This sums the whole traditional vs. modern for me. I am not here to preserve, I am here to forge. I may not ever become well known or greatly respected, but life is too short for me not to carve my own way. ---------- Mike Fugazzi http://www.myspace.com/niterailband http://www.youtube.com/user/NiteRail http://www.twitter.com/NiteRail http://www.facebook.com/mike.fugazzi
My thoughts: play what feels good to you. Let the outside world break its neck about it if they care. Copy, steal, or originate, whatever. You know when it's good. If someone else does not like it, tough break for them.
And don't delude youself. No one is the best. Nor is one style the best. It (or you) can only be your favorite. Music cannot be measured by a yardstick. It is measured in emotions. These have been known to be subjective.
I'm not saying that some are not better than others. But hey, ask the participants of a high level piano competition what they think about it. They will all say the same thing: It all boils down to the taste of the judges.
I was thinking about those quotes in my sleep: "music should express something other than 'I practice alot.'"
The difficult of playing the harmonica with virtuosity...such a dilemma. Which road to tread? I notice people seem to like when I play folk tunes much more than bluesy stuff. Yet, to me, the stuff that is difficult(for me, for I am a harmonica chuffer) is more expressive of my life. Life is hard. It takes work to do it well. So I like the things that express the work.
Yet...
Many virtuoso players on a variety of instruments really transcend that, and are able to use blinding technique to express very strong and deep emotions. Violin concertos from the romantic era come to mind.
Well he doesn’t know I’m doing this but Bharath is a really close friend and my favourite harmonica player. Anyone who plays harp at a decent level should be able to understand the amount of practice and perfection required to play at Bharath’s level. To try and wipe all of that away by spouting off a dismissive comment like “he's a Walter clone” is complete bullshit! He has mastered something that every harp player worth his salt has heard all their harp playing days "learn little Walter". What people don't understand is that Bharath does not play Walter note for note he has captured Walters feel... this is what is confusing to all of you. Most guys who try and play Walter note for note... sound, like they are trying to play Walter note for note. Bharath swings and feels the music without any need for special gadgets or 10 pc bands, his little four pc (which he conducts by the way) can be put up against an orchestra and get the crowd going just as good. I am honoured to call him a friend and I know he will make his mark and already has started. I don't think a player of the calibre of Jr. Watson would be playing with a clone wannabe! Bharath is a master in every sense of the word and one day, (and hopefully this won’t only happens after he dies) you guys will acknowledge his gift. Why do we always want to cut down other players because they chose to play in a different style? Just because bharath doesn't spout off scales a mile a minute and over blow doesn’t mean he is unoriginal. so you can keep buying pedals and effects units and special mics and boutique amps and custom harps and two tone shoes and and sun glasses and call yourselves original. But you are missing out! But I sure a shit am not! I’m going to soak up as much Bharath as I can. And if you wanna talk semantics I think Bharath plays the best Sonny boy and the best Big Walter too. For a clone to start a one page discussion proves to me he is getting to alot of people. Hate me if you like or perhaps open your mind up a little. Let’s be thankful for his immense gift and give credit where credit is due and not look for credit by bashing someone else’s accomplishments. My two cents.
"For a clone to start a one page discussion proves to me he is getting to alot of people" we have had longer threads about folks who cant play a lick and some that most consider to be on to of the harp world. a 1 page thread aint really an accomplishment.
not saying i dont like his playing, though. just putting this into perspective since you are a newbie with your posting.
....."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."
Yes, one can squeeze everyone into the bell curve after the fact, but the bell curve is not a good predictor of music success. It can't predict a Little Walter, Jimi Hendrix, Michael Jackson or, for that matter, a JK Rowling. These are "Black Swans" and surprise everyone. No one is 20 feet tall but some musicians outsell most others by 100 times, or more.
This discussion made me think of a great thing Jason Ricci said in a few videos. The stages of learning, in order, are "imitation, assimilation, and innovation".
