Header Graphic
Dirty-South Blues Harp forum: wail on! > Bharath is Exhibit A.....
Bharath is Exhibit A.....
Login  |  Register
Page: 1 2 3

kudzurunner
530 posts
Jun 24, 2009
8:08 PM
...and before you take one more step along your own individuated path towards blues harmonica mastery, you need to figure out whether he is one of the greatest contemporary blues harp players or the most striking contemporary example of a player who has wholly submerged his own individuality in the style of an earlier genius.

[Note: I have edited the final line of the paragraph above because my original language was intemperate and therefore unfair.]

I'm intentionally trying to provoke here, but I'm also deadly serious. First, if you're not familiar with his work, here is a representative video, followed by the URL of his MySpace page, where you can check out a handful of mp3s:



http://www.myspace.com/bharathandhisrhythmfour

I'm going to stipulate, without fear of contradiction, that of all harmonica players on the planet, Bharath (hailing currently from Montreal, Quebec) is one of the two or three who completely, eerily, unquestionably, nails Little Walter's sound. From every direction. He's got the licks, the phrasing, the technique, and, not least, the equipment (small amps, I'd be willing to bet) that lets him recreate virtually every nuance of LW's original recordings.

This isn't halfway stuff. This is a guy whose dream, surely, was to GET Little Walter, to replicate him, to bring him--his sound, his style, his comprehensive approach--back to life.

What do you think about this? Is it a great thing, a needed thing? Or has he sacrificed himself--his originality, the "Bharath sound," whatever that could have been--on the cross of absolutely faithful reproduction?

You probably know what I think, but I'll say it anyway: I think he's gone precisely 50% of the way, and brilliantly, towards blues harmonica mastery. I also think he's chosen to stop there. I think that if he doesn't go any farther--which is to say, if he doesn't exorcise Little Walter's ghost rather than allowing it to entirely possess him--he is fated to be forgotten. There are worse things than to be a brilliant imitator. He is indeed a brilliant Little Walter imitator. He just might be the best. He's certainly one of the best. But I don't--yet--have any idea what sort of creative musician he is.

If I want to pick up on the "Jason Ricci sound," I have some idea of what that's about. Certainly I know what the Sonny Terry sound, or the Little Walter sound, is.

What is the "Bharath sound"? Or should I just forget about Bharath and cut straight back to Little Walter?

Or, given how thoroughly Bharath has mastered LW--he's been there, done that--should I just forget about LW, too, and look somewhere else in the tradition?

I have no doubt that young Little Walter--Little Walter at Bharath's age--would find Bharath's fidelity to the blues harmonica style of a half-century ago quite....freaky. That's not how things worked in Chicago in the early 1950s. Back then, it was all about finding an exciting new sound that lifted you above the seething crab-pot. Blues constantly reinvented itself in those days. John Lee Williamson and the Bluebird Sound was something Little Walter used on some of his early sideman stuff with Muddy, but the moment he amped up: watch out! He had the edge.

Or perhaps I'm being entirely wrong-headed about all this. Why should I have such a fetish for "making it new," just because that's what Little Walter had back in the 1950s? Heck, maybe I'm as much a clone in my own way as Bharath--a philosophical clone of Little Walter. Perhaps my stress on making it new, on finding a new sound, on modernizing the instrument rather than merely upkeeping the tradition, is misplaced. Perhaps our world, our blues harmonica culture, needs loving, patient, disciplined, and selfless archivists: players who recognize the classic work of the past and help keep it alive by bringing it vibrantly to life on present-day stages. Perhaps Bharath is approaching the harp the way a top-notch violinst approaches the classical music tradition. Little Walter's recordings are the repertoire, the scores. He brings the scores vibrantly to life in real time. Maybe we need that.

You tell me.

Last Edited by on Dec 09, 2010 5:46 AM
ZackPomerleau
284 posts
Jun 24, 2009
8:14 PM
Well, he does Little Walter good, but without that he sounds like any classic player.
Bluzeman
7 posts
Jun 24, 2009
9:14 PM
Since I am literally brand new to the world of the harp, I will simply speak here as a musician and music lover.

I am grateful for those who strive to capture and relate with purity the sound and feel of the bygone greats who shaped what we know today as the blues. There is something ephemeral in live perfomance that cannot be captured on vinyl, analog tape, and most certainly not on digital media. At 33 years old, I obviously was not fortunate enough to see the greats of the past play live. I never got to feel that inestimable energy flowing as Little Walter wailed out a soulful line. We have recordings, which is a gift to be sure, but still not the same as BEING there. So, from that view I for one am surely glad that there are purists out there faithfully devoting such time and energy keeping the original works of the masters and innovators of the blues ALIVE and breathing. Maybe one of US will interpret or take something from Bharaths live recreation of Little Walter's sound that maybe we would have missed just listening to a recording. And that is the gift of it.

