Header Graphic
Dirty-South Blues Harp forum: wail on! > The "Chicago" sound - Who has it?
The "Chicago" sound - Who has it?
Login  |  Register
Page: 1

atty1chgo
1153 posts
Sep 28, 2014
2:56 PM
Much is said about the "Chicago" sound in blues harmonica playing. That being said, I was in Half-Price Books yesterday and bought a used CD called "A Celebration Of Blues - Great Blues Harp". I decided to listen and determine which of the great players on the CD had that Chicago sound - the Little Walter amplified sound of the 50's and 60's.

So I put the CD into the player, and what did I find? That the CHICAGO harp players' tone and sound was CLEANER than what is described as "Chicago" sound, and that the non-Chicago players had the dirtier, more distorted tone and sound, the so-called "Chicago" sound.

10 tunes on the record -

The CLEAN sounding tunes were James Cotton - High Compression, Sugar Blue - Help Me, Billy Branch - New Kid On The Block, Junior Wells - Keep Your Hands Out Of My Pockets, and Big Walter Horton - Sugar Mama. ALL FAMOUS CHICAGO HARP PLAYERS.

The songs with more distortion (i.e. what is commonly thought of as the "Chicago" sound) in the harp tone were Charlie Musselwhite - The Blues Overtook Me, Sugar Ray Norcia and Ronnie Earl - My Home Is A Prison, Kim Wilson and Ronnie Earl - Ridin' In The Moonlight, Magic Dick / J. Geils Band - Bluestime, King Biscuit Boy - Step Back Baby, who can be fairly described as NOT being Chicago harp players.

(Charlie Musselwhite is sometimes considered Chicago because he spent time here during the glory years, but has moved on since then for many years, and is not based in Chicago).

Here are some of the songs from the CD:

What gives, sports fans? Who is giving us the "Chicago" sound? It certainly appears that it is not the "Chicago" harp players.












Last Edited by atty1chgo on Sep 28, 2014 3:01 PM
The Iceman
2154 posts
Sep 28, 2014
3:09 PM
Right or wrong, I always thought the Chicago Sound was represented by Muddy Waters and his electric blues band.
----------
The Iceman
atty1chgo
1154 posts
Sep 28, 2014
3:12 PM
If that's the case, Iceman, then why all of the fuss I read everywhere about "Chicago" sound/tone on harp? Is everyone describing it wrong? Am I describing it wrong?

Last Edited by atty1chgo on Sep 28, 2014 3:12 PM
1847
2257 posts
Sep 28, 2014
3:36 PM
i tend to play with a slightly cleaner sound most of the time.

the album high compression is one of james cottons best efforts.
check out the unmolested jt 30 on the cover.
----------
The Iceman
2155 posts
Sep 28, 2014
3:42 PM
dunno, atty1chgo.

That was just my impression.
----------
The Iceman

Last Edited by The Iceman on Sep 28, 2014 3:42 PM
1847
2258 posts
Sep 28, 2014
3:43 PM
the spam filter is kicking my butt today.
----------
<
JJ Harper
19 posts
Sep 28, 2014
3:57 PM
Classic "Chicago" harp sound = Jerry Portnoy with Muddy Waters Band. Paul Oscher with Muddy.
jnorem
568 posts
Sep 28, 2014
7:13 PM
I think the so-called Chicago sound is more about a band sound, the harmonica, two guitars, piano, bass and drums, which was always Muddy Waters' lineup.

The two-guitar combination may, in fact, really be the Chicago sound; two guitars improvising a weaving backdrop to the lead instrument and vocal throughout the song.
----------
Call me J

Last Edited by jnorem on Sep 28, 2014 7:13 PM
Harpaholic
541 posts
Sep 28, 2014
7:25 PM
Muddy, Freddie and Albert King to name a few had the Chicago sound.

When I use the term Chicago harp, I'm referring to a cupped bullet mic through a tube amp producing a fat tone.

