prolly the oldest joke in Harmonicadum is "How many Blues Harpers does it take to change a lightbulb ?" and the reply , as we all know is "SEVEN.. one to hold the bulb.. one to turn the ladder and 5 to just sit there discussing how Little Walter would have done it."
Sometimes I think there is a bit of wisdom in that.... everybody wants to play lines like Little Walter, or have tone like Big Walter.. and so on and so on... and so they spend hours seeking and studying tab.. buying and trying mic's and amps.. listening over and over to their favorite blues harpers.. and trying to emulate them...even to the point of dressing like them..
It Hit Me that if Little Walter had done those things.. tried to dress, sound, play like the harpers before him... no one would know his name today and be trying to imitate and imitation for the 3rd fourth or fifth generation.
Yet , we, the soon to be forgotten,, take such delight in someone telling us WOW, you sounded ALMOST like Little Walter,, (or Big Walter, or Kim Wilson, or Adam Gussow )
Really, do you think they will remember YOUR name next week ...if all's you put in their mind is memories of Little Walter or Other luminaries ?
To be fair, you don't know who Little Walter was inspired/influenced by, nor who he looked to for fashion tips. If anyone compared my playing to any player of note I'd take it as the compliment it was. What made Little Walter a great player was BEING a great player, a great player in the right place right time. He will always be a point of reference, just like Hendrix, for instance, is to guitar players.
I look forward to you shunning accepted harmonica player's attire (shirts, pants & shoes) & donning your "ham kilt"! Don't forget the spinach sporran. ;-) ---------- www.myspace.com/markburness
We stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. Without the greats to inspire us and show us the way we probably wouldn't have gotten very far (because even a dwarf standing on the shoulders of a giant may see farther than the giant).
Usually when someone says "I don't try to sound like any one, I have my own style" It's a pretty good bet that it's not anything you would want to listen to. And just for the record, before Little Walter became the player that we all love he was playing in the style of John Lee Williamson. Like Rick Estrin says "You have to learn the language before you can speak it" Hopefully once we are able to speak we Might develop our own sound, IMHO this is the hardest thing to achieve in the harp world!
If you ask yourself that question and THEN off the cuff can "actually" AUTHENTICALLY do it...I would suspect - you should have no problem figuring out what you would like YOUR own style to be!
Last Edited by on Nov 29, 2011 5:52 AM
@reverend - I couldnt agree with you more! It seems that eveyone who picks up a harmonica searches the internet for the best ever. they come up with little walter and there it is. They start to try to recreate his style which is ok, but when they try to recreate the sound thats when it all goes down hill.
Everyone is searching for that over the top, overdriven, sound that was the result of 50, 60, 70 year old technology. He was a master at it, but why not try your own thing.
Think of all the successful modern players. NONE of them sound like little walter. and for good reason, its not what the audience wants. If they want to listen to little walter, they will. they dont want to hear someone copy him, use as much old shit duct taped together to try and sound like he did naturally.
I enjoy a lot of peoples music on here. i love walters stuff, greywolf, cristelle, ant, and yes even tooka. They are doing their own thing.
I still stand by my point that I am generally more entertained by someone original doing what they do best, instead of listening to a cover of a classic
I forgot to mention Brendan Power. I love to hear him play!
Kudzurunner: "I disagree. With 30,000 hits on the following video, there's plainly an audience for uncanny replications of LW:"
Well there might be, but that is not an example of such. I'd wager the cool, authentic vibe & excellent playing are behind the 30,000 hits. It's a song originally by LW, granted, but Bharath only quotes Walter for about 18 seconds of that entire 4 minute plus clip. Inspired by? For sure. Replication? No. ---------- www.myspace.com/markburness
Of the thousands of LW-wannabes, pointing to one that is successful at it doesn't destroy the OP.
The whole WWLWD? thing is a bit of an isolated case...similar to SRV wannabes in the guitar world. The problem isn't who they are copying, it is the quality of the copying. Barath sorta proves that point.
No one who is into harp is going to think a LW-clone of that quality is bad (I am not into it just like I am not into top 40 coverbands that play note for note) or that the dude can't flat out play.
For me, the issue is the guys who want to be LW-clones and suck at it. They number infinitely more than those who can do it well. I'd rather listen to someone sucking at trying to be original then trying to be someone else.