On the other hand, I would most certainly hope that a player like Bharath will or does create something new and displays a voice all his own, as I think it would be a good example of, as Adam puts it, a player who is 50% there. He is most undeniably talented, and strictly from this example I use the term player and not musician, as musician to me means to be continually creating something NEW from within yourself.
b1ueskyz
32 posts
Jun 24, 2009
11:52 PM
I tend to agree mostly with Bluzeman. Another point to consider is that, if Bharath is making his living on stage, it's much more prudent to start with a successful formula to pay the bills. And being, as you mentioned, a young player, who's to say he's not using LW as a base and developing his own derivative sound behind the scenes. Not ready to put it out there yet except occasionally.

Just a thought. I'm not good enough or young enough to worry about it for myself. I'll just be happy when I can make the songs I like sound good to me. Which will probably be a faithful reproduction with a little personal flavor added.
Kingley
93 posts
Jun 25, 2009
1:53 AM
Bharath is the best Little Walter impersonator out there bar none. Sure there are guys that come close, but even they don't get every little nuance.
I'd suspect that even players like Dennis Gruenling, Kim WIlson and Steve Guyger would agree on that.

He has totally immersed himself in the persona of Walter, and does it incredibly well. His band "The Rhythm Four" are all great players who have studied all the greats and undeniably have it nailed.

To me Bharath is basically a tribute act. I can think of far worse tribute acts to listen to than one that imitates Little Walter so brilliantly.

Adam, I spoke to him Bharath once via email and we discussed gear etc. He uses Astatic JT30's with crystal elements, either a Masco amp, Sonny Jr 1 (4X8 28 Watts) or his favourite is a Danelectro Commando (8X8 speakers) and a Premier reverb tank.

Bharath does indeed make a living from his playing, and seems to be in demand as a sideman for visiting Chicago bluesmen and also as a support act.

I unashamedly admire what he has acheived, but have no desire to do the same myself.

To me music is all about self expression and when you imitate someone note for note, all you do is lose yourself.

The way I approach it is like this. For example If I play a country blues then I will borrow heavily from Sonny Terry, John Lee, Phil Wiggins, JC Burris, etc. What I won't ever do though is try to play one of their tunes note for note. It's all about using your influences to help you to create your own voice.

But I can honestly say that I would happily go to a Bharath gig and thoroughly enjoy every second I'm sure.
sopwithcamels266
141 posts
Jun 25, 2009
4:03 AM
"I play you, better than you!!!!!!"

"Then who am I?"

Last Edited by on Jun 25, 2009 5:10 AM
ChrisA
21 posts
Jun 25, 2009
7:01 AM
Adam, I like the analogy with classical music, that's the way i see it. Besides, there are plenty of other exciting harp players doing the innovative thing including you, Jason Ricci and others.
Buddha
710 posts
Jun 25, 2009
7:54 AM
NM

Last Edited by on Jun 25, 2009 7:59 AM
Oliver
66 posts
Jun 25, 2009
9:02 AM
To be completely honest, and I may not be qualified to say this, but to my ears, they - and he - sound like just another cover band.

Why would you ever want to listen to this, except for perhaps in a live setting?
mr_so&so
141 posts
Jun 25, 2009
9:32 AM
The Rhythm Four is obviously aiming for a retro vibe. As it is, I like it. In this context Bharath's playing is appropriate. But to address Adam's question, "Is he a great player?", he's great at what he does. But I agree that to be really GREAT, he'd have to add something new and significant to the body of harmonica work.
Bb
63 posts
Jun 25, 2009
10:49 AM
I wonder what Bharath does when he's not covering one of the classics? Obviously, that's his bread and butter and I certainly respect his abilities. He's a damn fine harp player.

But as far as this "modern" question goes, I wonder if some people on this forum have become a bit jaded about good old throwin' down shake your ass blues harp? It's wonderful that people are pushing the "perceived limitations" of the instrument and are proving that things you normally wouldn't think to go to a harp for. But for me, often the end result of listening to it – my GUT reaction is – meh. Hell, play all the jazz you want – I don't think you'll get a lot of folks shakin' their ass to it. I probably won't.

Also, if dudes like Kim Wilson and say, Nat Riddles aren't (weren't) "modern" – they certainly are incredibly inventive players. I guess, what interests ME is INVENTIVE BLUES HARMONICA. Harmonica that has context, but is not just a rehashing of LW and Sonny Boy licks. I think a lot of players today are achieving this INVENTIVE BLUES HARMONICA standard: Billy Gibson, Mitch Kashmar, Adam, Kim Wilson, I could go on.
– Bob
jonsparrow
509 posts
Jun 25, 2009
11:46 AM
hey...some one has to do it right? theres a person on this planet for everything. this guy is here to cover LW. i personaly know a guy who can cover all guns an roses songs better then slash. an the stuff he comes out with himself is insane. one of the fastest players iv ever seen. but he just dosnt do anything with his talent.

JTThirty
41 posts
Jun 25, 2009
12:46 PM
Bharath's "Friday Night Fatty" featuring Junior Watson contains a bit more variety of tonal takes than the youtube stuff out there. He does nail down Little Walter and gladly takes his lumps for being tagged a clone, but he also covers Rice Miller's "Born Blind" acoustically, BB King, Pee Wee Crayton, and supplies several originals along with his LW covers. So, he can swing with a different palette when he wants and at some point just may decide to do Bharath.

