|
Dirty-South Blues Harp forum: wail on! >
where they THAT good?
where they THAT good?
Page:
1
Heart2Harp
11 posts
Mar 23, 2010
6:47 AM
|
Hi everyone,
here's a little philosophical-historical question for you guys to ponder. Sorry if you're not into this sort of stuff. I know, I'm you classic anxiety prone academic overthinker but I've been thinking about this lately:
I saw Rick Estrin on a dvd preview say something like: ''...most of the great harp players I know are long gone (not his exact words)''.
1) would you agree with his opinion or do you think he is prone to what I would call the ''good old time bias'' where everything looks so much better, more honest and pure in the past? Were the Sonny Boys (1 and 2), the Walters (Big and Little) and others so good compared to today's best players? Are we prone to this same bias?
2) Is the greatness of these past harp players intimately linked to their social context (the social and political climate in which they evolved, especially in terms of the social condition of african americans)?
3) Or is it that these guys are great because they pionneered a lot of techniques and licks that we use today? Would Walter Horton be as popular today in the harmonica community if he was a contemporary player?
4) Were these guys great musicians or great performers/personnality? Is there a difference between the two? Is there a difference between someone who plays the blues harp and a ''Blues man''
...other questions are popping up but I'll stop here. Let me know what you think. By the way, don't intepret this thread as though I am saying that these past players were no good. I love their music and listen to it on a daily basis. There is something almost magical about it. But that's the core of my question: is it illusion or were these guys really the best that ever will be?
____________
Heart2Harp
Heart2Harp
|
waltertore
304 posts
Mar 23, 2010
7:06 AM
|
First off this is all opinion. We all are equally qualified for what makes us feel good. To get into arguments over such things is a waste of time. So, here is my OPINION. Walter
1) would you agree with his opinion or do you think he is prone to what I would call the ''good old time bias'' where everything looks so much better, more honest and pure in the past? Were the Sonny Boys (1 and 2), the Walters (Big and Little) and others so good compared to today's best players? Are we prone to this same bias?
Those guys were great. There was no youtube, tv, internet. Records were not affordable to all, radios the same. Regional sounds emerged and stayed intact. If you wanted to hear music, you had to go see it. No dvds, vhs, cable, skype, sattilite radio. All this stuff creates false learning opportunites. Just like when I was a kid and we listened to records and the radio. That was nothing compared to seeing someone live. Now there are guys claiming greatness on the harp that have never studied under anyone great, been in any greats bands, or seen them live. That is a piece of the greats puzzle that is near dead nowadays. Todays players tend to be more a conglomorate of the greats sounds. I don't hear distinct styles in todays players like I do in these guys. The custom harp thing and overblows moves the harp in a different direction. There are lots of guys doing this, but it doens't grab me like those old guys do. It is a new direction, and in time, their now seemingly impossible to grab licks will be disected and copied note for note, just like people do now with LW, SBW, etc.
2) Is the greatness of these past harp players intimately linked to their social context (the social and political climate in which they evolved, especially in terms of the social condition of african americans)?
It has to be. The world was a different place then. I lived with Louisiana Red. He told me horror stories about his past. When your skin is white, you are never going to know these things. I don't consider myself a blues player because of this. I play music that is my truth and the world can call it what they want.
3) Or is it that these guys are great because they pionneered a lot of techniques and licks that we use today? Would Walter Horton be as popular today in the harmonica community if he was a contemporary player?
Yes, todays players tend to emulate the greats instead of search for new ground via letting their own life and soul emerge. The old guys let it shine. It was kind of the industrial age for this music. New things were coming out left and right. Discovery was abounding. There were was no internet to search every known harp style in 5 easy minutes. Now discovery is a much dilluted event for a person due to this. When you had to hitch hike a thousand miles, and ask people how to find so and so, that is discovery! Even in my youth, if you wanted to hear a real bluesman, you had to go find him. I think Walter Horton would be viewed as a good player today if he was just emerging on the scene and his licks already established, but nothing special. There are a ton of guys that cop his licks very near perfect. Copying is easy. Creating is you. Others can imitate, but never can be you.