Generally speaking:
Chicago Blues, electric
Delta Blues, acoustic

Last Edited by Harpaholic on Sep 28, 2014 7:25 PM
atty1chgo
1155 posts
Sep 28, 2014
7:29 PM
It may be about a "band" sound, so are all of these people mistaken?

Here’s How to Get a Chicago-Style Sound Through a PA

http://www.hunterharp.com/ddamppa/


That all-important "Chicago" sound

http://www.modernbluesharmonica.com/board/board_topic/5560960/371618.htm

"Mics & Amps- Mics (microphones) and amps (amplifiers) are what harmonica players use to be heard when playing with other amplified musicians. Mic and amp setups are also responsible for creating a more distorted and saxaphone-like sound a la the "Chicago Blues" sound. Most amps can be use for harmonica or electric guitar."

http://www.harmonicastore.com/equip_amps.shtml

"The classic approach to amplified harmonica is a bullet type mike, a low to mid powered valve guitar amp and perhaps some analog delay. The result is variations of the classic Chicago sound, most blues harmonica players are after "that sound"."

http://www.harmonicatunes.com/RP350-harmonica-patches
1847
2260 posts
Sep 28, 2014
7:52 PM


at one time cottons sound had more umph

you are welcome michele!
----------
nanothermite

Last Edited by 1847 on Sep 28, 2014 7:53 PM
Harpaholic
543 posts
Sep 28, 2014
7:52 PM
When I think of Chicago harp tone, I think of Big Walter, George Smith and Rod Piazza.

We all have our own opinions as far as what sounds good, but we are all talking about the same thing.

The great harpman of Chicago used bullet mics and tube amps for the most part to get the Chicago sound.
1847
2262 posts
Sep 28, 2014
7:56 PM
harpaholic i agree however
he is showing good examples
how that is not always the case
----------
nanothermite
1847
2264 posts
Sep 28, 2014
8:19 PM


butterfield was born in chicago in 1941

is this considered a clean or overdriven sound?
Harpaholic
544 posts
Sep 28, 2014
8:43 PM
What's not the case? Tones differ, but most are using a mic and a tube amp.

Chicago harp tone is a made up term used for referencing a specific style, technique, equipment and/or tone from the great Chicago style harp players.

The beauty of a made up term is you can define it anyway you want, and that's exactly what everyone is doing. The basis of the term is still a mic, a harp and a tube amp.


I don't know what else I can say?
Loz123
34 posts
Sep 29, 2014
9:29 AM
The man

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FOF_mdS39s
Harpaholic
546 posts
Sep 29, 2014
9:51 AM
Loz, that's a perfect example of Chicago Harp Tone and a great video I hadn't heard, Thanks!

Last Edited by Harpaholic on Sep 29, 2014 9:53 AM
clyde
390 posts
Sep 29, 2014
9:53 AM
I think they used a bullet mic and a tube amp because that is what they had. I also have always felt over drive and distortion came about only because they had to turn up those low power amps to be heard. Just my opinion.
Harpaholic
548 posts
Sep 29, 2014
10:04 AM
I agree Clyde, but I can't think of any old school players that played with a lot of distortion?

I hear thick, fat tone, but not much distortion.
clyde
391 posts
Sep 29, 2014
10:17 AM
Harpaholic,

You are right you don't hear on records. I was thinking more about live dances 50 years or so ago. Not always then either. It just seems like I hear a lot of guys with a lot of distortion these days.

Last Edited by clyde on Sep 29, 2014 10:19 AM
atty1chgo
1157 posts
Sep 29, 2014
10:49 AM
1847's post of the Paul Butterfield Blues Band clip makes my point exactly.

Of course we have our own opinions as to what "sounds good". That is not the point.

The term "Chicago tone" or "Chicago sound" has a pretty specific meaning, the overdriven - whether slightly or heavily distorted - sound, a fatter tone if you will.

