didjcripey
813 posts
Sep 10, 2014
2:07 AM
|
Although it was a very funny movie, it was only after reading one of Adams posts that I realised the Blues Brothers were really a parody. Or were they?
http://somethingelsereviews.com/2014/09/09/we-couldnt-make-fun-of-our-music-the-blues-brothers-overcame-big-questions-with-briefcase-full-of-blues/
----------
Lucky Lester
|
Frank
5254 posts
Sep 10, 2014
4:15 AM
|
|
arzajac
1462 posts
Sep 10, 2014
4:50 AM
|
Anything Paul Shaffer arranges is dead serious.
Were the Blues Brothers serious? They were one hell of a group of top-shelf blues performers. It's a huge feat to have even been able to assemble such a big group of high-caliber members in the first place. It takes someone like Paul Shaffer to pull that off.
Serious, yes. Authentic? Well, that's not what you are asking... That's another great question.
----------
Custom overblow harps. Harmonica service and repair.
Last Edited by arzajac on Sep 10, 2014 4:50 AM
|
groyster1
2671 posts
Sep 10, 2014
9:58 AM
|
john and dan were comedians in the film but the back up band with matt murphy,steve cropper and duck dunn were as serious as it gets
|
Honkin On Bobo
1247 posts
Sep 10, 2014
10:47 AM
|
They were on a mission from God.
Of course they were serious.
--
|
Ted Burke
187 posts
Sep 10, 2014
11:08 AM
|
It was a minstrel show.The film was a patronizing insult to gifted blues musicians. However much Belushi and Ackroyde declared their love of the blues (which I don't doubt) the movie was about 2 white boys leading a band of honest to god blues veterans to serve a higher purpose. I suppose B and A might have been making fun of that whole plantation mentality, but what the film wound up doing was taking advantage of convenient , racist trope and making a hit movie out of it. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the musicians were like wise irritated to some degree, as in yet again it takes a well meaning white man with money and fame to get their movie heard. Everything is all smiles for the cameras as regards this movie, but for the performers it was just a payday.
I wish these guys had done some homework and produced instead an honest movie about blacks and whites and the blues. I am thinking a well made film about the likes of Butterfield, Bloomfied, Musselwhite,Nick Gravinites et al in Chicago during the 60s, going to black Southside bars to listen to and meet their heros Muddy Waters,Buddy Guy. That is a story worth telling.
----------
"I don't play too fast. You're listening too slow."
ted-burke.com
tburke4@san.rr.com
|
rainman
137 posts
Sep 10, 2014
11:17 AM
|
Don't forget there debut album "Briefcase full of Blues" reached #1 on the billboard top 200 and went double platinum. I remember owning one myself.
|
Goldbrick
677 posts
Sep 10, 2014
11:46 AM
|
I am conflicted here.
It was a funny movie in its day and lots of good performers got to play. If it had ended there, it would have been fine.
The fact that the show went on and on and on, is annoying. Is as if the joke that the B Bros were good musicians became a reality to them ( or whomever replaced Belushi.)
Thats the part that sucks
|
The Iceman
2039 posts
Sep 10, 2014
12:02 PM
|
Disagreeing with the patronizing insult to gifted blues musicians comment.
Keep in mind the year the movie was released - 1980. What other movies about musicians were popular back then? (maybe The Rutles or Spinal Tap, and they were both parodies).
As Brother Where Art Thou kindled a resurgent in the music and artists that appeared in that film, Blues Bros. had a similar effect on "the citizens" out there.
Truth be told, honest movies about blacks, whites and the blues end up with limited runs in art house theaters - certainly not the intention of the creative forces and money men behind Blues Bros.
I also agree that a sequel made 18 years later diminished the whole concept.
----------
The Iceman
Last Edited by The Iceman on Sep 10, 2014 12:03 PM
|
Ted Burke
188 posts
Sep 10, 2014
12:15 PM
|
I remember the music films of the eighties well enough, but the fact remains that B and A played it safe and used a convenient, patronizing trope. We may love the blues, all of us, but this was indeed patronizing. I am not interested in how much money a movie about blues musicians, black and whites,makes at the box office; that is a side issue at best and irrelevant to the question being asked, was the Blues Brothers a serious movie? My wish is that B and A might have reasoned that they had made enough millions between them to forgo a block buster mentality and instead finance a more honest movie.