I had the same feelings about Mitch Kashmar's early "Crazy Mixed Up World". He nailed LW in much the same way. My thought, then, was that I should just listen to LW, but Kashmar did impress. He's moved way beyond just being a clone.

George Harmonica Smith did a LW tribute album and sounded like George Smith covering LW. His style shines through even though he's hitting on LW's licks. They aren't verbatim. That, I think is the point that you're making here, Adam.

Dennis Gruenling's "Just Keep Loving Him" is a great example of modern masters covering LW without slavishly copping each lick. You can bet that each of those guys learned Walter's licks note for note with every nuance disected and at one point played just like him, but they've moved beyond that also.

Listen to early Rod Piazza do Little Walter. Even his singing sounds very close to LW. Back then, though, there weren't many cats who could pull that off. I still admire anyone accomplished enough to do it, but in the world of modern blues harmonica, it is a been there and done that--too often--scenario. Anyway--
JoshTheMagish
47 posts
Jun 25, 2009
1:44 PM
The thing I always found with guitar playing and now harmonica is that most of the time when you trying to do somthing new, people tell you your doing it wrong especially in a cover.

Iv been playing with whammer jammer and i play it doing alot of switch back and forth between TB and LP. Alot of harp guys would say im not doing it right. It is safe to say i don't sound like magic dick. I don't think thats wrong tho.

Point Being: If you try and play blues either guitar or harp, and you don't sound like the conventonal it is often not accepted.

I think thats the difference now a days opposite to little walters time. I think back then, new was good. Now as far as the masses go, new is wrong.

Last Edited by on Jun 25, 2009 1:45 PM
Kingley
103 posts
Jun 25, 2009
1:50 PM
Josh,

That's a very good point.
scottb
42 posts
Jun 25, 2009
3:48 PM
If someone is just spitting out tunes note for note (Lots of guitarist do this. A monkey can buy a tab book and do that!) that's one thing. But to master another player's style and to be able to express yourself in that style is another.

Many great artists and even many great innovators started out ripping other artists (even note for note)
Jimmie Vaughan was called Little Freddie King early on because he learned all those Freddie King instrumentals note for note. Freddie king, BB King and others started with TBone. Wes Montgomery started out playing Charlie Christian solos note for note. Early George Benson is all Grant Green. All the great saxophone players started with Charlie Parker's style then jump off at some point.
Not everyone can be a great innovator of their instrument and even the great ones have to start somewhere and whether the "jumping off point" ever comes is the thing that defines genius to me. It's where you take it next.

Bharath may play this way (which has been stated, is as close to Little Walter you'll find) for 20 years and then he may have a revelation and change harmonica forever. Maybe do what LW would have done had he not burned out too young.

Personal taste is also a factor. I think Jason Ricci may be the best harmonica player in the world from what i've seen and heard. But personally, I prefer a classic sound and would rather listen to an "old school" player.

By the way, jonsparrow, the dude in the video isn't the guy you think plays Slash better than Slash is it? He can't even tune his guitar better than Slash.
Patrick Barker
342 posts
Jun 25, 2009
3:48 PM
Who are we to say whether his approach is right or wrong? If he enjoys it and if it works for him, then he'll probably continue doing it as long as it brings in the $$.

While you can argue that to become famous you need to be original and evolve and adapt with the music, this obviously isn't true; the majority of harmonica players out there aren't coming up with anything new and have more of other player's style than their own.

Look at Adam's top harp player lists. The top ten are the original inventors of blues harp. The second ten are mostly harp players that are bringing new stuff in, but even in here you can find not so original players like Kim Wilson, who sounds like Little Walter, and Billy Branch, who I can barely even tell apart from James Cotton. I'm not insulting them or putting them down in any way, I'm just saying they prove that you don't have to be original to be famous in the harp world.
----------
"Without music, life would be a mistake" -Nietzsche

Last Edited by on Jun 25, 2009 3:49 PM
ZackPomerleau
287 posts
Jun 25, 2009
10:54 PM
But will they be remembered?
jonsparrow
521 posts
Jun 25, 2009
11:07 PM
scott yes that is him buy thats not his guitar. that guitar belongs to the guy who is recording that. i donno about the tuning in that video but he is a sick guitarist. he can just strum all six strings open an tune them just like that. unlike how most people would play a chord or harmonics or do the open string an 5th fret style of tuning. i aint trying to dick ride or nothing, but he is realy good. i asked him once if he could play blues he said ya but its not realy his style though most of the stuff he plays is based off of blues scales. one day ill ask him to play some blues.
kudzurunner
537 posts
Jun 25, 2009
11:42 PM
..and I'll say right now (since my kid's kept me up very late tonight with bursts of crying for no reason) that I regret my use of the word "clone" in my original post. In fact, although I believe there's an extremely important philosophical/aesthetic issue under discussion here, I'll acknowledge that part of me is uncomfortable raising it. Bharath isn't just a fellow professional; he's a guy who has clearly plumbed the mysteries and beauties of one of the true giants of the instrument I play to a depth that I can't pretend to have matched. I'm intrigued and challenged by that. In fact, if you surf through his various YouTube videos, you'll find my astonished praise attached to one of them (a comment).

