Interesting article adding to the conversation on who owns the blues, do white people have the right to/or can even play blues etc – http://www.bluesworld.com/WHITEBLUES.html
Last Edited by Baker on Apr 13, 2015 5:22 AM
Interesting article, that has some valid points - perhaps more related to the time it was written than now. At least it seems from the dates to be written years ago.
But there's a bigger issue at stake imo.
Most traditional music forms are born from life experiences, good and/or bad. Blues, fado, gypsy, Indian, Malian, Soukous, etc.
In the big picture of human culture's music traditions I don't think any one tradition is elevated above others, they are all vibrant threads in the ongoing tapestry that is human evolution.
Who has "the right" to play them, especially way after the time of the form's birth and peak period of authentic development, performance, and popularity has long passed?
In a lot of cases they would die out if they were not picked up by "outsiders" and kept alive. Lots of examples of this. Traditional Shakuhachi in Japan in particular is one that immediately comes to mind.
It's not about the blues per se, it's about respect for human cultural traditions and how we keep them alive with some degree of authenticity imo. The fact is it will never ever be truly authentic anyway, if you are talking about the original form.
Touchy subject here, but I would say the issue whether white people have a right comes down to this: perhaps not, due to a long history of white racism that foisted slavery, genocide, discrimination and abject poverty upon black people.
Blues was created as an expression of the experience of subjugated African Americans.
BUT, and this a big one, how are you going to stop those white musicians who've loved the blues as they were growing up, who were moved by the power of the music to pick up instruments and learn from the records they heard? People love what they love and will do what they need to do to have that person/place/thing/art form in their lives because any of those elements (in this case, the music of the blues) is a right fit for an individual's personal experience, regardless of race.
Declarations and nuanced moral arguments to the extent that white people as a whole have foresaken the right to play a music that moves them greatly because the power structure in place and the institutions that enforce its will and traditions have brutally oppressed black people as a whole does not prevent white musicians from picking up a guitar or a harmonica or a saxophone and playing songs by black blues masters or from creating their own music, reflecting their own experience , strength and hope. The heart wants what the heart wants, and I am grateful that the likes of Butterfield, Mayall, Clapton, Bloomfield preferred to engage the music they loved by playing it and not treating it like it were a museum piece they were not worthy of touching. Things in museums are dead things, and the blues is a living testament to human resilience.
It is a form of speaking truth to power; the need to do so is not ethnically exclusive. Music writer J.Marks, in a book he wrote called "Rock and Other Four Letter Words" had at least one useful remark, to the effect that while America has been/is a country where the races segregate themselves by choice or other reasons, but even in that isolation from one another , our musics still mingle together and transform and change and grow and create new ways of expressing the mood, the art, the temper and tempo of the current situation. Right, it seems, has nothing to do with it. People are going to play what they feel like playing regardless of who created it. That is the nature of human beings, which is the nature of art making itself. ---------- Ted Burke __________________ ted-burke.com tburke4@san.rr.com
Last Edited by ted burke on Apr 13, 2015 6:28 AM
Why not go a step farther and say white people have no business writing about the blues ? How can a white writer possibly understand the black blues experience? Silly huh?
Good music is good music regardless of who is playing it
This quote is sometimes attributed to Duke Ellington and sometimes to Louis Armstrong
"There are two kinds of music. Good music, and the other kind"
Others may have a better ear than mine, but when I listen to music, I cannot tell by listening the race of the musicians.
Neither can Paul Simon. From the Wikipedia entry on Muscle Shoals:
"Rolling Stone editor David Fricke wrote that if one wanted to play a single recording that would "epitomize and encapsulate the famed Muscle Shoals Sound", that record would be "I'll Take You There" by The Staple Singers. After hearing that very song, American songwriter Paul Simon phoned his manager and asked him to arrange a recording session with the musicians who had performed it. Simon was surprised to be told that he would have to travel to Muscle Shoals to work with the artists. After arriving in the small town, he was introduced to the Muscle Shoals Rhythm Section ("The Swampers") who had recorded this song with Mavis Staples. Expecting black musicians (the original Rhythm Section consisted only of white musicians), and assuming that he had been introduced to the office staff, Simon politely asked to "meet the band". Once things were sorted out, Simon recorded a number of tracks with the group, including "Loves Me Like a Rock", "Kodachrome" and "Still Crazy After All These Years"."
