Been thinking and playing harp today and started to think about playing, as in melody, versus playing, as in technique.
I've heard some really proficient harp playing which has been technically very good indeed but left me thinking that the actual harp music was just the same old stuff but in a slightly different order.
Just thought I'd throw it open for debate should anyone be interested.
What I'm saying is I would rather hear a not so good player play a new and imaginative piece of bluesharp than a player with excellent technique, play the same old tired blues cliches really well.
I know it's difficult to break new ground because it's the blues after all and there are limiting factors like notes you need to hit to make it sound like the blues, but I was wondering if we're ever going to hear something refreshingly new that will push the blues along a bit into the 21st Century.
I also appreciate that due to the harp being a mainly improvisational instrument, each player needs to be a performer/composer/master of techniques which is something that many musicians have no need to master. They can learn their instrument and just read the music and follow the conductor. We do not have that luxury.
Just a thought. Where am I going wrong to start thinking like this? Can anyone recommend any really innovative harp players that I can listen to? I mean innovative in respect of melody rather than someone who can do the OB or OD tricks.
Mmmmm! In a rut? I think there is a huge variety of music out there played every which way. Some great, lots bad. Judgement....well it's entirely up to the listeners likes and dislikes.
Currently I'm getting a lot from listening to Buddy Greenes new CD Anthology. But that's the music I really like best ie bluegrass & country. I also like lots of other stuff.
I think it would be pushing the envelope a bit to expect a not so good player to come up with something refreshingly new. Not impossible though.
Tend to disagree that other musicians have the luxury of reading music and following the conductor.I think most musicians would also disagree.
In my opinion , it' can be very subjective to peoples taste even within the blues genre . after all with blues as you state , your not trying to reinvent the wheel , and there is this preconception that modern and new means another way to blow the hell out of a tune at great speed with tons of seemingly impressive techniques but absolutely no feel . also a new fad will come along and before too long everyone's jumping on it . for a lot of perfomers willl use tricks , flash , effects etc to make themselves appear to have mastery of the instrument , but in my opinion ,and this is only my opinion , Blues is about connecting with people via the soul , it's more than just a well constructed solo . when you take away all the fads in various techniques , the music always speaks for itself and has endured the test of time ,more than any other
Last Edited by on Sep 04, 2011 3:26 PM
I love traditional Blues. I would rather hear real simple stuff played with amazing tone and soul than listen to a billion notes being played up and down the harp with no real direction.
Dont get me wrong i can appriciate fast players, harp boxers and such but the harp to me sounds best when someone takes their time and makes good use of space, phrasing and time, which to me is not that easy to do even though a good player can make it seem effortless e.g. Gary Primich, Gary Smith,Steve Guyger:o)
Dont get me wrong I'm all for people trying to break new ground in anything in life but for me the harp sounds sweetest played simply.
----------
http://www.youtube.com/user/fiendant?feature=mhum
Last Edited by on Sep 04, 2011 11:39 PM
"but I was wondering if we're ever going to hear something refreshingly new that will push the blues along a bit into the 21st Century"
The standard 12 bar progression in blues. Is just that "a standard" and should remain so. Its what makes it possible to walk into any jam in the world and play blues with musicians who don't even need to speak your language.
"Where am I going wrong to start thinking like this?"
I think you're in a rut and bored with your playing.
The blues I listen to is anything but tired or cliche'd. Rod Piazza,William Clarke,Slim Harpo,Smiley Lewis,Gary Primich,Red Devils,Little Charlie & The Nightcats,Paul Oscher,Louis Jordan,Little Walter,Muddy Waters
The only cliche, I find tiring is the one that gets spouted on this site a lot.That blues is old and tired and if you don't play something new,then you're a dinosaur.
Your imagination is the only limiting factor in improvisation. But to get to a point where you can play what you think takes at least 10 years.
Failing that,you could always take up chromatic,learn to sight read, and play any music you fancied!
Sex can be cliché. Ok. I (also) enjoy these on a regular basis: Rod Piazza,William Clarke,Slim Harpo,Smiley Lewis,Gary Primich,Red Devils,Little Charlie & The Nightcats,Paul Oscher,Louis Jordan,Little Walter,Muddy Waters. Blues can be cliché. Ok.
OK Guys, give me a bit of slack. Don't get me wrong, I like the blues and I'm not in a rut, see, but I'm wondering if the blues that we all know and love now will ever/is capable of further development for the future.
I know the purists will defend blues to the hilt, but some of us have an adventurous streak and would like to develop it. ----------
and what has your adventurous streak started to do to "develop" the blues, tooka? i think you are expecting some big bang here when all that you should probably expect are minor changes. that's how evolution works. the beatboxers might be making the next step with their ability to ob and od and having the technology of a looping pedal. or perhaps it is going to spring from the multiple tunings that are becoming popular. but then, these changes might, in the long run, be barely related to blues and bring about a whole new genre. but folks have to have some vision or inspiration. that is when change happens. you seem to have some sort of inspiration. so, again, where are you gonna take us?
I think the Butterfield band with Mike Bloomfield were adding a new twist. Bloomfields twist on blues guitar and Butterfield's expansion of blues tonality to me are still fresh today. Butterfield seem to me to be the first to start using the 9 and b9 in his riffs and even endings as far as I can remember. It seems to have gone in reverse with a few players still pusshing the envelope like Jason. The younger players with their use of overblows IMHO still have to prove themselves. Maybe when they get a few hundred gigs playing clubs and paying some dues will we see how they develop as artists. Great technique doesn't translate to great art.
