Kudzu, you do seem like a modernist crank to me but this is "modern blues harmonica" so I can hardly blame you.
I don't really get the race element to all of this, to me music is either good or not good and I don't worry about who the audience is or the skin color of the players. Kudzu has obviously thought a lot about this and who am I to really argue, I've been a musician all my life but only have been playing harp and seriously studying blues for about 5 years. Maybe after 30 years I will feel different. Maybe not.
The blues of the 1950s was a classic era, the same with the bebop jazz and rock n roll that was all taking shape at that time in history. It is marvelous music and I don't see anything wrong with a purist approach to appreciating and playing that music. It sounds good to me so in MY heart I know it's right. To be honest I don't see that many "pure old school" blues acts. There's a few I'm aware of like the Headhunters and Mark Mumea's Silver Kings and I love that those guys are doing justice to the form and I love to hear that stuff. But most of the other current blues acts I see on the local circuit have incorporated all kinds of styles into their set lists and again, it doesn't really matter to me as long as it's good. I think Aki Kumar's Bollywood blues is a really good example of fusing styles that honors traditional blues while taking it somewhere new at the same time. I also really dig the West Coast swing styles but I really just like anything that's good! Some of the stuff that got posted particularly that "corn liquor" song in the other thread was not good AT ALL in my opinion but maybe that's just me being a white boy blues snob but somehow I don't think so.
---------- 4' 4+ 3' 2~~~ -Mike Ziemba Harmonica is Life!
Getting back to the original topic, here’s a snippet of an interview with Charlie Lange, a SoCal music promoter, on Blues Junction by David Mac. All four parts of the interview are worth a read, but in this bit Charlie tries to explain his take on the differences between the modern black &white blues markets.
CL: Basically the difference is in the black blues market the lyrics are everything, it’s all about songs. In the white blues market they listen to the instruments and they’re much more important than the lyrics in a lot of bands. The singing in many cases is just an afterthought.
DM: I think most of our readers have a pretty good grasp of the concept of the white blues-rock, neo virtuoso worship that applies to guitar players almost exclusively. Let’s talk about the black blues market. Is it still thought of as primarily dance music?
CL: It’s still that way in the south but there’s this lascivious kind of nasty r&b stuff that is popular in the south with black audiences now. Some examples would be songs like, “Pay Before You Pump” by Denise LaSalle, “Nibble Nibble Man” by Lee Shot Williams. All of this stuff is based on this slightly naughty kind of dirty joke style material.
http://www.bluesjunctionproductions.com/charlie_lange_part_1_a_background_in_music
Last Edited by Sundancer on Nov 26, 2017 9:49 PM
I remember reading about a study that showed the music you liked in your teens and early twenties would always sound the best to you no matter what else you listened to since then. I don't recall the exact explanation but it had something to do with the brain releasing more "feel good" chemicals and being able to make stronger neural connections, as well as that we make stronger emotional connections to music at that stage of our lives.
This holds true for me. It was in my late teen/early twenties that I discovered John Lee Hooker, Muddy Waters and Hownlin' Wolf, and I'm yet to find any blues music that sounds better to me. This music was a big part of the soundtrack to that period of my life and brings back memories of nights out with friends, girls, drinking, traveling etc.
That's not to say I don't listen to modern stuff or think it's not good, just that I don't like it as much and don't have the same connection to it.
I dare say lots of other people are in the same boat and this has a lot to do with the preference for blues from that era.
I agree with Glass Harp Full's comments. I think what you grew up on influences what you like now.
I grew up on Classic Rock and to me, good rock music was made from the late 60's to the very early '80's. Call me a music snob.
For the blues, I mostly listen to the Muddy Waters era. That music speaks to me. That is the music I think of when I think of the blues. It was during this period that some of the greatest blues harmonica-based songs were created and are now considered the classics or standards.
In regards to modern blues, I do love me some Keb' Mo'.
At what point does a non-traditional style of blues that includes beatbox, hip hop, jazz, rock, or some other style of music in the song, move the song over from being considered blues?
An example is Kenny Wayne Shepherd. I consider this style of music as more of Blues Rock than just blues.
Last Edited by Blind Melon on Nov 27, 2017 9:51 AM
Hey Sundancer, I’m sorry you got spite from my post. Not the intent.
Kudzu, if you say it’s not about you, fair enough. I must have read the OP wrong. I think it’s easy enough to do. It still looks to be about you to me; the title is ‘if I seem to be a modernist crank’ which seems quite subjective. Then the opening par is all about a subjective concept you have, dividing the world into “traditional” and “modernist”, with a watershed moment in 1965. I’m not aware of any basis for this division. It seems to be all about you, a way that you see things.
And then the second par is all about you playing superstition and claiming it’s the same as piazza playing rockin’ robin. And the opening sentence is phrased rather defensively, (why NOT ...) and you straightaway move to personal justification: ‘... my teenage years.’
I started thinking about it when I read the OP. It in fact did look to be almost totally about you. Far from an attempt to hijack, it seemed to me that subsequent posts had not addressed the core issues in the OP. But of course, you didn’t ask for a review of your clip. It may be just that as you picked a song where the original is so wonderful, and you’re treatment of it is so difficult for me to listen to, I took a rather personal view of it also.
