Is it possible to play something worthy of being labeled "modern"...without first, >TRULY< [Mastering] the "traditon" of the musical style you wish to communicate through your instrument?
Can being a "modern harmonica player" be rushed? Or are there a lot of players missing the boat by avoiding mastery of traditon, at the expence of being at best, a mediocre "modern harp player".
Last Edited by on Oct 14, 2012 9:56 AM
Go see Sugar Blue. I believe he's doing things on harmonica that haven't been done before at a speed I never even dreamed possible. I came away with the impression that he has mastered the techniques of everyone who came before him and then taken it to the next level. Good luck to every future harmonica player who has to follow him to be called the next "Modern Harp Player".
The way I learn is to follow my heart. I don't really care about how one is suppose to learn. I stay away from thinking because I have seen countless thinking players in my life and they all pretty much sound the same even though their styles are different. They sound the same because I can see the mind gears turning throughout their performances. This kind of player gets public praise much more often than not. Modern? That is a term that makes me chuckle. Most modern players spend a ton of time trying to be Modern. They spend countless hours thinking out things trying to be different. To me a modern player is one who plays direct from their soul. This will always make them different, modern, unique. It goes beyond the music. Unfortunately many people have never experienced this in the flesh due to the thinking root that is the key to be commercially succesful in our culture. People read press releases/reviews, etc, about how modern, inovative, etc a performer is, but words are cheap, and much easier to produce than a true artist. The industry spends millions on this side of the business and most people buy it. IMO to be modern one has to stay clear of all this stuff to conform to the rules of making it. Go backstage at most any making it artist and listen to the bands conversations. It is more about the mechanics of getting a positive response than simply letting their souls guide them. I have been backstage too many times to count with this going on- say all the right things if the public/ media/ or anyone who can influence their postition in the food chain is present, get the show mapped out precisely, go over certain parts of songs........ I share my insights on this stuff to expose a side of music that most never question. 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 LOVE these sorta passive-aggressive threads that pit "new" vs. "old". The REAL reality is, in fact, there are no real rules and you play what you play. You can find examples and exceptions to every rule. Although, I feel like, on this board, the prevailing opinion is it is ok to disagree so long as you have the same opinion as others, lol.
Bottom line, calling it traditional blues is stupid to begin with because, if this board defined it, it would be defined as mostly Chicago and West Coast blues...or Anything from Little Walter and beyond.
The blues talked about here should be called Post-War or something. One, because the harmonica was invented way before LW and was NOT used for 2nd position blues, so it wasn't the traditional approach to the instrument. Two, there is a whole vault of PRE-war blues that "traditionalists" tend to forget in these threads.
Therefore, if it is a prerequisite to be well versed in "traditional" blues as it is defined on this board, to be good at "modern" blues, whatever that is, then one would have to have mastered PRE-war blues to be good at POST-war blues, right????
I will no longer use the phrase traditional blues. Lots of things can be traditional, hell, I even use that to label a harp style (which I don't really like either), but Little Walter and William Clarke style blues is not TRADITIONAL blues in my book, as it has only existed a VERY short time compared to the harmonica and blues in general. ---------- Mike OOTB Harmonica Price List VHT Special 6 Mods Note Layout Comparisons Quicksilver Custom Harmonicas
I enjoy almost all blues, but prefer postmodern blues to all the earlier kinds of blues, like traditional and modern blues.
Since we have learned that objective reality cannot be determined, we know that you cannot objectively define anything, including blues. Blues, like everything else, are subjective social constructs.
I play only postmodern blues, and because my blues are postmodern, my blues are not subject to objective contradiction as to being blues. So whatever I play, it is postmodern blues.
Sorry! I was just flashing back to all the discussions about what is and what isn't blues, and what communicates emotion to the audience and what doesn't, and what is traditional, and what isn't. The Postmodern approach lets you build your own blues reality, and not get caught up in arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I couldn't resist.
Was Jelly Roll Morton playing traditional blues, or Billie Holiday, or was Big Mama Thornton playing/singing traditional blues, or was Louis Jordan playing/singing traditional blues, or Sonny Terry, or Walter Jacobs, or ??? And what is Modern Blues??? Post 70s? 80s? 90s? Post Millennial blues?
To actually respond to Frank's OP:
I think a player would benefit from being familiar with earlier blues forms and harmonica techniques, and play them to some extent, but not necessarily master them all in order to innovate and express your viewpoint while playing the blues.
You don't have to master the early twentieth century blues of each decade, and master all post World War II blues and learn every solo in order to play good blues. You would have to master all the horn solos, too, since Little Walter obviously got some ideas there. At every step, new influences are incorporated into the music. Rock influences?
You don't have to be a master tongue blocker as well as a master overblow player to make good blues music and express a valid musical point of view, but I think that by at least exploring earlier blues music and harmonica techniques you will be a better player.