Further compounding the issue is the notion of learning the language and copying the language. Just because I can repeat and copy what I hear in Spanish doesn't mean I can comprehend it or use it with any fluency. It also doesn't mean I can add to a conversation in Spanish.
The dance here becomes studying the music and then learning to apply it on your own. Think of speech, for example. We learn by doing and then get to a point where we use it at a high level to communicate very deep thoughts and emotions.
Granted, I am very willing to concede that being original is just as much an excuse to suck as copying LW, but I give it a little bit of a pass because it pushes the instrument forward. Regardless of motivation, thinking outside the box helps things evolve by further solidifying pass practice or creating valuable new ideas.
I love blues music, but nothing bores me more than the rehashing of cliched playing...except for guitar/harp players who can't sing but feel they must in order to set-up endless soloing.
I've said many many times that I love the music of guys like Kim Wilson and John Nemeth. Kim is the shining example of learning from the greats and making it your own. Barath is not. John is a great example of being influenced by the greats and knowing the blues idiom while creating new and interesting sounds. Paul Delay was like that too.
I think all three of those guys (Wilson, Nemeth, and Delay) are really the heart and soul of the national modern blues scene (someone like Sugar Blue would be another great example). Guys like Ricci and del Junco surely hit modern blues hard, but they extend themselves so far into other genres that they are gateway artists.
Our own Adam Gussow has to be on top of the modern blues list as well. I am totally not saying this to suck up or give him a big head, but he is the very pinnacle of what it is to be a contemporary bluesman. I don't know if history will give him the credit beyond our harmonica world, but you can't get more legit than Adam.
When asking WWLWD? answering that he'd be like Adam, Dennis Gruenling, Kim Wilson, John Nemeth, etc would be a very excellent answer.
You should strive to be a scholar of the music, not a historian.
Everyone sounds like someone and usually someones if you want to get into dissecting things. Instruments only have so many possible sounds that can come out of them and all the sounds have been covered a zillion times. The key to having ones own sound is to not worry about having a sound and just letting the music channel through you. 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
"I'd rather listen to someone sucking at trying to be original then trying to be someone else."
The only fly in the ointment there is that you have to be able to know when/if someone is trying to be someone else...meaning that you would have to have heard everything that they have heard. Something that is new & original to you may not be new & original to the universe.
The concept can be heartfelt & credit-worthy, but if it falls down in the excution that's a problem for me. Good music is music that is well executed & sounds good. Whatever the concept/inspiration, "Try not...Do, or do not". Try and ask yourself whether a musician is achieving what they set out to do, with credibility, rather than whether they are playing something that you as an individual specifically want to hear. It's easy for anyone to dismiss something not entirely to their taste, but always try and recognise the skill in what's before you, before you dismiss it. There's stuff I don't choose to listen to, it doesn't mean that it's less valid, or less skillful that what I do choose to listen to. ---------- www.myspace.com/markburness
Last Edited by on Nov 29, 2011 7:14 AM
hmmmm.. i think the point is to study then adapt... Sounding like others is a long tradition in music - A quote attributed to Igor Stravinsky(I have also seen this attributed to Mozart and Beethoven) "Good musicians borrow. Great Musicians Steal: :)
then there is the other side of the coin.
"Music is your own experience, your thoughts, your wisdom. If you don't live it, it won't come out of your horn. ~Charlie Parker"
And since I recently read it :) Adam says at different times in his book that he could hear Nat Riddles in his playing but that after time it was also his own thing coming out that was a combination of himself and everything that had come before via his teachers and influences. That is not a direct quote but a paraphrase.
The point being it is important and some could say vital that you learn from the greats that have come before you. Take what they have to teach then make it your own and keep going.
Learning any instrument you start out emulating your teachers and/or influences then your own style grows from that as you take bits and pieces of each and assimilate them into you.
@ Mike "I think all three of those guys (Wilson, Nemeth, and Delay) are really the heart and soul of the national modern blues scene"
"John is a great example of being influenced by the greats and knowing the blues idiom while creating new and interesting sounds."
I love John Nemeth, a shining light of the current scene for sure, "Love Me Tonight" is one of my most played CDs but I don't see where the difference lies when John is flat out covering Jr Parker, Fats Domino, or Magic Sam? Or, convincingly chanelling Jr Wells, Bobby Bland or Buddy Guy? Wilson is indeed at the forefront of the current blues scene & deservedly so, but he's done his fair share of covers in his time & lifted solos & instrumentals. The irony of this whole thing is that you accuse Bharath of being a LW clone, when the clip shows him extensively quoting Kim's My Blues/Smoking Joint versions of this song.