4) Were these guys great musicians or great performers/personnality? Is there a difference between the two? Is there a difference between someone who plays the blues harp and a ''Blues man''
The old blues greats were great performers. Todays performers are much more reserved with showing thier souls IMO. They have tons of gear, licks, techniques, but are so wrapped up in them that the music, which is all the old guys had, gets buried in the mix. People are still buyin gear, recreating gear, that was just whatever was available back then. Lightning hopkins told me one night - the people need to know you are the man whether your on the can or the stage. You have to let your life shine, be transparent. That is what all great artist do. That is why there aren't a whole lot of great artists- people are afraid to let their greatness shine!
----------
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.
2,000 of my songs
continuous streaming - 200 most current songs
my videos
Last Edited by on Mar 23, 2010 7:17 AM
|
7LimitJI
45 posts
Mar 23, 2010
7:07 AM
|
1/ I agree with Rick Estrin.There are many players now who are technically brilliant and probably match or even surpass players from the past in the number of notes they can play and different styles.
But if we are talking blues then no one has surpassed Little Walter.His phrasing, tone,inventiveness, every little nuance.The way he could support the vocal or guitar, then launch into a great solo, making the whole song sound better.
2/The greats of the past were playing to paying audiences almost as soon as they could pick up a harp.
No-one has that experience nowadays especially from such a young age.
3/Big Walter would be idolised today. His tone is emulated by many, many blues players.
4/To me, to be a "Blues Man" means you have to feel the groove inherent in the music. Some nights I get close, others I fail.
----------
The Harpist formerly known as Doggycam
Those Dangerous Gentlemens Myspace
|
MrVerylongusername
1023 posts
Mar 23, 2010
7:19 AM
|
Oh boy...
Stand by for a big debate!
I think your right, some people always view the past with more reverence than the present. I'm not an iconoclast. The Walters and Sonnys et al all deserve their place in the history books - they set the bar because they were the ones who first had a substantial body of work recorded for posterity. I think we'd do well to remember that everyone is influenced by what goes before them and there must be hundreds of players who history will never remember, because they weren't recorded or because of the politics of race and class in the early 20th century kept them from making a real mark. But those unsung players would have had an influence on 'the greats'. That's what makes it harder for modern players - the influences are there and recorded, widely distributed and well known. So you get a constant comparison; rightly or wrongly. New players are going to find it harder to be recognised as a unique voice.
As for further delving into socio economics, credibility, race etc. Those are all avenues that have been debated hotly here before. It's a can of worms. I'm not going to open it again!
IMHO there are players around today who deserve the same respect and reverence that the players of the 40s 50s and 60s got. For them the issue is that in order to push the boundaries of their technique and skill, they have pushed the boundaries of the music itself. It seems that doesn't sit comfortably with some people - even though it is exactly what players like Little Walter were doing.
Last Edited by on Mar 23, 2010 8:22 AM
|
boris_plotnikov
55 posts
Mar 23, 2010
7:26 AM
|
I'm absolutely shure that greatests harmonica players are alive. For me greatests are Howard Levy, Jason Ricci, John Popper, Richard Hunter, Chris Michalek, Bart Leczycky, Sebastien Charlier. There is nothing special for me in most old players (maybe except Little Walter, who was really innovator).
----------
http://myspace.com/harmonicaboris
|
Bluefinger
139 posts
Mar 23, 2010
7:51 AM
|
IMHO some are overrated but it all comes down to personal taste. I still think that Little Walter is the best harmonica player of all times. Nobody can raise the hair on my neck as much as his recordings do and his phrasing, tone and innovation is unequaled in my book but there are other "top 10 list players" that do nothing for me. I won't mention any names here because I'm not prepared to die yet but not everybody who is old or dead is automatically a hero.
----------
If it ain't broke you just haven't fixed it enough ...
|
DevonTom
81 posts
Mar 23, 2010
7:51 AM
|
Too many harp players today have sideman solo project mentality. They spend too much time on thinking about aspects of the harmonica and not about the context of the music they will place it in. Why learn to paint like a master and then put it in a neon frame?
Last Edited by on Mar 23, 2010 7:51 AM
|
5F6H
38 posts
Mar 23, 2010
8:04 AM
|
"There is nothing special for me in most old players (maybe except Little Walter, who was really innovator)". Irrespective of whether one thinks that they are great or not, SBW1, SBW2, Big Walter & George Smith were all also innovators, all originals.
For sure there are great players around today, but some owe little to the blues guys mentioned, equally then there were great non-blues players in the past too. So you're not really comparing like with like, following in the context of Rick's statement, which was referring to the blues players.
