|
Dirty-South Blues Harp forum: wail on! >
Is Rick Estrin correct?
Is Rick Estrin correct?
Page:
1
2
benditlikeWalter
4 posts
Oct 12, 2011
1:01 PM
|
I was looking at a clip from Rick's tuition dvd and he says that - for him - all the truly great blues harmonica players are dead.
Do we agree?
|
HawkeyeKane
262 posts
Oct 12, 2011
1:21 PM
|
Not by a long shot.
I'd say almost all the PIONEERS of blues harmonica have crossed the Styx, but not all the players.
----------
Hawkeye Kane
|
5F6H
898 posts
Oct 12, 2011
1:22 PM
|
Of course he is correct, I trust Rick Estrin to know his own mind, if "for him", he feels that all the truly great players are dead (the one's with the biggest influence on his playing), then that's what he feels. If you were primarily influenced by living players then your perspective might be different.
If somebody thinks they know Rick's feelings on the subject better than he does then they are deluded. To contradict him would be in contradiction of the forum creed.
Now, whether we all, or any of us agree, or disagree with that sentiment, well that is a whole different question altogether...;-)
We will all have our own answers to that question, which we as individuals will validate for ourselves...like our favourite flavor of ice cream, how many (if any) sugars we like in our coffee, or what toppings we like on our Pizzas...they are questions of taste & perspective. An "accross the board" agreement or disagreement is not required or necessary for any of these topics.
I would also add that it's not very sporting to bring unwilling/unknowing participants into debates like this and other recent topics...it's not really fair for them to be placed on "sides" of a divide without their consent. It might have been fairer to phrase the question as "I have heard it said...." rather than name names - then we could get on with the job of tearing each other a new one, without "poster boys" for our causes being inadvertantly recruited to one doctrine or another ;-). Arbitrary lines of followers & heretics, angels & demons appear to have been attributed to certain players in other threads, without any knowledge of whether they are party to, or aware of perceived divisions & rifts.
----------
www.myspace.com/markburness
Last Edited by on Oct 12, 2011 1:55 PM
|
Joe_L
1523 posts
Oct 12, 2011
1:22 PM
|
I just watched that section of the video. His actual words were,
"there are several excellent players and even a few true greats among today's players but one thing I know for sure, the very best ones, they've been dead a long time."
I consider James Cotton to be one of the very best ones. If you exclude him, then I agree with him. Guys like Billy Branch and Sugar Blue are great and continuing to add to their legacy.
I should also add that I listen almost exclusively to Blues.
The title of the video is: "Rick Estrin Reveals Secrets, Subtleties & Tricks Of The Blues Harmonica." Don't forget Rick is talking about Blues. Nothing else. Not jazz or Celtic music or classical. Just Blues.
----------
The Blues Photo Gallery
Last Edited by on Oct 12, 2011 3:53 PM
|
tjtaylor
3 posts
Oct 12, 2011
1:24 PM
|
I think what he say's is "the very best ones have been dead a long time" Probably a strong statement but once again this is one man's opinion, in this case it is one with which I agree. Other than Cotton I cannot think of any one living who hits me on as deep a level as Rice Miller, Walter Horton etc. depth of feeling is what appeals to me, I just don't hear it too much in the modern players, with a couple of exceptions. And I have listened to most of them I think.
|
Diggsblues
1029 posts
Oct 12, 2011
1:35 PM
|
That's like saying all the great guitarists are dead.
Harmonica is so weird sometimes.
----------
Emile "Diggs" D'Amico a Legend In His Own Mind
How you doin'
|
Steamrollin Stan
102 posts
Oct 12, 2011
1:37 PM
|
Well i'm still alive.
|
LSC
97 posts
Oct 12, 2011
1:50 PM
|
All art is subjective. How does one define "the best" when it comes to art? Rick Estrin stated his opinion. Do "we" agree? Some will. Some won't. There is no "right" or "wrong". Opinion is not fact...duh. Kind of pointless discussion, IMHO:)
----------
LSC
|
chromaticblues
1032 posts
Oct 12, 2011
2:10 PM
|
He's intittled to his opinion. He's a VERY good harp player. I don't agree with him, but I wouldn't augue about it. I would discuse with him with a couple harmonicas and a cold beer. That would be fun to me. Not argueing about it.
|
nacoran
4742 posts
Oct 12, 2011
2:39 PM
|
RIP Harmonica.
----------
Nate
Facebook
Thread Organizer (A list of all sorts of useful threads)
|
Michael Rubin
282 posts
Oct 12, 2011
2:59 PM
|
I'll play the original poster's game. I do not agree. I think Cotton, Estrin, Wilson and Oscher are just as good as the best ever.