So, since it seems you’re actual intent was to be controversial and stimulate a discussion, maybe let’s address this concept you have about modern and traditional mindsets and why you think this is a thing, and what 1965 has to do with it. With that measure I’m clearly in the ‘modernist’ camp. And yet I expect you’d call me a traditionalist. I’d probably call myself a fan of traditional blues harp if I was pushed. But maybe I’d say blues harp.
I hope you’ll come back and address this question.
Meanwhile, the stuff about people continuing to dig thevstuff they listened to in their early 20s: I’ve heard this. My local record store proprietor says most folks who shop with him keep buying the same stuff. It’s not like a ‘new release top 40’ store. Maybe it’s right, kinda generally. I was listening almost exclusively to the Beatles from when I was 9 until I was about 16. There was some other stuff, but I was Beatles-mad. My first album was actually the beach boys Smiley Smile and I still love that, even more these days. It’s actually in my car CD player right now, but there have been decades pass by where I never heard it. I got that record when I was 8. Good vibrations is probably my ‘favourite’ pop song (I wouldn’t ever want to hear a harp version btw, anymore than I want to hear the Percy Faith Strings album of Beatles instrumental covers)
Now, I still like Beatles records but I don’t play them much. I rarely play the stones, Zappa, Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, Jethro Tull, pink Floyd, ccr etc. all stuff I heard a lot in my teens and 20s. Looking at that list I see I don’t even really feel nostalgic for most of it. Some of the Zappa and Floyd maybe. The odd track.
But when I was 17 I went to a John mayall concert, and again the next year. This was the one that turned me on to blues, and the records I bought subsequently led me to Sonny Boy 2. I got my first SBW2 record when I was 18. I don’t listen to Mayall anymore, but this has only happened over the last few years. I do still listen to SBW2. Clearly it’s about the harp. Almost all the music I love now is stuff I got into post my 20s. While I still have a nostalgic feeling about some stuff I was listening to a lot in my 20s, apart from the blues of Sonny Boy and Muddy Waters i really don’t feel much connection to it. I was big on Johnny Winter, and I still love his first record and the records he made with Muddy, I’m so grateful he made those, but I don’t really care for the rest of his output. Sometime in the 90s I just decided to investigate jazz. I knew there was this whole section of the record store that I didn’t know about. I started with kind of blue and giant steps. Then I bought a blue note sampler called sharp shades and finger snaps, and heard Freddie Hubbard, Lee Morgan, jazz messengers et al. That stuff took me over. I stopped listening to songs with words for a while but then I started digging Chet Baker. And I also found I could start appreciating opera singers and classical music. I’m far from an opera buff and my knowledge of classical music is scant but I’m no longer closed off to it as I once was. And then I came back around to blues, mainly because I revived an interest in blues harp and by 2009 I was starting to get right into it. I don’t like the harp in all music. I don’t agree you can take a harp and play anything and it’s good. You know, I’m reluctant to single anyone out, so I won’t. I do find there is quite a lot of music played on harp which is not to my taste. Even though it’s undeniably great music, played well, and with nothing which would draw my ire comparable to Adams’s drum. But it’s the timbre of the harp in that stuff, and especially the chromatically-played diatonic, which leaves me cold. There are exceptions. But just a lot of stuff which I know I’d like a lot better if it was played on a different feature instrument I don’t think this is accurately portrayed as a distinction between traditional and modern, at least insofar as pre or post 1965. That distinction seems contrived and simplistic, to me. I love the chromatic work of bill galison for instance, toots somewhat less (which is not to say not at all). But I really can’t listen to pop-hits versions of things, featuring harmonica in place of some other instrument which would serve the song much better. I use a harmonica in this way, at times, but not in a lead role. I think it’s valuable as an exercise but rarely when presented as entertainment.
So, the question of modern/traditional? To me, subjectively I see a distinction maybe in a traditional use of a harmonica in blues music vs a non-traditional (ie not ‘modern’ per se) use of harmonica in a broader sense. I think Lester butler for instance used harp in a traditional way. I think billy branch does too. Even sugar blue. John popper probably also. Primich and delay? Also pretty traditional. Those 2 guys interest me actually. I like their playing a lot, but I rarely listen to them due to their songwriting. I’d like to like their stuff but there’s just something about it I can’t get into. I feel like you probably had to be there, same with blues traveller. I don’t know a single person who cares about them and I suspect that’s because I’m 53 and australian. Anyway, I’ve lost the plot now about where that was going, but I don’t buy this 1965 thing and I’d really like to see kudzurunner work a bit harder to establish his premise for the OP and his mindset which divides the world of blues harp into modern and traditional. And again, sorry if I misinterpreted that OP but it still looks very subjective to me.
Over the past few years with streaming radio being so easy I have been finding a lot of younger bands that combine rock, blues, funk, punk, and pretty much anything else that they can fit in, there's a hell of a lot of talent out there that i have trouble throwing a name on cause the music style changes as needed. But maybe that is where things are going lesser known bands, no more rock stars, people that play more cause they love it than for the money, with the only ones getting rich and famous are the no talent hacks, if there are new black blues band out there, I'd like to hear them, if there are new white blues bands out there, I'd like to hear them. Blues has been around a long time and for all the changes there is still a feeling that comes through, catches hold and lets you know its blues, the new stuff must have that, if not, well.
I think that the first paragraph of my OP is about as transparent and self-explanatory as I can make it. Here's what I wrote, with the [strategically] self-referential subject line removed:
"[A] blues harmonica traditionalist mindset tends to drop the curtain in 1965, in terms of allowable influences from black music and blues defined more broadly to include white contributions to the blues tradition. But a whole lot of blues and R&B and funk and blues-rock has happened since then, and it seems to me that people in our historical moment, looking backward, don't need to look back to the 40s, 50s, and early 60s and then bolt and lock the doors."