As to who we as individuals regard as great will depend heavily on our personal influences & tastes. The definition of "a great" really goes beyond simply how well they play, it's as much about their influence on their peers & later generations. I guess that anyone that achieves that in their lifetime (as did the players I mention - they were recognised as great at the time, not just with the benefit of hindsight) could be considered great (just like some of the players you mention).
I know players that I would regard as great (we all do), but as they have a virtually non existent portfolio as far as the worldwide public is concerned, it precludes them from being "a great"...for now at least.
|
Bluefinger
142 posts
Mar 23, 2010
8:10 AM
|
@DevonTom: exactly ... some of them were simply great musicians. They could create music with lots of emotions and that included their way of singing a song, writing it and arranging it. They also played harp but that was just part of a bigger thing that made up the whole genius.
IMHO many of the greatest players of all times are already dead indeed but not all of the old guys were innovators. Some just hopped the train and did a good job. It's stupid to do a ranking anyway but I would not put Billy Boy Arnold above William Clarke for example just because he came decades before him.
----------
If it ain't broke you just haven't fixed it enough ...
|
Buddha
1517 posts
Mar 23, 2010
8:20 AM
|
its all about perspective. None of those guys could carry the jock of some of the players today but that's not the point.
Like the monster players of today, those players back then are just guys who had emotional issues, fucked off much of society and just played music the way they hear it.
99% of the players today are brought up to be followers and thusly they don't know how to do anything else other than copy other people. Most of the consumers on the planet today are so conditioned they literally attack the true innovators of today for being "out of line".
Wake up people, open your eyes and think for yourself. Play YOUR music, not theirs. Be a leader even if that means the only person you lead is yourself.
So to answer the question were they THAT good? Yes but only in the sense they were true to themselves and forged their own path rather than walk behind somebody else. Everybody on the board has the same ability and the only thing that is stopping you from being great is fear of being alone in your quest. When the quest is actually about standing Alone.
----------
"The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are." - Joseph Campbell
Last Edited by on Mar 23, 2010 10:02 AM
|
phogi
354 posts
Mar 23, 2010
8:23 AM
|
This brings up a question in my mind. Aside from all aspects of musicality, there are are other factors as well:
1) The music industry has collapsed. Therefore, MANY (but not all) of the best and brightest are not going to quit their day jobs to pursue the high paying career of a blues harmonica player. They are going to do other things.
2)Empathy. Relating to the audience. Harder to do if you don't have a rough and tumble story to tell. Particularly if you are a suburban white boy like myself. You know this is real. Just read Adam's "Mr. Satan's Apprentice." He talks extensively about this phenomenon.
3) Real Communities hardly exist now. Most communities now are centered on activities and not location. On specialized interest rather than general human interest. Therefore greatness is harder to attain in anything.
That's not to say we don't strive for greatness. But In the modern era it means something other than what it meant when Rick was a kid.
In my humble opinion, anyway.
|
kudzurunner
1280 posts
Mar 23, 2010
8:39 AM
|
It's a great set of questions by the OP. I'll answer by asking one question of my own--a response to question #1, in a sense:
If Little Walter were asked, in 1948--just after he'd joined the Muddy Waters band, but before he'd recorded with Muddy, much less recorded "Juke" or any of his other masterworks, "What's left to do, now that John Lee Williamson is dead and gone? Hasn't all the good stuff been played?"
|
7LimitJI
46 posts
Mar 23, 2010
8:41 AM
|
If you look at any brilliant sports person or virtuoso. Most if not all started very,very young and were pushed by their parents.
Even with pushy parents not all succeed.Only the gifted make it to the top.
Most of todays Pop/film stars went to stage school and also started performing at a young age.
The harp players of old started extremely young and were immersed in Blues music.
They were not only great musicians,but great performers too.They had to be, or they did not eat.
I don't think anyone reading this will come close to any of the past greats..We're all too old !!
Get your children interested in music. Maybe one of them will surpass Little Walter.
----------
The Harpist formerly known as Doggycam
Those Dangerous Gentlemens Myspace
Last Edited by on Mar 23, 2010 8:41 AM
|
kudzurunner
1281 posts
Mar 23, 2010
8:43 AM
|
BTW, in line with Nelson George's famous line from his book THE DEATH OF RHYTHM AND BLUES, "Blacks innovate, whites recycle," I used to think he was right. Then I met Bo Diddley, Jr. and heard Ray Schinnery, Jr. do his best to sound exactly like B.B. King. Don't believe the hype. Read Emerson. Attend to Buddha. There's plenty of great new blues just begging to be made.