The only point that I am making is that some of the greatest Chicago harp players in blues history - Carey Bell, Billy Branch, Sugar Blue, Junior Wells and yes, even Paul Butterfield (a classic example is the clip of the band playing "Driftin' Blues" at Monterey Pop posted below) played and play with a cleaner tone than many of the modern proponents, advocates, and aficionados of the "Chicago sound" who happen to be non-Chicagoans.

Among Chicago harp players, Big Walter Horton, James Cotton (in his Muddy Waters years), and Jerry Portnoy are the notable exceptions.


Last Edited by atty1chgo on Sep 29, 2014 10:53 AM
5F6H
1831 posts
Sep 29, 2014
11:56 AM
Maybe we should differentiate between Chicagoan players, whether typical of the sound or not, and the rather broad, vague term of "Chicago harp", which to me generally just means a mic, of pretty much any kind, cupped to a harp, usually, but not exclusively plugged into an amp (back in the day it would have been tube powered exclusively, but today there are options) - as in a sound that can initially be traced back to Chicago?

As to a distinct level of distortion, we can post up clips til the cows come home of cases for & against.

Atty1chgo - are you campaigning for some kind of 'appellation controlee', where only Chicago born/based harp players can be called "Chicago harp players"...? ;-)

I would, however, tend to agree that somewhere in translation that amped harp has often ended up crunchier than many of the earlier recordings, I put this partly down to changes in the amps (higher powered, fixed bias, push-pull post mid-50's amps), though in more recent years more folks have been digging up older, saggier, smoother amps from the 50's in a bid to revisit that sound.

But I think there's something in what Harpaholic says too, perceptions are individual to us and the term "Chicago harp" means different specific tonal nuances to different people...perhaps like a bunch of circles in a Venn diagram, where any one group is unlikely to be the absolute definition, but there may be some truth in most of the circles?

Just my thoughts, as a non-Chicagoan, but a harp player, who loves the sound & style of "what I call" Chicago harp...& any other caveats you may think to add...:-)
----------
www.myspace.com/markburness

Last Edited by 5F6H on Sep 29, 2014 11:58 AM
kudzurunner
4999 posts
Sep 29, 2014
12:42 PM
This is a great idea for a thread, atty1chgo. I think the issue is defined by three points:

1) The best-known exponent of the "Chicago sound" on harp is of course Little Walter, and his sound, at least on the many brilliant and influential recordings he's bequeathed to us, was defined by heavy distortion. "Blue Midnight," "Off the Wall," and "Back Track" might serve as evidence for this point. And "Juke," of course--although the other three arguably have heavier distortion.

2) Chicago style harp is also, at the same time, merely Mississippi harp brought north, and made somewhat louder by any means necessary--which, in some cases, meant that players were either blowing directly into the vocal mic or playing amplified harp through suboptimal equipment that didn't get much distortion. Cotton is a good example of a Chicago player who doesn't need much overdrive from an amp but who can get everything he needs right off the vocal mic.

3) In our own day, white revivalists and traditionalists with a retro approach have quite naturally focused on equipment--since having retro or retro-looking equipment (and clothing) is the quickest way of identifying yourself as "in the tradition." If you can't be a black man from the 1950s, you might as well dress and equip yourself like one, or like you imagine one to have dressed and equipped himself: so goes the (unconscious) justification.

Meanwhile, the two best-known contemporary African American exponents of Chicago-style harp (apart from Cotton), Billy Branch and Sugar Blue, have notably different approaches to equipment and tone, although both seem to prefer 1 x 12" cubes. Billy plays a dynamic mic through a delay pedal and for many years (and perhaps still) he preferred a solid state amp. Sugar Blue goes for much more distortion--really, something that deserves to be called overdrive. Neither one really goes for the Little Walter sound.
kudzurunner
5000 posts
Sep 29, 2014
12:47 PM
Actually, I think that Chicago-style harp means a specific kind of tongue-blocking approach that might be best exemplified by Big Walter's "Walter's Boogie" and anything Junior Wells plays on HOODOO MAN BLUES.