Last Edited by on Oct 12, 2011 3:00 PM
|
RyanMortos
1154 posts
Oct 12, 2011
4:17 PM
|
Rick might think all the greatest players are dead but I certainly think we got a bunch of great living players. Plus a lot of future players no one knows what they'll sound like yet.
----------
~Ryan
"I play the harmonica. The only way I can play is if I get my car going really fast, and stick it out the window." - Steven Wright
Pennsylvania - H.A.R.P. (Harmonica Association 'Round Philly)
See My Profile for contact info, etc.
|
7LimitJI
556 posts
Oct 12, 2011
5:37 PM
|
The very best is dead..........Little Walter.
Bill Clarke too :o(
There are some brilliant player still around.
I listen to more dead than alive though.
----------
The Pentatonics Myspace
Youtube
"Why don't you leave some holes when you play, and maybe some music will fall out".
"It's music,not just complicated noise".
|
benditlikeWalter
5 posts
Oct 13, 2011
12:11 AM
|
Well, I think most of the truly great singer/harmonica players are dead.
And I think that it's that combination of singer and player - embodied in the same person -that really hits home.
Today there are lots of great harmonica players but not so many artists who can combine the two skills in a really profound way.
|
Frank
8 posts
Oct 13, 2011
4:34 AM
|
IF The GREAT dead harp players in their PRIME were on the "same bill" to play a club as the GREAT harp players of today and you got to witness this live, I believe you would then UNDERSTAND very clearly what Rick is referring to. The harp players of today would be sitting at the feet of the ORIGINAL Masters, it wouldn't be the other way around.
|
kudzurunner
2743 posts
Oct 13, 2011
4:41 AM
|
In the first edition of MISTER SATAN'S APPRENTICE, I wrote that a great NYC street harp player, Canarsie Kenny, was dead. Because somebody told me he was dead.
One day after the book had been published, I picked up the phone and a growling voice said, "Hey Adam, I AIN'T DEAD! And I don't like what you wrote about me in your book."
He was still alive, needless to say. No experience, for a writer, is quite so awkward as writing about somebody in colorful terms that you wouldn't have used if they were alive and then having to talk with them on the phone. And meet them.
|
harpdude61
1106 posts
Oct 13, 2011
4:56 AM
|
I guess he has been on the road so long he has not heard of Ricci, Del Junco, ...shit... I could write a whole page.
Maybe a cut, in a way, at some of the modern blues harmonica players.
Of course not many traditionalist will list an overbender as a great harmonica player....uh uh...no no
|
benditlikeWalter
6 posts
Oct 13, 2011
5:12 AM
|
A previous poster Frank stated that if our long dead great harmonica heroes came back it would be todays harp stars who would be asking all the questions.
Well, I'm not so sure about that.
In Adam's "Mr Satan's Book", he mentioned that Nat Riddles was intrigued upon hearing Adam introducing overblows in to his playing.
And, I bet if Little Walter came back to us, he would be bending Jason's ear in an attempt to get to grips with some of the newer harp techniques.
|
MrVerylongusername
1993 posts
Oct 13, 2011
5:52 AM
|
I'm shocked that everyone's playing so nicely - full moon and all! ;-)
@ BenditlikeWalter
You said you saw the promo clip of the DVD - I'd heartily recommend you stump up for the full DVD. It's very entertaining and it talks about the showmanship and groove aspects of playing - no other instructional stuff I've seen goes into any of that.
@thread
Anyway IMHO he's still wrong. Yeah "the greats" are dead, but what is it that makes them "the greats"? They are amazing players. They feel the music, their phrasing, groove and tone are spot on. I could say that about many blues players still with us too. They've been mentioned above.
So what's the difference?
It's the passing of the years: the Golden Age of blues is long gone. Now blues is a minority interest. Blues records generally only make the blues record charts - sure there are exceptions in the likes of Clapton and Gary Moore (RIP), but they are few and far between.
It isn't Kim Wilson's fault that he isn't a star the way that Little Walter was (briefly) it's an accident of birth. If any of the modern players named above had been contemporary with "the greats", but playing the way they play now, they'd be mentioned in the same breath and revered the same way as the Walters and the Sonny Boys
Everything was better when I was a kid - the music, the food, the TV shows; we had real toys, the animation was better and chicken tasted like chicken.
Reality check time - we romanticise the past. My kids have a fantastic childhood. It's different, in many ways it's better - it's certainly not worse.
"I never saw a sight that didn't look better looking back"
|
5F6H
899 posts
Oct 13, 2011
6:40 AM
|
@ Harpdude61 "Of course not many traditionalist will list an overbender as a great harmonica player....uh uh...no no"
How many of the "traditionalists" (assuming that there is such a formally subscribed, card carrying, movement) can overblow?...The answer is...rather more than you think. Quite a few choose not to use them, rather than avoid it through lack of ability.