Did the movie rekindle an interest in blues? Somewhat, but let us not over rate that benefit.
----------
"I don't play too fast. You're listening too slow."
ted-burke.com
tburke4@san.rr.com
|
HawkeyeKane
2609 posts
Sep 10, 2014
12:23 PM
|
I agree with Ice. Why do folks continue to state how bluesmen were insulted, irritated, or dismayed by the film(s)? If that was true, then why did so many legends APPEAR in the films? And I mean ones that weren't members of the Blues Brothers Band, because the only three there that qualify as legends in my book are Murphy, Cropper, and Dunn.
I'm talking about John Lee Hooker, Big Walter Horton, Ray Charles, Cab Calloway, Pinetop Perkins, James Brown and Aretha Franklin. And then when the sequel was made...Franklin and Brown came back for more, you had Sam Moore, Wilson Pickett, Eddie Floyd, Junior Wells, Lonnie Brooks, and then the slough of blues greats in the ensemble at the end...BB King, Bo Diddley, Billy Preston, Eric Clapton, Jimmie Vaughan, and yes, Charlie Musselwhite.
Now, obviously there was salary involved for all of them appearing on screen. But if they were really all that peeved by what was in the first movie (plot and details of which I assume they would be told in advance), then why did the original film's guests agree to appear? Furthermore, after 18 years, why would some agree to come back, and numerous others get onboard for a sequel? I'm sorry guys, but I find that confusing...
----------
Hawkeye Kane - Hipbone Sam
|
Philosofy
602 posts
Sep 10, 2014
12:48 PM
|
Ted, the limited interest, boring movie you envision would not have exposed millions to the Blues. BB was funny, but it had a serious intent, and succeeded. Many younger people (myself being one of them), discovered the blues because of this movie. Belushi & Akroyd may not have been the best blues musicians, but they were cool and popular. And they used that to promote the blues as fun music, not something that was just fit for a National Geographic documentary.
|
eharp
2217 posts
Sep 10, 2014
1:14 PM
|
What they did is nothing new and continues today.
How many actors have tried their hand at music?
Or how many musicians and comedians have tried acting?
I can't believe that everyone of us, no matter how good we are at our jobs or how much money were make, wouldn't like to give something else a try. Especially is it will probably make a lot of money and knowing we have our old jobs to fall back on!
One thing about Ackroyd, even though he wasn't the best harp player, he knew enough not to play too fast.
Btw- was it "racist trope" or "patronizing trope"?
I'm guessing "trope" popped up as word of the day.
|
Honkin On Bobo
1248 posts
Sep 10, 2014
2:01 PM
|
Ted Burke: "I wouldn't be surprised if most of the musicians were like wise irritated to some degree, as in yet again it takes a well meaning white man with money and fame to get their movie heard."
If only we could find an interview from one of the cast/band members to see what they were thinking. Hey would ya look at that! Lucky Lester left us a link in his original post on this very thread!!! How'd we miss that!
“In the early days, a lot of the press reported that John and Dan were making fun of the music,” Cropper tells us, in an exclusive Something Else! Sitdown. “Duck and I read that and said: ‘What? We couldn’t make fun of our music.’ We had to do some interviews and let them know how serious they were. Dan studied hard to learn how to play harmonica. John had been a rock and roll drummer long before he became famous as comedian. It ended up being one the best collections of blues musicians I’ve ever seen.”
Yep, Cropper and Dunn seem pretty pissed.