HarpNinja
3939 posts
Sep 29, 2014
1:27 PM
"3) In our own day, white revivalists and traditionalists with a retro approach have quite naturally focused on equipment--since having retro or retro-looking equipment (and clothing) is the quickest way of identifying yourself as "in the tradition." If you can't be a black man from the 1950s, you might as well dress and equip yourself like one, or like you imagine one to have dressed and equipped himself: so goes the (unconscious) justification."

I agree with the whole post, but think this is an underlying theme in the world of today's blues. If you look at those that were part of that 2nd generation of blues - guys that are still playing - there is a diversity to the gear and sound...and playing style.

----------
Mike
My Website
My Harmonica Effects Blog
5F6H
1832 posts
Sep 29, 2014
1:49 PM
@kudzurunner "Meanwhile, the two best-known contemporary African American exponents of Chicago-style harp (apart from Cotton)"...and Billy Boy Arnold, of course.
----------
www.myspace.com/markburness
kudzurunner
5001 posts
Sep 29, 2014
1:57 PM
Yes! My bad. You are absolutely right. So what happens when you throw him into the mix? Does Arnold's approach--either on the harp or in the matter of mic/amp choic, or both--add anything to this conversation?

I suppose the first thing that comes to mind is that although he uses an amplified sound, he doesn't use the LW sort of overdrive. This may be because of the second relevant point: he conceives of himself as squarely in the tradition of his mentor, John Lee "Sonny Boy I" Williamson. He's probably the best living exponent of that particular sound. Which might lead us to argue that "the Chicago sound" is in fact a range of sounds, since John Lee's sound was raw, basic, unamped harp. To my ears, Arnold takes that sound, throws a little tube distortion on it (but not much) and....well, that's what he does, at least these days. On his early recordings, he has somewhat more overdrive.

Last Edited by kudzurunner on Sep 29, 2014 1:58 PM
5F6H
1833 posts
Sep 29, 2014
2:38 PM
Indeed, a range of sounds & styles...

I think when most folk talk about Chicago harp they are meaning cupped, which SBW1 was anecdotally apt to doing, but not recorded as such. "Chicago harp sound", (geographically, certainly), Bluebird sound?

It could perhaps be argued that, other than identifying styles/levels of distortion (very subjective & which vary across the output of any player if they record enough)/embouchure that Chicago harp might be a player who is recorded at a Chicago studio/for a Chicago based label? To that end are there more objective parameters that come into play? Or does this confuse matters more, given that Chicago labels have recorded outside Chicago & bought in recordings from other regions? (I'm not suggesting this is a realistic basis on it's own for inclusion, just illustrating how complicated things get unless we all simply assume "Chicago harp" is what we, largely subjectively, like to think it is).

Atty1chgo said in his OP, "(Charlie Musselwhite is sometimes considered Chicago because he spent time here during the glory years, but has moved on since then for many years, and is not based in Chicago)." This is true of many "Chicago" players. Charlie recorded in Chicago and on seminal recordings. It's nice to imagine that LW, or SBW1 would never have left...but we'll never know.

Sugar Ray Norcia recorded with Roomful of blues with Chicago based Alligator, not to mention the extremely popular album he recorded with BW.(Perhaps we now have to include Bill Clarke? I'm sure that many already do consider him a Chicago style player...mentor George Smith isn't so much associated with Chicago these days, but has a Chicago pedigree as good as anyone?).

There are so many threads & angles, it seems that anyone who ticks absolutely every box (Billy Boy certainly does - born there, recorded there in the heyday of Chicago blues, massive international influence) would be in a tiny minority?
----------
www.myspace.com/markburness
atty1chgo
1158 posts
Sep 29, 2014
2:56 PM
Thanks for your posts, kudzurunner. I'll attempt to clarify the definition (again) for 5F6H's understanding, then address your comments.