I picked 1965 because that's the moment when the combined onslaught of the British blues invasion and the Butterfield Blues Band made electric blues a mainstream white thing for the first time--even as electric blues was suddenly and drastically losing its appeal for black audiences, particularly black youth audiences. Muddy had been losing his market share since 1955--that's when rock and roll came in, led by Bo Diddley and Chuck Berry, displacing Muddy and Walter from front & center at Chess, according to all the histories of the time. But '65 is when the revolution really happened.
Please rebut my claim, if you can. My claim is that blues traditionalists, including blues harmonica traditionalists, are almost entirely uninterested in incorporating influences from post-1965 black music--not just blues, but jazz, R&B, and hip hop. In this, they are diverging radically from, for example, the behavior of Little Walter, who was very interested in the musical flux that was swirling around him, especially jazz.
"Superstition" was released in 1972. It's old, old stuff. Stevie's "Fingertips" is ten years older than that--but it's still something that blues traditionalists, chromatic harp in hand, almost never cover.
I'm simply struck by the weirdness of it all. Blues traditionalists swear fealty to black music, but only a particular, time-delineated and by now somewhat archaic version of black music--very much like those white aficionados who, confronted with bebop in the 1940s, recoiled in horror, insisted that "That's not jazz!", and retreated to the black music of the 1920s.
But again: please rebut my claim, if you can. My hunch is that you'll find a few passing exceptions but that they'll support rather than undercut my claim. You can certainly, for example, find blues traditionalists who cover a few hard bop tunes from the early to mid 1960s: "Chitlins Con Carne," "Moanin'," and the like. But then the curtain falls. Instead of drawing on the wealth of funk, soul, and R&B from the late 1960s and especially the 1970s, much less the hip hop of the last thirty years, they retreat to.....the Chess Records songbook. Meanwhile, Junior Wells was trying to turn himself into James Brown back in the 1980s! High energy funk with a rock edge IS the contemporary Chicago blues sound. But you'd never know that from the blues traditionalists. They play OLD Chicago blues, not contemporary Chicago blues. Rico McFarland is contemporary Chicago blues. Like a fair number of contemporary black blues guitarists (including NYC's Michael Hill), he's incorporated Hendrix's late 1960's tone and style into his playing. He's a contemporary black Chicago bluesman--but he, too, has moved on. He's not just recycling Jimmy Rogers licks.
I think it's a shame to restrict oneself, and falsely constrict "the tradition," in the way that many self-styled traditionalists do. There are all kinds of ways of mining the music of the past 40 years so that results contribute to an expanding tradition. My cover of "Superstition," seven years ago, led me within a year into a really cool recording with Brandon Bailey, an update on the twin-harp thing that Carey Bell and Big Walter did. It's not 12-bar blues, but it absolutely falls within the broader purview of blues-based harmonica music. It's basically a one-chord riff-based stomp, with a breakaway section.
A good test case for my proposition might be "The Thrill is Gone." It was actually an R&B hit in 1951, but BB's version, which became a hit in 1970, is the one we all know. I've played the song quite a few times in duos and ensembles--it was very much part of the NYC blues songbook--but my hunch is that most blues traditionalists have avoided it. Kim Wilson? Rick Estrin? Rod Piazza? Butterfield did it, of course.
It's post-1965 black music, at least as BB King performed it. So it's just not part of the tradition, as elaborated by the traditionalists. That's a pity.
Oh yeah, Sundancer that interview was interesting. The dichotomy of instrumental virtuosity/words is a real thing I think. But idunno about the black/white split. And while I tend to fall into the vocal camp for blues, I listen to a lot of instrumental stuff too. Just not so much in a Blues context. And I don’t listen to much rock. But jazz I listen to is mainly instrumental. And mostly black performers. So I dunno what’s up with that.
Your early influences do indeed stay with ya forever. For good and for bad. Hell, it was only ten years ago that I finally learned that Don’t Start Me Talking wasn’t written by David Johansen & Johnny Thunders (RIP) of the New York Dolls.
https://youtu.be/6fMPRUUHU9s
Last Edited by Sundancer on Nov 27, 2017 6:30 PM
"I don't know any other blues composer who can shoehorn the phrases 'biological weapon,' 'weapon of mass destructon,' 'child support,' and 'restraining order' into blues lines and make them fit."
It sounds like the sort of thing Chuck Berry would have done in his prime - and he started out wanting to be a bluesman, but had a knack for something new that in many ways built on both the blues and on the sort of humorous stuff that Louis Jordan was famous for.
Snooky Pryor, while not as flamboyant as Berry, sometimes wrote topical lyrics that expressed unconventional views. While his playing may have been rooted in the old style, his thinking wasn't.
I agree with Glass Harp Full's point about music in your formative years having a special place. But on the other hand I came to harp/blues much later in life and I still perceive there's this golden period - don't know the exact date range, but I recognise the style and sound.
Kudzu says that LW at al. were pushing the music forward then, and interested in incorporating other styles. So it appears they did that, and there was a period of creativity which delivered this style - then it reached a natural end. After which people, understandably, want to play and copy that style. Is that not the case? I think it's fair enough that people, especially amateurs, want to play that style.