I'll also say that I'm moved by the thoughtful commentary that y'all have contributed here. Many good and important points have been raised. I think Bluzeman has stumbled onto something important, which is that a player this good who chooses to devote himself to keeping the great stuff of the past alive in this particular way may 1) help us hear that greatness in a deeper way; and 2) may inspire other new/young/living players to pursue their own original sounds.

Ralph Waldo Emerson is one of my guides here. He was constantly urging early/mid-19th century Americans to break away from the Old Country and find their own voice. But he also hung his entire philosophy on the principle of inspiration: that "books are for nothing but to inspire," as he put it. He thought of the Bible as an old book, and urged his readers not to adhere to it, but to try to cultivate the mindset of the prophets themselves, walking through a younger world, thinking new and remarkable thoughts. But it seems to me that one could read the Bible with a "new thought" mindset, and be inspired by it. Similarly, a new but eager blues harmonica student could, as bluzman suggests, be so blown away by attending a Bharath show and hearing him conjure Little Walter's ghost, revealing every nuance and beauty of that classic style, that that player would be moved to pursue a lifelong journey, and might even stumble into a radically original voice.

I'll have to think about that!
Andrew
366 posts
Jun 26, 2009
2:00 AM
Well, we can't possibly read the Bible with an "old thought" mindset. Classicists read the Bible as ancient wisdom literature (among other things), and we broaden our understanding of concepts and references in it by reading secondary lit, but this still doesn't give us an older mindset, it just gives us more colours to our interpretative palette. Then if we go one step further into postmodernism, the modern mindset's reading of the Bible is the only one that matters. Which is tough if you think the Bible was written by God. You can call me an agnostic. I think Richard Dawkins is a fool.

(That was waffling, but, re-reading it, I think someone may be able to use it)

I don't have any thoughts on Bharath. Depends on his ambitions. If my ambition were to play in pubs to appreciative audiences, then I'd play like him too (No, like me - see below - I don't know Little Walter well enough. If Barath is 100% a Little Walter clone, then that seems sad to me.)

The harp is a limited instrument (I know people disagree). The blues are a limited and possibly historical art form. What gets me is the amount of "jazz" on this forum offered as a substitute for blues, when it's clear to me that the "jazz" on offer here is an incredibly limited cocktail-lounge form of noodling. So when Filosofy called it "music for pretentious wankers" I didn't get the quote, but I had a tiny amount of sympathy with him.

If you tell harpists to play new stuff, that's tough on them; they'll try too hard maybe. Is it easier on them if you just tell them to be themselves. Then if they are different they'll shine out? Or should you be more positive and tell them that if they let themselves be theirselves then they will shine out?

(sorry about the contorted syntax at the end there. I've got to rush off to work)

Last Edited by on Jun 26, 2009 2:14 AM
kudzurunner
538 posts
Jun 26, 2009
6:05 AM
'Well, we can't possibly read the Bible with an "old thought" mindset.'

You'd be surprised by the way that tens of millions of American fundamentalist Christians read the Bible. Believe it or not, they insist that every word is God's revealed truth.

As for your comment about the jazz on offer (or under discussion) here: I'm genuinely not sure what jazz you're talking about. In my videos and posts I've invoked Bird, Coltrane, Miles, Houston Person, plus blues/jazz/R&B guys like Hank Crawford, Jimmy McGriff, Maceo Parker. Larry Carlton. As a guitarist I listened to Wes Montgomery, Joe Pass, Pat Metheney, Pat Martino. I love Bobby Watson, the alto player. William Galison is a good friend of mine, and many would call him one of the greatest living jazz harmonica players. I don't think any of these players deserve to be mocked at pretentious wankers--although I do with Metheney would do well to turn down the reverb a little.

This is a blues harmonica site, of course, not a jazz harp site, but most blues harmonica players--including many in my top-20 lists--listened to and borrowed from jazz players, although they didn't & don't really "play jazz." Most good musicians, whatever the idiom, share one trait: they tend to draw their influences from a range that considerably exceeds their own primary idiom, rather than, for example, drawing lines in the sand and dismissing other idioms as worthless. They have open ears.

Last Edited by on Jun 26, 2009 8:36 AM
Kingley
108 posts
Jun 26, 2009
6:53 AM
"The harp is a limited instrument (I know people disagree)"

I disagree entirely.
My response.. Roland Van Straaten and Octavio Castro

How can anyone say that an instrument that can be played chromatically over 3 octaves be "limited"?


"The blues are a limited and possibly historical art form"

Again I disagree.

My response.. Carlos Del Junco, Jason Ricci

Well if you listen to these guys then that whole argument holds no water.
I will partly agree that if you were referring to traditional delta/chicago blues it may have some foundation. But not in modern blues music.