Start with Keb' Mo's "Perpetual Blues Machine."
|
Bluefinger
143 posts
Mar 23, 2010
9:17 AM
|
I think part of the problem is that there was a market for blues back then. A lot was recorded and records like Juke were able to make it to the top of the R&B charts. Today it's a lot harder for a harp player to get the same recognition by the non-insiders and die hard blues fans and therefore they won't make such a lasting impression, no matter how great they are.
Another thing might be that there were a lot of players that pushed one style forward at the same time. Let's face it ... Little Walter, Big Walter, James Cotton, Carey Bell, Junior Wells and all those sure had their own style but they all pushed the Chicago blues way of playing forward. To the non players it was ONE sound that they all were doing for decades so it got burned into people's memory. One innovative genious who does not have a lot of imitators and players who pick up on it and help spreading that new innovation, whatever it may be, will never have the same impact.
I think it's also true that very few players are really capable of doing such a feat anyway. There are many who come up with new stuff and new techniques. They can squeeze out notes and runs that have been considered impossible before them but how many of them can really create a sound that can be easily enjoyed, understood and remembered by a broad audience? If you ask someone who has just attended a Son Of Dave concert about what's special about him, he will tell you something about his beatboxing and looping and the combination of percussion and harp and he might even sing some of his stuff to you trying to explain what he did because he has heard something he will remember for a long time. He will recognize him anytime he will hear him again. That is something not many players can achieve these days ...
----------
If it ain't broke you just haven't fixed it enough ...
Last Edited by on Mar 23, 2010 9:18 AM
|
waltertore
305 posts
Mar 23, 2010
9:23 AM
|
"If Little Walter were asked, in 1948--just after he'd joined the Muddy Waters band, but before he'd recorded with Muddy, much less recorded "Juke" or any of his other masterworks, "What's left to do, now that John Lee Williamson is dead and gone? Hasn't all the good stuff been played?" " asked by Adam.
He might have said "maybe everyone thinks the good stuff is all done, but I feel in my heart new stuff all the time. What the world makes of it, time will tell, but I can tell you for a fact it makes Little Walter feel brand new!"
I have to agree with Buddha here - we all have new and great things inside us if we have the faith to let it out. "DREAM BIG - LIFE IS SHORT" - Walter Tore
----------
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.
2,000 of my songs
continuous streaming - 200 most current songs
my videos
Last Edited by on Mar 23, 2010 9:26 AM
|
harpdude61
43 posts
Mar 23, 2010
9:57 AM
|
Saying the old guys couldn't cut it today is like saying Marc Spitz swimming was mediocre because he wouldn't even qualify for the olympics today with his times, even though he won 7 gold medals.
Roots is where its at. Sure the modern players know more techniques and have much better equipment.
Besides one or two players of today, none can make you "feel" the blues the way Sonny Terry, the Walters, and Sonnys, etc. did.
Harp playing for them was not a middle-aged, work during the week, jam on weekends, hobby. It was life.
Some learned music because they saw it as a way out...though hard, a much better life than labor.
They played to induce emotion in the audience in the streets or wherever because if you didn't make people "feel" you didn't make no money.
Roots baby, the blues was part of it for the greats.
I quote a line from the movie Crossroads..
"Where I come from, you don't blow no harp, you don't get no pu**y." Willie Brown
Last Edited by on Mar 23, 2010 9:58 AM
|
nacoran
1490 posts
Mar 23, 2010
10:00 AM
|
Sure, the guys today might play faster and harder, but you have to remember back in the day they didn't have steroids. There was no juicing. I mean who here can honestly say your notes haven't been inflated by steroidal lip balm? Who hasn't corked their harmonica? Harmonicas are even made out of different wood today!
I think the YouTube phenomena can cut both ways. If you only have a dozen recordings of someone a wrong note is just a wrong note, not an indication that the guy can never hit the 7 draw cleanly. You just say you wish you had a copy where he hit it, or you say wow, he was really letting it all hang out. Today's players will undoubtedly leave behind a much bigger digital footprint. Kurt Cobain and Tupac are still releasing new albums. Lots of this stuff will be used to say how great they are, and lots of it will be used to prove they were hacks. Come up with something new and brilliant today? Watch out. You better get good at it fast if you want to get credit for it because as soon as it hit's YouTube fifty other players will be doing it too, all claiming they thought it up!