I think blues musicians themselves made an argument for colorblindness. They welcomed artists like the rolling stones, clapton, etc. who clearly copied their music. They welcomed and regularly shared the stage with artists like SRV, Paul Butterfield, and others. Look at Sterling McGee and Nat Riddles bringing along Adam Gussow. I think a magazines position on celebrating people of color is a completely different issue. Not to mention some other valid points. However as to the "right" to play the blues. In the words of B.B. King - "I've said that playing the blues is like having to be black twice. Stevie Ray Vaughan missed on both counts, but I never noticed."
Ah, Paul Garon's dusty diatribe from 20 years ago. It was dated even then.
There's lots to be said about the issue; I've said my own piece more than a few times here, and once, back in 2000, I wrote a piece for Thirsty Ear, a series of "half truths" about the contemporary blues scene that took on the myth of authenticity in a range of ways.
Suffice it to say that the subject is complex, not simple, and anybody who thinks it's simple is mistaken.
This past Saturday, the act the preceded the Blues Doctors on the was the Hal Reed and Ellis Kell blues duo. Hal was black; Ellis was white. Both men were in their late 40s or early 50s, I'd bet. They were accompanied by a 7 year old black kid on drums. Ellis, the white guy, had an excellent, weather old blues voice and played great grooving acoustic guitar. Hal had a good voice, too--not quite as good as Ellis's--and his harmonica playing wasn't, to be honest, very good. The kid was a great drummer.
Here's Hal Reed on harp.
Here's Hal in a band context. He's got a good look and great energy.
My point is: there are many different kinds of blues players. I've heard absolutely fantastic white blues singers and absolutely terrible ones. I prefer the good ones to the not-good ones. Same with harp players.
Last Edited by kudzurunner on Apr 13, 2015 10:45 AM
How about the born and bred country singer from a big eastern city who climbs the music charts wearing a cowboy hat and boots. He or she might have never ridden a horse, lost a dog, owned a truck or married a cheating spouse but they apparently fell in love and embraced the sound as their voice at some point. I might seem incongruous that a guy from the Bronx sings with a country inflection about things he never experienced but I don't think he should be crucified.
I have just recently taken to gospel music tho I haven't been inside a church in decades. My knowledge of these songs has been nil or peripheral with the exception of Amazing Grace. I love playing the melodies and although some may get the wrong picture of me as a person my only concern is that I perform them well and that they enjoy the music. Amen.
JustFuya, I had a guy walk up to me after one of our shows and ask if, based on the tunes we'd done, we'd consider ourselves a spiritual band. I let him know the guitar player and the bass player were but that I wasn't particularly, but I do love some of the melodies. (We did a nice version of Wayfaring Stranger at the time.) For years I sang in choirs that did old timey church stuff because I loved the sound.
And personally I'm not much on country music, but for whatever reason my voice fits it well. I've used twang sometimes to kind of make fun of the country sounding numbers I've come up with. I think my parody might be too subtle though, because people don't seem to take it as parody.
i do not want to diss anybody,but is it just me,or are those videos kind of hard to listen to?possibly "not to my taste"
as far as white people playing blues,i thought we were supposed to avoid these kind of subjects.but,since we are.
i was recently interviewed by the philadelphia ethical society about this very subject.
to make a long story short,i think white people should play blues if they want.what i don't like is to hear a white person imitate an older black person.(although my guitar player for years,who is black,used to do it as a joke alter ego,much to the chagrin of the african american bass player )i think that is where authenticity comes to play.
of course,i am talking about vocals here.fake grit vocals bug me.
i think the imitation is different than appropriation ,which is why ,say,iggy azaelea might get more flack than,say, eminem.
i guess this is a touchy subject,and if i have said anything offensive,moderators please feel free to delete my post,or suggest edits. ---------- www.shakeylee.com
This does come up every year or two. It makes for good discussion. Many good points are made.
Here is my good point: The truest form of oppression, the color associated with the worst division between anyone on the planet, is the color green. If you got the green you can do what you want and buy your way to a successful business on the backs of whatever poor section of humanity is easily accessible. If you don't, better keep your shovel handy.
Skill is given based on something other than skin tone. So is intelligence and luck. We can't know who "deserves" what. We as individuals CAN make use of the gifts we are given and use them to share good feelings. Jawbone and Jolene stand for this.
Adam, once again I missed you at JJF! We had planned a big weekend with a 2 night stay there but circumstances dictated a day trip on Saturday only. We shared the Gazebo but in different time slots! One of these fests we'll get to chat and support each others' endeavors.