And as for the comment on Jazz. Well of course I disagree..

My response.. Carlos Del Junco, Howard Levy, Chris Michalek and Peter "Madcat" Ruth.


Madcat famously played with Brubeck, Carlos plays Jazz all the time.

Howard Levy would put most Jazz horn players to shame with his interpretation of Charlie Parker tunes just for starters.

Chris Michalek is constantly striving to push the boundaries in any musical context.

Last Edited by on Jun 26, 2009 7:04 AM
sopwithcamels266
145 posts
Jun 26, 2009
9:11 AM
"I play you, better than you!!!!!!"
"Then who am I?"

Tenor sax man Dexter Gordon used the line or similar in movie Round Midight.I'm sure he himself as I have done used it many times, it comes originally from Lester young (The Prez)
OK let me try a different angle on this.

Suppose there is a Pugilist (Like the word sounds posh ha)a boxer and he looks real sharp in shape, but he has modeled himself on someone else whos great but he has CHOREOGRAPHED all the moves.He can even mix them up in different order. bit like a martial Art kata. He looks the business.

So enters the real world against another boxer,
The TRUTH is it won't be long before he's out for the count.
We have clones in jazz just like blues. That is fine and there is a place for them.Some make a living at it.They are tribute bands and should be billed as such.

It's similar to Artists who are excellent in copying style and some make a living copying exact paintings.

The thing is it is not TRUTH.You should react to what's around you at the given moment in time. the here and now the PRESENT.
Thats is why whether playing Blues Jazz or any form of music I am totally against any form of (LOOP)

Using a LOOP in performance is not TRUTH.Even playing your same groove over and over as Kudzurunner demonstrates on one of his excellent lessons,there are nuances developing all the time.
Even hitting the same riff, over and over and over it will be different.(Even though not consious of it)

You see the average punter listening to a loop, that's where their ear goes first, and often stays,
No matter what you play over the top they loose interest quick.
So it's down to character,it's OK if you want to be a clone,but it dosen't take a lot of conviction and character to do that.

Last Edited by on Jun 26, 2009 9:22 AM
nacoran
85 posts
Jun 26, 2009
9:27 AM
Jonsparrow- There is a guy around up here in Albany who covers GnR on the ukulele. When I've been practicing I can sing Axl pretty well.

As for innovation, if you take one artist and become perfect at copying them, you may not innovate. If you learn to imitate 2 or 3 more then you can mix and match styles and come up with something new. The bass player in my band barely understands keys. We have to show him what we want him to play on our songs, but when he's playing on his own he comes up with some neat stuff with lots of accidentals, because he doesn't even think about the key structure. It's innovation by accident(al). Sometimes I like to just play without any song in idea in my head. I hear intervals I'm not used to hearing and sometimes I string a few together and it works.

Of course, unless you know what's already out there you are liable to repeat a lot of the basics. Are you being innovative if you figure out something by yourself that lots of people already know?

I'd disagree with not listening to other harpers. I'd just say, don't listen to any one source exclusively.
The Gloth
116 posts
Jun 26, 2009
9:27 AM
I wouldn't be so radical about loops. It's just part of the modern technology applied to music, and should be used to create something new. Like most of things, it can produce the better or the worst, depending on who uses them.

I'm pretty sure that, when the first electric guitar was made, many people including musicians raged that it was no TRUTH, not real music, etc. Same for the synthesizers. Didn't Herbie Hancock used loops, computers, scratching and so ? Would you say he's not a real musician ?

I've seen a bass player using loops on stage, creating them live to add multiple layers to the piece he was performing. It sounded great, much more than any "regular" bass solo (which, IMO, tends to be quite boring after two minutes or so).

I believe that technology is good when it allows to create music (live or in studio) that wouldn't be possible without it.

Besides, I love acoustic music but that's not the point...
sopwithcamels266
146 posts
Jun 26, 2009
11:17 AM
The Gloth = your quote=Same for the synthesizers. Didn't Herbie Hancock used loops, computers, scratching and so ? Would you say he's not a real musician ?

Yes and when he did I thought it was utter rubbish.

I'm a fan of Herbie Hancock but not of that stuff.
Simply for the reasons outlined on my previous post.

If you want to understand where I'm coming from there is an arty farty type film from late 60s early 70s documenting The Saxophone player Sonny Rollins.

Regarding bass players well that depends who you have been exposed to and what your into right.

You dig all that loop stuff then that is fine it's
not my scene.

Last Edited by on Jun 26, 2009 11:17 AM
Andrew
369 posts
Jun 26, 2009
5:02 PM
Adam,

"You'd be surprised by the way that tens of millions of American fundamentalist Christians read the Bible. Believe it or not, they insist that every word is God's revealed truth."

From this side of the Atlantic it looks frightening enough (I take it you are as ironic about it as I am)! We won't ask what God says about nuclear weapons and communists (I think Bob Dylan wrote a song about it) and we won't ask which translations of the OT and the NT they read. My own view is that America is a land of a million different travesties of Christianity. How they can all live with each other, I don't know.