----------
Nate
Facebook
|
harpwrench
199 posts
Mar 23, 2010
10:06 AM
|
With all due respect Walter, WTF does custom harps have to do with it? Agreed, one minor aspect of them has to do with playing extra notes that some players can do happily without, but the majority of people just want a harmonica that's in tune, reliable, and behaves like it should. Most people who buy custom harps have weighed the difference between buying 3 harps to get one good one vs. paying more (not as much as you might think, my Stage I harps start at 85 bucks) for something that's superior in playability, which makes it more fun, and more dependable to boot. As well as inexpensively repairable, which is another part of the equation that makes them sensible.
Peace,
Joe S
|
Joch230
38 posts
Mar 23, 2010
10:10 AM
|
They were innovators partly because there weren’t that many players, and they were kind of regionalized. Kind of like how different reptiles evolved differently on different islands. They didn’t have YouTube like you say. There are just so many players now.
Using the guitar analogy, it’s a lot harder to actually play something now that hasn’t been played before… not that it’s impossible. But certainly harder than it was 40 years ago. And the learning resources available are crazy. That’s why you will see an 8 year old kid on YouTube going head to head with Buddy Guy on guitar and be surprised until that one is over and you are prompted to watch the next video of a 6 year old playing Carlos Santana.
|
snakes
492 posts
Mar 23, 2010
12:55 PM
|
I think we are trying to compare Johnny Unitas to Peyton Manning... Peyton has a personal trainer and chef - and a weight room filled with the most high tech exercise equipment, the know how as to what to do with it, and the nutritional supplements to enhance the effect of his workouts. Johnny threw pass after pass through a tire hanging from a rope on a tree.
Not to metion the aspect of protective equipment (gear). Or the fact that the old guys in sports had to have off season jobs to get by, thus they were driven more by passion than by the desire to become rich. I dunno, maybe my analogy sucks...
Perhaps we should be asking ourselves who we more admire and why we do what we do and what we are going to do with it.
Two pennies from a hack just north of Seattle.
|
Stickman
266 posts
Mar 23, 2010
1:05 PM
|
Yah! He is great but could he beat Ali?
----------
The Art Teacher Formally Known As scstrickland
|
Joe_L
110 posts
Mar 23, 2010
8:18 PM
|
One way to find out if those guys were that good is to start doing some digging and find out for yourself. Talk to people that knew those guys. Do some reading. There are volumes written about Blues music. Listen to the music. Put it in the proper context. Some of the stories are not pretty, but it'll frame the music properly. You have to learn the history. You have to learn about the players.
A lot of people act like there were only four or five guys running around Chicago in the 50's, when in reality there where a lot of fantastic harp players that are often overlooked. Those guys recorded, too. They are worth a listen.
If you have that Estrin DVD, do what he suggests, develop your listening skills. That'll help you answer some of those questions.
There's a big difference between a bluesman and a guy who plays blues harp.
|
Big Nancy
36 posts
Mar 23, 2010
9:52 PM
|
Sorry, but I think if you have to ask.... you may not have ears or you may not know what to listen for...!
----------
|
MrVerylongusername
1024 posts
Mar 24, 2010
12:14 AM
|
I think the question the OP was asking was not "were they great?", but "is there no one around today who is as great?".
|
Nastyolddog
481 posts
Mar 24, 2010
6:00 AM
|
Man i tryed to answer this a few times i just
can't understand it's Ignorance..
|
Heart2Harp
12 posts
Mar 24, 2010
8:22 AM
|
Thanks for your answers everyone. I found them very interesting and thought provoking. It is interesting how only a few indivudals were on the hardcore pro or con side of question 1 while most answers fell right in the middle. Here is something I think we can all agree on (let me know if you disagree though):
Yes those old timers were great and yes some players today are great. It all depends on your criteria for greateness and those tend to vary based on the socio-cultural and persoanl context in which a player evolves.
----------
Heart2Harp
Heart2Harp
|
kudzurunner
1284 posts
Mar 24, 2010
8:58 AM
|
I once heard my friend, the terrific scholar and writer Carlo Rotella, deliver a talk drawn from his book, GOOD WITH THEIR HANDS: BOXERS, BLUESMEN, AND OTHER CHARACTERS FROM AMERICA'S RUST BELT. He writes about Buddy Guy, and about how Guy WANTED to play Jimi-Hendrix style stuff in the studio back in the early 60s, but how Leonard Chess and other producers wouldn't let him. This was interesting, but what really interested me was the way Carlo theorized blues-talk.