The filter of history tends to leave the good music. In twenty years time will everyone look back at another harp golden age of chromatic-playing-on-a-diatonic that resulted in new songs that have become standards, and old standards revitalised by playing in a new style? You can have your opinion and I can have mine.
Last Edited by MindTheGap on Nov 28, 2017 12:26 AM
I am by no means a scholar of musical history or of anything else really,but to my mind why is the history of the Blues as a musical idiom any different from that of 'Classical' (european and/or for example Indian) music.There still are many places that can fill a concert hall playing music written 300 years ago. Is Blues 'less' of a music because it doesn't have a plethora of chords and people playing instruments worth 500000$ to people wearing suits. I don't think so. It is imo as legit a musical form as any of the above (yes i know classical has morphed into some avant garde forms) but it is still Beethoven and Mozart that fills the concert halls. So why this emphasis on the Blues having to change,adapt, because it might die out? Well it might well do..but i doubt it.And if it does(in its pure form) wither away that is a better way to go than bastardising it into something it ain't.
Kudzurunner, I’m aware I am running a risk of being thought obtuse, but I’m struggling with something which clearly seems obvious to you; how are you defining ‘blues traditionalists’? You mention this category often but I’m really not sure to whom you a refer or how you decide whether someone is a blues traditionalist.
SuperBee - come on, you must know the mindset? "That's not the real blues, this is." Alongside the myth of musicians playing it out of some deep need rather than to make a living. Similar idea to the poet starving in a garret for their art. It's a nice fable that helps sell records/art/poety. I was enlightened by reading the various histories, but nevertheless it is a thing.
All these historical eras are artificial constructs to some extent but very compelling and exist in how everyone discusses things. Age of the dinosaurs, Wars of the Roses, The Enlightenment.
Last Edited by MindTheGap on Nov 28, 2017 3:16 AM
Super Bee: You might start, for the sake of argument, with the three blues harmonica players I've mentioned: Kim Wilson, Rick Estrin, Rod Piazza. What they all have in common is that their playing was strongly influenced, heavily shaped, by playing with one or more older black players who was/were associated with Muddy Waters. To some extent a blues traditionalist mindset as it exists these days is shaped by a desire to keep alive an older style associated with one's black mentors--"mentors" being either people one actually knew and worked with, or people whose records one collects and learns from. (I've included the latter qualification so that many here can recognize their own practice and emotional investments.)
Muddy, as he aged, was determined to keep his OWN style alive, intact, and (relatively) unchanging. There were a couple of notable exceptions to that: "Electric Mud" and "The Muddy Waters Woodstock Album." But he just wasn't interested in updating his sound by mixing in the sounds of 70s black music. In fact, he was trying to define a sound that was AGAINST that music in some sense--that was older, more Deep Southern in flavor, without any influence from the jazz, funk, and black pop of the 60s and 70s. This approach is epitomized by the song "Who Put the Unk in Funk?" It's not a funky song, at all. It's a traditional blues. It's trying to say to the Ohio Players and others, "Y'all got it from us." Me, I'd rather actually try to cover Wild Cherry's "Play that Funky Music, White Boy" and "Southbound" by the Allman Brothers. That's 70s music, funk and blues. I have a very hard time imagining the three harp players I've mentioned covering those songs. Those songs would seem too....modern. Even though they're 40 years old! But that's why I like them: because they ARE, in fact, a part of the tradition. It's just that, as I said in my OP, they stand in chronological terms beyond the slammed door that a fair number of contemporary white blues players who value "the tradition" have imposed. I'd like to open that door.
One reason that my approach to music making is somewhat different from the three players I've mentioned, at least with respect to the places I pull music from (including the British Blues Invasion) is that my own principal influence, Sterling Magee, was pulling influences from so many different places, including contemporary places like hip hop (the last of which is audible in a few of his songs in the rapid-fire syllablizing he does). He was the opposite of Muddy in that respect. He kept trying to do new things, things he'd never done before, in pursuit of his own sound.
These days, of course, there is a new crop of younger black traditionalists: Jontavious (Quon) Willis and Marquise Knox. Knox was mentored by a host of much older black Delta/Chicago players, including Honeyboy Edwards. From what I heard when I saw them live, though, he's got some other things going on. He knows how to rap, play the dozens, invent on the fly.
This is my last post for a while....too much work at school.
Interesting academic discussion.... Not that I've been listening for them, but I haven't heard any doors slamming, nor have I felt imposed upon by any folks who favor "traditional" blues. Of course, my hearing sucks and I'm distracted by trying to learn how to play harp. I get the distinction people make between traditional and non-trad or old and new blues, although I think it makes more sense to think of a continuum. Blues from 1964 to 1966, no or minimal 'just noticeable difference'. 1937 to 2017, pretty noticeable. The door isn't closed. There's no door. Folks chose what they like, white or black. No imposin', no 'stealin'. Also +1 for indigo's point.
There is a tension between too narrowly defining a genre to maintain the "purity" of the genre, vs. expanding the boundaries to the point that the definition is meaningless. I recall a contest in which blues purists objected to my use of chromatic to play jump blues, stating that it was not "real" blues.
At this point I don't care about what someone says is "blues." I play Americana, folk, and roots music. The music I enjoy was originally created by persons of varying race, ethnicity, and gender coming from a variety and mixture of cultural origins and income levels. I try to use each song to express my own voice, making each my own.