There must be more to being great than just being able to overblow surely? Tommy Reilly & Larry Adler not great because they "copped out" & used a chromatic? Charlie McCoy not great because he uses alternate tuned harps...well hold that, if overblowing makes me greater than I thought I was, I guess there's no need to hide my light under a bushell! ;-)
You seem to be perceiving a divide...there's as much, or as little of a divide as you want there to be. There doesn't appear to be any one common factor that aligns either "traditionalists", nor "modern" players (or those perceived as such) as far as I can tell from the current commentary...not age, not overblowing, not being dead or alive...some players seem to be adopted by both "camps"...I'm open to being educated on the matter with some examples of tangible attributes? (I'd rather avoid people using specific player's names, unless those playrs specifically want to comment under their own steam).
Let's remember Rick hasn't said anything bad about any specific living players that I am aware of, he has just said that the players he looks/looked up to have passed on. Not really surprising seeing that he came up in a certain era & has been fully formed for several decades now. I think we can discuss this without "drafting" our own personal fantasy "league of the chosen" without their consent...and most of all, let's try and abide to the spirit of the forum creed...I mean it is for all of us right?
"But please refrain from flaming, insulting, or otherwise impugning the intelligence or good intentions of your fellow board members, or from starting threads that seek to encourage that sort of behavior."
"...some of us like funk. All of us share a love for blues harmonica, and that is what brings us here to share a space in which we can express that love." :-)
----------
www.myspace.com/markburness
Last Edited by on Oct 13, 2011 6:50 AM
|
harpdude61
1109 posts
Oct 13, 2011
9:03 AM
|
It is a full moon at 5f6h house. I should have been a writer.... if I can provoke such a deep response with so few words.
Did I say you have to be great to OB? No.
Did I say you have to OB to be great? No.
Traditionalist is a term I picked up from this forum.
Many old style blues players like Estrin and Wilson pretty much stay in the blues. I'm sure they can play some in other genres. No doubt.
Just because some people expand beyond the blues...they are not blues players any more. BULL. Ricci studied LW and can play that style as well as anyopne alive if he so chooses.
Why in the hell would you choose not to use OBs if you CAN play them. Why not just leave out the 3 draw bent 1/2 step and the 4 draw bent 1/2 step? Same difference......well...you could just saw off the top 4 holes of your harps.
I stand by my original, very simple comment...
"not many traditionalist will list an overbender as a great harmonica player" ...just reread the thread.
I'm with benditlikeWalter
"I bet if Little Walter came back to us, he would be bending Jason's ear in an attempt to get to grips with some of the newer harp techniques."
|
hvyj
1860 posts
Oct 13, 2011
9:16 AM
|
Overbending is a TECHNIQUE, not a style. It may be more commonly used in certain styles than in other styles, but whether or not a player uses OBs does not define the style of music being played.
Personally, I don't OB. But I don't consider myself a player who has aparticularly traditional style, either.
|
tmf714
844 posts
Oct 13, 2011
9:25 AM
|
"Ricci studied LW and can play that style as well as anyopne alive if he so chooses"
nope-not better than Dennis Gruenling,Rod Piazza or Steve Guyger-not even close-oh,throw Bharath and Rick Estrin in there too--
Last Edited by on Oct 13, 2011 9:25 AM
|
harpdude61
1110 posts
Oct 13, 2011
9:39 AM
|
I agree hvyj...Musselwhite fits into your category.
You may be right tmf.....he probably chooses not to because he can take it to a new place...rather than be a copy of some old 1950s record.
|
waltertore
1555 posts
Oct 13, 2011
9:56 AM
|
Drop the record needle randomly on an lp. If they are reconizable in a few seconds, for me, they are great. I may not dig them, but they are great because they have developed their own sound that is instantly reconizable. Todays crop of players copy way too many different styles and thus don't have an instantly reconizable sound. The blues greats had that instantly reconizable sound. They had a unique style. That was valued in their day. Today seems to value virtuousity over style. I will take jimmy reed anyday over the new flashy players. Why? Because he has a total sound that goes beyond the harp, guitars, drums, vocals. If he hit the scene today, I bet he would never make it off his back porch.
I saw charlie musselwhite mentioned here. I first heard charlie live in the mid 70's. He always blew the high notes differently than a traditional blues player would. I remember gigging with him back then and although it is not my thing, I know his sound when I hear it. He also doesn't have the deep tone that seems to be the rave today. He is also probably the only blues harp player besides (I may be wrong) lazy lester and kim wilson that doesn't do anything but play gigs for a living. No jam camps, lessons, instructional videos. I get a kick out of junior wells instructional video. It is a great window into how forgein such a thing was to the old blues greats. They taught through their playing. They didn't break it into a sciene. It was a lifestyle. You hung around them and listened. You learned their way of life, not the sciene/math of a musical equation/instrument. That was the blues. When Charlie dies so will an era.