I love his playing... discussing stuff, dissecting other peoples playing.. that's what we do here. Sometimes it comes over a little harsh but most of us don't mean any harm. We try to keep it civil, every now and then things go crazy... but things calm down rather quickly again.
You always have to remember... it's only a forum, it's the internets... the biggest mistake you can do is getting yourself worked up about something some guy writes in his basement...
ARE YOU CALLING ME A CRAZY BASEMENT DWELLER WITH NO SOCIAL SKILLS OTHER THAN WHAT TROLLS POSESS!!!??!! :) ---------- MP hibachi cook for the yakuza doctor of semiotics superhero emeritus
adam says "Try and keep it civil, guys. Board creed and all that."
i guess that doesn't count when we are talking about fundamentalist christians.
andrew says "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."
clyde
oh and i guess all the f this and s that is all needed to keep it real with the blues
When I used the word "clone," I slightly and deliberately exaggerated for the sake of provoking discussion. The word "clone" suggests a lifeless copy, and Bharath is certainly not lifeless. I haven't seen him live, and that always makes a difference. But I've spent a fair bit of time watching his videos--the videos he chooses to upload to YouTube--and what I see is somebody with a great gift for mimicry. I see a player of considerable technical skill and rhythmic power who has chosen to bury his gift almost completely in the vision of another and far superior performer, namely Little Walter. It always amazes me when harmonica players sincerely believe they're honoring an African American blues musician by suppressing their own individuality, their own aesthetic vision, in order to serve another player's 50-year-old vision. NO great black blues musician approached music making this way. I repeat: NONE of them did. And they leveled a pretty jaundiced eye at those who tried to suck on the titty (so to speak) of their own distinctive style and success.
Yes, it is possible to find older black bluesmen who call themselves things like "Bo Diddley, Jr" and "Little Sonny Boy" and the like. They're imitators trying to make a buck, but the originals weren't particularly flattered, and, if forced to, they would use their imitators as foils against which they could walk into a room and say "The REAL So-and-so is in the house tonight, ladies and gentlemen." Little Walter in his prime, were he alive today, wouldn't know whether to fall down laughing or pull out his knife if he walked into a club and saw some of his imitators. And that's who our model should be, if Little Walter is our man: Little Walter in his badass prime, in ATTITUDINAL terms. We should cultivate that attitude towards our music, our competitors, our peers. We should try to put something out there that would make Little Walter in his prime stop, blink, and go "What the fuck is THAT, motherfucker!?" with a confused smile playing across his face. What could we play that would stop LW in his tracks? What would represent a serious aesthetic challenge to HIS way of playing, such that he'd be forced to ease back on his haunches and think about his next move?
I speak not just as a harp player here, but as a scholar of the music. One of my specialties is blues autobiography. Read the autobiographies of Honeyboy Edwards, B. B. King, Willie Dixon. It was always about navigating whatever was already out there and finding a new way to play it, a new beat (like the Bo Diddley beat), a new sound, something that would put you on the map.
As blues harp players, we live in an essentially imitative age. I'm saddened, frankly, when I watch videos of Bharath and his Rhythm Four. Somebody with that kind of talent should have much higher ambitions.
If you think I'm being harsh, do yourself a favor. Pick a Little Walter song that has been covered by a handful of contemporary players. Download Bharath's version from YouTube; put it in your iPod along with the original, plus Dennis Gruenling, Steve Guyger, Billy Branch, Charlie Sayles, and Paul Delay doing the same song. Set your iPod on random. Now listen with fresh ears. How quickly can you tell who the player is? What makes his voice stand out? What's his aural signature--his "thing" that makes HIS version indelibly HIS?
Then ask: Which of these players will be remembered, and deserves to be remembered, fifty years from now, as Little Walter is remembered today? Which of these players has a chance of being as imitated, fifty years from now, as Little Walter is these days? Who is OUR Little Walter?