As has been said in another context, "Name it your mama if you wanta." ----------
Here's my cover of "I Don't Remember" by Peter Gabriel, with multilayered harmonicas. Virtually everything that sounds like a synth on here is actually a harmonica... the lone exception being a low sub bass sound...:
AFAIAC there is plenty of room for both modernism and traditionalism and everything in between. Just make music!
"[T]here is plenty of room for both modernism and traditionalism and everything in between. Just make music!"
I agree. And that's what I do. I play old school; I play new school. From time to time, though, I hear traditionalists speaking in a way that suggests that their way, as far as the REAL blues is concerned, is the self-evident one right way. It's not. It's one way.
The shadow of the modernist approach--the (potential) problem with it--is the loss of firm anchoring in a longstanding tradition; a loss of comprehensibility; a refusal to give the sort of comfort and solace that music is often called upon to give; an anything-goes eclecticism that just doesn't really have any standards and doesn't know what the f--k it's doing. At worst, modernist art is a failed and forgettable experiment. The great artists of the past have been left behind, and greatness in the present and future have been foreclosed.
The shadow of traditionalism, the (potential) problem with it, is an over-privileging of what has already been done rather than what might be done; a misunderstanding of the hunger for innovation that drove some of the artists now being fetishized as "the greats" (with Little Walter as Exhibit A); a narrowing of the range of acceptable influences, sounds, approaches; an unwise confidence in criteria of judgment that turn out to be not just historically contingent but flagrantly mistaken (e.g., "Bebop is noise!," the claim of the Dixielanders in the mid-1940s); and, a result of all these tendencies, a quashing of creativity and creative leaps, leading to an ever-aging cohort of diehards and a shrinking youth audience. At worst, traditionalist art is a recapitulation and reiteration of tired old moves--failed art, in some profound sense, and forgettable. The great artists of the past have been treated like the greatest that will ever be, and greatness in the present and future have been foreclosed.
"From time to time, though, I hear traditionalists speaking in a way that suggests that their way, as far as the REAL blues is concerned, is the self-evident one right way. It's not. It's one way."
Totally agree, and I basically agree with the rest of your comment as well. My thing, though, is: so what? If some people want to isolate themselves in an extreme view of what music should be, that's really kind of their loss.
I have always felt that most categorization and dogma in music is a function of marketing and commerce. Is this jazz? Is this not blues? Does this qualify as "Americana"? I just find a lot of that sort of taxonomy exhausting and not relevant to the main issue, which is: Does this music move me or not?
Yes, it's good to be rooted in what has come before... but after a certain point, as long as the twelve tones of the Western chromatic scale are being used in a manner that connects with human ears, it's music. People can decide whether they like it or not (and there's no right or wrong answer there).
There is a great moment from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's 25th anniversary concert, where Bruce Springsteen is about to perform with U2 on "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking for"... Bono gives this very nice speech about the importance of rock and roll and how it gives voice to dreamers etc. The Boss then steps up to the mic and says, "Let's have some fun with that!" And they're both right.
Music from your teenage years is over 40 years old. No offense, but that's hardly modern. It might be more modern than what some people are playing, but it isn't exactly "new". Since most people are likely going to earn very little playing music, wouldn't it suit people better to play what they enjoy and let the audience decide.
Miles Davis had a real problem with labeling music in a genre. He had a problem with "jazz" and did not want what he was doing to be linked to "jazz", as he found that labeling it somewhat negated it as well - or, at the very least, put a strong wall around this musical form.
He preferred to call his own developing music as "folk music", as it was created by "folk", and hoped that others would understand this and stop labeling genres with limiting titles. (His "folk" music is different than what people labeled the protest music, early Dylan, etc).
Miles wanted the music to stand on its own merit outside of definitions, which is why so many of what he was performing later on really had no title, even going so far as to label his set played at Isle of Wright "Call It Anything". This was because he was asked what he had played and in mild disgust at the labeling request literally told the record company "call it anything". ---------- The Iceman
The race element of this is basically one way of looking critically at mass behavior and asking the question, "how does this relate to race issues in the US?"
I'm not the originator of this argument by a long shot, but I think it merits repeating as most blues-interested guys I've known are middle class white guys, which makes sense because I am also a middle class white guy. Anyway, among this crowd, I hear a lot of argument for the traditional blues, and devaluing post-60's blues, unless the performer is white.
The running theory on this is that pre-civil rights black music is attractive to some whites because it either (1) represents a time when race-roles were more sharply defined (and with white at the clear advantage), or (2) it is simply more accessible "blackness" as it is aimed at a more universal experience, and comes from a time that did not challenge white power.
My opinion it is typically the latter (though recent political developments do make me wonder if it is also the former). Why? Because it is not ill-intentioned, just people navigating to what is accessible to them. For many hip hop is not accessible because they don't relate to the topics that lyrics often cover. For example, I have no life experience that helps me appreciate "Ridin' Dirty." But I've certainly had life experience that helps me appreciate Mojo Working. That alone steers me towards the more accessible.
That alone, no big deal, it makes sense from a cultural and historical perspective. But once people start talking about what blues is or aught to be and exclude black music that is intentionally extending the art form...then it becomes a little different conversation. "I just like the old music" doesn't apply to the conversation "when do we stop considering new blues music to be blues?" Because for a lot of folks out there, the answer is "as soon as black people start making assertions about it and/or innovations within it." To put it as young people do, that is not cool.
None of this is directed at you or anyone precisely here on the board, rather it is an issue I think the blues community should be talking about.