Your perceptions seem more guided by your personal outlook than the bodies of work of the artists concered, or the provenance of the material.
---------- www.myspace.com/markburness
Last Edited by on Nov 29, 2011 7:43 AM
Analyzing this stuff, it occurred to me that there a a few factors going on.... 1. The sound (tone) ... LW helped create an amplified tone that was compelling - probably out of necessity - A. amplified to be heard and B. using cheap stuff as that was all that was affordable.
2. The techniques - tongue flutters, sustained notes, vibrato, bending, etc. Almost necessary to learn in order to access the complete vocabulary available on harmonica.
3. Musical lines and ideas - LW also listened to horn players for inspiration, moving him just outside of the all harmonica all the time listeners.
4. TIMING...this is a very important aspect of his musicality. He felt the pulse and the 4 beats/measure, but was able to free himself from the pule's gravity by floating ideas over the 4 beats, playing 3 against 4, starting/ending ideas not right on the beat, etc.
While most aspiring blues players spend a lot of time on the first 3 points above, not too many really understand point 4. This is what makes Bharath, Kim Wilson, Gruenling and a few like them really shine, as they construct their own ideas and/or start stopping points with this additional knowledge of musical line. Therefore, they have absorbed all the LW had to offer and can put their own personality and/or life experiences into their improvs.
Without this important point 4, most others really do sound like regurgitation or note/4/note copies of the ODBG.
@The Iceman - "1. The sound (tone) ... LW helped create an amplified tone that was compelling - probably out of necessity - A. amplified to be heard and B. using cheap stuff as that was all that was affordable." Anecdotal evidence suggests that amplified harp was on it's way - one way or the other, Muddy cited John Lee Williamson as the first he saw in '44. "Cheap" amps back in the 50's cost as much back then as a Sonny Jr Avenger, Meteor or a Harpgear do today. They're (the oldies) only cheap today because they are 60yrs old. LW had money & access to just about any amp he liked the sound of. ---------- www.myspace.com/markburness
Last Edited by on Nov 29, 2011 8:16 AM
What is good tone? What is good vibrato? What is a good amplfied sound? Which style fits a specific genre?
Try and answer any of those highly subjective questions without reference to other players. Whether you realise it or not - good technique is homage to the greats.
The bedrock canon of harmonica technique - not just blues - has been defined by the players of the past. You can gain the knowledge first hand by studying historical players or secondhand by studying contemporary ones, but you will always come back to a position that is essentially "This is good because it sounds good and it is how ...... did it."
Picasso learnt the classical style before he defined a whole new one.
@5F6H I'd rather listen to good music too, but I wasn't offering that as a choice. I agree with you and pointed to Barath as an example. You are spot on in regards to having to know if they are trying to be a clone or not, which many won't, but if anyone could ever pick that out, it'd be a harmonica player listening to a LW clone.
@shadoe42
"And since I recently read it :) Adam says at different times in his book that he could hear Nat Riddles in his playing but that after time it was also his own thing coming out that was a combination of himself and everything that had come before via his teachers and influences. That is not a direct quote but a paraphrase."
That's exactly my point. Many of us give off the impression that we DON'T want anything after the 50's to influence our music. If you are trying to be a clone of an artist, then you never get beyond that point.
@all
I don't see any of this as being any different than a pop-music coverband. Some bands like that put their own spin on the music. Others do everything they can to match the original note for note and tone for tone. If you went to see a band like that, you'd probably cry foul. In fact, many musicians, especially out blues buddies would cry foul even if they sorta tried to sound like the original or quote the original. Heck, there are those on this forum that would instantly dismiss the band and any artistic integrity for the simple fact that they are playing covers (let alone pop).
To most musicians, those bands are the enemy. Why is that different when playing harmonica? You can't really have it both ways can you? I am totally playing devil's advocate, but if it is so easy to tell when a musician is faking it, it shouldn't matter if you can tell who they are copying...if they are copying anyone, it shouldn't be artistic enough.
If you are stealing ideas from any other musicians, you should be just as fake then, etc.
Really, Barath in this instance, whether he can do his own thing on harp or not, is no different then someone trying to be CC Deville in a Poison Tribute band.