The t birds were hitting their peak during my years in austin. Kim wanted to go more rock and roll after tough enough. Heck they made more money on that song than they did on all their others put together. Jimmie wanted to stay more blues. Kim learned the rock world has a short memory and the blues a long one.... Walter
----------
walter tore's spontobeat - a real one man band and over 1 million spontaneously created songs and growing. I record about 300 full length cds a year.
" life is a daring adventure or nothing at all" - helen keller
2,800+ of my songs
continuous streaming - 200 most current songs
my videos
Last Edited by on Oct 13, 2011 10:16 AM
|
tmf714
847 posts
Oct 13, 2011
10:34 AM
|
I mistakenly left Kim off my list-Muddy Waters was quoted as saying Kim was "The greatest harmonica player since Little Walter".
Last Edited by on Oct 13, 2011 10:35 AM
|
Kingley
1674 posts
Oct 13, 2011
10:38 AM
|
"I was looking at a clip from Rick's tuition dvd and he says that - for him - all the truly great blues harmonica players are dead.
Do we agree?"
I understand exactly what Rick means. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with him. Simply that I understand what he means.
With regards to people playing like Little Walter. The best player I've ever heard to imitate Little Walter is Bharath Rajakumar. Sure people like Wilson, Gruenling, Piazza, Smith, Estrin, etc, etc can all play in that style. They all add their own thing to the music though and don't try to sound exactly like Little Walter to the point of attempting to play all the inflections and nuances that Walter used. Bharath does try to do that, and is scarily close to it.
|
chromaticblues
1033 posts
Oct 13, 2011
11:06 AM
|
Mark I was just going to coment on 6:40 AM post. I hit right on the head.
Harp dude you are obviously a big Jason Ricci fan and thats cool. He is a great harp player. No one has said otherwise, but 5f6h is absolutly 100% on the money!
I will say this I agree with benditlike walter. I'll bet LW would hear Jason Ricci and say
Man I gotta learn that shit!
Remenber LW was the Jason Ricci of his time. He was cutting edge.
Now I'm talking about the LW of the early 1950's.
Mark I has a Fabulous Thunderbirds fan in the 80's and 90's. My wife and I say them about 20 times and I have seen them other times also. I agree with what you said refering to there recorded material. They were trying to hit the jack pot. Heay if someone is waving big bills in your face and says: give me a radio hit. BUT I saw them live during that period and to my delight they always played blues songs live. Or they would play a song and Kim would play an extended solo atleast once every time I saw them. So live there was more of Kim Wilson the blues musician than the recordings.
I don't know how old you are or wheather I'm telling you something you already know or not.
I also saw Little Charlie and the nightcats live a few times and everytime who ever I brought was just blown away by Rick Estrin!
I saw Rick estrin at the end of a show stand behind Charlie Batty and play the fret board part of the guitar with his left hand while Charlie Batty played the guitar with his right hand. Then Rick Estrin held the harp and mic up to Charlie Batty's mouth and Charlie started blowing harp. The never stopped playing the song or even slowed down. This was all in the context of there last song!
If Rick Estrin has an opinion on playing the harmonica. I'm OK with it! Honestly I think he was just being humble and trying to pay some respect to the people he studied.
I think he has earned the right to voice his opinion.
|
5F6H
901 posts
Oct 13, 2011
11:57 AM
|
@ Kingley " They all add their own thing to the music though and don't try to sound exactly like Little Walter to the point of attempting to play all the inflections and nuances that Walter used." Paul Oscher also has some of Walter's looseness, his versions of Off The Wall & Juke, whilst accompanying himself on guitar are outrageous. Harmonica Henry deserves an honourable mention too, especially for Don't Slow Me Down, Come Back Baby on his Myspace site. Piazza definitely puts his own twist on Walter's stuff most of the time, usually honing, tidying & tightening things up, his version of the Toddle sounds nothing like Walter's but, if anything prefer Rod's...but the closest I have yet heard to Walter's harp sound, on a commercial release, is Rod's version of "I got to go" on Modern Master. It's about the only harp sound that I could actually mistake for LW if played blind.