Chuck Berry and Bo Diddely took blues in a new direction and it became rock and roll. From there it morphed into something that is almost unrecognizable as having blues roots(in some cases). Where do you draw the line for what is/isn't blues? I think we need traditionalists to bring us back to where it all started. To keep it "pure",for lack of a better term.They have a reverence for the music and I think there is a place for them. I think a common thread that runs through musicians who push the envelop is: they listen to all genres of music. They use that melting pot to create new music.But I think you can take blues only so far before it becomes something unrelated. J.Geils Band didn't have much use for Magic Dick after "Centerfold".
The music industry's insistence on labeling genres may be a good marketing idea, but it hurts some really talented folk - aside from Miles hating the label of "jazz", it kept Eva Cassidy from breaking through. Those that don't know who she is should youtube and find her music. She could sing ANYTHING - any genre just about. She remained an unknown until after she died, when a radio station in England played her "Over the Rainbow" and it just took off! In examining her life, agents wanted to represent her, but wanted her to focus on a specific genre - or pop music. To her artistic credit, she never agreed and just made beautiful music. Her CD's never went far in the record stores because no one knew which "section" to put them in - jazz, pop, folk, soul....so she missed out in that respect of connecting with a larger audience.
Too bad, as she was amazing. ---------- The Iceman
Funny you mention Eva Cassidy. I've been transferring all my old CDs to the computer, and yesterday came across a long forgotten Eva Cassidy disc (called "Songbird", released after her death).
Unbelievable singing, but I do note that Itunes - categorizing the genre of each cut - lists all of them as "pop." That includes songs like "Wade in the Water," "Wayfaring Stranger," "Autumn Leaves" and "Over the Rainbow."
I guess categorization is inescapable for the purposes of the mass market, but not so good for individuals
Rontana - if you really like her, do a bit of research into her life....Mick Fleetwood was a big fan of hers and he owns (or owned) a club - maybe in or around DC if memory serves me right - a dinner/music venue, I believe, and booked her quite frequently. I also believe there is a youtube posted interview with Mick in which he talks about her talent and her life. Interesting stuff! The "Songbird" CD is a great intro to her music. ---------- The Iceman
'For example, I have no life experience that helps me appreciate "Ridin' Dirty." But I've certainly had life experience that helps me appreciate Mojo Working.'
Really? You've had the experience of your magic Louisiana charm bag failing to control the object of your desire? You've had a Romani woman giving you romantic tricks and advice?
I think he's probably talking about the "just don't work on you" part of Mojo workin. I've certainly experienced that. :)
What I don't like about the general argument here is the idea that somehow the traditionalists are missing the mark by not pushing the boundaries or there is some kind of loss to humanity because of what the traditionalist might have achieved had they not been so traditional. That's a crock of sh*#% IMO. The tradition is rich and fertile and there is a lifetime of exploration to be had. What I love about KW, RP, and RE and others is how the tradition lives on though their music and it's in their interpretation of that tradition that you can hear progression and nods to modernity. At least that's how I see it today..
I also feel as a blues harp player one must go to the source and study the history for years and years.. and I worry about players looking at this thread and thinking the tradition is old and stale. It's not. Music that stands the test of time is always valid and that's why traditional blues will always be around IMO. The music is just too good.
---------- 4' 4+ 3' 2~~~ -Mike Ziemba Harmonica is Life!
I'm a little confused. Superstition is a very old song. I do Maceo Parkers version of James Browns Bands "The Chicken'. I do not think I'm being modern at all. I do Sonny Stitt's 'Sonny Moon For Two'. I don't think I'm being modern. I do Cissy Strut. I don't think that's being modern. I do think that Rod Piazza; (and I love Rod Piazza) when he took a stab at rock, took a nose dive musically. Another flop of his is "Shot From the Saddle. OOFF!!
In my opinion, this post is very, very, low on modern tunes. Why not post some if that is what is wanted?
PS Yes, I saw the single post of the 2017 festival
PPS I wrote and made a CD of many of my original tunes in 1995. I don't think they are modern so I won't share them. ---------- Reasonably priced Reed Replacement and tech support on Hand Made Series Hohner Diatonic Harmonicas.
'Making the world a better place, one harmonica at a time. Click MP for more info. Aloha Mark .
Last Edited by MP on Dec 01, 2017 4:44 PM
Mtg, I am not sure that is what is wanted. This is why I was intent on having the OP spell out what he meant. From his explanation it’s more of a rant than a request. The Brit folk people have been arguing about this for over a century. The versions of traditional are more varied than just the ‘blues’ part of folk music, so there are more voices, but the discussion is much the same. It’s tension between the function of folk music, what it represents and what it serves. And it’s not just one thing. There are some records published under the title ‘the imagined village’ which get to the point fairly solidly. While also missing the point in some ways. Because when you get down to it, it’s all just music which people attach labels to, in order to pitch at a market. The disgruntled folks can be on any side of the discussion; usually depends on who is perceived as getting some action and who feels like they’re missing out. Of course, sometimes those who feel they are missing out could do with a few sessions in the room of mirrors
Last Edited by SuperBee on Dec 01, 2017 6:20 PM
'Bee your post made me think about all the different types of music that in essence are 'trad'. Irish is the best example that i can think of in this context re the 'Blues'. Now, if you go to a 'session' (irish for jam) at a pub you won't be very welcome if you step outside the 'formula' ie keys are G and/or D. The tune must be 'known',no room there for an original unless you are a very well respected player (and it's in G and/or D Lol. Sounds like most of the blues jams we have all been to,except for the keys..(E,G, A..anyone) This is not a diss on Irish music at all,a nice pint of Guinness and a good trad band is my idea of bliss. The point i am trying to make is that 90+ years of old irish (Gaelic) tunes can still fill a pub. No talk within their ambit of having to 'modernise' the sound. So what i am trying to say in the context of this forum .WHY does the old blues have to modernise? I could go on forever on this subject but i'd like to sum up by saying that if the Trad blues dies through lack of interest well that is just(musical) evolution working. Long live the 1 iv V .(hopefully) Back to the OP superstition is not a blues but it is a very good Harmonica track(- the drum) Ah well, I have to admit that neither of my kids particularly like Blues music....Probably because they heard to much of it when they were growing up.^
SuperBee - I've only dabbled in folk music but yes I understand the same kind of tension goes on there. As a very superficial, outsider's view I saw attempts to push it forward e.g. Steeleye Span and how about the Pogues. Then there are records where folk elements are shoehorned in to give some folk flavour.