Hint: Bharath isn't our Little Walter. He should try to be. But in order to have a chance of being our Little Walter, he'll have to wrench himself away from the ghost that he's in thrall to. That would be cool. I doubt that he'll do it. Doing what he's doing is paying off nicely. I don't blame somebody for paying the bills. But let's not confuse that with brilliant originality. Let's not even confuse it with the sort of baseline individuality that every horn player ought to strive for. Hank Crawford isn't John Coltrane; he's not a brilliant original or a technically gifted guy. He just has a great, individualized sound, a memorable sound that can't be confused with anybody elses.
It's not about speed, it's not about overblows, it's not about any of that stuff--although speed and new techniques are part of what Little Walter added to the mix in HIS day, and therefore it's a mistake to diss such things.
Please prove me wrong! Please post videos of Bharath playing HIS stuff: distinctive, original stuff that makes me throw down my harps and go "Holy s--t!" Something that makes HIS voice on the instrument immediately and indelibly apparent. That would make me happy. It will also prove my point about what counts, and what we should be striving for.
Last Edited by on Nov 26, 2010 4:44 PM
Clyde, Andrew's comment is an old one. (Check the date on the post.) We've learned some subjects just make people crazy, no matter what side of it you're on.
Bharath is a really good harp player. If I've got to listen to guys doing Little Walter tunes and do a nice job playing them, I wouldn't mind listening to him.
Playing music is supposed to be fun. If he's having fun doing his thing more power to him. No one is forcing me to listen to him. I would rather listen to him do his thing than some other modern players. ---------- The Blues Photo Gallery
Someone told me once that Dylan learned hundreds of folk songs before he ever wrote his own music. Maybe some people learn through immersion.
That said, I do feel that a 'voice' is crucial. What are you even expressing otherwise? How can you possibly know what, say, Little Walter was trying to convey with the innovations that HE made without, at some point, approaching what he approached tabula rasa? I'm more comfortable with poetry than I am with music, and this reminds me of the shadow with which the verse of John Milton covered the High Romantics. Blake idolized him, and yet believed in achieving the same idealized end through his own 'prophecy,' as opposed to through emulation. Wordsworth, on the other hand, strove desperately to throw Milton off entirely, and his voice emerged as an awareness of the Miltonic presence, and, at the same time, something just beyond revisionism. Both of these routes are original.
I'm inclined to think that if Milton had heard Blake or Wordsworth, he would have had much the similar reaction as Little Walter would have had if he had heard Jason Ricci, for example. Or if John Fahey had heard Erik Mongrain. You have to take the same plunge as those who came before.
I think it is great that he wants to sound just like Little Walter & can. Not every harp player is going to be able to sound unique & be able to push the boundaries & not many will be able to sound just like Little Walter. with Little Walter not been here I think it is great that people can keep his music alive. Here in the UK a Little Walter impersonator would do great as there aren't any. I best get practising more Little Walter tunes.
The Bharath man is great! Anybody who thinks "this is just another cover band" should get up there for money, in front of strangers, and try to do the same thing. Most will fall flat on their face. He makes it look sooo easy, that's the mark of a real professional. Looks so easy that people say, "oh I could do that if I really wanted to". And if he wants to play Little Walter all night and all day and the customers keep coming, what business is it of a bunch of shortstops who have no gig at all? The man is doing his thing and I admire the hell out of it. Just my 2 cents. JoeLee
@joelee .I don't think Bharath is just a cover band , I love what he does.It takes a lot to get to that level. it is not my business I was just replying to the original thread which Adam Gussow made I think he has a few gigs him ----------
"Anybody who thinks "this is just another cover band" should get up there for money, in front of strangers, and try to do the same thing. Most will fall flat on their face."
Nobody ever claimed he wasn't good. Nobody even claimed that they could do it, or that they possessed an original 'voice.' I'm confused...
Also, Strawwoodclaw: you're right -- not every artist is going to be unique (why limit this to harp?). But shouldn't one try to be? As I said, if that unique voice emerges slowly as a result of immersion, then that's great. Little Walter's is a voice that has already been heard, and it's nice to hear something of it come out in somebody else, now that he is gone. I'm not complaining, and I sure appreciate it. That's about it, though -- it's not going to stop me dead, because Little Walter already did that a while back.