To me personally- and this is to every reader of this thread-, I don't care what your background is as a person. If we have this music in common, or we both like to fish, or camp, or whatever, we can have good times together. This music is a great meeting ground, when and where ever! ---------- http://www.reverbnation.com/jawboneandjolene
@baker : "Interesting article adding to the conversation on who owns the blues, do white people have the right to/or can even play blues etc"
I don't find it interesting at all .. to question if someone that happen to be born white "have a right / or can play the blues "
100% BS imho + there are a few thoughts voiced in that paper .. unf'believible
"Indeed, if we did start talking about race and the way we hear the blues, we'd find out that many (white) people like to hear the blues played by whites more than they like to hear it played by blacks; many blacks vastly prefer to hear the blues played by blacks; many, many, people lie and say they don't care who plays it; and a very, very few people aren't lying when they say they don't care who plays it. (But don't worry. You and I aren't one of them.)"
"How ironic if the white blues performers, who so reputedly respect their black mentors, are only another instrument aiding and abetting white rule."
Komuso said it best imo .."It's not about the blues per se, it's about respect for human cultural traditions and how we keep them alive with some degree of authenticity imo. The fact is it will never ever be truly authentic anyway, if you are talking about the original form. "
Last Edited by mastercaster on Apr 15, 2015 9:08 AM
This is a tune I do and it sums up how I feel: ============================================= KENNY WAYNE SHEPHERD LYRICS
"Everybody Gets The Blues"
It don't matter if you're rich It don't make no difference if you're poor Simple things in life can make you mad to the core It doesn't matter if you're young Don't make no difference if you're old You got to stand a little rain Before you reach a pot of gold
[Chorus:] Everybody gets the blues Everybody got to cry Take the good with the bad Take the lows and the high Well you work and you worry Spend you life paying dues Everybody has a hard time sometime Everybody gets the blues
Ain't no different for a woman Than it is for a man Everybody goes dancing Everybody pays the band Everybody got to take Everybody got to give Everybody got to eat Everybody got to live
[repeat chorus]
Don't matter if you're fat Don't matter if you're thin Everybody got to lose Everybody got to win Don't matter if you're black Don't matter if you're white You know you got to get it wrong To have a chance to make it right
I've only got one thing to say on this topic, that I think might not have been said here before. There is a lot about the blues that is universal and that's what attracts people to it. However, where appropriation can slip in, I think, is in the context of a performance. If a white performer chooses to perform an old blues standard in front of a present-day audience and does not attribute it or say anything about it's origins, or what it's about (if it's not obvious), then that performer is running the risk of disrespecting or misrepresenting the song or original artist. I'm thinking of some "pre-war" era blues songs, still popular today, that were about the Jim Crow-era realities of life, say, "Another Man Done Gone". To sing this song without prefacing remarks would be disrespecting the original song and singers. It would be better not to assume the audience knows any of that context. It would also be respectful to do your homework first to find out the history and meaning of a song before you sing it in public. I'm not sure if I'm making my point clearly, but that's the best I can do at the moment. ----------
Last Edited by mr_so&so on Apr 15, 2015 1:34 PM
Well, The Blues is an art form and the expression of oppressed people and aspects of that art form resonate through time with people who are also human and can relate, empathise however acutely or mildly with those songs, stories and facts, as the cat above said, it's about respecting and remembering where it all came from and what it represents and I have to say, for me, after seeing tons of blues performers, nearly every single one of them want to tell their audience about a song's origins or where they first heard it, whether through Muddy, Robert Johnson, Son House, Sonny Boy or whomever's song they are covering or who they were inspired by! I also think that being a die hard blues musician or fan you cannot but feel obligated to know at the very least some or all of the history of the blues and the people who created it and that's not just the musicians sometimes.