----------
www.myspace.com/markburness
|
Kingley
1675 posts
Oct 13, 2011
12:21 PM
|
5F6H - Yes Rod does come very close indeed to Walter's sound on that track.
|
tjtaylor
4 posts
Oct 13, 2011
12:53 PM
|
Music is art, correct? It has a past,present and future, none are more valid than the others, it is just a matter of what moves you personally. You never hear someone say oh that Picasso is worthless because now modern artists have better paint to use. The music of Sonny Boy 1 or 2, Little or Big Walter, George Smith etc. is timeless as all great music is. My belief, AND THIS IS ONLY MY OPINION is that there are many great players today, some we will never even know about, but the thing that made the old masters so deep and soulful as players, singers, and blues men in general was that this was ALL THEY HAD, from the time they were kids, they didn't pick it up the first year of college!
|
isaacullah
1628 posts
Oct 13, 2011
1:07 PM
|
Interestingly, in this whole long discussion, only Mr.VLUN has asked the question: " but what is it that makes them "the greats"? "
Isn't that the root of this discussion?
Here, then, is a new statement to discuss (phrased in a deliberately side-taking, devil's advocate, pot-stirring tone):
"You can only become a 'great' after you are dead. In any genre of art."
Discuss...
----------
== I S A A C ==
View my videos on YouTube!
Visit my reverb nation page!
|
5F6H
903 posts
Oct 13, 2011
1:29 PM
|
Not true, the guys Estrin is referring to all achieved their status whilst alive. They were great in their contemporary time, not just in retrospect.
----------
www.myspace.com/markburness
|
harpdude61
1111 posts
Oct 13, 2011
1:32 PM
|
I see your points 5F6H...great post.
Not that this means anything but I gave my student of 6 months a CD of Slim Harpo stuff. He was answering licks pretty darn close and he said "I like this guy".
He liked the simple stuff, the space, and the non-busy feel of the music.
I may be guilty of being blinded by razzle dazzle at times.
|
hvyj
1863 posts
Oct 13, 2011
1:39 PM
|
Greatness involves INNOVATION. It is not a measure of greatness to be able to imitate another player's style. IMHO, Butterfield was great because he defined his own identifiable style --no one played harp like that before.
I think Sugar Blue has his own identifiable innovative style. Billy Branch is an excellent player, but i don't hear much from him that is innovative. But i do think that James Cotton is a great. Kim Wilson and Rick Estrin sort of straddle innovation and interpretation--they are very innovative in the way they interpret an established style. Piazza doesn't seem particularly innovative to me.
|
5F6H
904 posts
Oct 13, 2011
2:10 PM
|
HYVJ I'd say that Piazza has at least as many of his own licks, sound ("that Piazza tone" is a frequently heard reference among harp players, like it or hate it, it's a datum that many are aware of & recognise) & songs as any harp player alive...check out his discography. He and Bill Clarke betweeen them really took the ball from George Smith, ran with it & over the last 30 odd years pretty well lead the charge in forging a new West Coast blues harp sound & style. The thing that amazes me about Piazza is simply the execution, a friend of mine said that watching Piazza was like watching "someone born with a harp in their mouth"...& it is, it's mesmerising watching that 64 chrom slide around in his hands like it has a life of it's own. If you only ever listen to one Piazza album make sure it's Live At BB Kings.
He perhaps has a more workmanlike approach, honing & developing the same song over years into a finished article, that may not vary a great deal after that point & I can see some folks having an issue with that, but that's not the same thing as lacking creativity, or innovation. It was Piazza specifically who lead to the creation of the Harpking amps & he turned around a decent trade in Astatic custom JT30's back in the day too...his influence spans many aspects of blues harp today.
----------
www.myspace.com/markburness
Last Edited by on Oct 13, 2011 3:14 PM
|
hvyj
1865 posts
Oct 13, 2011
3:50 PM
|
@5F6H: i haven't listened to a whole lot of Piazza or Clarke, but from what I have listened to I think Clarke has a more individually defined style. Piazza's execution is truly impressive and he does get an amped harmonica sounding kinda sorta like an alto sax--probably due to the Harpking and whatever mics he uses. But, musically and artistically, my impression is that Clarke is more original in his approach.
No doubt Piazza has licks and songs of his own. i mean, he's a really good player so I'd be surprised if he didn't. But stylistically, although his amped tone is certainly recognizable, his musical statements don't strike me as particularly creative artistically. I mean, when i hear him, I don't say , wow, no one else plays harp like that. Clarke, on the other hand, to my ear has amore individually defined style.
Like i said, i haven't really studied either one. But since I've recently started to get into chrom, i'm starting to get intrigued by Clarke's stuff and want to figure out some of what he's doing. Piazza's stuff is not all that different from what I've heard some others do on chrom and just doesn't sound as interesting to me. Doesn't mean he's not good, but just not innovative enough for me to think he's GREAT. Just my option, though.
|
MrVerylongusername
1998 posts
Oct 13, 2011
5:08 PM
|
Little Walter took one style of music (the old school country blues style of the likes of Sonny Boy I), fused it with the what was contemporary (Louis Jordan style Jump Blues) played new lines by emulating another instrument (saxophone) and adopted new techniques (mics and driven amplication).