Last Edited by Honkin On Bobo on Sep 10, 2014 2:45 PM
|
smwoerner
268 posts
Sep 10, 2014
2:41 PM
|
From a 2012 interview with Matt "Guitar" Murphy
"On a recent Sunday afternoon, Murphy is seated on a sofa beneath the photograph, five guitars of varying vintage layered on the cushion next to him, as he explains that it was Belushi who hunted him down to be in the film, which he called “a beautiful, good thing.” It was also a game-changer: Two years later, Murphy toured for the first time with a band using his own name, and he appeared on a string of subsequent albums with “Blues Brothers” in the title."
He doesn't seem upset.
It was comedy, it was not meant to show a realistic view of a blue's musician or any other musician's life.
Also, remember that they were the Blues Brothers SHOW BAND.
I remember lots of show bands in the 80's playing the hotel club scene with the intent of packing dance floors and selling drinks. They had horn sections, loud guitars and the bigger ones had back up singers. Like lounge acts they were their own genre.
----------
Purveyor of Optimized New and Refurbished Harmonicas.
scott@scottwoerner.com
|
Ted Burke
189 posts
Sep 10, 2014
3:07 PM
|
Philosophy: What I wrote was this:"I wish these guys had done some homework and produced instead an honest movie about blacks and whites and the blues. I am thinking a well made film about the likes of Butterfield, Bloomfied, Musselwhite,Nick Gravinites et al in Chicago during the 60s, going to black Southside bars to listen to and meet their heroes Muddy Waters,Buddy Guy. That is a story worth telling..."
You think that would be boring? The story of Butterfield, Bloomfield, Musselwhite meeting their heroes in the Sixties in Chicago in a raucous , tumultuous era? Then there's nothing to say other than you likely prefer slap stick to something closer to the truth of the music. That's okay. I suppose Hollywood car crashes are art form of a sort. If you're into that sort of thing. It is a amazing , though, that you declare a movie "boring" even though it hasn't been tried. That is called contempt prior to investigation.
eharp: We need another word of the day , ie >INFER< , "...deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements..." according to the ever handy Google. In this discussion, I use "racist" and "patronizing" as synonyms, which are, as you know, words that have nearly the same meaning . Trope, a good word indicating a metaphor or an idea that is already formed (received idea) and is most often meant to indicate stale thinking, is useful here. The switch between "racist" to "patronizing" was stylistic; I didn't want to use the same qualifier twice in the same sentence. In any event, I doesn't undermine my statement.
Last Edited by Ted Burke on Sep 10, 2014 3:22 PM
|
harpdude61
2129 posts
Sep 10, 2014
3:30 PM
|
Great entertainment and great for blues music. Nuff said. This is on my man-cave wall. Bought these new back in the day.
----------
www.facebook.com/catfishfryeband
Last Edited by harpdude61 on Sep 10, 2014 3:31 PM
|
Jim Rumbaugh
1021 posts
Sep 11, 2014
10:01 AM
|
Were the Blues Brothers serious?
I see
Two actors famous for comedy.
Two men dressed in a stereotyped suits.
Two men of medium musical talent.
I vote no.
----------
theharmonicaclub.com (of Huntington, WV)
|
groyster1
2672 posts
Sep 11, 2014
10:28 AM
|
have to agree jim....but I did enjoy the movie over 30 years ago
|
JustFuya
459 posts
Sep 11, 2014
10:48 AM
|
I think they were serious but not great musicians...
|
walterharp
1512 posts
Sep 11, 2014
1:09 PM
|
serious about comedy, serious about making money and fame, and seriously into blues music.... maybe all those things don't pull the same way but who among us is not full of contradictions?
|
Frank
5285 posts
Sep 11, 2014
2:21 PM
|
The audience loves them in this clip... isn't that what it's all about? Isn't that the bottom line - garnishing the love, admiration and respect of the audience. They stir this crowd into a frenzy - you can't deny that they are great artists, I mean - the proof is in the reaction from the audience, they were thoroughly entertained and applause like that don't come easy or cheap :)
Last Edited by Frank on Sep 11, 2014 2:36 PM
|
LSC
680 posts
Sep 11, 2014
3:57 PM
|
Seems kind of weird to me in the first place to ask whether a comedy is a serious film. No. It's a comedy. The question is rather like asking if Blazing Saddles was crap because it wasn't The Searchers. Daft on the face of it.