The blues, over all, is the capacity to speak the truth about one's experience, pain and joy and to recognize the world as it exists , not as you want it to be and think it is. Having the blues is a state where the individual comes to trust his gut over the seductions of religion, politics and bosses and feels deeply, deeply. Blacks , inventors of the blues, spoke from their collective experience in the songs of individual black men and women performers, knew this world-as-it-is better than anyone else in the prevailing culture; Norman Mailer , in his problematic essay "the White Negro" made the crucial distinction between the experience of blacks and whites being that white people do not live with the daily fact and likelihood that horrible violence could fall upon them as black people do. It is the kind of knowledge that makes up an attitude,a style, a culture and a politics, as LeRoi Jones (aka Amiri Baraka) argues in "Blues People". In this regard, the lyrics to "Everybody Gets the Blues" are ludicrous and devalue the profundity of the black experience in the creation of the blues. While there are those who argue that white people haven't the right by dent of historical circumstance to have any truck with black music, I do think that the ability to see "life on life's terms", to be honest and undeluded about one's emotions, to speak truth in themes where bull shit and baloney conquer all, is not exclusive to black musicians. There are white musicians who are legitimate blues men. More succinctly , there are white musicians who take the blues and make it there own. I am not high on the whole universal approach to coming to grips with blues artists; it's something that has to be earned on a case by case basis. I would insist that what Johnny Cash does with this version of "Another Man Done Gone" is haunted, powerful, stark and beautiful, still the blues, but with that touch of the poor white trash who'se hardships reflect bad luck, foul weather and unjust death and poverty. ---------- Ted Burke __________________ ted-burke.com tburke4@san.rr.com ---------- Ted Burke __________________ ted-burke.com tburke4@san.rr.com
Last Edited by ted burke on Apr 15, 2015 5:13 PM
I'm fully aware of the artificially-created categories of (black) blues and (white) country music genres by the early recording studios. Also, that the class system has exploited the under-privileged, independent of race. My comment above still stands, irrespective of the song or artist(s) involved. Performers today, to be fully respectful, need to do their homework about the songs they sing, and explain to the present day audience what the song is about and where it came from if they choose to sing it, to be fully respectful of the music. @marine1896, I'm pleased that is your experience. I still see plenty of covers that don't recognize the origins. ----------
Last Edited by mr_so&so on Apr 15, 2015 4:11 PM
I have been Reading "Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877" by Eric Foner. It is fascinating how looking more detail at what happened then changes your understanding of what is going on today. The magnitude of the betrayal that must have been felt by former slaves ad freedman who briefly had the right to vote and hold public office before a violent reversal, would certainly give rise to musical expression. I listened to a couple of Adam's Blues Talks in which it was suggested that the betrayal of a lover in many blues songs might be understood as code for the betrayal of the freed slaves. In studying and learning some of the songs from the era I came across this post war song from a rebel point of view.
With this kind of sentiment among those who were still in power, and had some very violent factions, I can see why you would need to write your expressions about the social/political situation in code.
That doesn't mean blues can not be other things also, but I can see that some of the songs were code for a less universal and horrible betrayal than just having a lover cheat on you.
I think there is some serious overthinking being done here. I spent the twelve hours 'required' to complete Kudzu's Blues Talk, and it had a very strong impact on me and provided a historical and emotional context for blues that I had not appreciated. But it also suggested that, like everything cultural, it is evolving. I'm no student of the music, but I pay attention and it seems like blues encompasses much more than oppression, threats of violence, sadness, historical wrongs, life as tragedy. I'm an old(er) white guy who has, over the few years I've been paying attention, had a growing list of old blues songs that I just won't play and sing. My life is too far from those songs. It would be disrespectful. But what I appreciate is that there is so much more to blues. It's also about feeling good, making the best of it, having a good time, putting bad stuff behind you for a while, and being alive. It's music for God's sake. 8 bars, 12 bars, 16 bars... sad, happy, ironic, angry, remorseful, wistful, fast, slow, celebratory, mournful...all those things. And I don't think any of them have a predominant color. I'm not about to start feeling bad about playing and singing blues, new or old. I know where they came from and respect that. Keep them there and, as others have said, they die there. ---------- Phil Pennington
Got to open this perception , and put it up on the discussion table ..
What about the rest of the World .. outside the U.S. , Europe, Australia ?? What about the folks in SE Asia , South America etc. ??
The Blues has become very popular around the globe .. Do these folks Not have a Right to play and sing this genre of music because they are not of direct african decent ? Should they stick to their traditional tunes and not expand their musical horizon's ?
Sorry I might get blasted for saying the following , the following is directed at Anyone who says Non Blacks don't have a 'right' to play the blues .. btw , I went back and reread the U.S. "Bill of Right's" .. nowhere in there does it say "white, brown , red and yellow boys and girls don't have the "Right" to play the blues" ……….
