Header Graphic
Dirty-South Blues Harp forum: wail on! > BW v LW
BW v LW
Login  |  Register
Page: 1

SmokeJS
274 posts
Jul 26, 2014
7:17 AM
Little Walter and Big Walter are at, or near, the top of almost every harp player's best ever list. I find myself, even as a still self-proclaimed newbie, completely captivated by their playing. To my ears Big Walter has a little more country blues in his playing. Little Walter's songs seem generally more memorable. And though both can sing, I'd give the edge to Little Walter. But both define blues harp for me.

There is one other difference that seems to have been a big help to Little Walter. The quality of his recordings from the early to mid 50's is excellent. There's enough bass and clearly defined drums. Many songs sound as if they could be much more recent than their 60 years would indicate. The Big Walter's recordings I have sound much thinner to me.

Did Little Walter have a secret weapon? Was it Leonard Chess?

Last Edited by SmokeJS on Jul 26, 2014 8:02 AM
Goldbrick
561 posts
Jul 26, 2014
7:31 AM
LW was more out front. I think of BW more as a side man
Not a value judgement BW didnt have the hits like Juke and Blue Midnight that got juke box play

5F6H
1818 posts
Jul 26, 2014
8:22 AM
"Did Little Walter have a secret weapon? Was it Leonard Chess?" Interesting question, I'm tempted to answer "no" as both recorded for Chess (as well as other labels) and Chess outsourced recording for much of Little Walter's tenure.

The Walters were the secret weapons!:-)

Perhaps it would be a good idea to compare like for like, well, as much as is possible...similar period & environment?

BW with Otis Rush...


LW with Otis Rush...


BW with Muddy...


LW with Muddy...


What do you think?
----------
www.myspace.com/markburness
groyster1
2639 posts
Jul 27, 2014
7:36 AM
little walter was more into jazz....blue midnight is good example....his instrumentals were his best work....never get tired of them...best harp playing I have ever heard
The Iceman
1863 posts
Jul 27, 2014
8:21 AM
I feel that BW showed just how huge and powerful simple ideas/notes can sound on the diatonic.

LW demonstrated how a diatonic can played with a jazz sax
sensibility.
----------
The Iceman
groyster1
2641 posts
Jul 27, 2014
10:35 AM
going back to my statement,I do not think either was superior to the other but its numbers like blue midnight,sad hours,quarter to 12 makes me say its the best harp playing ever
blueswannabe
483 posts
Jul 27, 2014
9:55 PM
I'm reading a biography on David honey boy Edwards called " the world don't owe me nothing". It's a must read for all blues lovers. In The book, honeyboy recounts his experiences playing with both little Walter and big Walter. He basically states that little Walter had the best sound of a harp player and that big Walter was the best harp player. He stated hat little walter's sound was more unique and creole influenced ( he had that accordion style chord playing). He Also said that little walter's sound was dead on. Big Walter on the other hand could play lots of positions and harps.

Last Edited by blueswannabe on Jul 27, 2014 9:56 PM
Joe_L
2488 posts
Jul 28, 2014
7:40 PM
I think that most players play the type of music that moves them. I believe that Little Walter and Big Walter were no exceptions. Little Walter was moved by the sounds of his day. Big walter seem to be moved by big band sounds from his generation. Steve Freund who work with Walter for 2 years told Tom Mazzolini that a third to half of the songs that Big Walter played were instrumentals from the big band era.

You can make it a competition between the two, but that would require you to minimize the work of one of the two men. Most players could learn a great deal from studying either player.

----------
The Blues Photo Gallery

Last Edited by Joe_L on Jul 28, 2014 7:42 PM
Kingley
3646 posts
Jul 29, 2014
12:47 AM
I have to agree with Joe here. Both were great players and i enjoy listening to both and discover something new every time I do listen to them. I have learnt a hell of a lot from both of them and will never stop learning from either of them.
SmokeJS
276 posts
Jul 29, 2014
4:17 AM
I like these two legends both so much that there was no intention on my part to making any kind of conparative analysis of their styles or any judgement of their relative musical merits. What I wanted to compare was the quality of their recordings. Those where Little Walter is the band leader sound very vibrant and modern to my ears. The Big Walter recordings sound typical early 50's. It's possible the clarity of Little Walter's sound may have contributed to his greater recognition but I'm a bit skeptical given the nature of the playback equioment of the time. Today though, using the equipment in my listening room / home theater, the Little Walter recordings sound fabulous. Big Walter's are listenable but it's his playing that sends chills up and down my spine not the production, mixing amd mastering.
5F6H
1820 posts
Jul 29, 2014
6:09 AM
I think that perception may be down to the fact that Big Walter simply cut much fewer sessions as a front man for Chess/Universal during Little Walter's heyday.

Big Walter was recording prolifically but generally not at the better studios. Where you can listen to BW at comparable studio situations, quality-wise (Tommy Brown's United recordings, Aug '54; BW's States recordings '54; JOB sessions with Johnny Shines '53) the quality is pretty good. There have been various Chess liner notes with mistakes regarding who played on what, which people were happy to believe for years.

BW was recording a lot with Sun, but Chess was distributing for Sun at times in the North. LW's Juke boosted his profile & he was getting the high profile work, BW only did one Chess session with Muddy (a big star in Chicago blues) and didn't get a Chess release under his own name until '64.

So maybe there is some dovetailing, not one distinct reason (beyond LW's inventiveness), but it may be that LW's location, connections (especially Muddy) gave him the break that saw him tie up the bulk of Chess sessions, as the Chess "go to" guy, and that BW's patchier recordings (though some are still great maybe as much because of their raw sound) were a by-product of that (from having to record elsewhere), rather than a cause for his perceived profile issues.

I'd really suggest printing off Filisko's discography & comparing Universal (Chess/United/States/JOB)sessions at similar times between the 2, do it chronologically. I'm not saying that they didn't sound different (stylistically or otherwise), but more, that in similar situations, production quality didn't seem to favour one over the other...if that makes sense?

Neither would have had significant input into the engineering, or any control over production quality beyond their own performance, the studios had professionals to handle that side of things.

http://www.filisko.com/assets/Walter%20Horton%20Discography.PDF

Apologies for scratchy disc...







----------
www.myspace.com/markburness

Last Edited by 5F6H on Jul 29, 2014 9:09 AM
Chris L
59 posts
Jul 30, 2014
10:28 PM
The fact that BW survived to experience the influences of the 60s and 70s affects my preference. I can appreciate what both of them did in the 50s, but "Can't Keep loving You" I can listen to any day for pure pleasure. For example:
Frank
4973 posts
Jul 31, 2014
4:54 PM
BW - LW and the Modern Masters, Rick - Kim etc. are so masterful at logically using the blues scales and chord tones, mixolydian and pentatonic notes - you would think they were Professors of Musicology at Harvard University :)

Last Edited by Frank on Jul 31, 2014 4:56 PM


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