As to whether or not Belushi and Akroyd somehow were taking the piss out of the blues or blacks or both, again ludicrous on the face of it. Amongst many things the man has done was to co-found the House of Blues. Read their mission statement on the HoB website. I know, the House of Blues has been often bad mouthed for not actually having a great deal of blues in their programing but that has to do with it being a business and requiring revenue to exist. Blues artists simply don't draw big time, with the occasional exception. I saw a piece about the House of Blues many years ago. They asked the manager of the Sunset Blvd. location about this very issue. In summary he said, " My answer to all that complain about not having enough blues artists here is this. Where were you when we had Bobby Blue Bland with a 12 piece band and 40 people came through the door."
The OP reminds me of the outraged letters sent to Guitar Player magazine after the interview with Nigel Tufnel (Spinal Tap, including promises to cancel their subscriptions and all sorts. To which the Editor replied,"Uh, guys. It's a joke."
----------
LSC
----------
LSC
Last Edited by LSC on Sep 11, 2014 3:59 PM
|
Philosofy
604 posts
Sep 11, 2014
3:58 PM
|
@ Ted Burke: most of the people on this board would appreciate a well made documentary about Little Walter or Paul Butterfield, but the truth is most people would find it boring. The Blues Brothers movie appealed to a large section of the population, and was a commercial success. You can lament that an educational movie doesn't make as much money as an entertainment movie, but even the best harmonica documentary, or even a bio pic (a la Jersey Boys) wouldn't generate the interest in the Blues that Belushi and Akroyd's creation did.
|
JInx
885 posts
Sep 11, 2014
6:33 PM
|
hell yes, seriously entertaining...and that's what the blues is all about.
----------
|
Jim Rumbaugh
1022 posts
Sep 11, 2014
7:55 PM
|
Frank said "The audience loves them in this clip"
Seriously now.
It's a movie.
It's an audience being filmed.
The audience is told to applaud and go wild by the film crew.
I say there is a better way to prove a point than a clip from the movie,
Let me add. I love the movie. I love the music. I think it's a great work of art and very effective. But I do not think it was intended to be serious.
----------
theharmonicaclub.com (of Huntington, WV)
|
SuperBee
2196 posts
Sep 12, 2014
1:37 AM
|
I watched it when I was a teenager. I knew sfa about blues...I knew who aretha was, and I knew who Ray was, although I didn't dig his music back then I knew he commanded r e s p e c t...
I was entertained and amused by the movie. I didn't get any sense they were taking the piss out of the music, just out of the characters. Back then I didn't even realise there was an issue with white people playing blues music...what little I knew of blues about it being the roots of rock and roll. Somewhere today I read that some people think the blues is a rock band that only plays one song...something like that...anyway, I know I had the soundtrack for many years but I'm not really sure it's even particularly 'bluesy'
|
Komuso
412 posts
Sep 12, 2014
1:45 AM
|
I like both kinds..serious and non-serious.
Maybe you should ask Rob Paparozzi
----------
Paul Cohen aka Komuso Tokugawa
HarpNinja - Your harmonica Mojo Dojo
Bringing the Boogie to the Bitstream
|
Blues Brother
1 post
Sep 14, 2014
7:39 PM
|
What exactly was the movie supposed to be a parody of? I would like to point out that the film is also a musical. (IMDB says action, comedy, crime).
Mr. Burke I think you need to get the Blues Brothers DVD and watch the hour-long "Story of the Making of the Blues Brothers". Let all the musicians, actors, director, and studio execs speak for themselves.
Turns out that a harmonica player turned "Jake and Elwood" on to blues music.
Blues Brothers exposed me to music I never would have heard otherwise as a white suburban teenager. Probably the reason I picked up a harp and not something else when I decided to try and play some (blues) music at the age of 37.
Last Edited by Blues Brother on Sep 14, 2014 7:40 PM
|
Ted Burke
196 posts
Sep 15, 2014
3:06 PM
|
I don't think musicians protecting their economic interests by talking up a project they worked on is going to convince me that Blues Brothers was a good piece of film making. It annoyed me then, it annoyed me now.