Don't think for a second reading violinists in an orchestra don't have technique. I went to school with them and you need technique to read that stuff and make it musical.
Jimmy Bruno the great jazz guitarist worked studios back in the 90's making over a 100 grand a year. He said reading was only part of it you had to make it music and fast. That's what a double and triple scale player is expected to do.
---------- Emile "Diggs" D'Amico a Legend In His Own Mind How you doin'
I've thought about this for a long, long time. I think the biggest turnoffs/cliches in blues harp, for me, are more related to the total package than any particular approach to playing.
What makes me uncomfortable is the retro-jump blues, all good things ended in the 50's thing. It is exactly why I can't get into Rod Piazza. Personally, I think music should reflect who YOU are, which by default, should include your current reality, which as of today, should reflect the fact that it is the 2010's.
I love John Nemeth (although he pushes it sometimes), Kim Wilson, Otis Taylor, Son of Dave, Derek Trucks...all blues and blues-based musicians that do a great job of honoring the past but making it relevant to today...and pushing the music forward.
I think Kim Wilson is a perfect blues harp player. Nothing he plays sounds dated or fake to me, but it clearly takes from the past greats. While he borrows liberally from many a harmonica player, the way he puts it together is very appealing to me.
You can also branch out and listen to non-harp music for inspiration.
"I know it's difficult to break new ground because it's the blues after all and there are limiting factors like notes you need to hit to make it sound like the blues, but I was wondering if we're ever going to hear something refreshingly new that will push the blues along a bit into the 21st Century."
Ever listen to Count Bassie? Lambert, Hendricks & Ross? Larry Carlton? Isn't their music exactly what you are talking about.
"What makes me uncomfortable is the retro-jump blues, all good things ended in the 50's thing. It is exactly why I can't get into Rod Piazza. Personally, I think music should reflect who YOU are, which by default, should include your current reality, which as of today, should reflect the fact that it is the 2010's."
Who stated all good things ended in the 50's ?
I play swing and jump because I like it. The audience like it,as they can dance to it.
I also like Kim Wilson,but find he actually plays many,many licks and riffs lifted straight from the originals he covers.
Rod Piazza, does very few covers, and is far more innovative than Kim. Listen to his version of Too late Brother, for the perfect blend of covering and innovating.
William Clarke did lots of covers, but apart from the title and a few of the lyrics, they were completely different to the originals.
Son of Dave is actually regressive. One chord blues !! Ok,his use of a loop pedal was new, but apart from that its straight from the earliest of the Delta styles.
@tooka I agree 100% with what ant posted-I love traditional blues and have for over 40 years-pioneers like little and big walter and SBI and II set the bar very high I love to try and duplicate their licks but most of all the ground they broke aides an amateur like myself develop his own style of blowin` harp
"I play swing and jump because I like it. The audience like it,as they can dance to it."
Fine. I am sure it is great. If you slick back your hair and dress like it is 1950 complete with skinny tie, talk like your are from a part of the country you aren't, and only smile from one side of your mouth, I don't care what you sound like. It is cliched, IMO, and not a show I'd want to check out.
"I also like Kim Wilson,but find he actually plays many,many licks and riffs lifted straight from the originals he covers."
Which I am fine with. I love the fact that he looks like someone doing that in 2011. He is also a fantastic singer and has more than enough original and non-blues recordings under his belt. He, to me, can bridge the gap between generations because his gimmick isn't a tired cliche. He adapted his imagery to the times while keeping the foundation of traditional blues at the center of what he does. I am sure a large part of it is an act like it is with most people in that position, but I appreciate him for NOT doing the same gimmick as everyone else - same reason I like Jason Ricci and John Popper and Howard Levy and such.
I am also going to throw out Moreland and Arbuckle. Awesome stuff - including raunchy harmonica - but very contemporary.
"Rod Piazza, does very few covers, and is far more innovative than Kim. Listen to his version of Too late Brother, for the perfect blend of covering and innovating."
His schtick and live show turn me off. I get it. I get that he can play. I get that the show is meant to entertain. That being said, I just can't imagine someone with so much blues "soul" that they would actually enjoy doing the same show night after night. I just saw Tedeschi Trucks band put on the best live show I've ever seen while obviously not scripting every move. It was visually engaging and sonically mezmorizing.
Going back to my OP, it is the attitude/schtick of blues players that pulls me in or puts me off. If Rod, for example, didn't dress that way or come off as fake in his performing persona, I'd like the music more. Honestly, there is a TON of great harmonica blues, good and old, and you can't get into all of it. An easy way for me to decide what to check out is whether or not the artist and I seem to have anything in common.
"William Clarke did lots of covers, but apart from the title and a few of the lyrics, they were completely different to the originals."
I am so-so on William Clarke. Unfortunately, I can only listen to a little bit at a time. While he was a monster at what he did, I just don't dig the vibe. That doesn't mean you can't or are wrong if you do. It just isn't for me right now.
"Son of Dave is actually regressive. One chord blues !! Ok,his use of a loop pedal was new, but apart from that its straight from the earliest of the Delta styles."
Which is why I like it. I happen to dig the early delta stuff, or delta influenced, more than the showy west coast jump stuff. I guess that makes me more of a blues purist, or blues fan, lol. I am being totally sarcastic.