That said, the dude is great and I love listening to him.
I'm probably going to offend someone... but... I've seen him live, once, they started an hour late (I think) played extremely well, but didn't engage the audience as far as I could see. They didn't seem as if they really wanted to be there. I left after one set (break was way toooooo loooooong) My feeling was, if they didn't care enough that they had an audience, I didn't care enough to stay. ---------- If it ain't got harp - it ain't really blues!!!!
@jawbone. That's a rotten shame that is the way they performed(?) when you were there. I gotta agree 1000%...I don't care WHO you are, when you drag ass and start late, you're on my doglist right then. And not interacting with the crowd adds insult to injury. No wonder you left, I don't care if he suddenly "sported a new gold tooth" like the Walter man himself, I would've been right there leaving along with you and fighting to get out the door. These bums who do that need a dose of real professionalism and some manners. Wife and I caught Natalie Cole show at Chastain Amphitheatre a few years ago. She walked out, had one barstool sitting on the stage, and turned on like a rocket. She worked a one and a half hour set with no shucking and jiving, doing everything she could, and wrecked the place to a standing O. Went offstage for 10mins. while band kept on blowing, then she came back and did another hour. I'd like to see some of these prima donna acts try that number. Well, at least the guy can play the harmonica excellently...I suppose that's something. More than I can do. Thanks for that info. Regards, JoeLee
I think that the big flaw in this thread is the premise that Bharath is deemed to sound more like LW than a dozen othr players that I can name. This seems to be based on a few "Youtube" typical quality clips of the band playing live (something we will never see/hear from LW himself (other than the '64 & '66 University of Chicago recordings, where LW is past his prime).
Bharath often does not always play LW note for note (see the pagoda in the park video, "Oh baby"), he doesn't really sound exactly like LW. I bought Friday Night Fatty, it's loving & repectful tribute, 2/3 of the tracks are indeed covers of LW/Muddy feat LW...but it's still a far cry from the state of the art Universal/Chess recordings.
Bharath, like anyone else will play the music that he loves, why not just take for what it is? I don't assume that he intends to be the 2nd coming of LW...he's perhaps gone a bit full-on in that direction for his first release...but I think just as much of the perception of him being "another LW" comes from other parties.
He can play, he can sing & front a band, people enjoy what he does. Nobody picked up an instrument & just played it at the level he does without some outside influence.
This thread does smack somewhat of a witch hunt, or that Bharath has at least been singled out for "special interest/excessive criticism"...OK, it's in the public domain fair enough, but he didn't ask to be picked apart.
Like certain other threads Adam, I think that you have postulated your perception on too limited a sample. If you own a copy of Friday Night Fatty I'll stand corrected...
Last Edited by on Nov 27, 2010 5:01 AM
When I was seventeen, I was mentored by Estrin. He wrote on a napkin "Little Walter, Rice Miller, Muddy Waters" He explained only to listen to the Muddy with Jacobs. He said not to listen to anyone else, figure out exactly what they were doing, note for note and especially figure out their dynamics. I never followed his exclusionary advice because I love all music but I sat down and transcribed close to 50 Little Walter songs to the point where at the time I could perform them close to note for note. My retention is horrible so don't ask me to repeat this now, over 20 years later. But even then, I sounded and felt nothing like Walter. I do believe it really helped me improve my understanding of playing and harp. BUT- I have never been ABLE to imitate anyone! It is a very special skill. Is it possible that those of us who never entered the Little Walter sweepstakes WILL not see the genius of the imitators because if we did, it would refute how special we are because of our uniqueness?
Piazza, Oscher, Wison, Cotton, Norcia, Portnoy, Guyger, Dyer, Kashmar, Smith (Gary)...the list goes on (trawl through the endless LW covers on myspace for example)? These guys have all quoted LW in a musical context...Yet they still have their own identity.
Where exactly does the dividing line sit regards an "imitator" and a good player's tribute?
Unless Bharath has released another CD (he may have done) he only has one release on which to be "judged", he is in a very different stage, as regards a portfolio, compared to the other guys mentioned. I think it's perhaps a bit early to be pigeon holing?