----------
----
ted-burke.com
tburke4@san.rr.com
|
mastercaster
79 posts
Sep 16, 2014
3:35 AM
|
The tunnel scene , or aka Jake's excuses ..
one of the funniest scene's imo ..
and if this isn't enough to clarify the intent of the film ..
why .. i just don't know what is ..
a funny flick .. filled with Great performers ..
Last Edited by mastercaster on Sep 16, 2014 3:39 AM
|
yogi
76 posts
Sep 16, 2014
1:08 PM
|
Films and music, it's all about entertainment and the BBs were certainly serious about that. I would far prefer to be patronised by a whole lot of people having a good time than say, for example, a series of random notes fired across a backing track into a computer monitor.
|
Honkin On Bobo
1254 posts
Sep 16, 2014
1:39 PM
|
As serious as four fried chickens and dry white toast.
|
Frank
5299 posts
Sep 16, 2014
6:48 PM
|
If Ron can be serious, so can Jake and Elwood :)
|
KingBiscuit
245 posts
Sep 17, 2014
4:11 AM
|
@Ted Burke - take a look at the documentary "Pocket Full of Soul". I liked it....but, outside the harmonica community, who else liked it? Documentaries like these will always be a niche market. If it doesn't make money, most of the time, it won't be made.
|
jnorem
558 posts
Sep 17, 2014
11:51 AM
|
I think the movie was mainly about making as much money from the blues brothers characters as they possibly could, and it was dead serious about that.
----------
Call me J
|
Ted Burke
200 posts
Sep 17, 2014
12:01 PM
|
J took the words right out of my mouth.
We shouldn't confuse commercial success with artistic worth.
----------
----
ted-burke.com
tburke4@san.rr.com
|
HawkeyeKane
2628 posts
Sep 17, 2014
12:15 PM
|
LOL! Good call Bobo. But you forgot the Coke.
----------
Hawkeye Kane - Hipbone Sam
Last Edited by HawkeyeKane on Sep 17, 2014 12:15 PM
|
atty1chgo
1131 posts
Sep 18, 2014
4:41 PM
|
"t was a minstrel show. The film was a patronizing insult to gifted blues musicians. However much Belushi and Ackroyde declared their love of the blues (which I don't doubt) the movie was about 2 white boys leading a band of honest to god blues veterans to serve a higher purpose. I suppose B and A might have been making fun of that whole plantation mentality, but what the film wound up doing was taking advantage of convenient, racist trope and making a hit movie out of it. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the musicians were like wise irritated to some degree, as in yet again it takes a well meaning white man with money and fame to get their movie heard. Everything is all smiles for the cameras as regards this movie, but for the performers it was just a payday."
-- Lighten up, Ted, don't be a curmudgeon.
-- I agree with the comments about promoting the blues. Back in 1980, Muddy Waters was making a comeback with Johnny Winter, Mayor Byrne pushed Chicago Fest hard and lots of blues acts took the stages. Blues took off again in Chicago in a big way. The film brought notoriety to Chicago blues. Regarding the movie being a "patronizing insult to gifted blues musicians" with all due respect, that statement is ridiculous.
The scenes with John Lee Hooker on Maxwell Street (known in Chicago as "Jew Town" because of the propensity of Jewish clothing, shoe, and other merchants there) were short but well done. How on earth was that patronizing? That was Maxwell Street to a T. The scenes with Cab Calloway singing were excellent. Sure, there were a lot of spoofs in the movies, and overdone visuals. But patronizing? This was never intended to be a documentary.
-- Curtis Salgado was the guy who befriended John Belushi in Oregon during the filming of "Animal House" and was the inspiration for the Joliet Jake character.
-- Dan Ackroyd sold his interest in House of Blues recently, but he still makes his appearances and promotes the blues on his radio show. All would not have been possible without the movie.
Last Edited by atty1chgo on Sep 18, 2014 4:45 PM
|