Jason Ricci has taken one style of music (Post 50s blues) fused it with other contemporary styles (funk, punk, and alternative rock) played new lines by emulating another instrument (Hendrix style guitar) and adopted new techniques (effects, overblows, speed playing)
Can someone please explain to me why one is a trailblazing 'great' and the other isn't? Surely both have done something that adds to the canon of blues harmonica?
I suggest to you that it has nothing to do with Jason's importance as a player, but entirely to do with the fact that his music has crossed the line to a place that is no longer acceptable to the self-appointed gatekeepeers of the blues museum. I seriously cannot think of any other other musical genre that is so conservative and rooted in the past - and that includes the English folk music scene.
It is also a little unfair, as 5F6H does, to suggest that greatness can be measured by assessing relative fame whilst alive. Little Walter was a huge star because - as I tried to point out earlier - he lived in a time when blues records charted. That age is long gone. RnB (long removed from its 50s namesake), hiphop and boybands now dominate the popular music charts. Blues artists will never again enjoy the marketing and hype that the music industry bestowed on them 50 and 60 years ago.
Basically the whole argument boils down to "I like this music so these players are great. I don't like this music so those players aren't great."
|
Joe_L
1526 posts
Oct 13, 2011
7:26 PM
|
You are comparing apple with oranges.
Little Walter revolutionized all of American music, which in turn changed global popular music. Members of the Little Walter band went on to influence an entire generation of popular music. Robert Lockwood, Louis Myers, Dave Myers and Fred Below were all higly influential. All of them influenced not only Blues, but also Rock and Roll. Little Walter is the only harmonica player to be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
Little Walter sold lots of records. He forced darn near every band of the time to have a harp player in the group, i.e. bands didn't get gigs without a harp player. His band with the Aces won competitions against the well known big bands of the time.
As good as Jason Ricci is (and he is excellent), his influence hasn't yet gone beyond a subset of harmonica players. Little Walter influenced every harp player and his influence went beyond harp players.
----------
The Blues Photo Gallery
|
MrVerylongusername
1999 posts
Oct 14, 2011
12:33 AM
|
Exactly. And the point I've consistently been trying to make is that LW's influence was more reflective of the times in which he lived. Jacobs was great and influential because blues, at that time, was hugely popular and shaping the future of popular music.
Jason on the other hand is playing at a time when current blues no longer has any influence on the popular music of the time; that ship has already sailed. No significant media coverage, no significant airplay.
The difference - like you say: apples and oranges - is about the culture around them. Accident of birth. Try this: take Jason and imagine him transplanted into the 1950s blues scene. What would that be like? Take Jacobs and put him into the 21st century. Would he still have been a big star?
Last Edited by on Oct 14, 2011 1:11 AM
|
MrVerylongusername
2000 posts
Oct 14, 2011
12:34 AM
|
Btw. Is Bob Dylan not in the rock and roll hall of fame?
|
MrVerylongusername
2001 posts
Oct 14, 2011
4:12 AM
|
@Mark
Ok. Some good points well made.
I'm clearly not a blues scholar and you've pointed out a few errors in my words - 'charted' was perhaps erroneous, but still does not diminish the fact that blues in the 50s was far more at the forefront of popular culture than it is now. Similarly I should have said "Country blues and urban blues - the likes of SBWI" SBWI started out as country blues and helped define urban blues. Whatever the correct label, his influence on LW is still beyond question and the point that Jacobs took one musical style and fused it with another is still valid. I didn't say LW was the first to amplify harp; in the same way Ricci clearly isn't the first to use effects. Nor did I say that you directly compared LW and JR (yes that was me), but I was referring to this:
"Not true, the guys Estrin is referring to all achieved their status whilst alive. They were great in their contemporary time, not just in retrospect."
and pointing out that it's an unfair comparison given that we are specifically limiting ourselves to blues and its relative significance within the culture of 1950s America and 2011 America.
That leads to my second problem: because we have not defined the yardstick of 'greatness', we are allowing a totally unfair comparison.
There is no denying the importance of any 30s, 40s, 50s or 60s player. But right now - at this time we cannot possibly say that Jason Ricci (purely for want of another example) has had no influence over the future of the blues, because that future hasn't happened - as you say - his star is (hopefully) still ascending. Yes you can go through and cite all those star names who say the old blues guys (for want of a better term) influenced them and it's undeniable fact. I hear Ricci's influence in lots of new young players. I expect in a few decades time he will be cited as an influence, but I don't know - does that diminish his 'greatness' in the here and now? I guess it depends on the definition of greatness.