-- What I mean by "Chicago harp players" is just that - harp players who have primarily lived and worked in Chicago during their most of their careers.

Which means NOT Rick Estrin, Kim Wilson, Rod Piazza, Dennis Gruenling, William Clarke - the list goes on. They are not "Chicago harp players"

Sugar Blue makes the list because although born in NYC, he did spend much time here during his up and coming years (with Willie Dixon), and is now based in Chicago.

Major "Chicago" harp players (historically) would be James Cotton, Junior Wells, Sonny Boy Williamson I, Big Walter Horton, Little Walter, Billy Branch, Sugar Blue, Corky Siegel, Paul Butterfield, Carey Bell, Billy Boy Arnold, and Jerry Portnoy. Charlie Musselwhite spent time here but moved on.

-- I don't think that anyone here is making the claim that "Chicago" tone or sound is a clean sound. Where I am making a distinction is that the "Chicago" style TONE / SOUND appears to have occurred more outside of Chicago in recent years than from within it.

-- Billy Boy Arnold in performance plays 99% of the time through a standing PA mic. I would hesitate characterizing his tone as heavily distorted.


- @ kudzurunner -

Below is a video of James Cotton blowing through a PA mic at a rehearsal with Keith Richards at the Hubert Sumlin benefit a while back. His solo starts at about 4:15 of the clip.

-- The clips that you posted are right on the money. But I think that Junior Wells sounds a little cleaner later in his career, as I think is shown in the third song on the clip below - "Cut That Out" you can click directly to the songs from the "Share" section of the YouTube page.

--- Regarding Sugar Blue and Billy Branch gear:

Here is a link to Sugar Blue's website from the Press Kit where he outlines his stage plan and backline. Last time I saw Blue, he was still using a Mega Boogie Mark amp (don't know the exact model) and I always see him using an Astatic JT-30, but I don't know if it has been modified. I will have to say that I do not know what he is using for his "Unplugged" gigs at Rosa's Lounge. I have seen him use a Shure mic rarely. He uses Hohner Special 20 harps, I asked him at a show one time what kind of harps he uses, and he pulled the familiar grey harp box out of his pocket and said "They (Hohner) sponsor me, so I use them." It didn't appear that he was interested in custom harps at all. I don't know the rest of his rig.

I like the description of Blue's sound - overdrive. It is a clean sound with a lot of power, at least that's what I get when I hear him in local venues.

http://www.sugar-blue.com/tech.html


-- Billy Branch uses, almost exclusively, an early 1980's era Peavey Special 130 solid state amp, with a old Boss Digital Delay, and an old Boss Reverb pedal. Recently he told me that he was experimenting with a Fender tube amp that has been modified for maximum use as a harp amp. His mic is an Electrovoice 635A dynamic stick mic used world-wide by reporters and newsmen in the field. I got him an EV RE-10 a few years ago, and he went back to the 635A after 6 months or so. He used the RE-10 at the last Hill Country Harmonica festival. He uses Suzuki Manjis exclusively. He mics his amp usually with a Shure SM57.








Last Edited by atty1chgo on Sep 29, 2014 3:09 PM
5F6H
1834 posts
Sep 30, 2014
4:19 AM
@Atty1chgo: "I'll attempt to clarify the definition (again) for 5F6H's understanding, then address your comments.
-- What I mean by "Chicago harp players" is just that - harp players who have primarily lived and worked in Chicago during their most of their careers.
Which means NOT Rick Estrin, Kim Wilson, Rod Piazza, Dennis Gruenling, William Clarke - the list goes on. They are not "Chicago harp players"
Sugar Blue makes the list because although born in NYC, he did spend much time here during his up and coming years (with Willie Dixon), and is now based in Chicago.
Major "Chicago" harp players (historically) would be James Cotton, Junior Wells, Sonny Boy Williamson I, Big Walter Horton, Little Walter, Billy Branch, Sugar Blue, Corky Siegel, Paul Butterfield, Carey Bell, Billy Boy Arnold, and Jerry Portnoy. Charlie Musselwhite spent time here but moved on."