IMHO, you should steal from everyone and then put it together in a way that is your own. Stealing from everyone and then trying to play it like they did, while an art onto itself, is of little interest to me.
An anecdote...
I've been playing 9yrs. 8yrs ago, I went and saw a local traditional blues band with a solid harp player. It was my b-day and I had been drinking. I ran into another harp player...about my age. We started talking and as we brought up a tune, he'd whip out a harp and play it note for note. I mean totally spot on note for note. William Clarke to Sugar Blue.
I got called up and went up, even though I shouldn't have (ie, was intoxicated). I played my solo and it was fine for where I was at at the time. I was scared poop-less for the other guy to get called up because he was so good in our conversation.
Well, he went up and had no idea what to do. The song didn't match one he already knew, and he had no clue how to improvise. He ended up playing the same riff the entire time. He couldn't apply anything he knew to a generic 12 bar blues.
He had more than enough musical vocabulary...he knew all the words, but he was the guy who has to read from the Spanish to English dictionary. He could talk, but he couldn't create a coherent conversation. ---------- Mike Quicksilver Custom Harmonicas VHT Special 6 Mods
I have only been playing a few years, for fun, and personal challenge. It's just a hobby at this time. So far every video that I have shared is something done by someone else, from my teaching materials. I hope that when someone views them they will realize I'm not trying to be just like that person. I do try to learn them as exact as possible at this time, in order to develop my abilities and honor there teaching. I believe if I can play a piece just like one of the pro's, then I've added to my skills and understanding of how it feels to communicate well. My own words/notes will develop from that in time with all the practice. I truly get fired-up with the way some of my hero's play, but I just want to be able to communicate my feelings as well as they do, not there feelings.
I've listened to Little Walter's music for thousands of hours. The more I do, the more subtleties and intracacies I notice. He really was brilliant.
I've learned a ton from playing to those recordings, but I've only ever heard a few guys who can even come close to a note-for note Little Walter performances.
Bharath is probably the most uncanny. Kim really gets the style, but (to his credit) sounds like Kim, not Walter. I've heard Sugar Ray Norcia come close. Rod can hit you with long passages of Walter licks. Dennis is pretty darn good at it.
My bottom line, though: It's never good enough for me. There are too many subtleties to copy Walter note-for-note. I've studied the same recordings and I can hear the differences. So frankly, it annoys me when I see note-for-note Walter, or as some of the younger guys are doing, note-for-note Jason.
It annoys me because instead of just digging the performer's soul/music/spirit/skill/show/etc. I'm forced to keep score. My brain has trouble saying, "that was a pretty good copy". Instead, it goes, "the whole thing was too fast/slow, that lick was glossed over, that bend was inverted, that mistake was corrected, etc.
I'd much rather watch Bharath just play, then score him against an impossible goal. I'd much rather see new harp instrumentals, crafted in the style of Juke, than hear another poor imitation of one 3-min snapshot of history.
I don't know if it's hero-worship to the nth degree, a certain amount of insecurity (like, "only Walter was good enough") or if it's a "climb the mountain because it's there" sort of thing.
I've known enough guys who swear that copying Walter note-for-note on stage is the ONLY path to true harmonica enlightenment. I've argued the point, encouraged originality, raised the point that Walter would likely scoff at the idea of making blues into some sort of classical, museum-like, academic pursuit, but to no avail.
I like to discuss/ponder this subject, but it's not worth getting upset about anymore. Like all art, there's a spectrum of taste. Some folks love classic, some love modern, and most fall somewhere in-between.
I would only add one small contribution. Yes, listen to the greats and learn. BUT...your listening doesn't have to limited to great (or even good) harmonica players. Listen to people who play other instruments. A lot of their stuff can be "harmonica-ized" with good results. Even other genres, jazz, swing, can yield material. As is the case with language, it's often not "what" you're saying as much as "how" you're saying it.
Let me ask this question...How many of you that perform live, have harp players in the audience that know or care how Little Walter played something?
I bet the audience in the OPs video were elbowing each other with open mouths and big eyes.."He is a Little Walter copycat".
My band plays My Babe, Rockett 88, Cold and Lonesome, and Help Me. Sure I try to copy some of the original licks from LW, Cotton, Reed, and SBW. My band wants the songs to be recognizable based on the original...but... I don't even try to sound like these guys. I just play what they do in some parts of the songs in my way.