"As for your comment about the jazz on offer (or under discussion) here: I'm genuinely not sure what jazz you're talking about."

I didn't really want to mention any names (since I'm glad the bad old days of attacking are over), but I think maybe I over-estimated the influence of Chris's musical tastes on members of the forum, and Chris's tastes aren't my tastes. Can I leave it at that and promise to look before I leap in future?

Of course I wasn't talking about classics like Miles Davis (who actually declared once that jazz was dead).
BTW, After your Houston Person posting, I got hold of a copy of We Owe it All to Love, but I only listened to it once. I don't think it was a good example of his work to start on.

I listen to a limited amount of jazz, Miles Davis, Sun Ra, Art Ensemble of Chicago, Lol Coxhill, Thelonius Monk, Fats Waller.
Two modern examples I listen to are Gregory Davis's Dirty Dozen Brass Band - if you want to gamble 10$ on a winner, buy a copy of Buck Jump. I tried to find some good YouTube clips, but it was impossible.

And Jill Scott is pretty jazzy. She's not so interesting on YouTube, but I like this one: -
eharp
276 posts
Jun 26, 2009
6:16 PM
if nothing else, he's kept some of you entertained for 48 hours.

i never really understood the "comparison" thing. does it really matter if he is just a robot mimicking a recording he heard or whether he has never heard a harp player before and is pulling this out of the air?

listen to it. if it moves you somehow, listen to more. if it aint pulling your strings, find something else.

it seems to me that some of your are a bit elitist in your musical thinking. not anything is for everybody's taste. i'd pay more to see him than ricci. but maybe those of us that like this music aint "informed" to know any better.

and what's with this blanket statement, adam-"without fear of contradiction, that of all harmonica players on the planet, Bharath (hailing currently from Montreal, Quebec) is one of the two or three who completely, eerily, unquestionably, nails Little Walter's sound."?

you've heard all players? c'mon! it is like these top-10 lists we do at times. i would make a large wager that there are folks out there that should be on those lists but arent because can never track all harp players down.

now, if you were to add "of all harp players i ever heard", adam, i would have to be in total agreement. but if you are going to say the top 2 or 3, why not just give him the top spot. or maybe you can give us the other 2 names so we can be enlightened with two more "parrots."

(put little emoticon symbols whereever you think they may apply to make this post as mean or tongue-in-cheeck as you think it was intended.)

(to quote lennon, "i got blisters on my fingers!")
[talking bout john]
Bb
64 posts
Jun 26, 2009
9:44 PM
OK, I'll say it: I think Bharath rocks. And I'd go see him do his thing (derivative as it is) long before I'd go see somebody experimenting around and sounding like jack-off, prog-shit, space-noodling, harp noise crap.
How is that for provocative? ;^)

BTW, I know that I am a pretty derivative player. It's the truth. I am not a BAD harp player, but in all honesty I'm fairly sure I am not taking the harmonica to a new plane of musicality.

I am fine with that for the most part (although, I'm still pushing myself to be a better player and musician as much as my time allows. For all of that, I am still somebody's favorite harp player. Cuz they don't know any better.

For me, that's alright.
-Bob
oldwailer
795 posts
Jun 26, 2009
10:21 PM
I probably missed the point, since I didn't have time to really read this thread thoroughly, but this is how it seems to me:

This modern tendancy to use the word "derivative" with a little curl of the lip gets tedious. If Bharath was all that worried about that, he wouldn't be near as good--would have been too busy figuring out a better way to make noises that nobody ever thought of before.

Getting out there on the cutting edge of things is cool--just gets boring when one starts to think he is more highly evolved than the guy that went before him.

I love derivative music--when I evolve to a higher plane, I might begin to understand the importance of moving beyond that--but right now, I'd give my left nut to play just like LW OR Bharath. . .
Tryharp
201 posts
Jun 27, 2009
4:46 AM
OK,

I would give OW's right nut to be able to play like LW or Bharath as well.

I would give my left arm to play like Nat Riddles though.

A couple of points I would like to make that might be relevant or might not:

When little walter was playing, blues was at the height of popular culture. He was making his living, getting his chicks, etc from playing the harp, if he was born now, would he play harp to get the same things out of life?? ( what I'm driving at is this, is it right to say that LW would be at the cutting edge of harp if he was alive today and not copying someone 50 years ago, probably not, because I dont think he would play harp to get the desired outcome he was after in life. He would be doing hip hop or something that the kids ( the market) do now.)

With respect to creating your new own sound etc. Adam says emerse yourself in the tradition, but how long does this take???? Ive been playing for 2.5 years, and consciously into blues for the same time, and I'm not emersed, I'm only lightly dipped. ( what Im driving at is this, judging on the posts, a good portion of the guys on this forum have been playing the blues harp for a fairly short time, and to think they can develop their own sound is not practical. They need to build technique, learn from the masters, etc, this takes a long time. Then there are naturals/freaks that would prove me wrong, but a small percentage.

Tryharp
sopwithcamels266
149 posts
Jun 27, 2009
5:33 AM
Tryharp:I disagree with your last paragraph

The amount of jazz sax students who have asked me that very question or similar, how long?

