I am a huge Kim Wilson fan, but he is a bit of a salesman.
"......combine rock and blues and you get bad blues and.., bad rock"
The Fabulous Thunderbirds were a blues-rock band. In fact, their commercial success was all blues-rock. Their first albums sold poorly when released and it wasn't until they went to Epic and recorded Tuff Enuff that they "made it".
So that comment has some implications, lol. I've also heard him comment on not wanting to bastardize the harmonica by playing it in rock music, although he clearly has.
Again, please don't take this as a jab towards KW or blues or rock or the Tbirds. The fact of the matter is, and hopefully people will at least think about this, that making those comments has some implications.
Please also remember that I have said numerous times that KW is my favorite blues harmonica player. ---------- Custom Harmonicas
"There is a lot of hub-bub about this really loud,horrible sounding -what they are trying to call blues-and people make a big stir,and sometimes it sells-but eventually it just fades away."
Hes talking about Shepherd and Lang-lol
Last Edited by on Jan 14, 2013 1:54 PM
Yeah, but it seems either contradictory or a bit hypocritical. If blues-rock is bad, or harmonica in rock is bad, yet he continues to do it for decades then he might either be putting on an act, insincere, or not very genuine.
I bet he takes his TB royalties without any guilty feelings...and there is a reason why he insists on keeping a band with that name.
"I bet he takes his TB royalties without any guilty feelings...and there is a reason why he insists on keeping a band with that name."
Why should he feel guilty? He is the only original member.
He is still getting roylaties from Bonnie Raitts "Road Tested"- and everytime you hear "Wrap It Up", or "Tuff Enough", he gets a piece of that too.
Kim's not ignorant-he is a working musician and has some marketing skills as well-the T-Birds sound now is a lot more mature and in synch with todays crowd.
It's just like Kim stated in the above clip-"The record people would say,we want another three just like Tuff Enough-it's not going to happen-thats not me."
he probably also takes his royalties from "Obvious Child" from Paul Simon's The Rhythm of the Saints...great song there too, though maybe a stretch to classify that type of music into the rock genre
Last Edited by on Jan 14, 2013 4:06 PM
"He is still getting roylaties from Bonnie Raitts 'Road Tested' he probably also takes his royalties from 'Obvious Child' from Paul Simon's The Rhythm of the Saints"
I don't think sideman get royalties, unless they have songwriting credit. If they did, Hal Blaine and Tommy Tedesco would have more money than Paul McCartney.
----------
Great rock and roll should hurt, and it should change your life, not necessarily for the better. David St. Hubbins
"I don't think sideman get royalties, unless they have songwriting credit. If they did, Hal Blaine and Tommy Tedesco would have more money than Paul McCartney."
I guess I will have to let Kim know you think he is wrong-he told me about the Bonnie Raitt deal on a recent fishing trip-
simon mentioned the african musicians got royalties from graceland on a recent pbs series, so i suspect that is how he dealt with his studio musicians as well.. but maybe not all.. except he used some of their music and put words to it so maybe not...
"I don't think sideman get royalties, unless they have songwriting credit. If they did, Hal Blaine and Tommy Tedesco would have more money than Paul McCartney."
I don't think this is entirely true. Someone with more up to date knowledge and a better memory may correct me, but I'm reasonably certain that at least in the UK, Europe for the past few years musicians on a given recording have a right in law to both a performance royalty and a copyright royalty. However, this does not hold true for the U.S.. Nonetheless, American musicians are due a royalty for product performed, manufactured, or distributed within the EU. I believe there has been a movement for some time involving artists like Bonnie Raitt who have been trying to get a bill through Congress. And we know how easy that is.
One might be able to find details of how this works by doing a search but if someone really is interested and might actually benefit I can contact very good friend who has worked for the UK Musicians Union dealing with just such issues for many years. He's also a drummer but we won't hold that against him.