This instrument can be played in so many different ways to make so many kinds of music.
I just enjoy hearing what people do with it. ----------
Going back to the OP, for me, I guess I'd rather hear a mediocre player trying to do something either deeply personal or modern than someone rehashing what has already been done.
I think all my favorite players have had their own voice. Take Charlie Musslewhite, for example. I guess what makes me like someone like Carey Bell, Sugar Blue, or Mitch Kashmar is that they, in fact, DON'T sound like the masses. The only guy I am kinda into like that is Kim Wilson, who I am VERY into. I think it is because I like his vocals so much that it is a winning combination.
I know that the guys above can play postwar blues extremely well, but I would argue that all of them started playing what was the "in" and new thing of their day. They took what was contemporary to them in the 50's-70's and took it to a new level.
So no, I don't think you have to be very well versed in the previous generation's ways to be good at what you want to do now. For one, you don't have more options, sophisticated options, for learning. Also, you have half a century's worth of music to pull from that didn't exist back then.
There appears to be warehouses full of of musicians who jump the gun of the "learning curve" and try to play music that is beyond what they are truly capable of playing with a musical competence that is solid,meaningful and grooves. I much prefer listening to a player "whatever instrument" that is a fundamentally strong player - then one who lacks in that area yet still insists on playing music that he/she has a weak grasp of and can't converse logically when they play.
That statement can exist beyond genre. That is true of any player at any level...and the fundamentals are even up for debate depending on taste.
What needs to be discussed are the fundamentals as related to the player's objective. Whether the listener wants to hear octaves, or less melody playing, or whatever, is the listener's problem and not the players.
And if you suck and are mediocre, slow down at get good at "something" - no need to rush into musical inconsistency. A listener wants to hear a player who knows what to do with an octave or melody etc,It's not their problem if the player sucks.
Right, but back to the OP, what makes someone good isn't necessarily genre specific. There are fundamentals and then there are things unique to a style.
For example, it is of great benefit for all harmonica players to learn an embouchure with full tone and be able to navigate the notes on a harmonica. However, that doesn't require one to study William Clarke.
Having good groove is not unique to being able to play postwar blues, for another instance. There are many players who can groove in genres like jazz that can groove in postwar blues too. There are probably fewer that can do that the other way around.
The issue, again, is harmonica proficiency and musical ability, and not genre of choice.
Absolutely it is. The problem is we don't have a lot of good players who have lived in caves all their lives that I can bring out to illustrate this point. Most naturally talented folks who want to play bad enough take a strong look at those old guys - so it's going to be really hard to find examples of people who grew up without at least an understanding of that tradition. Jason is a wonderful example of someone who lived in that, then formed his own sound. But he delved deep in that tradition and mastered it, then moved on. But for somebody who lived in that cave... it is possible for him to be a good player, but the result is he won't sound like anybody else. Some people will love that. Some people will think it sucks for that same reason. The only case of this I can think of is Igor Flach, who grew up behind the Iron Curtain in cultural isolation from the West. His primary influence for harmonica were vocal and non-harmonica instruments. But it's interesting how the some similar techniques evolve from different sources. He didn't pick up vibrato from Little Walter, he picked it up from opera singers. If you're familiar with opera, you can pick other opera things in here, one of them is where he jumps over various notes over an octave or two, like he does at the end. I talked to somebody once who ran into Igor in Egypt of all places. He asked Igor how the hell he got that crazy-ass vibrato. Igor said "I'm yodeling."
---------- David
____________________ At the time of his birth, it was widely accepted that no one man could play that much music so well or raise that much hell. He proved them all wrong. R.I.P. H. Cecil Payne
Paul deLay moved me in a contemporary way when I had gotten tired of the old traditional blues. He re-energized and renewed my interest in playing blues harmonica. ---------- The Iceman
isn`t the blues a vocal language music.don`t we have to learn the alphabet then words of blues.assimilate is also a way most players learned the language.but what seperates the copy cats from the real deal is beaing able to sing on that instrument,and singing in your own voice...if you`re not singing ,your talking and blues isn`t rap.......
Mike -yes,that is the brunt of what I am trying to explore in this thread.
So, to reiterate - depending on the "style" of music one wants to excel at (jazz, blues, country, rock, etc..)
Are players biting off way more then they can chew by trying to master a [modern day masters]repertoire...before mastering any substantial offerings of perceived easier traditional works of yesteryear.
The question is I suppose...Can a player by pass paying their dues of learning the musical trade of their styles tradition and still come up with a "modern day style" that is the total package!
Or does skipping that step retard a players musical maturity and in the long run render them lacking strong foundational fundamental knowledge to build a modern style upon?