That question should be of no concern to you.
It may be never or it may be next year.
You see it all depends.

Everyone is different ,unique in fact and learn and are motivated in different ways.

So how long is a piece of string, you dig.

Enjoy the journey and it will take care of it's self.

Last Edited by on Jun 27, 2009 5:34 AM
Tryharp
206 posts
Jun 27, 2009
5:47 AM
So SOP,

I see where you are coming from, but everyone fits under the bell curve, 90% in the middle, and ten% out either end.

How tall are you, how smart are you, what is your weight, how musically gifted are you. All these questions can be answered by the bell curve.

Of the 90% in the middle, there are the ones who keep trying and wont give up, these are the ones who win.



Tryharp

Last Edited by on Jun 27, 2009 7:43 AM
kudzurunner
540 posts
Jun 27, 2009
6:06 AM
eharp:

I meant what I said about having no fear of contradiction. Go ahead: start a thread dedicated to unearthing players who sound more like Little Walter than Bharath does in the clip I put up. Start with Dennis Gruenling ("Roller Coaster"), Steve Guyger, and R. J. Mischo. They're all very good at getting that sound. But better? Really? If not them, who? You find the players, I'll acknowledge them and give you a big showy prize if you find them, with delight for having been educated.

But I don't think you or anybody else can do it. Bharath has 99% of the sound. You'll need to find somebody who has 99.4% of the sound, or our merely human ears won't be able to distinguish the difference. And the truth is, Dennis Gruenling's version of "Roller Coast" (if memory serves) starts up as an eerie copy, then morphs into Dennis doing his own thing. The buzzer sounds! We've moved away from LW at that point, arguably. Bharath remains the king.

I don't believe you're aiming the elitist charge at me but at others; if aimed at me, it's seriously misplaced. I have open ears. I've offered some lists of top players, certainly, as a way of guiding beginners and other students in the direction of the good stuff, but I've made my criteria absolutely transparent and I'm always willing to dialogue about them. Elitists don't have sliding filters; I do. There are different kinds of good playing for different contexts.

My intent here is simply to get people to think about the aesthetic choices they make. What do you like, and why do you like it? Is this stuff good, really good, or amazingly good? If you think it's amazingly good and I don't, why do we disagree? These are the sort of questions that Simon Frith constantly asks, and I like them.

But sometimes, of course, we just want to go out to a club, have a few drinks (or a pitcher, goddammit), and listen to somebody blow some harp. I.e., we're not looking for genius, we'd just appreciate somebody who has attained journeyman status: a good solid player who knows how to handle himself on a gig and has solved all of the basic issues presented by the instrument--as opposed, for example, to wheezing drunkenly on flatted-out harps, or struggling against feedback all night long. And if an elder from the Chicago scene comes through and there's a harp-guy playing with him, we want that harp guy to do him justice. On both of these last counts, it should go without saying, Bharath excels. He's far more than a journeyman. I started this post precisely for that reason: because some players are so exceptional in certain ways that they force critics like me to investigate the criteria that we've been using.

I'm sure this sort of relentless picking-over of harp players is tiresome to some. Sorry about that. Bartender, send the philsopher a strong drink and tell him to shut up!
Andrew
371 posts
Jun 27, 2009
6:27 AM
"some players are so exceptional in certain ways that they force critics like me to investigate the criteria that we've been using"

Sounds like self-doubt, and I disagree that you should be in doubt. If someone imitated Jimi Hendrix 100% or Elvis Presley 100% we'd be in no doubt at all that they were sad or weird or doing it for a joke.

Is it the case that the less variety there is in a genre (here I go again, implicitly criticising the blues, sorry), the less conspicuous the clone will be?
Tuckster
197 posts
Jun 27, 2009
7:43 AM
I saw Dennis Gruenling & Steve Guyger do "A Tribute to Little Walter" show. Steve commented: "When Dennis told me we were going to do a Little Walter tribute. I thought to myself,good,I don't even have to think." We can't learn in a vacuum-we all have our influences. But there comes a point where your skills become good enough that you need to break away from those influences and become your own person. To play what makes you YOU. If Bharath came to my town,I'd definitely go see him-he's great. If he played nothing but LW,I'd probably leave after the first set.

Last Edited by on Jun 27, 2009 7:46 AM
Buddha
727 posts
Jun 27, 2009
7:49 AM
do you guys want to know a little secret?

I'm such an idiot when it comes to traditional blues harp playing that if I walked into a club with Bharath playing, I wouldn't know he sounds like Little Walter. I would simply think it was great blues playing and most likely sit and listen for a while. He would be a player that I would go and talk to during a break and I do that with very few harp players unless I know them.

Last Edited by on Jun 27, 2009 7:50 AM
Tryharp
211 posts
Jun 27, 2009
8:05 AM
do you guys want to know a little secret?

"not really"

I'm such an idiot" . yes we are aware of that.

when it comes to traditional blues harp playing that if I walked into a club with Bharath playing, I wouldn't know he sounds like Little Walter.

