW - The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED IN HOLLYWOOD 165; AUGUST 1951

<aced23e7-2318-46a6-99af-1aa6b13ddfd7n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=25393&group=rec.music.rock-pop-r%2Bb.1950s#25393

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1950s
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4e45:0:b0:2f3:b5bf:808e with SMTP id e5-20020ac84e45000000b002f3b5bf808emr243944qtw.537.1652369142639;
Thu, 12 May 2022 08:25:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:586:b0:2f3:be13:ab12 with SMTP id
c6-20020a05622a058600b002f3be13ab12mr301829qtb.278.1652369142455; Thu, 12 May
2022 08:25:42 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1950s
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 08:25:42 -0700 (PDT)
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=100.1.92.145; posting-account=n9xsxgkAAACbwJmqxLqYq22Bsa6pSjao
NNTP-Posting-Host: 100.1.92.145
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <aced23e7-2318-46a6-99af-1aa6b13ddfd7n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: REVIEW - The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED IN
HOLLYWOOD 165; AUGUST 1951
From: Savo...@aol.com (Bruce)
Injection-Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 15:25:42 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 1320
 by: Bruce - Thu, 12 May 2022 15:25 UTC

The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED IN HOLLYWOOD 165; AUGUST 1951

https://www.spontaneouslunacy.net/the-hollywood-four-flames-young-girl-recorded-in-hollywood-165/

YOUTUBE - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOaBBTjCA5Y

SPONTANEOUS LUNACY VERDICT: 3/10

Re: REVIEW - The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED IN HOLLYWOOD 165; AUGUST 1951

<HT9fK.1210$j0D5.447@fx09.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=25394&group=rec.music.rock-pop-r%2Bb.1950s#25394

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1950s
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx09.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: REVIEW - The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED IN
HOLLYWOOD 165; AUGUST 1951
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1950s
References: <aced23e7-2318-46a6-99af-1aa6b13ddfd7n@googlegroups.com>
From: Dia...@NoSpam.net (DianeE)
In-Reply-To: <aced23e7-2318-46a6-99af-1aa6b13ddfd7n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <HT9fK.1210$j0D5.447@fx09.iad>
X-Complaints-To: http://www.newsleecher.com/support/
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 15:40:23 UTC
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 11:40:22 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 1611
 by: DianeE - Thu, 12 May 2022 15:40 UTC

On 5/12/2022 11:25 AM, Bruce wrote:
> The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED IN HOLLYWOOD 165; AUGUST 1951
>
>
> https://www.spontaneouslunacy.net/the-hollywood-four-flames-young-girl-recorded-in-hollywood-165/
>
>
> YOUTUBE - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOaBBTjCA5Y
>
>
> SPONTANEOUS LUNACY VERDICT: 3/10
-----------
Nothing wrong with this record....if you like 1951 R&B. It's a 5 for
me, worth keeping.

But the guy who posted the video (he's dead now, but he was a collector
whom I met in a Facebook group some years ago when I was still on
Facebook)...he says "A Different Version as Orig. Released By The Flames
On Selective Records In 1950." I'm guessing he meant that this is a
different version *from* the one released in 1950? It's not clear.

Re: REVIEW - The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED IN HOLLYWOOD 165; AUGUST 1951

<32f2e504-4040-4a6e-a185-ece7e7df8e66n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=25396&group=rec.music.rock-pop-r%2Bb.1950s#25396

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1950s
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7d81:0:b0:2f3:ca7a:653b with SMTP id c1-20020ac87d81000000b002f3ca7a653bmr515774qtd.638.1652372110234;
Thu, 12 May 2022 09:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a37:f516:0:b0:69f:83cd:f557 with SMTP id
l22-20020a37f516000000b0069f83cdf557mr463827qkk.555.1652372109464; Thu, 12
May 2022 09:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.mixmin.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1950s
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 09:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <HT9fK.1210$j0D5.447@fx09.iad>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=100.1.92.145; posting-account=n9xsxgkAAACbwJmqxLqYq22Bsa6pSjao
NNTP-Posting-Host: 100.1.92.145
References: <aced23e7-2318-46a6-99af-1aa6b13ddfd7n@googlegroups.com> <HT9fK.1210$j0D5.447@fx09.iad>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <32f2e504-4040-4a6e-a185-ece7e7df8e66n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: REVIEW - The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED IN
HOLLYWOOD 165; AUGUST 1951
From: Savo...@aol.com (Bruce)
Injection-Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 16:15:10 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
 by: Bruce - Thu, 12 May 2022 16:15 UTC