If Bharath really sounded identical to LW then he wouldn't need to play covers...conversely, at times, even LW couldn't muster up a convincing cover of his own tunes ("Juke" from the Super Blues band recording).
This topic seems to be simplified into "LW imitators" vs "rest of the world" for whatever purpose, the reality is the dividing lines are blurred.
I see it more as Venn diagrams, merging & dovetailing, rather than strict divisions.
Last Edited by on Nov 27, 2010 5:58 AM
An interesting read. Music. Id listen to Bharath in a club or at home and really enjoy it. Much of what counts as modern or innovative around here I don’t listen to beyond studying technique.
I've just been poking around the membership rolls and it turns out that Bharath is a registered member of this forum, although he hasn't, to my knowledge, contributed in a while. In any case, although I think vigorous, searching conversation about the aesthetic approaches of significant/important/up-and-coming harp players is a part of what this forum should be about, and a part of what I should be doing here, I'm constrained by the forum creed--as is everybody--and the vigor of my critique, although intended as a constructive prod, certainly exceeds what I'd feel comfortable with if Bharath were an actively participating forum member rather than a dormant one. So I've said my piece, and I won't say any more.
In fact, it would be ideal if the focus of this conversation was taken away from Bharath. It isn't about him. It's about a much larger issue that confronts all of us as players, artists, and professionals. It's a complicated issue, not a simple issue. It deserves discussion. This forum, as far as I can tell, is one of the few places where it gets discussion. But it's an uncomfortable discussion, for all that, and I've let it rest for most of this year. I'm more than willing to let it--and this thread--go back to sleep.
Last Edited by on Nov 27, 2010 6:56 AM
Bharath does a better version of Backtrack. Ok, just kidding. I certainly get that the boundaries should be scrutinized and expanded, this is Modern- -BH so discussions like this are supposed to happen here. Gets a little personal when the lens is on one player.
edited for spelling...
Last Edited by on Nov 27, 2010 6:39 AM
I think it's interesting that most guys on harp forums think they can always spot a LW clone but never ever point out when today's guys are copping BW, or Junior, or James Cotton phrasing.
I think it shows that 90% of guys in here, when they listen to old blues, listen to LW. People like 'Fess, Greg H, Mark, Kingley, Joe and a few others are the exception in my experience.
Nothing wrong with that but, holey moley, try expanding your horizons.
There was a Gruenling clip posted here a while back that was 80% Big Walter (with DG's soul and personality shining through) but because he did the "I Just Keep Loving Him" CD, I guess folks made some assumptions that it was Little Walter...
I wish I could nail LW like Bharath. Good on him for putting in the hard yards.
Last Edited by on Nov 27, 2010 9:13 AM
@GermanHarpist, your dog is a streetwalker and not very athletic! take that! ---------- MP hibachi cook for the yakuza doctor of semiotics superhero emeritus
I know I'll probably rub some people the wrong way with this comment, but I really think Little Walter is overrated. He is one of the greats, but there are also lots of other greats with just as much interesting stuff going on. Ther's just too much monofocus on LW in the blues harp world. In my opinion, he shouldn't stand above Cotton or Sonny Boy, or Sonny Terry for that matter. They're all great players, and I don't think it can be said with certainty that any one of them is better than any other. When you get to that level, it's all a matter of taste.
I watched a bunch of Bharath's videos when they first came out. It wasn't so much for his playing as it was for the rest of the band. Good luck finding guys that can play that stuff that well and it isn't a pure note for note regurgitation of Little Walter licks. They play and interpret that style quite nicely.
In fact, one of the videos, it's a slow Blues like Blue Lights where he goes off on an eight minute slow blues that was really nice sounding. Sure, it was influenced by Little Walter, but so what, it was great music.
I don't understand how people can rip Bharath's ability to play in the style of Little Walter, but revere Kim Wilson's ability to do the same.