The thread is titled "The Chicago Sound - Who Has It?". I perfectly well understand your point about a player needing to work in Chicago to be a "Chicago harp player" (it was also partly what I was getting at), but your exclusions seem somewhat arbitrary - Butterfield left Chicago for most of his career, for example. Being murdered young in Chicago & never having the opportunity to leave, doesn't seem like a choice/aspiration?

Again, I think you're implying Chicago harp players & Chicago harp sound must be synonymous, for a broad style of harp that has swept the world in influence (if not in legitimate provenance) in the last 60+ yrs, is there no room for players located largely outside of Chicago geographically to be adept at the style. Do all harp players in Chicago have to play blues?

Your definition means something to you (& I'm in total agreement with the players you do include), if you want to broadcast that definition, with no discussion, then a blog might be a better place? But ultimately, unless that definition is meaningful generally, you have to expect people to want clarification and for that definition to be consistent?

I think there are certainly tangible & objective grounds for inclusion, some with a bulletproof case...I'm not so comfortable with the casual nature by which others are excluded, especially not without some research & maybe feedback from those that are still around, who also may have spent significant, if not the majority of their time there?
----------
www.myspace.com/markburness
tmf714
2700 posts
Sep 30, 2014
6:49 AM
tmf714
2701 posts
Sep 30, 2014
6:50 AM
tmf714
2702 posts
Sep 30, 2014
6:54 AM
LFLISBOA
8 posts
Sep 30, 2014
9:04 AM
I think the best defition of Chicago Blues Harmonica would be the classic 50's-60's recorded sounds, with a cupped mic and a "heavier band sound" (2 guitars, bass and drums). John Lee Sonny Boy Williamson, Rhythm Willie, Jazz Gillum made their carreers in Chicago before that period, and I'd consider their sound different of what I'd call Chicago Sound from 50's or 60's. Players from that period, but I'd consider exceptions would be Jimmy Reed and SBW II, that don't usually cup the mic.
Billy Boy Arnold uses PA, but he rarely use hand effects like Sonny Terry or Phil Wiggins.
I think that a dirtier or cleaner sound is a matter of taste, but if it's cupped, it's part of the Chicago sound tradition.
Sugar Blue and Billy Branch are a generation younger, and they're mostly closer of the 50-60's sound than the 40's sound of Chicago.
It's just a way I'd like to think about Chicago Blues harmonica, doesn't mean that's right or wrong, I junt think it's easier to understand.
atty1chgo
1163 posts
Sep 30, 2014
3:59 PM
5F6H -

"Again, I think you're implying Chicago harp players & Chicago harp sound must be synonymous, for a broad style of harp that has swept the world in influence (if not in legitimate provenance) in the last 60+ yrs, is there no room for players located largely outside of Chicago geographically to be adept at the style."

-- Again, you fail to grasp the point. I am NOT stating that "Chicago harp sound" and "Chicago harp players" have to be synonymous. I am merely stating that most of the advocates of that sound LIVE OUTSIDE of Chicago. The statement of that opinion seems to irritate you. If detect a thread of less-than-total allegiance to the heavy sound from me, you are correct. It seems to be somewhat blasphemic on this Forum to dislike the heavily distorted "ideal" tone. I just don't care for it.

"Your definition means something to you (& I'm in total agreement with the players you do include), if you want to broadcast that definition, with no discussion, then a blog might be a better place? But ultimately, unless that definition is meaningful generally, you have to expect people to want clarification and for that definition to be consistent?"

-- The definition is consistent. And to state that I should take my comments to a blog is noted, but not likely to happen. :)
Harpaholic
549 posts
Sep 30, 2014
4:59 PM
It turned out to be a great topic of conversation, which is in limited supply here lately.

I wasn't going to jump back in, but what harp player/players are advocating the Chicago Sound?