On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 11:40:25 AM UTC-4, DianeE wrote:
> On 5/12/2022 11:25 AM, Bruce wrote:
> > The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED IN HOLLYWOOD 165; AUGUST 1951
> >
> >
> > https://www.spontaneouslunacy.net/the-hollywood-four-flames-young-girl-recorded-in-hollywood-165/
> >
> >
> > YOUTUBE - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOaBBTjCA5Y
> >
> >
> > SPONTANEOUS LUNACY VERDICT: 3/10
> -----------
> Nothing wrong with this record....if you like 1951 R&B. It's a 5 for
> me, worth keeping.
>
> But the guy who posted the video (he's dead now, but he was a collector
> whom I met in a Facebook group some years ago when I was still on
> Facebook)...he says "A Different Version as Orig. Released By The Flames
> On Selective Records In 1950." I'm guessing he meant that this is a
> different version *from* the one released in 1950? It's not clear.

They first released the song as by the Flames early in 1950. Then they redid it as by the Hollywood Four Flames in 1951.

Here's the Flames version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emjoxgZwLTw

Re: REVIEW - The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED IN HOLLYWOOD 165; AUGUST 1951

<vDafK.13$XhAf.3@fx39.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=25399&group=rec.music.rock-pop-r%2Bb.1950s#25399

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1950s
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx39.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: REVIEW - The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED IN
HOLLYWOOD 165; AUGUST 1951
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1950s
References: <aced23e7-2318-46a6-99af-1aa6b13ddfd7n@googlegroups.com>
<HT9fK.1210$j0D5.447@fx09.iad>
<32f2e504-4040-4a6e-a185-ece7e7df8e66n@googlegroups.com>
From: Dia...@NoSpam.net (DianeE)
In-Reply-To: <32f2e504-4040-4a6e-a185-ece7e7df8e66n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <vDafK.13$XhAf.3@fx39.iad>
X-Complaints-To: http://www.newsleecher.com/support/
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 16:31:23 UTC
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 12:31:22 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 2190
 by: DianeE - Thu, 12 May 2022 16:31 UTC

On 5/12/2022 12:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 11:40:25 AM UTC-4, DianeE wrote:
>> On 5/12/2022 11:25 AM, Bruce wrote:
>>> The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED IN HOLLYWOOD 165; AUGUST 1951
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.spontaneouslunacy.net/the-hollywood-four-flames-young-girl-recorded-in-hollywood-165/
>>>
>>>
>>> YOUTUBE - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOaBBTjCA5Y
>>>
>>>
>>> SPONTANEOUS LUNACY VERDICT: 3/10
>> -----------
>> Nothing wrong with this record....if you like 1951 R&B. It's a 5 for
>> me, worth keeping.
>>
>> But the guy who posted the video (he's dead now, but he was a collector
>> whom I met in a Facebook group some years ago when I was still on
>> Facebook)...he says "A Different Version as Orig. Released By The Flames
>> On Selective Records In 1950." I'm guessing he meant that this is a
>> different version *from* the one released in 1950? It's not clear.
>
> They first released the song as by the Flames early in 1950. Then they redid it as by the Hollywood Four Flames in 1951.
>
> Here's the Flames version:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emjoxgZwLTw
--------------
That's even better!
Did he review it? I can't help but think he gave this one a 3 just
because it's not the original.

Re: REVIEW - The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED IN HOLLYWOOD 165; AUGUST 1951

<60cb0809-ec71-483d-b6e4-9a0d5b6b368dn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=25400&group=rec.music.rock-pop-r%2Bb.1950s#25400

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1950s
X-Received: by 2002:a37:2f04:0:b0:663:397d:7051 with SMTP id v4-20020a372f04000000b00663397d7051mr541387qkh.333.1652373328760;
Thu, 12 May 2022 09:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:4091:b0:6a0:54cf:c0ed with SMTP id
f17-20020a05620a409100b006a054cfc0edmr586990qko.578.1652373328551; Thu, 12
May 2022 09:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1950s
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 09:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <vDafK.13$XhAf.3@fx39.iad>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=100.1.92.145; posting-account=n9xsxgkAAACbwJmqxLqYq22Bsa6pSjao
NNTP-Posting-Host: 100.1.92.145
References: <aced23e7-2318-46a6-99af-1aa6b13ddfd7n@googlegroups.com>
<HT9fK.1210$j0D5.447@fx09.iad> <32f2e504-4040-4a6e-a185-ece7e7df8e66n@googlegroups.com>
<vDafK.13$XhAf.3@fx39.iad>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <60cb0809-ec71-483d-b6e4-9a0d5b6b368dn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: REVIEW - The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED IN
HOLLYWOOD 165; AUGUST 1951
From: Savo...@aol.com (Bruce)
Injection-Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 16:35:28 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 2910
 by: Bruce - Thu, 12 May 2022 16:35 UTC