I see one as generally good, and the other as cheesy. Trouble is some of today's cheesy pop songs turn into tomorrow's classics.
Let's not overlook Soco's synth-style harp on "I don't Remember" above, very nice. That's in Category A. But until that sound is heard on a world-wide-smash-hit, the dominant use of the blues harp will be all those trad riffs used pre-65.
Last Edited by MindTheGap on Dec 02, 2017 12:41 AM
@MindtheGap: "Kudzu says that LW at al. were pushing the music forward then, and interested in incorporating other styles. So it appears they did that, and there was a period of creativity which delivered this style - then it reached a natural end. After which people, understandably, want to play and copy that style. Is that not the case? I think it's fair enough that people, especially amateurs, want to play that style." Well put. For the most part I agree. Exactly the same thing could have been said about New Orleans jazz during the Dixieland revival of the 1930s and 1940s, even as the bebop revolution was redefining what jazz was. I teach people how to play a lot of that older music on this website. It's a particular style, it's an important style. There is indeed a core tradition of the blues harmonica, and all students should learn it. Nothing wrong with that! I'm sure that contemporary art school students still go back to the Greeks, and the Renaissance, and Rembrandt. They may even experiment with copying the once-adventurious styles of Pablo Picasso and Jackson Pollack.
But few, I hope, imagine that Picasso and Pollack, brilliant as they both were in the early and mid-20th century, are where the tradition should stop. It keeps evolving--or should--and serious students, students who hope to actually CONTRIBUTE to the tradition, should have ambition to do more than simply copy and embroider on those older styles. Yes: Picasso, in 2017, is an "older style." But he got there, in the first decade of the last century, by shocking the pants and skirts off of art lovers with "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon," which the traditionalists of his time viewed as sacrilege.
This is why I don't mind too much when people like SuperBee and Jinx irritably condemn my kickdrum sound: because I'm familiar with the phrase "the shock of the new." I'm also humbled by the fact that precisely that drum sound has helped drive my version of "Crossroads Blues" (with its homage to Clapton's guitar riffs in the live Cream version) to more than two million hits. Damned if I know why it took off like that--a drum-driven cover of an oft-covered song, with indifferent vocals--but when you search YouTube for the phrase "crossroads blues," it's #2, right after Robert Johnson and before Eric Clapton, John Mayer, and all the rest:
I was excited to produce Brandon Bailey's debut album because he shares my desire to push the tradition forward by, among other things, incorporating and updating black and white blues, jazz, R&B, and soul sounds from the 70s and beyond--"old" sounds, in some sense, but still essentially untouched and unmined by those who preach a Little-Walter-centered traditionalism. Brandon updated "Whammer Jammer" by overdubbing a second harmonica track; he adapted Michael Jackson's "Billie Jean" to the harp; he did the same thing with Bill Withers.
In my own recordings, I've covered and adapted songs by Robert Johnson, Cream, Bent Fabric (The Alley Cat), Chris Botti, Art Blakey, Jimmy Reed, the Allman Brothers, Quincy Jones (Sanford & Son theme), Rick Braun, 45 Dip, Freddie King, Stanley Turrentine, the Crusaders, Muddy Waters, Herbie Hancock, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Duke Ellington, John Lee Williamson, R. L. Burnside, and Scott Joplin. And of course some originals, which range from the John Lee Hooker-inspired "I Need Your Love" to the funk-guitar inspired "Thunky Fing Rides Again," with 60s/70s funk master Jerry Jemmott on bass.
The specifics of my recordings are less important, frankly, than the way in which my practice illustrates the larger point I'm making about what it might look like to explore and expand the blues harmonica vocabulary by tearing down the wall the separates the "real" blues (harmonica) of the pre-1965 classic era from all of the great music that has swirled through our culture for the past 50 years.
The experiments don't always work, of course. But it's worth making them--and worth honoring one important spirit, the modernist spirit that innovates, freshly adapts, leans forward, that has always been a part of the blues tradition. Robert Johnson had it; Little Walter had it; B. B. King had it; Paul Butterfield had it; Paul deLay had it. Sugar Blue, Jason Ricci, and Carlos del Junco have it.
Basically, there's conservatism in all art. Some artists do nothing but repeat themselves. Some musicians do nothing but repeat themselves. A lot of old people only listen to the music they listened to in their teens.