What makes someone great? as presented in the arguments within this thread it is colossally skewed in favour of the long dead. (Isaac you're right!) If one were to remove the factors of era, culture and influence and focus solely on performance and skill can a fairer comparison be made? That's what I was trying to achieve with the thought experiment. Yes - it was nothing more than an exercise in "What if" but in doing so I was hoping it would make people see the problem in defining greatness in terms of generational, cultural impact / influence.
If we are going to stick to this definition of greatness - then yes Estrin is absolutely 100% correct. He cannot fail to be right. Noone can be great unless they have had a lasting impact on the future of blues music over generations - in which case they'd have to be dead or at the very least elderly. In the context of his opening statement in an instructional video - as opposed to the arguments that have been made in this thread - I personally have huge doubts that is what he meant. I own that DVD, I've watched it many, many times and I am convinced from the way he presents the statement, that he was talking about performance/skill/style/technique (the whole point of the DVD) and I cannot agree with that.
Finally I never intended to pit LW against JR. I like both - I have no interest in putting eithr of them down. It was not A vs B at all - it was A cf B. Comparison does not have to be adversarial. The point I was trying to make is that Walter in the 21st century would have had to contend with the same lack of promotion in the industry as Jason has contended with. It is not to diminish his talent to say that Little Walter was in the right place at the right time.
Last Edited by on Oct 14, 2011 5:11 AM
|
5F6H
906 posts
Oct 14, 2011
5:20 AM
|
"What makes someone great? as presented in the arguments within this thread it is colossally skewed in favour of the long dead." That's only because they did what they did a long time ago...if LW had lived a natural term, or was still with us today (he' be 81 only a few years older than say, Wyman & a fair bit yuonger than than many of his peers) sure, he would have aged, his influence in terms of the changing world around him would no doubt have diminished, but his achievements would still stand...like perhaps Peter Green, a great - not so great today but a wonder in his prime & recognised as such then and still feted for his achievements 40yrs ago. Is BB King less great because he is alive, Buddy Guy, Diana Ross, Stevie Wonder?...will people in 20yrs be offering the idea that Michael Jackson was "only great because he died"?...we, of couse know otherwise. Butterfield was great in his lifetime, people heard him and thought, "Wow! What the hell is that?", like they did with LW...(I am sure that Jason elicits a similar response) but, like Walter & Green, he declined in his lifetime too, but he still carried that respect & influence.
I don't buy the "you have to be dead to be great" outlook, there have been musicians and artists who were great at what they did but never garnered the universal recognition exposure or peer acceptance when they were alive...their influence was limited during their lifetime, sometimes they are reassessed in retrospect & given greater gravitas...but that doesn't describe, or define the Walters or SBs. I think that the link between Estrin's greats & being dead is purely circumstantial.
I'm sure Jason does & will continue to influence today's and tomorrows harp players, if anyone of his generation is capable of becoming "a great", rather than just being great at what he does, then he might be the one most likely.
I guess I don't really see a conflict, what has been done in the past is done, it stands on it's own merits...same for what happens today, I don't really understand the desire for what you call a "fair" comparison (which can only be arrived at through subjective & artificial weighting), we are products of our times & environments.
"and pointing out that it's an unfair comparison given that we are specifically limiting ourselves to blues and its relative significance within the culture of 1950s America and 2011 America." But that's kind of the point, blues had a bigger direct impact on America after the 50's, it's always been a minority music.
----------
www.myspace.com/markburness
|
kudzurunner
2747 posts
Oct 14, 2011
5:42 AM
|
The history of taste is a funny thing. Herman Melville was celebrated after his first book, TYPEE (Life among the Cannibals), but his critical reception began to fall after that, and MOBY-DICK was considered the last straw. Actually PIERRE, which followed MOBY-DICK, was the last straw.
It wasn't until the 1920s, long after he'd died, that the critical reappraisal began.
It seems unlikely that Little Walter will be demoted in anybody's list of the greats, and that's as it should be. Some greats are acknowledged to be great while they are alive. B.B. King, a remarkable innovator in the matter of electric blues guitar--a thoroughgoing modernist, like Robert Johnson, always striving for a new sound--is another.
Eric Clapton and Buddy Guy are two more. They're both modernists who will be celebrated for how they took the blues guitar styles they inherited and did something new and remarkable with them. They've also hung around enough, and had enough record-company and major management interest behind them for long enough, that they've had a chance to "become" great. To be widely acknowledged for their greatness.
They're both alive, BTW. As is B.B. King. Nobody who plays blues guitar could honestly say about THAT instrument what Rick has said about blues harmonica. Why is that, I wonder?