That being said, I have been a huge Otis Taylor fan forever. I've always wanted to do music like that...I only started listening to SOD this past year (mostly because I didn't get the "character" he had created until finally reading up on him). While their arrangments seem simplistic, but I would argue are very hard for most musicians to pull off, there is something there that really moves me. Well, Otis moves me...SOD makes me smile.
***Another thought in passing:
Even has a harmonica player, hearing someone play a stereotypical rig while playing a stereotypical style (even at a very high level) in a stereotypical character is totally fine. I just don't find it very engaging. I personally don't get too into the bullet sounds or the tweed about to explode buzzy sound either. IMO, it distracts from a lot of what the person is actually playing. I love listening to acoustic harmonica, and I love listening to TB'ed harmonica. It doesn't have to be fast or flashy. Harry Manx is a harp player I could listen to all day long, for example.
This isn't an anti-blues thing either. Well, I am not a west coast blues fan in general, surprise surprise, but I listen to a ton of blues music. ---------- Mike Quicksilver Custom Harmonicas
Last Edited by on Sep 06, 2011 10:17 AM
When I got tired of what I perceived as the same ol' blues licks on recordings, I was rejuvenated when a used record store owner (in Livonia, MI) turned me on to Paul DeLay records. ---------- The Iceman
Hi guys. I'm coming to this thread a little late. I've been posting some things over in the thread on what it takes to become a pro (http://www.modernbluesharmonica.com/board/board_topic/5560960/1934790.htm?page=2), but I think that what I wrote over there has more to do with the topic of this thread than that one. I hope you don't mind if I repost it here, since I feel like that thread is pretty much done, and this one seems lively!
Reposted Material:
Not being a pro nor having any aspirations to become a pro, my 2 cents here are from the perspective of a rabid music fan who follows and comments on the life histories of many indie bands, and from the perspective a guy who is in the main group of fans that support these bands. I've got my ears open: I read many many new music blogs, listen to new music shows on internet radio, search the internet for new bands, and watch concert footage on YouTube. I'd say that I listen to 5-10 new bands a week. I have a wide group of people who I discuss the merits of these bands with, and I sometimes contribute to a blog or two. In other words, I know what's out there, I know what I want to listen to, and I like to think I have a reasonably good idea about what the kids want to hear too. With that background in mind, here's what I consider to be the simple truth about playing harmonica: You aren't going to make it big by playing traditional Blues.
It just ain't gonna happen. That ship sailed a long time ago. The kids aren't into it anymore, just us old guys, and there aren't even enough of us to keep more than a few players "in business". Now, before anyone gets all upset, I'm NOT saying you have to abandon the Blues. That's crazy talk (although it IS another way you might make it playing harp). What I'm saying is that you aren't going to make it by playing cover versions of Juke and Help Me or any other "Blues Harp Standard". You need to be making original songs that reframe the blues in a fully modern context. This is exactly what insanely popular bands like The White Stripes and The Black Keys have been doing, and it works. It works well. There are other bands coming up in that vein, and they feature harmonica.
Case in point: The Stone Foxes. They are a relatively young band out of San Francisco, who have been making a name for themselves by opening for bands like the Black Keys. Here's a video of them from a recent concert:
You can see that the guy only has some rudimentary blues harp skills. In fact, I'd wager that most of the members here could easily outplay him if it came down to it. That's not the point. The point is that they are playing to sold out shows in very large venues, and are opening for some of the most popular bands around. How did they do it? I am VERY sure that they had to deal with all the "music biz" things that many of the pros have mentioned in this thread, and I want to make sure to reiterate all those things. They are VERY valid.
But, to my eyes, the thing that has been missing from all the things posted above, and the thing that I think a band like The Stone Foxes illustrate is this: THEY PLAY MUSIC THAT THE HIPSTERS LIKE. If you don't get onto the college radio charts,then you aren't going to make it as an indie band, which, let's face it, is what you are trying to do if you want to play the blues. Now, I'm not saying you have to sell your soul and aim for a top 40 sound. That's, in fact, the opposite of what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that you have to listen wide, and listen CURRENTLY. You have to put your finger on the pulse of what the kids are listening to, and you have to figure out how to make YOUR music fit into that. Blues definitely has a place there -- very much so! BUT, and this is a very big but, it's NOT the same Blues that was being played in the "golden age". It's changed. This Blues, the modern Blues, is exemplified by bands like the Black Keys, the Stone Foxes, Oh My Goodness, The Soledad Brothers, The White Stripes, The Dead Weather, Cold War Kids, The Heavy, Fleet Foxes, The Black Diamond Heavies, Band of Horses, The Heartless Bastards, The National, and more. If you are trying to make it big in a modern Blues style, you have to be listening to the sounds that bands like these are making. You can pick any number of formats to make this sound yourself: from an accoustic duo up through a fully amped 5 piece. But you gotta be making that sound, and you gotta be playing your own material.
Anyway, that's MY perspective. I'll just end with one more opinion. The guy that's out there doing this with harp right now is Brandon Bailey. If he keeps up what he's doing, and he follows the music biz advice from the pros, he's going to make it with that sound. Other folks out there that I'd say are hitting that sound are J-Sin with his stuff from the Ataturk Band and Borris with his very cool hip-hop stuff from Vinebago. These guys are finding some VERY cool sounds, and if they get it into the right market (College radio!), IMO they stand a really good chance of getting picked up.