The thing about SuperBee--and I'll talk about him in the third person, since he's talking about Kudzu in the third person--is that he just doesn't agree with the concept that was floated in the original post and the clarified repeatedly by Kudzu. So he's chosen not to understand. Having chosen not to understand, he then seeks to dismiss Kudzu's many even-tempered clarifications as part of a "rant." But anybody who actually reads through Kudzu's half-dozen posts in this thread sees somebody who is not only willing to recognize the traditionalist impulse for the good that it contains, even while critiquing it, but who offers several kinds of legitimate critiques of his own modernist position. Ranters tend not to give quite so much ground to the opposing side, and they certainly don't step back from the position they're advocating for and "Here are the potential problems with my position."
Kudzu, really? You don’t mind that I can’t stand your drum (entirely fair enough, just my opinion and offered explicitly as such) but you’re upset I described your op as a rant, and choose to see a comment directly made to another poster as a policy position of referring to you in the 3rd person.
Maybe ‘rant’ has a strong meaning to you. If I’ve used the wrong term, I’m sorry. I was contrasting the expression of a personal belief in the OP with a request for contributions.
However, consider this; the title of thread uses the word ‘crank’. Where I’m from, that word fits together with the word ‘rant’. That’s what cranks do. So maybe I was responding to your description of self. Anyway, I’m sorry to have offended you.
As to the idea that I don’t agree so chose not to understand, that is completely wrong. I puzzled over the OP for several days, trying to understand what you were saying. I think I’ve already said this, but the concept of ‘traditionalist mindset’ was not clear to me at all when coupled with the notion of a watershed in 1965. You’ve since redefined this to mean more specifically people who play the music of muddy waters and people influenced by muddy waters. I think that’s what you said; kinda hard to see on the phone. In that case, I sort of understand the 1965 thing, but also see that your argument about that is self fulfilling; there’s no point looking for examples because you’ve already ruled anyone out. Of course people who are looking to preserve that sound wont be incorporating pop etc, you’ve already defined them. My disagreement is not with your later posts. I don’t know that it’s even disagreement. My problem was with the OP. It was not at all clear to me what you were saying, which is why I concluded you were looking to post your superstition clip and having decided that must be the case I thought the thread had wandered OT. I’ll accept I simply didn’t get it. I’m prone to this. I once stewed for several days over a situation at work and decided that my colleague was really just looking for a way to apologise. So I just came straight out and told them I understood how embarrassed they must feel and that I was completely open to an apology. Boy did I get that wrong! But I was acting totally in good faith at the time. So I understand sometimes I’m just thick.
Even with all your later exposition on the topic, reading your OP I still find it’s very difficult to discern the meaning you’ve later outlined.
You see, it’s like you’ve used an undefined term “traditionalist mindset” and then said this mindset rules out influences from after 1965. Later, when pressed, you’ve pretty much defined the term to mean a mindset that rules out influences which did not exist pre 1965. So in effect, you’ve said the trouble with a thing is that it is that thing.
And youre saying that thing should get hip and be another thing. When questioned you’ve challenged me to find examples of the first thing being the other thing (which is where the rest of my problem in the thread sits).
It’s evident in the thread this has created some confusion, not just for me. Others have mentioned labels, genre, marketing.
It’s clear now that you are supportive of the idea that people create music while remaining open to draw inspiration from a range of influences (although you drop the curtain at 1995), but this is not how you approached the topic. You came at it saying if ‘i’ sometimes seem like a modernist crank its because a traditionalist mindset drops the curtain at 1965. And so on. So straight away your post created the sense of conflict, but I for one (and maybe the only one afflicted quite so profoundly) couldn’t understand how the lines were drawn. I dunno man, you’re a bit older than me and obviously work in the field and think like this a lot. It’s possibly so clear to you that you may have trouble understanding how it’s not necessarily so immediately obvious to everyone what you’re talking about when you get on your special subject. As far as the drum goes, yeah, I can’t figure it out. I don’t understand grindcore either but people really get into that too.
'Back to the OP superstition is not a blues but it is a very good Harmonica track(- the drum"
no its not a 12 bar blues. but not all blues is 12 bar.
stevie take's the first four bars of the progression and simply repeats them. then bars 5 6 7 and 8 are removed. quite a few blues songs do this. he skips to the 5 chord just like you would in any other blues song.
so in one sense you could argue this is a modern blues song despite it being 50 years old. i think this is in part what adam is trying to express. taking a traditional blues and giving it a slight twist.
i have a question for the iceman. what chord inversion is it on the Bb? i hear people play it as a simple 7 th chord. i am hearing something different.
It's common practice to put up a polemic title and pithy OP in order to provoke a debate. Then the more subtle arguments can follow. I like that there hasn't been too much group-think here.
On the subject of the modernisers: your task is to create some classic songs. Either new one or versions of old songs, that will become tomorrow's standards. The traditionalists have theirs already. It's a tall order.
Kudzu, one of the features of the list of modernisers you mention is the level of skill needed to replicate their styles. Lots of people can do an adequate LW song or version of Help Me, but not many could even play the notes in a Jason Ricci recording.
Last Edited by MindTheGap on Dec 03, 2017 12:39 AM
Some instruments have their day and then are gone. The lute had its day. Some are wondering if the classical guitar has had its day (one mainly hears it now in pseudo gypsy-jazz). Perhaps the harmonica's days are numbered?
Last Edited by