I agree with the problematic that MrVeryLong has identified in his most recent post, above. Although some Greats are acknowledge to be so while they're alive, what Rick is talking about is the greatness that has been accrued in the form of long-lasting influence. Or at least that's how his statement has been interpreted here. And if that's the way the issue is framed, the long-dead always trump the still-with-us.
Remember Melville. His reputation simply wasn't very high among the mass of serious readers of literature until long after he died.
Remember Robert Johnson. As Elijah Wald made clear in his book, RJ's reputation among the mass of black blues record buyers, during his life and after, was minimal. His records sold poorly. He was moderately well known in the Delta, but when "door knocking" scholars like Gayle Dean Wardlow asked older black folk in the Delta if they had any old blues records lying around in the early 1960s, RJ's records were never the ones people had. Leroy Carr and Louis Jordan were far more popular. Robert Johnson was essentially a nobody--until white rockers like Clapton and Keith Richards helped resurrect him. Now he's an acknowledged great. It took a while to make that happen.
Melville and RJ, in that respect, were entirely different from Little Walter and B. B. King. Little Walter and BB sold a lot of records to the black blues-buying public of their time, and they were acknowledged during their own lifetimes to be great. Melville and RJ, on the other hand, had indifferent reputations among the literature-and-blues-buying public of their time, and their reputations languished for a long time before they finally ascended.
Jason COULD be in that category.
Last Edited by on Oct 14, 2011 5:48 AM
|
MrVerylongusername
2002 posts
Oct 14, 2011
5:43 AM
|
@5f6h
Straw man argument - excluding the living is not my position. Claiming that the definition is biased in favour of the dead or elderly is.
"I think that the link between Estrin's greats & being dead is purely circumstantial."
yes. My point. He sees no 'greats' in the modern field of blues harmonica. An opinion I disagree with (see my penultimate paragraph above).
All my comments about the difficulty of separating the fortuity of being in the right place and right time from inherent talent, are a response to comments within this thread (as Adam says - an interpretation of Estrin's comment, presented here). It is my opinion that that interpretation is not what Estrin is saying.
Last Edited by on Oct 14, 2011 5:58 AM
|
5F6H
907 posts
Oct 14, 2011
6:00 AM
|
"@5f6h - Straw man argument - excluding the living is not my position. Claiming that the definition is biased in favour of the dead or elderly is."
Apologies MrVLUN.
----------
www.myspace.com/markburness
|
MrVerylongusername
2003 posts
Oct 14, 2011
6:01 AM
|
No need to apologise! I think we probably agree on more of this, than in the heat of debate we realise!
|
atty1chgo
143 posts
Oct 14, 2011
6:23 AM
|
Nice discussion. But I have a couple of questions, the first and foremost being "What is considered "innovative"? Definition below:
in·no·va·tion
? ?[in-uh-vey-shuhn] noun
1. something new or different introduced:
2. the act of innovating; introduction of new things or methods.
I guess the point would be that INNOVATION, while very interesting, is not necessarily the first hallmark of a great player. Just my opinion. To say that a great harmonica player doesn't "innovate" is diminishing the craft of playing.
What makes a player great?
A great player is one that exhibits EXTREME command of the instrument. There are many who fit that category, but there are only a handful who surpass even the very good players. Great players are acknowledged by their peers.
I try to see as many great harmonica players as I can. I try to watch as much video and attend as many live performances as possible. Everyone has their favorites, of course. Personal preference aside, those at the top are few. And although I may get flak for this, very good players like Rick Estrin and Rod Piazza just aren't there AT THE TOP in my observances.
There are always harmonica enthusiasts, just like car buffs, who will always lean toward innovation and the new design, while others will prefer the classic models and forms. This is to be expected.
The thing about the blues is that in the end, the standard traditional styles and music will always rule the day, because THAT is truly the blues that moves our souls.
Last Edited by on Oct 14, 2011 6:25 AM
|
atty1chgo
144 posts
Oct 14, 2011
6:41 AM
|
"IF The GREAT dead harp players in their PRIME were on the "same bill" to play a club as the GREAT harp players of today and you got to witness this live, I believe you would then UNDERSTAND very clearly what Rick is referring to. The harp players of today would be sitting at the feet of the ORIGINAL Masters, it wouldn't be the other way around."
Oh please. The great players of today would be sitting at their feet while the masters were playing. Then the greats of today would take the stage and the masters would have their minds blown just the same.
|
hvyj
1867 posts
Oct 14, 2011
7:31 AM
|
IMHO. extreme command of the instrument is necessary, but not sufficient for greatness. It it what a player with extreme command of the instrument DOES with it that is the criteria for greatness. That's why I have said that innovation is that next step.
|
Post a Message
|
