Hi Stu,

I gave "Mr. Pitiful" another listen, and while I don't think it's a big problem, it probably would have been better if the voice had been mixed a little higher.

I consider Otis' version of "A Change Is Gonna Come" one of the most emotional records I've ever heard. That, my preference to horns over strings on rock records, and my being an Otis fan cause me to prefer his version to Cooke's, even though I think Otis' changes to the lyrics are changes for the worse. Objectively, Cooke's version is of course greater.

Agree on virtually all of your points Brian. Otis' deep South Soul on ACIGC certainly has a much different attitude than Cookes and I can appreciate the emotional element Otis put into so many of his songs. Still, Sams beautifully refined version is a time tested true classic. I don't see string sweetening fitting on most of Otis' material...but those Memphis Horns are a trademark on Otis Redding recordings. I even love it when a trumpet cracks a note, because it fits so well.

As for the mixes...as you listen to some of the earlier material, see if you don't sometimes have to stretch to hear the vocal over the track? Remember...back then studios like Stax and even Motown in the early days hired engineers almost off the streets in some cases. As time went on and they started making money they upgraded, both in equiptment and personnel. The production on Dock Of The Bay is much sonically clearer than Otis and others back in the early days. Despite all that...Otis Reddings true Soul came through on all of his recordings.

Cooke had the greatest tone in the history of soul singers, imo. From that opening "I WAS BOOOOORRRRN BY THE RIVER", it's evident that nobody can fuck with this man.
Adam Lambert did a version too, very impressive but nowhere near Sam-level.

So this.

His stuff with the Soul Stirrers was incredible for the time, I can totally understand the nickname 'The Man Who Invented Soul' now...

Cooke didn't invent soul. His music with the Soul Stirrers was gospel, not soul.

What is soul? Is it gospel-influenced vocals combined with the rhythms and instrumentation of R&B?

Could you refer me to some of that? All I have from that time period is some live album.

Sam Cooke is certainly one of that core group of 5 or 10 artists who could arguably be called the "greatest" Soul singer ever. As in most types of music...stylistic differences can differentiate artists based on the listeners preference. While Cookes style was silky smooth...Otis Redding sang with that raw emotion filled "Deep Soul" style. Clash is correct in that most Soul artists have a significant Gospel influence, since the vast majority started singing in churches.

I can never decide between Sam and Otis. Love them both so dearly.

For me Sam and Ray Charles are just on another level among soul singers. I probably like Otis third best though.

It is, but another thing distinguishes gospel from soul is that soul has secular lyrics, or semi-secular lyrics. Some soul songs take religious phrases and alter them in a secular way.

It's often been said that the only difference between modern Gospel and modern pop or R&B music is that they changed the phrase "my Lord" with "my baby". It is true somewhat from personal experience and knowledge. In the 70s, my brother was an accomplished arranger in Los Angeles, having done many projects at Motown, much of the Don Cornelius, Dick Griffy stuff at Solar Records, Lenny Williams, Smokey Robinson, and many many more. He was asked to arrange an album for Rev James Cleveland. He went on to arrange several Cleveland projects, along with albums for The Mighty Clouds of Joy, Andre Crouch and others...virtually all of them earning him gold records which still adorn the walls of his studio.

So I was thinking about the criteria again and wondering why there is nothing regarding diversity of performances...for example Let's assume the criteria likes 2 bands about the same...AC/DC & Pearl Jam...AC/DC rates a little higher with the criteria, so if you like both bands about the same and you could only see one you'd choose AC/DC. Well what if you had to choose one to see 2 nights in a row? AC/DC will give you about the same performance right down to the Angus guitar solo and pretty much the exact same setlist, PJ will give you something completely different.

I went with my wife and friend to see PJ and Tom Petty in Denver in '06...my friend loved them both, but probly liked Petty a little more. So the first night was great and he was ecstatic to see Petty for the first time...the 2nd night PJ was great, but 8 or 9 songs thru the Petty set, we realized that, while good, it was the exact same show, and left...I would've stayed, but he had lost a lot of respect for Petty and wanted to go. But he probly had no idea Petty isn't alone..even Zeppelin in their prime did a similar show alot, the only major differences being the length of some of the long jams & solos.

Maybe all that means nothing to most people, like the casual fans, who would never see a band twice on the same tour....I would think it would mean something to the type of people that post in a forum like this, but maybe not. I figure these lists are for the hardcore and I think that's something that should be considered. Just something else to think about.

Maybe the reason why that isn't part of the criteria is, wouldn't a varied playlist only matter if the artist plays in the same city more than one night in a row? Most artists don't play in the same city for more than one night in a row, so this would seem to be not applicable for most artists.

Was Petty the opening act when you saw him? I'd think a headliner playing in the same town 2 nights in a row would have more reason to vary his playlist than the opening act, because more people would come to see a headliner 2 nights in a row than to see the opening act.