OT Trivia: Paul McCartney was the world's first rock star dollar billionaire and the first UK Pound Sterling Billionaire. Sir Macca past these thresholds something like 20 years ago. At the time a UK glossy music magazine (name escapes) published a list of the top 20 richest pop stars. No surprise McCartney was #1 at a billion pounds. Elton John at #2 would be no great surprise until you looked at what they reckoned was his net worth, 500 million. Paul McCartney was worth twice as much as Elton John and four times as much or more than Mick Jagger or Keith Richards!
Sting once was scammed out of 4 million pounds by an accountant. Sting didn't notice the money was missing for 6 years. This begs the question, how rich do you have to be to lose 4 million quid and not even notice it. "I know I put it somewhere. Sock Drawer? No. In the sugar bowl? No. Oh well, never mind. It will show up."
---------- LSC
Last Edited by on Jan 14, 2013 8:14 PM
JD, I really enjoyed reading, and rereading, your post, thank you. Swamp Pop makes sense to me. In regards to Tuff Enuff and their songs like that, I've always felt they weren't blues, but had bluesy playing. For example, on Tuff Enuff, the bass line has a nod to some modern blues sounds during the verse, but it wouldn't be a blues bass line...especially the bridge.
The drums sound like rock to me. The guitar rhythm parts are not very bluesy, but Jimmie's leads are. The vocals are not at all bluesy...neither in delivery or cadance. So is that song bad blues or bad rock? I mean, the song can't be good according to Kim, right?
IMO, I agree with Thievin's post, and having heard comments like this from Mr. Wilson before, have had a tremendous amount of respect for him as a MUSICIAN. He has taken his talents and made a career with them. So is Tuff Enuff a good tune? Are we hating on the Stones, guys like Bonamassa? Is he just saying it because it sounds cool? I guess it doesn't really matter.
To me, he is a shining example of what it means to be a musician and balance art with business. I personally don't think there is anything wrong with treating music like a job, but others do.
My first real band played at least a third of TBird original or cover material. I am talking the majority of Girls Go Wild style. ---------- Custom Harmonicas
I'll second Ninja and The Heathen's position on this. Despite his prodigious talents I thought the "bad rock, bad blues" comment was ridonkulous. Particularly enjoyed Ninja's disection of Tuff Enuff and the implied hypocracy........he's right on.
Last Edited by on Jan 15, 2013 8:12 AM
Must admit I heard as being a little tongue in cheek or self-deprecating ? I didn't think he found the late 80s that much fun in retrospect - I can remember one interview with him talking about playing a lot of harmonica alone in his hotel room during that time. I interpreted that as him ending up playing music that wasn't quite his thing to large souless venues while pressured by the record companies to follow up with something similar. Kim was very dismissive of his big hit when he played in London year or two back - but then again the crowd seemed to be in agreement.
Last Edited by on Jan 15, 2013 12:28 PM
I hear some of that too. I know I am being a bit hard on him, and I again can't be critical of his business decisions (or playing), but he, like many others, owes a lot to non-hardcore blues players making the music more accessible.
He has commented on having really good turn outs and with there being young people there. How are they working their way to Kim Wilson? I bet it is very much like how people in the 80's and so found the greats through people like SRV.
I think the relative "death" of the blues has always been based in the contemporary masters dismissing the value of those on the fringe..."I am going to play hardcore blues for hardcore blues fans!"
At one time, Kim was the Jason Ricci/John Nemeth/Johnny Lang/Whatever of the scene. People should seek ways to bridge the gap...not make it worse. Songs like Tuff Enuff brought a new audience to the blues. Guys like Jason Ricci bring people to Kim Wilson.
Its like people complaining about steaming music and YouTube. I guarantee you the only reason I have bought at least 50% of the music I own is due to hearing it free first. ---------- Custom Harmonicas
There is a lot of blues behavior that is detrimental to the music. One such habit is dismissing blues influenced musicians and fans. You can't complain about the state of blues if you are actively trying to alienate people from it.