Heck... I'm a lip purser except for octaves. I have to make it my own. No complaints so far.
'Harpdude61: "I bet the audience in the OPs video were elbowing each other with open mouths and big eyes.."He is a Little Walter copycat".
...well if they did, it would suggest that they have never heard the Little Walter versions. ;-) The video was a bad example of "someone copying Little Walter". There are examples of Bharath doing just that, but this just isn't it.
It seems as long as the perception is suggested, that it is then too readily "accepted as fact" irrespective of the reality. I get the feeling that Bharath has been tagged and that no matter what he does, no one listens when he doesn't actually copy Little Walter. ---------- www.myspace.com/markburness
"Really, do you think they will remember YOUR name next week ...if all's you put in their mind is memories of Little Walter or Other luminaries ?"
Isn't the answer almost assuredly a NO? I mean in the history of show busines is their any act who made themselves as famous for being an EXACT COPY of another act, as was the original act?
For example, there are Beatles tribute bands that dress, talk like, and attempt to play note for note songs from the Beatles' catalogue. I'm sure some make a nice living touring with this act. But would anybody argue that they've attained anything close to the musical fame the Beatles did? Does anybody even know any of the names of the musicians in the band (c'mon no google cheating and friends and relatives don't count)?
Having said the above, does ultimate fame have to be the goal of picking up an instrument? I would agree that to be remembered forever by a huge number of people probably requires a unique voice, original material and being in the right place at the right time. But it would seem to me that being a great local musician who regularly entertains and is beloved by a much smaller audience is equally as valid a pursuit. As is making music purely for one's own satisfaction (a la walter tore).
Copy LW's stuff note for note if you like, or make it your own.....or play something as completely original as you can...it's all good.
Oh and FWIW, I've been in plenty of places where the audience would have no idea you were copying LW note for note and would be totally stoked if it rocked.
Maybe you wouldn't be getting a record contract, but you'd have your fair share of drinks sent your way....might even get lucky.
The Beatles didn't fall out of the sky fully formed, listen to their early live at the BBC recordings...absolutely choc full of Chess covers!
Bill Haley is a good example of someone who had a hit & took all the glory with someone else's song (Bobby Charles' "see you later alligator"), it happened more than you think. We often remember the famous version irrespective of whether it was the "original". ---------- www.myspace.com/markburness
Last Edited by on Nov 29, 2011 10:12 AM
I agree with everything you said in the post just above this one, and yet at the same time I don't think it invalidates my point in the least.
In a nutshell, I think there's a big difference between having the defining hit version of a song somebody else wrote (a la Bill Haley), and copying note for note a whole show worth of songs from somebody else while simultaneously dressing like and imitating them.
Didn't Willie Dixon write My Babe for Little Walter? Is Little Walter considered any less of an original?
IMHO, had the Beatles stopped at covering the old Bluesman we'd never be talking about them today.
Last Edited by on Nov 29, 2011 10:37 AM
@5F6H: I think you're being a scholastic here in your attempts to argue that Bharath in that video isn't working hard to conjure the ghost of LW. He only quotes LW for 18 seconds you say? Hmmm. I wager you're wrong. You're probably right about the amount of time he's quoting directly from the recording (and/or alternate, if there is one) of "Oh Baby" (or "Aw Baby"), but he's darn sure throwing in identifiable LW licks from other of LW's recorded work. And the tone he's chosen to work here--more properly, the tonal palette or spectrum--is dead-square from LW. Of course he's assisted in all this by his Rhythm Four.
I realize that you're listening so closely that you're able to tease out the degree that he's quoting not directly from LW, but from LW filtered through Kim Wilson. I'm in awe! Those sorts of distinctions are what scholasticism traffics in. Angels on the head of a pin and all that. To the mass of reasonably blues-harp-savvy listeners, he's basically doing Little Walter here. I'm sure that a few hard-core aficionados can see through that, and that's fine. I'm not mocking your ability or knowledge base. I'm just telling you that you're much closer to counting angels on the head of a pin than you seem to realize.
I basically agree with Dan Gage's take on all this. He's wise.
As for HarpNinja: thanks for the kind words, but until you've heard my new album--due very shortly--you're terribly misguided about my own imperial domination of the landscape. :)
Beside, we all know that Jason can blow me sideways off the stage while breaking both my eardrums while Carlos stomps me dead and Dennis chromaticizes my kidneys. And I don't particularly want to get up with Kim and go head-to-head on "Down at Antone's." He'll cut my head every time.