'are you serious!!! read:bullshit'

He would be a player that I would go and talk to during a break and I do that with very few harp players unless I know them.

" what a privelidge that would be for him"


Tryharp
Buddha
729 posts
Jun 27, 2009
8:13 AM
Whats the matter TryHarp? Did you rip your lips trying to play my lines? Or did you hurt yourself bashing your head against a wall when you couldn't figure out what key harp I was using?

Easy Killer.... I'm not a huge fan of traditional blues harmonica.

Which reminds me, have any of you heard that tape of unreleased LW instrumentals?

Last Edited by on Jun 27, 2009 8:25 AM
Tryharp
214 posts
Jun 27, 2009
9:21 AM
Buddha,

My lips are not ripped, my head is not hurt.

'Which reminds me' - you are a great technician, but I dont really like your music that much.

Tryharp
Buddha
733 posts
Jun 27, 2009
9:31 AM
TryHarp,

Most Sheilas don't like my music but at least I create and PLAY music and I do on MY terms, the way I hear it and I have developed a completely ORIGINAL sound. Until you can control the harp instead of letting it dictate what and how you play, you're not even a harmonica player much less a bloke that understand when he's outclassed.

Time to STFU and practice before you talk shit.
Tryharp
216 posts
Jun 27, 2009
9:45 AM
Buddah,

That is very clever, you have realised I am an Aussie and used the works Sheila, and Bloke, well done.

Some others are Kangaroo, Koala, Possum, Billabong, Gumn Tree etc


AM I outclassed, well I guess you are probably technically one of the best plalyers in the world, so I think its fair to say I am well an truly outclassed.

The harp certainly does not dictate to me, I blow in it, and I tell it what to do..........period.

I use to dislike you a lot Buddah, and probably the reason I didnt post here for a while, hoping you would go away, but now I think you are OK.

Tryharp
HBD
Buddha
734 posts
Jun 27, 2009
9:54 AM
good, then peace on to ya then mate.

Last Edited by on Jun 27, 2009 10:00 AM
jonsparrow
530 posts
Jun 27, 2009
10:24 AM
a dingo ate my baby. that could be a cool title for an austrailian blues song.
Andrew
374 posts
Jun 27, 2009
10:51 AM
Strewth, cobbers, stay friendly. Been checkin up on Bon Scott a lot this avo. I remember the day he died. I always thought he froze to death, but Wiki says he choked on his chunder. Oh well, fair dinkum.

Last Edited by on Jun 27, 2009 10:58 AM
kudzurunner
542 posts
Jun 27, 2009
12:41 PM
Try and keep it civil, guys. Board creed and all that.

The words "Americans" and "Australians" both begin with "a" and end with "s," by the way.

Just like the word "ass," asses," "anuses," "assassins," "Australopithecenes," and "antagonists."

Well, we've got lots in common, and that's so....special!!

We are the world, y'all. Have a lovely weekend.

Last Edited by on Jun 27, 2009 12:43 PM
eharp
278 posts
Jun 27, 2009
6:25 PM
adam- the "elitist" was not aimed at you. it was more of a scatter shot at those that think 1 style or player is the only way to go. (i am an elitist when it comes to chocolate. i dont want the "dove", but prefer the plain M&M's.

but as for me searching for those better than bharath... it was you that claimed he is one of the top 3. i would like to know who you think the other 2 are. (at this point i make a logical deduction.) since you didn't name anybody else, you think this guy is the best you have heard. therefore, why not bestow the #1 spot to him.

to me, i dont care if he's the worse at doing little walter. like buddha, if it is good playing, that should be enough.

btw- begin with "a" and end with "s"...artists, academians, and (dare i say it for fear of getting booted even though it is to lighten the mood?) adams.

"tell him to shut up!"
are you telling me to shut up?

(as before- everyone should add in your own emoticons to make this post as tongue in cheek or scathing as you want it to be)
ZackPomerleau
292 posts
Jun 27, 2009
6:29 PM
Hey Adam, do we reallllyyyy need a Michael Jackson quote in there? :-P
MichaelAndrewLo
22 posts
Sep 26, 2009
7:37 PM
This is an interesting topic, and the reason I got out of classical music. For all the practice and technique, most of the classical musicians had no voice and, even scarier, nothing to say musically. It was all about being a trained monkey, sitting in your chair and executing your trained function perfectly. I think that should be reserved for the assembly line. On the other hand, if he can make a living from reciting little walter, and his hobby is playing his free creative music then I consider that a better option than working at Mcdonalds. I think being creative for the sake of creativity is often given too much weight. Maybe Bharath is finding his own voice through playing little walter. Sorta like the irish musicians that find their own voice in the "Irish music" tradition by, yes, playing the same songs, but also expressing their own creativity and soul through it. 2cents...


Post a Message



(8192 Characters Left)


Modern Blues Harmonica supports

§The Jazz Foundation of America

and

§The Innocence Project

 

 

 

ADAM GUSSOW is an official endorser for HOHNER HARMONICAS