I am very much a small fish, but if my attitude was that all non-rock harmonica sucked, I wouldn't be doing myself any favors in gaining an audience.
We have a great who was once a young kid on the scene that went to great lengths - turbans and pop music, for example - to make a career playing blues harmonica. He only gets the opportunities he does now because people gave him a chance. Heck, Muddy could've not let him "in" for being a young white kid, but he didn't.
I don't get your classic rock comment. I think a lot of people, though, playing it made a lot of opportunity and money for traditional blues players. Eric Clapton, The Stones, Zepplin (which is a touchy one)...bands like that brought a lot of people to the blues. They found acts like that or SRV and then went to the roots of the music.
In the last 20-30 years, a lot of the blues audience go there through non-blues music. I will choose at this time not to point out the humor of it being ok to be a R&B influenced Blues band, but not a Blues influenced Rock band. ---------- Custom Harmonicas
It's okay to be a blues-influenced rock band. All rock music is "blues-influenced," after all. Just don't call it blues. ----------
There's a lot of hubbub about this really loud, horrible-sounding, what-they're-trying-to-call blues. And people make a big stir, and sometimes it sells but, eventually it fades away because there's no meat.
@Frank: video you posted could be considered blues, but ya gotta file it under a larger heading of "White Christian Music"....a kinda entity unto itself.
Mark Farner (one of my ol' favorite homeboys from my R&R daze in Detroit - Grand Funk before they became superstars) fell so hard from the high life and all the $$ he made that he hit rock bottom and found Jesus. (Saw his "coming out" at a Mylon LeFevre concert in Detroit - another one of my favorite live bands till Mylon got on the Christian circuit).
Some good performers on the Christian Circuit (ie The Newsboys), but the message is a bit too heavy handed for me. I prefer the stone cold black gospel bands. At least there is real foot stompin' joy in their music. ---------- The Iceman
As I was driving home, I kept thinking about that, “blue harp in rock & roll” statement and what might have inspired Kim to say such a cockamamie thing. Mind you, this is all just conjecture, but..,
Maybe it was having to contend with these guys in his early years ?
Or maybe he spent too many years in this guys shadow?
Only to have this upstart arrive on the scene and lay down the most insane blues riff in rock & roll in less than 30 notes
Once and for all shattering any hopes he might have had for being able to claim to be The Best Harmonica Player in Texas.
I would like to see a cage match between Sugar “You’re Just a Visitor in The House” Blue and Kim “Miss You is Neither Good Rock Nor Good Blues” Wilson.
I'm gonna go down to my local used record store (yeah there's a few still left), and slip a few Walter Trout CDs in the Walter Horton rack, just to piss people off.
------------
But seriously, the most entertaining part of this whole thread for me was looking at all the examples of all the different "types" or "genres" of music and realizing....I LIKE "EM ALL!!!! Deep Purple, Grand Funk, Pat Travers....yeah man!!! ......and still love Littlle Walter, Muddy, Wolf, Hooker, Honeyboy, RJ........"and I said to myself, what a wonderful world."
PS: Thanks for that Travers blast, Frank.... plugged the laptop into the Bose for a rockin' breakfast, what a way to start the day! Better than a quart of coffee!
BOOM! BOOM!....OUT GO THE LIGHTS!!!!!!!!
Last Edited by on Jan 16, 2013 6:43 AM
"Mike, it seems to me that you make the assumption that everyone wants blues to be a sort of mainstream success. I think some of us don't really think like that, I certainly don't."
You are assuming incorrectly. I think it unfair and hypocritical for a generation of blues musicians, who are not nor were not the original generation, to go out of their way to stunt the blues.
All it does is hurt the scene for traditional players. I am not talking about evolution of blues music, I am talking about the opportunity to access traditional blues music. I have a hard time thinking of big names in traditional blues that aren't over 50. Reflecting on those artists, I have a hard time finding a lot of examples of those artists hitting the scene in their 40's or 50's.