To Which Adam Replied:
@isaacullah: Man! Extremely interesting and provocative post. I know and like the Black Keys and I've heard of the White Stripes, but I don't know any of the other bands. I did give a listen to that Stone Foxes video, though, and I'm struck by one thing: the breakdown portion of the video, where the drummer is blowing harp and pounding on his kickdrum, sounds exactly like the sort of thing I'm doing--except of course I'm a better harp player and a worse drummer. But the gestalt is identical: it's a harp-and-kickdrum-driven breakdown. So maybe there's hope for me with The Youth.
I'm sure you're right to point out that we're living in a changed musical world, and that the blues need to find a place in that changed world. I'm not sure you're entirely right about what that says about either the possibility of making a living as a blues performer or what it means to be a pro. It's worth remembering that by 1975, say, in the aftermath of the Butterfield/Cream/Joplin/Hendrix driven blues-rock revolution, "traditional" blues were pretty much considered to be dead. Everybody had written the obituary. Disco had destroyed things--pop music, jazz, and blues. The smart money in 1975 said that...well, that guys like Piazza, Estrin, Kim Wilson, etc., should just shoot themselves now if they had any dream of making a living as a blues musician.
But of course the smart money was wrong, and in the aftermath of a series of developments--including Johnny Winter's recordings of Muddy on the Blue Sky label, the cult/pop success of the J. Geils Band and the T-Birds, THE BLUES BROTHERS act (on SNL) and movie, all supercharged with a huge bang after 1982 by Stevie Ray Vaughan and after 1985 by the Cray/Collins/Copeland SHOWDOWN album--the blues, real blues, turned out to have another life to live.
Again: the smart money was NOT predicting any of this.
I'd call you the smart money right now. Then again, the Blues Foundation can point to all sorts of positive indicators (how full the blues cruises are and how many competitors come to the IBC's mostly), even though clubs are closing and blues records per se are a very hard sell. But still, I'll grant you your basic prophet's insight: blues per se, right now, doesn't have a whole lot of traction as a young people's music.
Still, I think that that may change. I can't say precisely what will change it. Nobody can. But times change, and musical tastes reformulate themselves. Young people in times of great social strain and change have a habit not just of creating new musics, but of looking around for fresh inspiration. The blues have historically proven their ability, from the 1920s until now, to be that root, that endlessly renewable source code.
I'm happy to hear that you think Brandon has what it takes! I agree. Let's hope that his own talents and more national press helps find him the audience he deserves.
Last Edited on 5-Sep-2011 5:28 PM
To Which I replied:
@kudzurunner: I'm glad you had a chance to read my post - I was hoping you would! I've thought about this subject quite a bit, actually, and have had quite a few long winded conversations with my fellow music-loving friends. I want to clarify one thing, however, that I see I didn't make clear in my original post. I never meant to say that real old-school blues is dead. I think that the wellspring that is Delta Blues, Hill Country Blues, Piedmont Blues, etc. still exists as a very viable source of new and interesting and potentially very popular music. I think that's from where all those bands I named pulled forth their main inspirations. You make a really good point about J. Geils, Stevie Ray Vaughn, etc., but I'd argue that their main sources of inspiration were the transmuted blues of the city (a.k.a. "Chicago" Blues), and NOT the Blues of the countryside that those city Blues musicians developed out of. I think THAT'S the main difference. I just don't see a place for that CITY BLUES sound in modern popularist indie alternative music, but that seems to be what the majority of Blues harpists want to be playing. I see that as the fodder for the endless Blues jam nights that occur all around the country. Those are great fun for those playing, and a good one might fill a bar up on a Saturday night, but it just ain't gonna fill up concert venues.
Now, if someone was to go back to the Blues of the countryside. Hell, even just early Muddy Waters stuff. THAT sound has a place in the musical milieu of today's college radio. It's all the more interesting because that's the same sound that inspired the Led Zeppelin/Cream/Hendrix "blues-driven rock" revolution you talked about. The main difference I see with the new "blues-rock" revolution that is occurring now, is that the bands are actually staying a lot closer to those country blues roots than did the bands of the late 60's early 70's. What they are doing is making original songs with Delta or Hillcountry aesthetics, but they AREN'T sticking to the traditional Blues song forms. That is, they don't stick to 12 bars, I IV V progressions, or even to AAB lyrical formats. They marry the Blues with a pop verse/chorus formats and with different chord structures and bridges and all that. And the use of effects too. Their lyrical content is very Blues oriented, but not necessarily in a known Blues format. Sometimes there is call-and-response and repetition, sometimes not. It's really interesting.
Anyway, I'm going off on a tangent here, but I just wanted to try to clarify that point. And yes, I ought to have mentioned your one man band stuff. You've got several songs on there that get really close to what I'm talking about. Specifically, I'm thinking Kick and Stomp, Shaun's Song, and Mr.Cantrell. Your sound on those songs is the right sound to be appealing to the kids, but to REALLY appeal to the kids, they'd need lyrics. Something I've come to realize is that the kids NEED lyrics in their songs, but they don't want them in a way that they've heard before. They want something original, something Blues-oriented that isn't typically "Blues stuff". If you listen to the Black Keys, listen to the way they construct and phrase their lyrics. I think that rephrasing of Blues themes in their lyrics is part of the reason why they are so very very popular amongst the college crowd right now. They're gutsy, but also cerebral. Literal, but also highly metaphorical. Familiar, but also totally new sounding. Okay, that was another tangent, so I'll end it for now. I've got to go make some dinner anyway! :) ---------- == I S A A C ==
Sorry guys I've been tied up and unable to get back and read thus thread. I will do though but in the meantime, I'm just throwing this little bomb into the mix. Isaac has seen this but a lot of you may not have.