I think their advocates of the music, but not their tone.
5F6H
1835 posts
Oct 01, 2014
12:39 AM
@Atty1chgo "The statement of that opinion seems to irritate you. If detect a thread of less-than-total allegiance to the heavy sound from me, you are correct. It seems to be somewhat blasphemic on this Forum to dislike the heavily distorted "ideal" tone. I just don't care for it."

I'm not in the least bit irritated really, though it might sound like I'm trying to rain on your parade, I'm really just trying to understand how you perceive the bigger picture, the universe as it relates to Chicago harp. Your preference is fine with me, if you don't like a harp sound with too much distortion, that's cool. That tone isn't then "ideal", it's perhaps a straw man argument to suggest that it is. I also noted earlier, that "in translation" (OK a bit vague of a term on my part) that folk listening to Chicago recordings often perceive a higher level of distortion than is there & maybe try and recreate the sound more driven, or think that crazy overdrive is "the goal" (I don't think it is, but folk have to play off a sound they like).

I even agree that less crunch/fuzz is more typical of Chicago recordings & players...but in the very early 50's amps distorted in a different way, often smoother, perhaps brassier, often less crunchy, sometimes more papery...a good deal of LW's recordings were treated with reverb that also exacerbated a brightness which is less evident on dry cuts from the session. Many of the studio cuts from the late 40's & 50's came from one studio, used by many labels. They had full time professional engineers to control sessions, they might be recording sermons, comedy, classical music the next session...how their influence (especially nowadays with relatively cheap, self produced & engineered recordings) affected sessions is open to speculation.

Focussing on specific amps, mics pedals, is bogging things down with minutiae, not least because we really don't know what was used for many sessions.

You are somewhat cherry picking clips to support your case, which is largely valid no doubt, but omitting clips that don't conform. They still exist, if not typical, I have no desire to identify players that don't meet your criterion as it seems churlish to me to try and identify Chicago players who at times have used a heavier sound & suggest they are perhaps anything less than true Chicago players? Sounds change from session to session, maybe for reasons beyond an artists control, listen to different LW sessions for example.

This is partly why I feel (just my feeling) that focussing on a very subjective issue like level of distortion/overdrive (all terms for non-linear operation of an amplifier - differentiating & hopping from term to term is largely semantics) isn't necessarily a good driver for definition.

Also as I stated earlier, the cat has been out of the bag for 60 yrs, Chicago blues has influenced the 4 corners of the globe, way beyond other US states, people are playing their interpretation of it in probably every medium sized town from Europe, to S America to Asia, it shouldn't be surprising that the majority of people who would make a claim to interpreting the style, even if somewhat innacurately by your view, are outside of Chicago.

We don't disagree on many of your points, but a definition has to have some objective parameters, a clear cut in/out. Not simply a knee jerk reaction to one compilation CD. Many players born elsewhere travelled to Chicago to experience Chicago blues & learn, some were lucky enough to stay, others were there for a shorter time (people have to earn money to live on, others might prefer to winter out somewhere warmer, back in the heyday a lot of players were likely to move around more) but still played with accepted greats, or on seminal recordings of genuine (for want of a better phrase) Chicago blues. If such is documented & can clearly be referred to, has been heard all over the world, it can't therefore just be eliminated on one person's say so.

Who is the Chicago player, someone who was born & worked there but perhaps never recorded, or the guy who moved there (like the majority of Chicago players), recorded with well known players & labels, stayed a few years, is a source of continuing influence, then took it somewhere else? One is clearly a Chicagoan, but both surely qualify as Chicago harp players with at least some legitimacy?

I do think you need to research players that you don't feel conform to your definition a bit more thoroughly.
----------
www.myspace.com/markburness

Last Edited by 5F6H on Oct 01, 2014 12:45 AM
Littoral
1146 posts
Oct 01, 2014
4:56 AM
Walking By Myself
That's it.
I won't even call it an opinion, just accept it.
Cross the grid and go with the glow.


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