Climb down off your bigoted politically incorrect high horse .. Lower yourself down into the 'real' world .. get out of the sheltered womb you are living in … and grow the F up ! and on a side note, as George Carlin says .. "Stay off the Dance Floor" !
There are folks all over the globe who play and love this music .. they are not directly of african decent ...
The folks I live with , play with , english , or , as I define it .. american, is their second or third language , the same in many countries .. many Do Not know what the lyrics mean , do not know who wrote or sometimes even sang the songs they sing … but they love the music , melodies etc .. and they can and do play the h#ll out of it ! You going to be the one to tell them .. Stop playing this music .. you don't understand the lyrics , the history …
I had a very gifted local rock/blues singer / guitar player ask me a while back .. "what is Mojo, what does it mean ?" He's been singing Mojo Working for several years …
I now live 15 years, in the 4th most populated country in the world, it was oppressed/colonized by the dutch for 350 years (plenty of slavery then and i'm sad to say .. unseen but even now) + 60 yrs. of local dictatorship .. 17 years into a new democrazy .. do these folks not have the 'Right' to play the blues ?
What you got to say about this … phenomena ?
Last Edited by mastercaster on Apr 15, 2015 9:54 PM
"I had a very gifted local rock/blues singer / guitar player ask me a while back .. "what is Mojo, what does it mean ?" He's been singing Mojo Working for several years …
@Komuso ,, go figure Robin would be the one to lose his Mojo .. I'd venture to guess that ain't all he lost ! All dressed up in tights … hmmm
These folks here just don't know the language , slang , stories .. but they can and do play, weird thing they can 'capture' and play the feeling of a song , ya it's copying a master like Muddy or Wolf or whoever .. and they Want to know the meanings .. I translate when they ask help ..
Last Edited by mastercaster on Apr 15, 2015 9:56 PM
Is this just a giant coincidence that a thread about 'race music' coincides with the 150 anniversary of Lincoln's assassination ??
I've been on some of the other threads doing my best to pretend that this one isn't going on so I tried to ignore it.
How did I wind up on a southern blues forum talking about race music and who has the right to sing what ? It's a question I'll have to ask and answer myself I guess.
You see one of my uncle's was of the 'Wrong Race' perhaps you have heard of it, it was quite famous, it was this country called Germany. My uncle was an escapee from hitler's germany . I guess it never occurred to us that he might be singing the wrong songs...
I'll agree with Diggs and any others who say shut it down..
Last Edited by Spderyak on Apr 16, 2015 6:16 AM
I'm in favor of the position that blues (and jazz) were a uniquely black american invention, created by these folk, and once out there, belong to everyone.
Many white jazz artists are considered authentic, so this should also spill over to white blues artists.
That's not to say that every non-black musician plays authentically or has something to say, but many do.
Roy Book Binder and John Hammond Jr sound pretty authentic blues to me. ---------- The Iceman
Last Edited by The Iceman on Apr 16, 2015 7:32 AM
@spderyak: 'shut it down'.... why shouldn't we even discuss it? If people can't do it civilly, or are offended by the very discussion, they shouldn't click on it! Its a valid and interesting topic. ---------- Lucky Lester
Dr.Hoy, I don't know that there is a huge difference. All music is about context. Lots of popular old songs have some horribly racist verses that don't get sung much anymore, but there are also a lot of lyrics that the lines depend on the context. I wish I could remember the name of the song- there was a song someone wanted to do, but they couldn't find the lyrics so a couple of us gave the original recording a bunch of listenings and tried to piece it together. One of the lines was something like, 3 dogs, two high yellow. At first glance, it's just describing the color of the dogs, but high yellow is a pretty loaded term. It's often used to refer to lighter skinned black people (often by other darker skinned blacks) and is often derogatory. In that case, a white guy singing that line (it wasn't clear he was actually talking about dogs) is stepping in a hornets nest. In fact, it might get someone with dark skin in trouble too. I think after we were sure we got the lines transcribed correctly it didn't seem derogatory in that particular situation, but frankly at first, we didn't know.
But it's not just the blues. Every culture is going to have songs that has stronger meanings for them. The Minstrel Boy is probably something you should use tact playing in Ireland if you are English, unless you are tactful about it. It's just with blues (and probably jazz, or rap for that matter) a lot of songs are likely to have deeper meanings because musically in the U.S. we still tend to segregate along color lines. That doesn't mean you can't play them, but if you do, you should understand them well enough to know how they are going to go over. I mean, everything comes down to context. You probably should think twice before you play 'One bourbon, one whiskey, one beer' at the funeral of someone who died in a drunk driving accident.