blues can be looked at as a language.some speak,some sing and others are poets.wile alot read it like a book and that can be your cliches. but it`s still a language,you need those so and so words to be that language.
alot of good points....we can all agree, 'making it' is subjective. For me at my age, there is not enough woodshedding I can ever do, to attain mastery of the 'Complete Guide To Harmonica Success' in the music industry. I fall short of doggin myself, which is not good. It is a pipe dream using the established methods...pretty much. There is good news people... With the power of the internet, and self-promoting web sites, you can rest assured there is a better chance now, than ever before. For me, the trick might be to blend what the kids are listening to, what the adults are listening to, and find a message of general value to them both. Then, hit it with some tried and true formula's, 'wow factor', infectious melody's, original hooks, bridges, and well thought out solo's...., and you stand a better chance, than copying blues covers alone. On the other hand, even blues covers alone, can be considered a successful venture, if people connect with you, and come to see YOU play them. no? Follow your heart and soul. Who do you resonate with? Copy them, until you get the what, how, and why they're sayin' it. I'm a late comer. I do have the blues. I am divorced, all my true friends(except two)have passed, no kids to fill my later years with joy, I'm angry at the establishment, and dickheads in general, and I also feel mankind is generally parasitic in nature, destined to self destruct (soon). I play the harp and sing better than I ever thought I could. And for me, that's a success already. I can even get people to clap and throw money at me. Hell, the ladies throw their panties at me...and they smelll reallly good. Even a couple blokes have made me a few offers. C'mon...seriously. Are you thinking you become another Kim Wilson? Gimmie a break!
---------- Why is it that we all just can't get along?<
I'll be honest Tooka, given that you kept mentioning melody in your opening shot, I'm surprised at the video you posted. Please do not interpret that as any criticism of the music though, which I liked, but in all honesty is not a million miles removed from what Beefheart was doing 40 years ago. It might be a refreshing change from the sterililty of the mainstream, but I question whether it is as groundbreaking as it wants to think it is.
Same can be said of JRNB - and again I love the music so there is no implied criticism - but the energy and punk attitude is little removed from the Garage bands of the 60s ad 70s. High energy punk blues is not new, The Sonics et al were doing it on one side of the Atlantic, and the likes of Lew Lewis and Dr Feelgood did it over here.
The analogy of evolution is an interesting one.
Did you realise for instance that the crocodiles are essentially unchanged in form since the time of the dinosaurs? They are perfectly suited to their niche i the world.
I don't think the blues will ever change, it has found a comfortable niche and embedded itself. It has hybridised with just about every other genre out there - incestuously breeding with it's own descendants, but those off-shoots are no threat to it. They do not compete with it. The blues reptile (now rarer in the wild) still exists comfortably in captivity - well guarded by those who will preserve it.
blues music was ignored for so long by america but discovered in europe in the 50s and 60s we are relative newcomers to it-there is such a large selection available that I am always hearing something new I have not heard before
Holy crap!! I'm a huge blues-clichè!! I wear a suit and play old-school blues!
I guess I'm one of those guys that keeps holding the blues back. Like I said,I wear a suit at my gigs,we play old-school blues,I don't own a single custom harp,I do not own one effect pedal. No,I play juke-joint blues on stock MB's on my 70's Fender Champ..
You know what,I don't give a shit if people don't like it.. I play the music I love to listen to myself. Old stuff like Big Walter,Lightnin' Hopkins,Robert Nighthawk etc. That's what blues is for me. I love the 12-bar format and I can listen to it all day long! I never get tired of it.. But put on a Howard Levy song and I turn it off after 30 secs. It's not music that I like. A little better with Jason Ricci. Wonderful person,killer skills..but most of his songs doesn't really do it for me. So just to say it, I would rather listen to Ant's playing for a day than Howard L's! Howard's skills is out of this Earth,but not my taste. But I have no need for starting a thread to tell everybody that I don't like much of the modern blues with machine-gun riffing and lots of effects..
Maybe I'm a bit sick of the need for modern players to put down guys,like me,loving and playing old, worn out riffs and old tired blues cliches..
I stated earlier that I don't care what someone plays, but it is kinda silly telling someone you can't dislike your style while hating on theirs and using rather strong language doing so.
I will forever stand by my comments that I do not take pleasure in watching blues retro-acts. I don't recall making comments about suits or fedoras, but I specifically commented on people acting like greasers or what have you. I just don't think you can play honestly and from the soul if you are dressed and acting like a characterization of an inaccurate historical reference viewed through rose colored glasses.
Maybe I am ignorant, but I can't think of any legends who in the circa 1950's looked, acted, and played like that. I don't get the current west coast swing thing in general, but that is my issue.
You have every right to hate anything I play or do, mind you. I am totally cool with that. No one is right or wrong in their judgement. We just need to acknowledge the truth when present and realize not everyone needs to agree all the time.
One last defensive comment, and again to clarify, I actually like a number of "cliched" players - see Kim Wilson who is far and away my favorite blues harp player. For me, anyways, if the actual personality of someone comes through, I can like "cliched" blues as much as anyone....assuming it is played really well.