Well, at least for another couple of weeks.
Last Edited by on Nov 29, 2011 10:46 AM
I think if you went head to head with those guys, you'd sound like Adam Gussow. Whether or not that is "better" is up to the listener.
This is what it is all about, though. All of those names you listed can flat out play the blues (amongst other things) but each of has established mastery over a subgroup of blues that shows a love and understanding of the idiom turned into a unique voice.
I bet all of you guys would cite similar influences and even similar experiences woodshedding the same song.
As an aside, I can think of a situation in which everyone of you would be embarrassed against the other. For example, put Dennis up against Jason playing a rock tune.
Everyone has strengths and weaknesses even guys like Howard Levy. It is all about milking your niche and a unique selling point...that represents who you are.
@ Kudzurunner "He only quotes LW for 18 seconds you say? Hmmm. I wager you're wrong." I like those odds! I'll take the bet...you WILL lose. This is my sphere of interest, frankly I've been looking forward to this moment, it was bound to happen - so forgive me if I appear to revel in it :-). Listening closely is the only way to do it...otherwise you may as well say everyone sounds the same & rely on your postman's assessment.
"You're probably right about the amount of time he's quoting directly from the recording (and/or alternate, if there is one) of "Oh Baby" (or "Aw Baby"), but he's darn sure throwing in identifiable LW licks from other of LW's recorded work." - I'm not "probably right", he is quoting Kim for pretty well all but a verse of LW ("I love you so - Oh Baby" is the alternate that he quotes, "Aw Baby" is slow blues, a totally different track). There might be like 2 turnarounds from the original "Oh Baby".
"To the mass of reasonably blues-harp-savvy listeners, he's basically doing Little Walter here." No, they only think that because it's what you have set this up as (not that I think Bharath would try to dissuade anyone from concurring), or they don't have the LW version...otherwise, they are simply not that savvy. OK, I'll agree that Bharath models himself on "50's style character" and that he will no doubt prefer references to LW than anyone else, but if he is not playing (for the vast majority of the track) LW phrases, then how is he any more, or less of a LW copyist than, say Butterfield (a large proportion of his early recordings were LW numbers, done a little different), or vids you yourself have posted like Will Wilde, George Smith & Bill Lupkin?
If he is not copying LW for 93% of the track, then he's no more a LW copyist than a hundred other players that will never be mentioned with that "tag".
Bharath does copy LW, just not here...my point is that those that think they are "blues savvy" will weigh in with generalisations and poorly researched opinions...then the myth repeated often enough becomes the fact. You called this an "uncanny replication" it's not. So now because it is a LW number, "that's close enough" & you were right all along? No. It's got nothing to do with scholasticism/angels on a pin head, it is either a copy of LW, or it's not. No matter what we, or Bharath would like it to be, or not.
If he is going to be judged/assessed on what he actually does, then at least we should be smart enough to catch him at it. I'm glad you're not a policeman, "Minor parking offence? Hmmm, looks like a murderer though, forget the ticket, we'll just take him straight down the precinct..." ;-) ---------- www.myspace.com/markburness
Last Edited by on Nov 29, 2011 12:08 PM
Well, Snooky Prior claimed that Juke was just a remake of his Snooky and Moody Boogie. If it would have been called Your Cat Will Play? as originally intended, would it ever have gotten famous at all?
Little Walter probably would have got drunk and got in a fight.. or gone out on Maxwell Street where he could make more money busking than recording before his big hits. He would take the money and run.. and spend it on booze and women. Do you have to do all that to play like Little Walter?
The blues world is viewed with rose-colored glasses, walterharp. It doesn't matter that he ripped it off, that the alternate take is totally different, that Robert Johnson was 27 when he died, that Wolf went to music school, that Dixon tried to write commercial hits...
All that matters is a paradox-free world exists in which middle-aged white men can pretend that nothing has happened of blues significance since the 60's. ---------- Mike Quicksilver Custom Harmonicas VHT Special 6 Mods
Back to the original post. Actually LW paid alot of attention to SB#1. LW's early style was much like SB#1 because he was the MAN at the time LW arrived in Chicago. So LW was also guilty of doing it! I agree with reverend Jimmie that people go on and on about LW, but its more than he was the ground breaking man that started what we know as amplified harp. Some of it is just great! I don't think people would be still talking about it today as much as they do if it had become dated. To me the style he played is timeless. Now if you don't dig his playing thats one thing (and were all different so its not a sin to not like his music), but if your into blues. Then its is something you should listen to and learn to understand and play alot of his licks. I'm not saying idolize him. It's important to listen to many people and learn as much as you can/care to! 5F6H I can play like someone without playing licks they recorded note for note. Many people can. He plays like LW. I'm not saying thats a bad thing, but its quit obvious. I for one think he's very good at it and I like it! Everyone does it a little different even if they are LW heads! I don't consider myself an LW head, but I will go weeks at a time listening a playing along with my LW CD's and nothing else! Good is Good!
I remember that from a book...will try to track down a specific reference. I am usually on the ball with that stuff, but I can't remember where that came from.
***I do remember for sure that he went back for a GED and then studied business and marketing as he thought it would help his career...he was middle-aged by then. Or at least I've seen that mentioned in interviews. I also remember reading that he was pretty gimmicky and lewd on stage...like putting a bottle of Coke in his pants and spraying the crowd with it, etc. It has been probably 7 or so years since I've studied up on him.
For the record, I hadn't re-watched the video before posting, and my comments of Bharath's "uncanny" Walter-like playing were not directed at this particular clip on a lick basis. On an "approach" basis, though. . .
As I listen to it, and not to delve too far into the scholastic realm, I have to agree with 5F6H, that the clip in this thread is as Kim-like lick-wise as it is Walter-like.
However, as I noted before, Kim is a master of this style of harmonica playing. Playing like Kim is not all that far removed from playing like LW. The difference IMO is that while I can always hear Kim and say, "yup, that's him", I don't hear that yet from Bharath. (key word: "yet"?) I hear a guy that's trying to sound like Walter, but who's wisely studied more than one guy. (hold that thought for another post)
I have also heard examples where Bharath does much more note-for-note Walter tunes. Given his tonality, band arrangement, dress, approach, etc, combined with statements from a mutual friend of his espousing their mutual WORSHIP of LW, I stand by my opinion that Bharath is one of the best LW-like players around. He just sounds more "like" Walter to me
Since I love Little Walter's playing, and since he's long dead, I enjoy the hell out of Bharath's approach. While I wouldn't take that approach, and have argued against that aproach, it's as close as I'm ever going to get to hearing Walter play in person, so what the heck, right? Whether you like it or not, the dude is a hell of a harp player.
I broke out into a second (third) post to make a point that I believe is germaine to this discussion.
Using the clip above as a "so-so" example to illustrate my point. . . And also to expound upon my earlier post about why I have a problem with note-for-note. . . but also agreeing that the clip above is not a note-for-note copy, per se. . . phew!!!. . .
OK, here's the point: When one plays a tune note-for-note, or when one plays primarily as a "collection of licks" or to put a finer point on it, a "collection of someone else's licks", I think the player is limiting the effectiveness of the solo(s).
I almost always perceive a delay where the licks in question are slightly out of time. Or, because the player is "going for" someone else's lick, they don't quite pull it off. The same player, given a blank canvas with no expectations, can still make the timing or missed-lick mistakes. However, without something to compare to, the mistakes are less of an issue, IMO.
In the Blues world, there has always been quite a bit of "borrowing" from the previous generation. It's a folk music tradition. It's the way stuff worked.
Quite a few of the Chess artists recorded tunes from the RCA/Bluebird catalog. Artists like Leroy Carr, Big Bill Broonzy, Tampa Red, Sonny Boy and Doctor Clayton were huge influences on Jimmy Rogers, Muddy Waters and Little Walter. Jimmy Rogers, Muddy and Walter adapted those tunes to suit their personal style. They were heavily influenced by their predecessors much like the current generation of artists were influenced by their predecessors.
Life is far too short. Play the music you love.
Last weekend, I was able to sit in with Rusty Zinn at a Blues gig he was doing with some friends. It's always a treat to play with a guy like Rusty. His knowledge of the Blues genre is very deep.
What tunes did I play? Old, low down tunes that he did with legendary artists. Why? They are fun tunes to play. They are tunes that he knows how to play well that other people just can't do well unless they've studied the old stuff. He didn't seem to mind. He seemed to have fun.
Did we play them like they were played on the original recordings? No.
The audience liked tunes and they inspired some story telling by Rusty that made the show a bit more intimate. That was something that might not have occurred had I picked some Stevie Ray Vaughan or Tyrone Davis tunes.
Musical history is deep. There is a lot of stuff to pick from. Pick the tunes that you want to play and play them. If you do them enough times, maybe someone will start thinking that they are your tunes.
@Joe L: I agree with most of what you write. Certainly life is too short not to play the stuff you love. I would encourage all players to do that. In certain contexts, where--for example--a Little Walter tune is thrown at me, I've been known to pull some LW stuff out of my own toolkit:
It was fun to do that: play in a familiar old groove, with no rehearsal. The band and I didn't always agree where the changes should come, but that's part of the deal. (I start playing more in my own style towards the end, BTW. Dirty overblower! Note to self: don't swing ahead of the beat quite so hard.)
But here's where you and I see things differently: I think that in his heyday, when he was making all that music that we now all agree was the work of a genius, Little Walter was NOT playing folk music. He wasn't recycling a familiar repertoire. He was listening to jazz and stomping all over John Lee Williamson's bones. He was creating new stuff. THAT'S WHY HE WAS GREAT. He was IN the tradition, but he was EXTENDING the tradition, boldly.
These days, Little Walter is our folk music. Nothing wrong with that. But we're not honoring his spirit quite as fully as we think unless we're doing as he did and champing hard at the bit of what currently exists.
One can, of course, have blues harp heroes from the good old days who were less bold and brilliant than LW--conservators of tradition in their own day, like Dr. Isaiah Ross.
I'm simply struck by the irony of focusing a folk music tradition--our contemporary blues harmonica tradition--around a guy who was so intent on breaking the mold. The irony apparently hits me harder, Joe, than it hits you and many other players. That's OK, too.
Last Edited by on Nov 29, 2011 3:13 PM
Adam - i get the irony. In fact, I remember being at a Hummel blowout about a decade ago. On the bill were Kim, Rod, Hummel, Gary Smith and Billy Branch. Marguerite Wallace, sister of Little Walter, was asked to speak. She said that all of the players on the bill were great, but out of the group, Billy Branch was true to the spirit of her brother. Why did she choose him? Maybe, its because Billy is willing to push the boundaries and his performance didn't sound like a vintage recording. Who knows?
I guess I should have phrased that 'folk music' sentence a bit more carefully. In many instances, performers will, take a song and perform it their way. Some may adhere more toward the version done by the original artist. Others may change it more radically.
For example, when Good Rockin' Charles did Don't Start Me To Talking, he stuck pretty close to the version done by Rice Miller. When James Cotton performed, it morphed into a high energy frenetic exercise that was amplified to the hilt.
Whenever a person starts performing a song, it is a new performance. It doesn't always mean that the performance is going to be good. Some performances are better than others. Even Little Walter bad gigs.
I view Little Walter as a highly influential figure to harmonica players much like Memphis Slim was highly influential to blues piano players. Players aren't so much mimicing him as they are paying homage to him.
Personally, I never perform Little Walter songs in public to avoid this kind of crap. intellectual evaluation of my performances. Its a difficult standard to be held to.
We all bring to the table what we are comfortable with.
the last 4 paragraphs of Adams post just above here is what I was hoping someone else would see, conclude,, state publicly when I initiated this thread..
that said, the reason I do not play Walters licks or anyone elses, is 1. I am not that good.. 2. if I have to work as hard as I have on the 1st turnaround in Juke, than it is not ME,, it is not MY natural music, and 3. People will know that, and I will appear a clumsy charlatan 4. If I play what comes to me. what arises inside me.. it may be good or bad, people may like it or they may not.. but they will have heard me... and I will have let MY music , for better or worse, OUT.. cause I do not want to die with it inside, It may well die outside, but at least I will not choke on it
Gentlemen, may I suggest that we adjourn to the smoking room for cigars and brandy? Debate is good, but, as a wise man once said, a good cigar is a smoke.
Adam - why do you suppose that Little Walter never recorded jazz for Chess. They certainly had studio musicians like Phil Upchurch, Ahmad Jamal and Ramsey Lewis on the Argo label. If Walter had been interested in recording jazz, surely the Chess brothers could have made it happen.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm interested in your opinion as a student of the music.