It takes a lot of time and effort to do that. I respect that degree of dedication and effort. I tried it for several years. I couldnt do it. It also takes a lot of effort to find guys that can play that stuff. If people think it's easy, they ought to try it. ---------- The Blues Photo Gallery
I agree with Joe on this one-Junior Watson gives him props in the above video for his slide playing-guitar is one thing,slide guitar is another. I talked to Barath at Amandas Rollercosater-I told him I could listen to him play all night. He also opened by playing guitar behind Junior and Chef Denis. In speaking with him,I found him to be quite the musician.
Last Edited by on Nov 27, 2010 10:35 AM
I've just downloaded and listened to Bharath's "Friday Night Fatty" (the album), and if I'd listened to it before I said everything I've said in my various contributions to this thread, I would have.....
...said exactly the same things, with even more conviction.
The only addition I might have made would have been to note that at least one song on the album is strongly in the Rice Miller vein ("Born Blind") and another is strongly in the Big Walter vein ("Talk to Me Baby"). Other than that, I'm at a loss to discern any individuality, any clear and convincing stylistic footprint, that would tell me, in a few seconds, "Hey, I'm listening to Bharath." I can listen to Dennis, Jason, Kim, Sugar, Billy B., Buddha, Carlos, and know almost immediately who I'm listening to. And that's true, for the most part, very early on--in each of those artists' debut albums, or second albums. (Listen to Sugar Blue on Brownie McGhee's and Louisiana Red's BLUES IS TRUTH. It's mellow, down home blues, but Sugar is already Sugar, exploring new approaches.)
That's too bad. In every other respect this album reveals Bharath to be a gifted player--a thoroughgoing pro with a wide range of tonalities and great rhythmic vitality. It's just that the tonalities and rhythmic ideas are drawn overwhelmingly (if not exlusively) from the trick-bag of one particular acknowledged genius. But perhaps the album was simply a student's final exam: the summing up a particular phase of mastery in which something needed to be proved. It's been proved. The proof is convincing. Now it's time to dare to be an original--as Kim did with the T-Birds, early on.
Last Edited by on Nov 27, 2010 11:36 AM
I agree with Adam. Kim Wilson was far more 'original' early on, but only in the sense that his influences were not limited to LW. They were far more diverse than Barath.
A lot of guys still mistakenly Wilson as a LW clone and that is plain dumb-ass ignorance.
...and Rick Holmstrom, HYDRAULIC GROOVE http://www.amazon.com/Hydraulic-Groove-Rick-Holmstrom/dp/B0000695VA
In both cases, you've got genuinely creative musicians working traditionalist grooves. Since they're genuinely creative, they understand that "tradition" is being pressured on all sides by the fast pace and new ideas of the modern world. Rather than retreat from that challenge, both artists embrace it.
Lyndon Anderson is an artist in process, but he has my great admiration. He's finding middle ground, in a sense, between Rod Piazza and Jason Ricci. The first time I listened to his album, there were at least a handful of times when I spun around--I was doing dishes at the time--and said "What the heck was THAT?" I replayed particular passages a couple of times. That's what I'm looking for in contemporary players.
Holmstrom's album is just brilliant. He's a guitarist, obviously, not a harp player, but he's been part of the West Coast scene for a while and he knows the traditionalist bag through and through. That So Cal world is pervaded by the sounds of hip hop and industrial music, and for the most part the blues guys push it away. Holmstrom was brave enough to say, "Hey, I can sample that stuff into my traditional bag and make something really cool and new." Now we're talking!
Buy these albums!
Last Edited by on Nov 27, 2010 11:52 AM
So Adam, are you saying that when you listen to FFF you hear the "same" thing as when you listen to the originals? I already acknowledged that much of the material was drawn from LW & his collaboration with Muddy, but I hear Bharath playing those songs, I don't hear LW. I don't think he has "proven" anything that other players haven't proven...some 20-30yrs ago. There's no way in the world that I could confuse the two...unlike say Duke Robillard on a T-Bone bent, or Paul Lamb paying tribute to Sonny Terry?