There are a lot of hacky players more concerned with a fake image around blues than being good at what they do. That isn't busting chops of someone trying to become a great blues player. I know a lot of hobby players and beginners who want to play great traditional blues and aren't all the way there yet. I think that is fantastic and can very much enjoy what they are playing.
What I can't stand are crappy players with huge attitudes and massive amounts of schitck that talk the talk but can't walk the walk.
Finally, I don't know how much old vs modern bashing I see here so much as people who like different styles. I do, though, see huge value in clarifying opinions as to what is good/not good to help people understand.
For example, if I started a thread asking for artists to listen to or gear I should buy, it would vary greatly. Ultimately, I spent a lot of money buying vintage and stereotypical gear to find that what I really wanted was rig that sounded nothing like what the majority was using. ---------- Mike Quicksilver Custom Harmonicas
thorvaldsen76 I'm with you as far as the choices I (we) actually LISTEN to. That said, I can't see taking any of these opinions personally.
HarpNinja: "What I can't stand are crappy players with huge attitudes and massive amounts of schitck that talk the talk but can't walk the walk." Yeah, I have get away or I'm likely to say something ugly -Inner self: shut up shut up shut up
Last Edited by on Sep 08, 2011 11:14 AM
Carlos Del Junco - a lot of his blues playing is sans overbends and very clever
Dennis Gruneling
John Nemeth
Charlie Musselwhite - can pick him out in just the first couple of notes...nothing about him is cliched, IMO
Those are great places to start. Only Paul is no longer living, but his music is less than 20yrs old, played on both diatonic and chromatic, and is totally brilliant.
Since I gave a serious post, I might as well end it stirring the pot...I can't think of one old-time legend that didn't try to push the envelope. Sonny Boy, Little Walter, etc, all were innovative and out there in their day...hence why they became legends.
If I were playing blues and trying to not sound like a cliched player, the first thing I'd do is start listening to guitar players, actually. Get an understanding for more than the blues scale in cross harp and start playing major 3rd's, 6th's, and 11th's (but not just wailing on 6 draw like it is a blue note, as that is the cliched use) over blues. Learn to modulate keys with the progression too.
You don't need to overblow to do any of that. Otherwise, here are some ways to take others' blues harps licks and to reinvent them:
Play them really fast Play them with more space Play the same intervals in a different position TB when the pucker and pucker when they TB Transpose the licks to a different octave Change the rhythms Play a cleaner rig with more dynamicss Play a dirtier rig with less dynamics Play acoustic riffs amped Play amped riffs acoustically Play major notes where they played minor - assuming the song is a D7 chord or a Major chord Play minor notes where they played major - works almost 100% of the time
Look,I'm not trying to be anything other than myself.. I'm not putting up an act or trying to show attitude.. I'm just being myself. I used to wear jeans and t-shirts when I played. Then we had a gig at a party where people was suited up,so we did it as well. And I liked it,I actually played better,believe it or not! Maybe it's like putting on your team-jersey before a game,I don't know. But it really works for me..
Strong language? Was it that strong? I've seen other discussions about this topic and I have never said much. But I'm getting tired of this old vs modern-arguments so this time I just wanted to say my 2 cents. And if you think I HATE modern players,you are so wrong. I don't HATE people. I just don't like their music,that's all. Is that hate? If so,I guess you hate me?
And I have no problem about disagreeing with you! Not at all! But when some of you clearly states that the way I do it is not the way to do it,then I feel like sticking up for myself!
I tend to not hate people, especially those I don't know. Honestly, I think you are reading too much into what I said. I am trying to avoid point to too many specific people, so I will try one more time to clarify (honestly, I don't even know if anyone on the board fits this).
But I know a band doing traditional blues - mostly West Coast stuff. Part of their schtick is, "We are more traditional than you". Again, fine. One guy in the band has the right to do whatever the heck he wants based on his career alone let alone his chops. Not my favorite kind of music, but even an idiot would realize he is legit in every aspect. From what I've seen in pics, vids, etc, he dress very formal and professional
The harp player, who is your average semi-pro player. Very solid player, but nothing to offer a unique selling point...which again, is fine. It works great for him. Anyways, he'd be the type to wear a jacket and look really pro. I totally respect that. He dresses for his age in a very classy way that is consistent with his personality, role in the band, and contemporary appearance of his pro peers.
They do not wear "retro" looking suits, etc. I can post pics of what they wear/act like vs the retro thing I don't like, but that is getting too personal and not fair to those not on the board.
Another guy in the band - not a harp player - reminds me of a sleezy John Nemeth. I hate putting it that way, but on stage he just turns me off. For all I know, he is a super nice guy and everything, but the stage persona is a total schitck.
He isn't from the South. He isn't old enough to have rocked the 50's...or 60's...maybe 70's? I'd bet a pay check he'd never played a juke joint, eaten grits, drank whiskey, or whatever...but the commercialized version of what a "blues man" was/should be was real appealing to him so he is acting it out. At least croon about stuff you've experienced rather than pretending to be something you're not.
Again, I just don't like the playboy schtick when it comes out of something that isn't real.
Here is a buddy of mine from MN....really good blues player (plays a lot of Chicago blues, swing, and now some delta blues). He is one of those guys who is an excellent technician of all the fundamentals.
At what point does someone become phony or fake? I was born in Chicago. I learned to play there by watching the old guys. Most of them were pretty traditional. What I play is traditional blues. Does that make me fake?
I like to play and sing Rice Miller and Junior Wells tunes because I enjoy their music. Where does that fit in? My buddy, Kenny Blue Ray calls me Sonny Boy 3, because we have fun playing Sonny Boy stuff and it's well received.