However, when I think of the first generation of famous postwar blues musicians, I can't help but note the following:
Most of them were recording and touring in their 20's...Robert Johnson died at 27...the same age LW recorded Juke.
Most of those acts played things other than blues and added elements of other genres to their style. LW played pop covers on guitar, Taj Mahal plays everything, B.B. King added elements of jazz, Albert King played R&B and Funk, Freddie King played rock and soul, Willie Dixon wrote out of the blues genre...
Mainstream white acts made a killing off of the blues including Elvis and Led Zepplin, so it did have mass appeal at one time, which would lead me to believe that it isn't impossible for fringe listenters to get hooked, which is not the same as mainstream anyting.
Finally, the argument of what is/isn't blues is not special. That happens in EVERY genre. In EVERY genre, the water downed pop version is what is most popular. Hardcore adherence to a genre always ends up being more underground and niche oriented. Another example of this is Kenny G being a jazz artist. ---------- Custom Harmonicas
This all cracks me up. My band is doing pretty well at a regional level. We play everything from Mojo and Hoochie to If You Wanna Get To Heaven to Black Magic Woman to Tab Benoit to The Doors to Hendrix to Robert Cray. Probably 2/3 of the songs we do did not have harmonica on the original, but I get so many comments about how well the harmonica works on these songs. Our band slogan is "Boogie on Down to the Rockin Blues". Many people come to our shows because they like to listen and many because they like to dance. Audiences don't care what we label it so why box ourselves in with limits of what musicians think fits and does not. What if Rockn Roll still sounded like it did in the 50s? Let the music grow, change, merge, and progress. Most successful musicians probably don't give a shit what people call their music.
If postwar blues is to survive, it will have to be handed down to the next generation in the same way it was to today's baby boomers. In an age where access to music is at an all time high, there is no excuse for people not to encounter it, unless they are not allowed to.
A small scale example is what goes on here locally. The blues musicians themselves essentially killed the scene themselves. Several "young" acts have hit nationally (and internationally) as soon as they quit trying to work within that local scene. Awesome bands made up of baby boomers have fallen off the face of the earth because of their own choices and that has hurt the scene for everyone, and not just themselves.
JD, you may not fall in that category at all, but I can't stand people complaining about the blues scene hurting and then not willing to back down from very Ego drive decision making.
If you come to MN for anything, please don't use the word blues as a descriptor. You can play postwar influenced blues, but call it boogie, R&B, Americana, roots rock, jazz....if you call it blues, you won't get any work and no one will show up. Even if you are playing Joe Bonamassa blues.
If you should choose to be Tab Benoit, Eric Bibb, or Rev. Raven, you might get a way with it. They do well in this part of the state. You might also be ok if you are a non-local band looking for cool festivals to play. Custom Harmonicas
I could not agree more with JD-if I am not mistaken,I am the only person responding who has actually spent some personal time with Kim-away from the stage and the out of the spotlight.
Kim strikes me as one of the most humble and likeable people I have ever met-regardless of him being an outstanding musician-just good people.
He is entitled to his personal view of the state of todays music,just the same as anyone else. I would say this is a candid interview-rather off the cuff,and to the point. Kim will give you the lowdown-don't ask him to sugarcoat anything ,or not step on any toes. It's just not his style.
"......combine rock and blues and you get bad blues and.., bad rock"
I like to play rock harp, and I love all the great rock harp players. But when I go to a blues jam and I want to play some blues, bringing my best mic with a black CR element I bought from Greg Heumann,suddenly finding myself playing with guys that are really really loud and are playing Joe Bonamassa "blues" - then I understand what Kim Wilson is talking about. And unfortunately this situation is not uncommon.