The production alone immediately differentiates it from any of the original material. I have to say, I can't see that you are familiar enough with the original material to have a considered opinion.
This is Bharath's first release, the other players you mention have more of a back catalogue to draw from (apart from Buddah), if you had only ever heard Wilson's "That's Life"/"My Blues" what would you think of Wilson, or Gruenling purely based on the LW tribute album, or George Smith's "Tribute to LW". What you're doing is akin to listening to the Dirty Blues Band albums and eternally referring to Piazza as "another Butterfield", or judging Butterfield as "that guy who tried to play LW". Future releases may be more of the same, he might get even better at it...then I'll eat my words (it'll make a change from eating hats at any rate).
You appear to have set out with an agenda and are intransigent. I get the feeling that as soon as you hear key phrases/influences/bullet mics/lack of an overblow mentioned, you immediately think, "another LW copyist".
"For those who believe no proof is necessary, for those who don't believe no proof is possible".
Remember also that the T-Birds was Vaughan's band, he hired Kim. I'm not suggesting that Kim didn't influence material but I got the feeling that Vaughan wanted a singer who could cover the wider styles of blues, roots & Americana...Wilson's talents allowed him to do that. I'd be surprised if Kim called ALL the shots on that front.
the thing to consider about recordings is they are far easier to do now. one doesnt have to go out and pay big money for studio time or producers. therefore one doesnt need the approval or backing of a label. in fact, it appears that most labels now just are about numbers and clones. record enough bands that are similar to a popular band and you just may get another hit band.
today, if you want to record an album, you could actually do it with just a computer and a program. no need to have skills. no need to be original. no need to get anybody else involved. though the odds of getting rich and famous from it are slim. (unless you consider being talked about on a harp-related forum as fame.)
eharp - I would agree in the sense that recordings are much easier to make...but that's been the case for decades. It can be part of weaknesses too...you might have great players, but their production skills don't match their playing skils, plus each member of a band has some influence which can adversley affect the final mix...Walter & Muddy would have had far less say on such matters, they turned up did the session (which cost mor per hour in the 50's than many commercial studios charge today), Chess motivated them as he saw fit...then, maybe at a later date, they heard the result on a jukebox...possibly with the "Chess echo" that they may never have even heard in the studio!
It is probably possible to get a result, just using a computer, interface & software, but I don't know any traditional blues players who have tried that route...some record to digital multitrack for convenience (tracks can be manipulated by software, or dropped on), then they may master to tape, or via software. Others want to go straight to tape, record "live to tape, everybody on the floor" (sometimes in the mistaken belief that that was how all old recordings were done)...there is a certain bravado associated using the old tech.
Results from modest home studios can be surprisingly good. But make no mistake, you still need the basic performing skills to get the source down to media, the engineer still needs good ears to ensure a usable result. You can stitch together endless, multiple takes...if you have the patience...and this still happens in big studios, with big money acts!
"no need to get anybody else involved. though the odds of getting rich and famous from it are slim" I'd say that Daniel Bedingfield ("Gotta Get Through This") is famous, by anyone's standards.
david who? even if he made it into my little world, that wouldnt disprove my point about odds being slim.
does anybody else know him?
as for the rest, 5f, i think you are missing my point.
it is possible for any joe to put out any sort of p.o.s. they could have skills, just didnt use them. they may one day be the best in the business but havent yet reached their stride. or they could just have nothing but garbage to put out. (disclaimer: i aint saying bharath is fitting into any of these categories!!)
my point is that it is easier to put out a recording w/o having yet developed an individual sound that is unique.
as for being easier for decades? i dont know anybody that put out a self-produced recording from the 80's or 90's. not saying there arent any. i just dont know them personally. but in the last 10 years?? i know 6 that have. probably a total of 100 pieces sold. 90 to friends and family. maybe i am niaeve but i just dont see how it could be easier, more accessible, than decades ago.
Joe, I'm glad someone else gets the band aspect. I have a feeling he'd sound TOTALLY different with a different band. Little Walter's sound, in my opinion, is highly based on his bands!