On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 12:31:25 PM UTC-4, DianeE wrote:
> On 5/12/2022 12:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 11:40:25 AM UTC-4, DianeE wrote:
> >> On 5/12/2022 11:25 AM, Bruce wrote:
> >>> The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED IN HOLLYWOOD 165; AUGUST 1951
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> https://www.spontaneouslunacy.net/the-hollywood-four-flames-young-girl-recorded-in-hollywood-165/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> YOUTUBE - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOaBBTjCA5Y
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> SPONTANEOUS LUNACY VERDICT: 3/10
> >> -----------
> >> Nothing wrong with this record....if you like 1951 R&B. It's a 5 for
> >> me, worth keeping.
> >>
> >> But the guy who posted the video (he's dead now, but he was a collector
> >> whom I met in a Facebook group some years ago when I was still on
> >> Facebook)...he says "A Different Version as Orig. Released By The Flames
> >> On Selective Records In 1950." I'm guessing he meant that this is a
> >> different version *from* the one released in 1950? It's not clear.
> >
> > They first released the song as by the Flames early in 1950. Then they redid it as by the Hollywood Four Flames in 1951.
> >
> > Here's the Flames version:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emjoxgZwLTw
> --------------
> That's even better!
> Did he review it? I can't help but think he gave this one a 3 just
> because it's not the original.

That's because he doesn't subscribe to ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS

https://www.spontaneouslunacy.net/the-flames-young-girl-selective-113/

He gave it a 6.

Re: REVIEW - The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED IN HOLLYWOOD 165; AUGUST 1951

<627d4922.104058281@nntp.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=25406&group=rec.music.rock-pop-r%2Bb.1950s#25406

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1950s
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!npB4FiOEk4RHQIjJFMDeyw.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford)
Newsgroups: rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1950s
Subject: Re: REVIEW - The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED IN HOLLYWOOD 165; AUGUST 1951
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 17:53:01 GMT
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <627d4922.104058281@nntp.aioe.org>
References: <aced23e7-2318-46a6-99af-1aa6b13ddfd7n@googlegroups.com> <HT9fK.1210$j0D5.447@fx09.iad>
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="54875"; posting-host="npB4FiOEk4RHQIjJFMDeyw.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 220512-2, 5/12/2022), Outbound message
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
 by: Roger Ford - Thu, 12 May 2022 17:53 UTC

On Thu, 12 May 2022 11:40:22 -0400, DianeE <DianeE@NoSpam.net> wrote:

>On 5/12/2022 11:25 AM, Bruce wrote:
>> The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED IN HOLLYWOOD 165; AUGUST 1951
>>
>>
>> https://www.spontaneouslunacy.net/the-hollywood-four-flames-young-girl-recorded-in-hollywood-165/
>>
>>
>> YOUTUBE - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOaBBTjCA5Y
>>
>>
Another crash on takeoff for these guys in the 1951 Singlres Battle

>14 Ruth Brown - I Know - Atlantic 941
>3 The Hollywood Four Flames - Young Girl - Recorded In Hollywood 165

>> SPONTANEOUS LUNACY VERDICT: 3/10
>-----------
>Nothing wrong with this record....if you like 1951 R&B. It's a 5 for
>me, worth keeping.
>
I have it as a 6

>But the guy who posted the video (he's dead now, but he was a collector
>whom I met in a Facebook group some years ago when I was still on
>Facebook)...he says "A Different Version as Orig. Released By The Flames
>On Selective Records In 1950." I'm guessing he meant that this is a
>different version *from* the one released in 1950? It's not clear.

The 1950 Selective version is definitely better with the piano opening
and vocals. A 7 for me

ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (mariabus@bblueyonder.co.uk) Please
delete same before responding.Thank you!

