Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Crickets / Chicagoland / Music "Big Boy": Michael Jackson's First Recording, Found After 42 Years
Posted by Whet Moser on 12.22.10 at 11:33 AM
In September 2009, the extraordinary research of Reader contributor Jake Austen led to the discovery of Michael Jackson's first studio recording, which had been lingering on a shelf for four decades. Over a year later, the Jackson Five's rendition of "Big Boy" for One-derful Records has been rescued from tape, and you can hear a clip here.
Since I love listening to people discuss their craft, the reaction of Larry Blasingaine, then a child-prodigy guitarist and session man (or session mannish boy, I suppose) was of particular interest to me:
"Remember I always said the quality [of the Steeltown record] was weak compared to how One-derful sounded?" Blasingaine reminded me. "What I notice about this session—I can't tell until I hear it on bigger speakers, but this seems more professional. The balance, the engineering, it sounds like it was produced . . . they took time to work with them, especially the voices . . . the backgrounds are stronger, Michael is clearer; it jells. It's what made them the Jackson Five—people were amazed by hearing them so young and being able to do that. And that's why I didn't understand when they said they had to go get some other musicians to play and sing."
The Steeltown recording of "Big Boy" was the Jackson Five's first actual single. And the differences are notable. Here's the Steeltown version for comparison:
(The One-derful clip starts at the beginning of Jackson's vocals, equivalent to about :30 into the Steeltown version.)
It's sharper and cleaner—Blasingaine in particular notes the skill of the session bassist—but it doesn't have the rich, wall-of-sound impact of the One-derful version. There's no organ on the Steeltown recording, and the session singers are held back in the mix, without the rich depth of the Jacksons' harmonies. The famous Steeltown version might be a better showcase for Michael, but—to my ears—it's not as fun.
As Jake Austen points out, it's impossible to say which one is better, but listening to the two, and reading Blasingaine's and Austen's takes, is an interesting comparison in musical choices.
(Update: The drums are also busier, and more prominent in the mix, on the One-derful recording, which is another reason why it sounds bigger and hits harder than the Steeltown recording. It sort of comes down to how you take your coffee.)
(Update II: Excellent point in comments about how the recordings impact the emotional differences between the two versions. This is why music is awesome.)
Comments (2)
Showing 1-2 of 2
The One-derful version also sounds a lot closer to the Motown sound, which lends it a more hopeful tone than the Steeltown recording. The latter seems to say the singer will soldier on despite never finding love, whereas the former suggests love is just around the corner and this latest broken heart is but a small setback.
like
dislike
Jake Austen's outstanding research consisted of his being told by Gordon Keith that the Jackson 5 worked with the Leaners at One-Derful Records. He told the Leaner kids, they found a tape. The Leaners in the 60s told Mr Keith they had no tape on the Jackson 5. I wish this hyperbole by the Reader would go into ebb tide.
Yes it does sound a lot closer to the cloying pop Motown sound, whereas the Steeltown version is a soul song. If this is a showdown, Steeltown won. I find this tempo too fast, the vocal arrangements very pop and cliched. I heard Mr Blasingaine say once the arrangement of the Steeltown and One-Derful version were identical. That obviously is not true.
Related Stories
-
Now Playing: The Jackson Find
In 1967, Larry Blasingaine played on the first studio recording by the Jackson Five. The tape was lost for 42 years. The song still hasn't been released. But now he can finally listen to it.
- Dec 23, 2010
-
Sharp Darts: Learning to Mourn Michael
A trip to his boyhood home makes the world’s most alien superstar seem human again.
- Jul 2, 2009