And yet, I have had guys who would consider themselves hardcore blues fans, rave to me about how great is joe bonamassa. I haven't heard that much, what I did hear didn't send me running off to obtain my own copy. Yeah I think what Frank said is pretty much what I think too, and I think I understand what Hakan is saying. Even 60s music is getting to be too modern for me now. That's when all that rock stuff started I think. As TISM sang, the best thing about the 60s was they hadn't heard of classic rock. \:0) ----------
Not sure exactly what Kim meant, but here is my take regarding the mixing of rock and blues:
Blues + Rock Influences = crappy blues (it tends to kill the nuances, subtlety, and groove)
Rock + Blues Influences = better quality rock (more soulful, better groove, more mature)
So in my view, injecting rock into blues hurts the quality of the blues music, but bluesing up rock music actually improves the rock.
There are a lot of players and bands out there claiming to play blues, but they actually play crappy blues-rock instead. This is not to be confused with rock players who understand and respect the blues tradition and improve their rock music by injecting blues influences.
It's pretty tough really because there's this term used, rock, which means different things to people. I don't think of anyone you named above, JD, as a rock performer, but of course you could define them as such. I looked up definitions of rock. Gave it up, because apart from the fact there are several, including a long article in brittanica, it doesn't get us closer to knowing specifically what Kim W was thinking. But really, its clear he meant something, there was probably a specific song or band or concert he was thinking of, and generalised from. And like most generalisations, if you want to debate it you can find exceptions, possibly so many that the generalisation eventually starts to look as though maybe it doesn't have general applicability at all. Big deal. The guy says something a little vague in an interview and then a bunch of guys with nothing better to do spend a few days picking it apart, putting their own spin on it, finding fault with the statement and each other. I'm going bush for a week ----------
Last Edited by on Jan 20, 2013 1:02 PM
OK, so it's Bonamassa that has Kim's panties all in a knot. He prolly lost a few too many headline gigs to him...Well thats the blues, ain't it so. ---------- Sun, sun, sun Burn, burn, burn Soon, soon, soon Moon, moon, moon
Last Edited by on Jan 20, 2013 4:07 PM
Rock ain't necessarily rock and roll. That's what I mean, what's "rock"? To you, it's synonymous with rock and roll. To me, rock may encompass rock and roll, but that's not how I usually think of it. Rock may include the Beatles, but on the whole I don't think they were rock and roll, although they did play some r&r. The stones seem like they started out as a blues band and may have actually become the closest thing to a definition of rock...but I dunno. That's my issue. Wilson probably has some definite idea of what he means when he says Rock, and it maybe isn't the same idea as I have. Anyway, I've only followed the argument, I don't even know why I'm commenting. Really I'm just bitching about classic rock radio and realising how I'm progressively more drawn to 50s, 40s and 30s music styles and progressively less interested in 70s and 60s stylings. I never cared for 80s pop and only briefly flirted with 90s pop. But 30s 40s 50s pop of various genres I am finding more interesting and enjoyable. Which is probably completely OT for this thread so I'll desist if you'll stop stirring me up. ----------
It gets tricky sometimes to put a label on music genres.There's no distinct line that says this is blues,this is rock,this is rock and roll. I only watched the Mark Farner vid,but that was enough for me. Ignoring the lyrics,that's the kind of thing that gives blues a bad name. Some people think that that's blues. No wonder they say blues is boring. As a big generalization,if the guitar solo is longer than 24 bars,it's probably blues rock. I find almost all of the blues rock guitar gods boring. The song is a minimal framework for those 48 or 96 bar guitar solos. There's no real song writing,it's all very ego driven.No dynamics,no nuance and they never drag the beat.
I feel that most truly artistic types that love the music are unhappy with the current evolution in music that reflects the attitude of today.
It's the attitude of today that sucks...majority of people are impressed by flash w/out substance, make a snap judgement after hearing 30 seconds, watch American Idol, music industry keeps trying for that fast buck, people's attention spans are shortened by watching too many MTV videos or playing video games, government sez small business is the backbone of the country while gov't regulations make it impossible for the small businessman, etc.