Coleman...Amen- nutsell wisdom, but make sure your singing on your instrument in time, on key and with purpose and that is much easier said then done and can not be rushed, enjoy the process and make sure you touch all the bases when your running to touch homeplate :)
Last Edited by on Oct 16, 2012 6:51 AM
"Are players biting off way more then they can chew by trying to master a [modern day masters]repertoire...before mastering any substantial offerings of perceived easier traditional works of yesteryear. "
I would say, "no", but it is easier for me to think of guitar like this than harmonica. For example, look at all the SRV clones who can play the s#!t out of the guitar in a blues-rock context, but can't play delta stuff, etc.
Out of respect for members of this forum, I won't name names, but I can think of great players here who can't play postwar or prewar blues like they can modern stuff.
IME, the guys who sound unique tend to NOT have a lot of recorded evidence of postwar and prewar mastery.
"The question is I suppose...Can a player by pass paying their dues of learning the musical trade of their styles tradition and still come up with a "modern day style" that is the total package!"
I am going to say, "yes", to this too. The only two guys I can think of that are relatively famous and have VERY modern styles and can ALSO play the s#!t out of post or prewar blues are Jason Ricci and Sugar Blue.
Depending on mode of study, it may even be easier to jump right in and not learn that stuff. You can learn tone and embouchure and other techniques while learning differently.
I am not a gigging pro, but I know I can play harmonica really well. My main influences are Jason Ricci, Sugar Blue, and John Popper. I would say I do a great job of working off their ideas without recycling their licks. My patterns are different, my use of positions is different, and my phrasing is different. I have a very modern style that, good or bad, requires a lot of fundamental technique as well as advanced technique. It has required being at least sound in musical theory as well.
I have friends, some on this board, who come from a very similar perspective and are excellent players. I don't think any of us can play Filisko style blues like Filisko, but they play great blues.
I am definitely a person with regrets in life. There are things that if I could do over, I probably would. HOWEVER, my path in learning harmonica is something I don't regret. I was able to jump right in learning what I wanted to play, and I have no issue with having not started with copying Deford Bailey and working my way up to Charlie Musslewhite.
That isn't the right way to do things, but it worked for me, and I know IME that when I've played blues with other harp players I've sounded different than them.
Also, and I had a guitar friend suggest this is normal when I first started, you get to a point where learning speeds up. Once you have a foundation, it is easier to digest new material.
You can get that foundation various ways, but the bottom line is you have to learn the overall instrument, and not just a genre, for that to kick in. Lots of times, I feel modern players have a bigger tool box to pull from than players who stick with tradition.
let me try to boil this down little more and get a bit more precise...It is not necessary to master every forefather to begin the journey of strengthening your musical person hood...[Pick one ]
What I propose is that ones TIME is well spent in remaining focused to learn, understand and acquire the skills to the best of ones ability to play so-called easier musical material of days gone by with a musical command that is heartfelt.
This will set the stage for a musical progression that isn't wasted on constantly getting no where "going around the mountain" in ones development as an artist.
In other words, before you can be good at all things - you will be much better served first learning to become really good at one thing first.
Frank: IMO your question will have too many answers to get anything that can be said to be gospel. If there is one exception to a rule, it is not a rule. I still have no idea what a scale is or what notes/chords I play. I learned in total musical isolation on home made instruments and finally got a guitar and never knew you had to tune it. I learned to play guitar, harp, bass, keys, drums, sing, with no instruction or idea of what I was doing. I let my ears and heart guide me. It must of worked ok because I was able to live off my music for 20 years and was able to be onstage with many of the blues and rock greats. None asked for my musical backround. They either dug it or not. I suggest you just do what turns you on and make some good feeling music :-) 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
Good question Frank! For the most part I would say no I don't think it would be possible to get good enough without learning from past recordings. I do understand where Walter is coming from though. I don't feel the most important thing about playing harp is weather or not you can play "JUKE"! Or any of the harp classics for that matter! I just study the techniques a lot of harp players use and practice scales. I look at it like this (and have sence the day I started playing harp) I want to learn as much as I can on how to play the harp. Not learn songs note for note. There are a lot of people that are into that and that's cool, but I have always wanted to just play the harp and get good at it. That changes from song to song to. Some songs I'll listen to and I just can't stop listening to it. Some songs I'll just try to figure out one little technique. I think it's fun this way becuase I don't get bogged down! Plus I can play freely to things I've never heard before.
Walter states >I suggest you just do what turns you on and make some good feeling music :-) ...I fear for many, that the simplicity of that statement is more complex then meets the eye, especially when it comes to them making a decision to incorporate into their very soul a personal musical identity.
Cblues, I agree when you state >I don't feel the most important thing about playing harp is weather or not you can play >insert "famous instrumental" It is important though, whether or not the player sticks with the "music their studying" long enough to reap it's many rewards that only present themselves after spending precious time with the music at hand. In other words, whats the rush?
Last Edited by on Oct 16, 2012 10:11 AM
Last Edited by on Oct 15, 2012 12:50 PM