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

Re: REVIEW - The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED IN HOLLYWOOD 165; AUGUST 1951

<dh8r7h9766rouurfniirp2m3781cjvbvut@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=25408&group=rec.music.rock-pop-r%2Bb.1950s#25408

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1950s
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx04.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: letsr...@opbox.com (RWC)
Newsgroups: rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1950s
Subject: Re: REVIEW - The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED IN HOLLYWOOD 165; AUGUST 1951
Message-ID: <dh8r7h9766rouurfniirp2m3781cjvbvut@4ax.com>
References: <aced23e7-2318-46a6-99af-1aa6b13ddfd7n@googlegroups.com> <HT9fK.1210$j0D5.447@fx09.iad>
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.10.32.1214
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 40
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 21:20:55 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 2409
 by: RWC - Fri, 13 May 2022 01:20 UTC

On Thu, 12 May 2022 11:40:22 -0400, DianeE <DianeE@NoSpam.net> wrote:

>On 5/12/2022 11:25 AM, Bruce wrote:
>> The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED IN HOLLYWOOD 165; AUGUST 1951
>>
>> YOUTUBE - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOaBBTjCA5Y
>>
>-----------
>
>But the guy who posted the video (he's dead now

(Chook5219 joined YouTube in 2012)

Dead! - well, well. Didn't know he was on Facebook, but in my mind
he was and is a legend on YouTube for 1950s music, simply because I
have so often seen that small round image of the, presumed actual,
face of "Choock5219" - which is difficult to age because he might've
had a middle-age (say 35+) 'Paul McCartney' type face, if you know
what I mean (another UK famous Brit, Cliff Richard, had the same
elixir of youth in middle-age {perhaps our Roger did as well?} :)

Yes, the alleged photo of Chook5219 might have been taken long
before he first posted to YT in 2012 ?

Anyway, here is Chook's self-penned YT 'About' comment:

Just a guy with some old 45's
Have quite a few that were only popular in the Pgh. Pa area due to
play from DJ's such as Porky Chedwick, Mad Mike Metro, Charlie Apple,
Zeke Jackson, Bob Livorio, Terry Lee, Jim Dudas and others.
No crappy 8 bit 64 kbps MP3's Here.....99 & 44/100% Vinyl Transfers
For best sound quality,be sure to watch in 480P or 720P. It does make
a difference

On YT, Chook5219 has 11K subscribers, and 8.5 million views so far.

For a comparison, "the45prof" (Bob Moke), who claims to post music for
the period 1955-1965, has 21K subscribers, and 24.5 million views so
far.

Re: REVIEW - The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED IN HOLLYWOOD 165; AUGUST 1951

<d7fr7hta4p8582qvhkdieg4tfhb5k3usks@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=25409&group=rec.music.rock-pop-r%2Bb.1950s#25409

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1950s
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder2.ecngs.de!ecngs!feeder.ecngs.de!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx12.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: letsr...@opbox.com (RWC)
Newsgroups: rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1950s
Subject: Re: REVIEW - The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED IN HOLLYWOOD 165; AUGUST 1951
Message-ID: <d7fr7hta4p8582qvhkdieg4tfhb5k3usks@4ax.com>
References: <aced23e7-2318-46a6-99af-1aa6b13ddfd7n@googlegroups.com> <HT9fK.1210$j0D5.447@fx09.iad>
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.10.32.1214
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 32
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 23:31:47 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 2106
 by: RWC - Fri, 13 May 2022 03:31 UTC

On Thu, 12 May 2022 11:40:22 -0400, DianeE <DianeE@NoSpam.net> wrote:

>On 5/12/2022 11:25 AM, Bruce wrote:
>> The Hollywood Four Flames: "Young Girl" - RECORDED IN HOLLYWOOD 165; AUGUST 1951
>>
>> YOUTUBE - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOaBBTjCA5Y
>>
>-----------
>Nothing wrong with this record....if you like 1951 R&B

I venture that the known followers of this newsgroup fall into two
conflicting camps concerning circa 1951 R&B slow tempo ballads

Strong fans of this sub-genre *in general* are perceived to be,
in no particular order, Diane, Roger, Bruce, Dean

Anyone else? - please raise their hand.

*in general* is an important qualifier because all genres have
their 'very best of' which are records popular with most fans of
1950s R&B

I again venture, that the other half of members here are indifferent
to, or might even dislike, records such as the recently reviewed:

The Hollywood Four Flames: "I'll Always Be A Fool"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIh4z6-QdXs
(guitar and piano backing is sublime, but the vocals
are amateurish sounding, and hence a bit draggy and off-putting)

which one strong fan here of the sub-genre rated a 7,
amid all R&B/Country/Rock sides 1947 to 1963

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor