Sorry, I've got to throw in on the 'no chicks in the band' rule.
Are you insane????
We have three. All hot as hell. We've had four previous female members and they were all the same. No one has has been remotely close with exception to a blowjob incident between a singer and the guitarist. Both were single at the time.
Not to say there isn't any flirting going on, but the band is too important to mess up over a leg over.
Obviously it helps if you're ugly as sin and only choose female members based on their A: Ability and B: Hotness. It's a bit like the show with the really clever dorks and the hot girl who lives across the hall.
@ Ryan and Walter...For me I don't have the ability to be GOOD at a bunch of different styles of music...I'm in the camp where I need to pick a type of music and devote my time and energy to everything it has to offer and keep myself focused on what really matters to me as a musician. I listen to and enjoy a lot of different genres of music, but ain't able to be good at playing harp to most of em. I'm sure there are cats who can and that's why they're CATS, daze gots what it takes to dooze it all...
I haven't been lucky enough to play in a band with a female member, but I suspect it works something like this. We all have some form of 'crazy radar'. We can spot crazy people, and there are lots of them out there, both male and female. The problem then is that as guys our 'crazy radar' can be thrown off by a pretty lady. I haven't seen it in a band setting in particular, but I've certainly seen guys putting up with crazy because they are following Mr. Johnson around. It doesn't mean that women musicians are any crazier than male musicians, just that when we are deciding if someone is sane enough to be in our band sometimes we are willing to lower the sanity bar a little if we think there is a chance, however remote, that there will be extracurriculars. Then, if a couple does form, and then it breaks up, well, we all know lots of perfectly sane people, both male and female, who are crazy when they are around an ex.
do what you want im talkin me having to mop up the guitar players gfs puke in mid set so we can get payed. the drummers gf throwing a broken glass at his face while hes playing and getting into a fight with another female patron. my rule no girls or fan clubs at practice (hey dont talk to my husband that way blah blah blah) and no gfs at gigs end of story. and for the band no fighting on stage. fight in the parking lot after we get payed, big smiles everybody its showtime!
I only heard Clapton songs after a few years into learning the harp and joining a band and going to live music shows (not much comment there).
But I do like the recent video "Sessions for Robert Johnson". Although I get the feeling he's keeping some average musicians around to make him look good, his voice is really sounding bluesy and good playing. The song "River Runs Deep" is a real beauty on his recent album.
Agree on keeping women out of manly blues bands. I mean we see women everywhere else, enough already, I don't have a lodge to go to.
"I think minimalism serves 'soulful' better, although there are exceptions. I guess maybe it depends too on how you define soulful. I think of it as transferring the emotion you are feeling to the audience. I'd exclude, for the most part 'happy' feelings. I'd give them a separate category, 'joyful'."
In actuality, 'soulful', means something profoundly emotional. Why does it have to be sad?
Is this not soulful?
IME, I hear the soulful/not soulful brought most in harmonica discussion when the conversation turns from less technical to technical playing. Generally, a traditional slow blues compared to a non-traditional non-slow blues gets brought up.
I can point to countless examples, including harmonica, of skilled technical players playing with a ton of emotion via the confidence in which they play along with visual evidence. One anecdote involves me going to see Michael Angelo at a guitar clinic.
He played this song there - it was a very hot and muggy spring day. A strong storm was blowing into town. The thunder/lightning/downpour began as he started this tune. A few seconds in and a huge flash of lightning causes the power to go down.
A minute or so later, the power is back on and MA goes to start the song over. If I ever had any doubts that a shredder with this much technical ability didn't play with soul, it was all erased by the level of anger he expressed to being interrupted. He proceeded to play the song even faster. His rage and intensity were off the charts.
Afterwards, he started to talk about shredding the blues. I didn't care for it at all, but he made a great point as it pertains to playing blues. Through his filter, he used the blues vocabulary to phrase in shapes rather than single note melodies.
Satan and Adam played with a ton of passion and emotion - what I would surely call soul - but I don't recall them doing too many slow tunes...or tunes that didn't try to kick you in the head.
As a final example - Mile Davis. If you read up on his playing, it was often VERY technical. I am even talking the modal stuff. He was very thoughtful about his approach and speaking the language of jazz. By general definition, his approach to trumpet would probably be called soul-less by most harmonica players' standards, but he is the definition of playing with soul, IMHO. Going back to the OP, though, the fact that he was Miles let him do whatever he wanted.
I think both fast and slow playing..upbeat and downbeat songs can absolutely convey passion and emotion. I also think musicians can from time to time play fast runs that sound like they're playing them for the sake of showing off technical prowess rather than serving the emotion of that particular song.
But determining when their doing which is the most subjective exercise that you could undertake. In my opinion there's absolutely no way to "prove" anything, you could heap an encyclopedia's worth of music theory on the question. That's why there's something we call taste.
One person's needless noodle is another person's heartfelt blistering solo. Arguing about which is which is an excercise in futility.
"But determining when their doing which is the most subjective exercise that you could undertake. In my opinion there's absolutely no way to "prove" anything, you could heap an encyclopedia's worth of music theory on the question. That's why there's something we call taste.
One person's needless noodle is another person's heartfelt blistering solo. Arguing about which is which is an excercise in futility."
Exactly...all I want is for people to realize this when commenting, lol. I often think that what decides noodle/blister is rooted deeply in things NOT pertaining to the actual performance.
I have this conversation with non-musicians all the time. See Payolla. Most of what people like is liked because they are told to like it...not because it is the best. This is pretty much the main reason I will not listen to music on the radio. I listen to one sports talk station and that's it! LOL ---------- Mike VHT Special 6 Mods Quicksilver Custom Harmonicas - When it needs to come from the soul...
Last Edited by on Mar 12, 2012 7:52 AM
yeah, i'll agree on the radio thing, I very RARELY listen to it for music. With CD's, ipods, youtube etc. I can't imagine going back to FM radio.
I'd agree generally on the payola point, although I'd say that's a lot less relevant today than it was decades ago in shaping the success of musical artists and thereby taste.
On the subject of being told what to like, i'm not sure if I agree or not. I mean there are still gatekeepers I guess, but I like old school blues a great deal, and that's the last thing being promoted by mainstream gatekeepers today. conversely, no amount of "in your face - ness" is going to get me to listen to rap...at least, not voluntarily.
So I like to think that I like what I like, and nobody's telling me differently.
But I do recognize the argument that the "menu" is affected by the gatekeepers to some extent and so I guess we are all limited by what's available.
Last Edited by on Mar 12, 2012 8:43 AM
I really appreciate Adam Gussow's "3-second test" as described on the "all time harp greats" page here.
In terms of technical ability, guys like John Lee Williamson and Junior Wells can't compete with Sugar Blue, John Popper, Jason Ricci, and Howard Levy (or players almost universally beloved on this forum like Little Walter and Paul Butterfield). But they all pass the 3-second test when I listen, and I think that counts for a lot.
I think there are some very good players in between these two classes of technical ability who don't really pass the 3-second test (at least not to my ear). Players like Rod Piazza, maybe Rick Estrin - you may disagree with these names but can probably come up with your own examples.
I'm not sure what to think of these guys. I really like their music, but are they as musically important as John Popper and Jason Ricci? I prefer to listen to the Rod Piazza types, but I think that's just because I've already decided I like other guys who sound basically the same.
Also, I understand why people bash Clapton and have heard a lot of it before, but Carlos Santana? Come on! (He certainly passes the 3-second test with flying colors.)
im not bashing i cant do what they do. its my preference im sick of open blues jams where idiots play this stuff thats not blues. the joe satriani impersonator with all the equipment and click tracks playing all by himself. the fat guy with a beard playing blues travler. the jimmy buffet balladeer whom nobody yanks off the stage and throws out the door. i like rock n roll i hate rock thats me im sorry. if it says open mic then youre even gonna have poetry readings. which is kinda fun i like to hold up my hand and ask "what does it mean?" or "why doesnt it rhyme?" that really pisses em off. but what really irks me at a blues jam is everyone gets two songs thats the rule! and theres always this this pukey 13 year old who shows up with his parents and sits on stage for 40 minutes. that should never happen in a bar where children arent even allowed by law.
Billy, I went to open mic last night. They were transitioning between hosts and there was almost no one there. I was the only person who signed up, and my new harp piece I'm working on wasn't ready yet, so I read a poem and told a joke. Both went over really well. They told me I should do comedy more often. The only problem is I only have one good original joke. :(
well i was always good at impersonations i used to do all my teachers then later freinds. ive done it in chatrooms on voice. but i always thought it would be funny to get to a jam early meet some characters like people that work there possibly the owner some patrons that hang alot some funny pathetic drunks. and get up and impersonate the audience yknow not famous people or your family mom dad etc. why dont you try that? its really a lost art. famous people today are just good looking statues with plastic surgery faces that dont move and really no fun to do.