It's more complicated that just some people doing a skit in Australia in blackface, because for whatever reason it doesn't seem to have the same connotations there, at least until there is an American judge.
@spderyak: 'shut it down'.... why shouldn't we even discuss it? If people can't do it civilly, or are offended by the very discussion, they shouldn't click on it! Its a valid and interesting topic.
It is a slippery slope once you start down it that's for sure. It's a akin to saying Suzuki harmonicas should only be played by Yellow people or that blacks have no business playing harmonicas because they should only be played by the Aryan race.
Here is a quote of something I've read many times from the preamble to this forum actually...
".... Some of us are black. Some of us are white. Some of us are Asian. Some of us are mixed. Some of us hail from countries other than America, or have family who do. Some of us are interracially married. Some of us are gay. All of us share a love for blues harmonica...."
Even if unintentional the topic looks like it's baiting people to get into a whole racial thing that actually has very little to do with our love of playing blues .
No different than starting a thread about Red Blues or Yellow People blues.
Hiding our heads in the sand or putting blinders on by simply not clicking on the thread is a form denial that such things exist.
Really with all the things going on in the world and the continued enslavement of others surely there are better things to do than sit around with our coffee cups carrying on about what color a person should be to sing a song !
Last Edited by Spderyak on Apr 18, 2015 5:37 AM
@mr_so&so ; ''marine1896, I'm pleased that is your experience. I still see plenty of covers that don't recognize the origins.''
That could be just a British thing though, showing respect for the music and it's history. But, I have heard plenty American artists pay the same respect and in some cases they even actually knew the person/persons personally. Sure, there's a ton of blues music out there covered everyday it would be nice in a perfect world of big brain's and scholars to credit all those traditional songs but that ain't gonna happen! But, if there are a dedicated group of performers performing blues and they know their history they can impart that to certain audiences but you need to also know your audience and when you can impart that knowledge not if your in a local bar and everyone is as pissed as a fart and wanting to boogie and you want to shoosh them to give them a cultural lesson, not every audience is a blues society or a bunch of blues academics.
On other points (not directed at mr_so&so) , you can't segregate music!
@spyderyak: I don't think anyone in this thread has really carried on about what colour a person has to be to sing a song; in fact it seems to me the consensus is quite the opposite. And while its true that the racial thing has very little to do with our love of playing the blues, as a blues lover I find the cultural context and the origins of the music both enriches my understanding and deepens my appreciation for the blues. ---------- Lucky Lester
Interesting to note : the OP has not followed up , posted or interjected any opinion since the original post almost a week ago .. the OP obviously has been a member here for a while ..
Why would anyone open up such a thread/subject and not follow up ?
True, 1847, but not really on the point. I don't think anyone has even suggested white guys can't -physically- play the blues. The discussion is whether we are stealing it from it's proper owners and/or doing racial parody when we perform it- on some occasions, under certain circumstances. On some occasions, under certain circumstances we probably are stealing something we don't much of a cultural connection too. If I was to sing 'Strange Fruit' down at the local coffee shop, particularly without putting it in context I'd probably get thrown out on my ear. But say there was a cultural awareness event and the organizer, who was African American, had heard me sing songs, and wanted me to sing that song, well, even then I'd be worried, but context is king and it might work in that situation. Lots of blues has language that is racially loaded, or topics that are racially loaded. Lots of white blues performers have a tendency to take on dialects they don't normally have. When a kid takes on a British accent to sing punk, I don't think it's much of a big deal (although there is some pretty strong irony if a upper middle class kid is singing British working class anthems).
When I was a kid we'd call lost of people 'posers' if we didn't think they were being emotionally authentic. There are different ways you can play the blues. You can attack them just like any other song, or you can mimic them, either out of respect or out of parody, or you can make them your own, or present them for what they are, as part of the story of America. If you sing a song that is a product of your culture you can even take some ownership of it culturally, and yes, if you are a member of a group that has been historically oppressed you get to sing it from that place. There are combinations of those elements that don't work. If you sing it and you sing it as a parody of an oppressed culture, or just see it as a paycheck without understanding the deeper meanings you aren't doing the form justice.
That doesn't mean you can't perform it. We have free speech, so you are always entitled to say/sing what you want, but if you are singing blues without understanding what it's all about are you really singing the blues?