I moved to the West Coast. I started meeting West Coast players. I still play traditional Chicago Blues. Many players around here are not as traditional as I am. Does that make me fake or phony?
I've worn a suit. I've played with other suit wearing guys. We were sitting down. Does that make me a cliche, fake or phony?
I comb my hair back and gel it? Am I a sleazy, cliche fake?
I'm just curious where I fit in on the phony douchebag scale.
Before you pass judgement, is there any other info you need? ---------- The Blues Photo Gallery
Last Edited by on Sep 09, 2011 6:21 PM
The test, I think, is whether a performer or band is imitating or making the material his/its own in some uniquely individual way. Is what's being played a copy of something or an original interpretation of something (if not actually an original composition)?
i prefer those musicians who make the materiel their own. Compare, say, Mark Hummell to Sugar Blue. Or R. J. Micho to Mark Ford. The difference is between being derivative or being innovative. Or take Paul Butterfield. No one was playing harp like that when he cam along--an authentic blues sound, but in an innovative style.
If I hear one more harp player play "Juke" note for note, I'm going to puke. I mean, hasn't that already been done? And done more than enough?
On the other hand, there's nothing that works like pandering to the lowest common denominator. You don't have to gig for very long to appreciate how much audience reaction you can get using gimmicky tired old cliches. The real challenge is in getting the audience reaction without resorting to them--which may be easier said than done.
Last Edited by on Sep 10, 2011 2:13 PM
Adam - maybe if you spent more time with John Nemeth, like you have with Rick Estrin, you might find that John is a great guy who is merely playing music that he loves much like yourself.
Bobby Rush is a great guy. He can tell a story like few others. He's a great entertainer.
This is my whole point, though. Being a musician is all about impressions. If Adam happened by the band and wasn't peers with these guys, who is to say he would have seen through the schtick?
What Adam referenced are blues cliches - white guys dishing out schtick that is only going to appeal to those who like the schtick to begin with.
IMO, if you want to use cliches, which is totally fine, than you should expect cliched audiences. It was years before I'd by a Nemeth CD just because of the imagery he throws out there. That isn't to say it is wrong, but as someone, who most blues business men trying to make a buck would drool over as a fan, the blues is its own worst enemy.
All I am saying is if these guys played the EXACT same thing and looked and acted different, it might make them more accessible to people who like the music but not the schtick. _______________________________
Sugar Blue Kim Wilson Dennis Gruenling Adam Gussow
All great BLUES harmonica players with their own style void of blues cliches that other musicians and demographics poke fun at, for the most part (again, what has prompted the direction of this thread was my comments about schtick and not really the music being played).
I think the cliched schtick - mute the music as we aren't talking what is being played - is hurting traditional blues and turning off people who might otherwise flock to the music.
Like previously posted, people in today's day and age can see right through that crap.
Mike - when you are categorizing Nemeth or Piazza without knowing the person, you are engaging in judgement based on appearance. Is that acceptable?
Are there not harp players who dress differently than accepted societal norms who are celebrated because they are different than societal norms? Arent you guys being somewhat unfairly critical in judging these people?
Additionally, is Nemeth his own worst enemy? He plays over 200 gigs a year. He's got a niche market and he seems to do pretty well. I saw him last night and chatted with him briefly. He was in good spirits. He didn't have any complaints about his chosen profession.
"All I am saying is if these guys played the EXACT same thing and looked and acted different, it might make them more accessible to people who like the music but not the schtick."
One could say the same about overblow players wearing Converse trainers, t-shirts and jeans. Or rock player with tight jeans and leather jackets. Or jazz players wearing berets and cravats. See the point Mike?
My personal take is I don't give a damn how someone dresses or what they look like physically, their colour, their sexuality, their political/religious beliefs, their stage persona or anything else. Does their music moves me? That's all that matters to me.
Last Edited by on Sep 11, 2011 2:32 AM
all the great blues players ,jazz and trad. blues,shared a common language.they learned it with assimilation,younger dudes listening to older ones. the good players developed ther own sound and the rest played what you call cliches.and they will never rize above it because either they wont woodshed or they don`t have the talent.i`ll" shutup and play my guitar"...
I am not saying it is right or wrong. I am saying the schtick thing is silly and turns people off. While there might be a small percentage of pros who it "works" for, although, I'd argue that that isn't the X factor for their success, it makes amateurs, hobbiests, and weekend warriors look bad.
I would also argue, to a large extent, that the greasy blues schtick is a lot dumber than some of those others.
In evaluating who I'd consider to be fairly popular contemporaries, that schtick isn't working for those pros. Nemeth is a bit of an outlier. I don't think he pushes the schtick as far as others. I originally shared that opinion and it was Adam who said he felt he went too far at times.
All I know is if you are dressed like you're from the 50's and/or have a woman way to hot to be a fan of your music photograph or otherwise represented on your album cover, website, or gig poster, I will probably NOT be easy to win over unless you actually performed in that time period. If you character is a cliche of unrealistic, but preconcieved notions, of what schtick looked like from that time period, it will turn me off too.
Again, this has little to do with the actual music, I am a huge Nemeth fan, but long story short, if you are under 50 years old and hoping the blues lineage continues without becoming blues-rock or country-rock, then get out of the time warp in at least one category.
I've seen dozens of videos of players on here, most not touring pros obviously, including video from Joe_L. If I were anywhere near a venue someone like he or Kingley, for example, were playing, I'd be there in a heartbeat.
I will pass on someone like Piazza (I HATE naming names here) based on the fact that I don't like the feeling I get when checking them out.
***It totally turns me off that a totally contrived act can be perceived as so "soulful", "emotional", and "from the heart". It sends conflicting messages. Granted, everyone has a gimmick that is performing, good, bad or otherwise, but at least have it be about the here and now. ---------- Mike Quicksilver Custom Harmonicas
Last Edited by on Sep 11, 2011 6:54 AM
Authenticity resonate differently for people based on their life experiences to date.
Of course the general public will have a different litmus test than harmonica players when it comes to the blues.
I'm still amazed at the popular excitement generated by American Idol. Doesn't resonate with me as much as the "citizens".
Some get excited by fast/flashy. I've found that generally, I don't have much in common with these folks.
As to the blues, it was radical in the day it was developing into the artistic musical art form it is now. Some may even feel that the evolution of this art form came to a dead stop in the late 50's early 60's. In other words, what was innovative stopped experimenting with new forms/ideas. It is a snapshot of a time period.
The same can be argued about jazz - in the 30's - 40's, swing was the style. In the late 40's, Charlie Parker and Dizzy were at the forefront of a new style - focusing on adding more changes to the music and virtuosity of scales/arpeggios as well as timing the notes behind the beat. This was attacked and not accepted at first, being as revolutionary as it was. However, it did become another style of music in a snapshot of the time. Be-bop could not really be advanced beyond this stage, so musicians either started recreating what had already been done or a handful looked for the next evolution. Miles Davis was usually at the fore front of these explorations. He would talk about the sad state of affairs as the younger generation was satisfied with playing the same old stuff over and over again - he said it was like climbing into bed with an 80 year old woman that smelled bad. "Cool Jazz", "Hard Bop" "Modal" followed as some were more interested in progressing into new territories.
I see a big similarity to "blues" in these respects. There are those more than happy to recreate the past and there are a handful that are looking to advance the music.
As I age, I see less value in nostalgia and more into embracing the now and looking towards the future.
If I want to hear a version of "Juke", I'll play the original one. If I want to be moved, I'll listen to a blues artist that lived the original life and spoke from his heart. Granted, there are contemporary blues artists that also speak from the heart about their life experiences, but something has gotten a little too slick for me in these modern times. ---------- The Iceman
@JoeL: You're one of our resident experts on Chicago blues. It's telling that you simply ignored all the stuff I shared about Bobby Rush--a true legend of Chicago blues; he lived and worked there for 40 years--and his forward-looking attitude, preferring instead to talk about Nemeth. I'm sure he's a nice guy. May we move on and talk about more important things? I was trying to do that.
Last Edited by on Sep 11, 2011 10:06 AM
"I will pass on someone like Piazza (I HATE naming names here) based on the fact that I don't like the feeling I get when checking them out."
I went to watch Rod Piazza in a small club somewhere in Belgium, with several other harp addicts,including 5F6H, Mark Burness.
It was superb ! There was no schtick, he didn't tell us stories of the past,he didn't speak in any other accent or style other than his own. Yes, he was wearing a very smart (expensive) suit. All the band were dressed very well. This was approx 15 years ago. He was the first guy I'd heard of that went out into the audience and played. Just as he did in the video Adam posted here recently.
Piazza is not a faker. He played /toured with and was taught by Little George Smith.
IMHO he is one of the best blues harp player alive. He has no peers on blues chromatic.
Here's an extract from his website. Born in 1947, Piazza's infatuation with blues began at a time when many of the masters were still in their prime years, and in the mid 1960s when the first blues revival was picking up steam, he was in the thick of it. By the 1970s, he'd already released five albums, and was one of the leading lights of the West Coast Blues scene. In the early '70s he joined forces with Otis Spann disciple Honey Alexander (now his wife) on piano, and when they formed the Mighty Flyers over three decades ago, his career really hit its stride. Since then Piazza and the Mighty Flyers have won or been nominated for just about every award that can be bestowed upon a blues band, played literally thousands of gigs around the world, recorded over a dozen highly acclaimed releases, and along the way virtually created a new style of blues - a combination of low-down Chicago grit, suave West Coast swing and jazz, and the rhythmic drive of the best early R&B and rock & roll. Quite simply, Rod Piazza and The Mighty Flyers are one of the best, most experienced, and most distinctive bands in blues today. ---------- The Pentatonics Myspace Youtube
"Why don't you leave some holes when you play, and maybe some music will fall out".
"I've seen dozens of videos of players on here, most not touring pros obviously, including video from Joe_L. If I were anywhere near a venue someone like he or Kingley, for example, were playing, I'd be there in a heartbeat."
Wow! Thank you for the compliment Mike.
"There are those more than happy to recreate the past and there are a handful that are looking to advance the music."
The same can be said about any style of music. Take Punk, Reggae, Classical, Garage, etc, etc. There are always people in any genre of music who wish to advance it and then there are always the purists who resist change in any form. Neither are right and neither are wrong. It's simply a matter of personal taste.
As for the imitators of 50's jump blues., are they any worse or cornier than say the Jason Ricci, Adam Gussow, Jimi Hendrix or Miles Davis imitators out there? Surely the only thing that matters is does the music sound good? Does it speak to you? Not how they dress, what they say or what their album covers or gig posters look like.