He said that there are two prevailing myths--big stories--that govern the way we talk about blues these days: the myth of decline and the myth of ascent. (Side note: his ideas are drawn, I later discovered, from a book called TIME MAPS: COLLECTIVE MEMORY AND THE SOCIAL SHAPE OF THE PAST, by Eviatar Zerubavel.)
The myth of decline is: Ahhh, all the great blues has already been played. All the great harp players have already lived and gone to heaven. None of the players around today is fit to carry Little Walter's (or Sonny Boy's) harp case. They just don't make blues like they used to. Too many white boys are playing the blues these days. The blues are dying! Keep the blues alive! Etcetera.
We're all familiar with that perspective.
The myth of ascent says: The blues keep growing, changing, expanding their audience, traveling around the world. The blues are a social force for good, for interracial understanding. Never have so many people around the world loved the blues! Never has so much good blues music been available in digital form to anybody who wants it! Never have so many bands participated in the International Blues Challenge! Never have blues societies been more numerous or more active! Never have blues musicians been better situated to actually get paid for their work, as opposed to getting ripped off by exploitative producers. Never have so many blues autobiographies by the old masters been in print!
There's some slippage between these two positions; they're not quite trying to occupy the same ground, and in particular, the myth of ascent sort of sidesteps the question of the quality of the performances.
I don't have Rotella's book, but I suspect that the way he defines the myth of ascent says somewhat more about quality of performances.
My point is that most of us unconsciously subscribe to one of these two myths, one of these two orientations towards the "blues world" as we see it.
The key thing to understand is that people were speaking in line with the myth of decline fifty years ago. In CONVERSATIONS WITH THE BLUES, published in the mid-1960s, and in BLUES FELL THIS MORNING (1959), Paul Oliver bemoaned the fact that the old guys were dying off and kids--black kids--just weren't taking up the torch. That's almost half a century ago!
Oliver also thought that B. B. King and Bobby Blue Bland were ruining the blues. Many self-styled blues experts did. That's why Charles Keil finally wrote URBAN BLUES (1966): to defend guys like King and Bland from clueless old folklorists who thought that everything that happened after blues performers plugged in was a ruination. Heck, those folklorists essentially thought that Little Walter was ruination. The argument was that Chess Records was essentially corrupting the good ol' down-home folk blues--blues songs that had irregular bar-lines and wonderfully evocative lyrics drawn from country life. The problem with Chess and other blues-record mills, as the folklorists saw it, was that blues singers had been corrupted into narrowing their focus to male-female problems and doing so in a loud, aggressive, jangly way that had tragically diminished the folk majesty of the idiom.
I'm not making this up. This is how the myth of deline functioned at one point in the history of blues critique: to argue that the Chicago blues WE now revere, along with B. B., was a ruinious travesty.
Of course, over time the blues aficionados revised their thinking. B. B. King was suddenly......okay! Now he's a classic. And now, of course, the myth of decline has a new set of targets. I suspect that Jason Ricci is at the top of the list. :) Too loud! Too aggressive! Not "real blues." Etc.
Those judgments will change, too. It will take time.
In the meantime, I'll continue to do my best to hold down both poles of the debate, honoring Tradition and Modernization within the blues world broadly and the blues harmonica world more specifically. If it seems on this forum as though I've tended to side more with those who preach Modernize! and the myth of ascent, that's mostly because I sense keenly--or at least believe--that our subculture has been in an unacknowledged crisis for a while, one that has resulted from an overvaluation and misunderstanding of Tradition. I've taken this position for primarily strategic reasons--I think creative musicianship will benefit from shaking things up--but also because it reflects my own journey as a musician who is equally invested in knowing and integrating the tradition of my instrument, on the one hand, and pushing out the boundaries of the instrument and the idiom on the other. Since at this point I've mastered 98% of the tradition that is useful to me, my attentions and ideological energy are quite naturally focused on the modernization angle. But in my teaching--those 200+ YouTube videos and the stuff I sell on this website--I'm obviously 85% in the direction of tradition, because any good blues harp teacher knows that most students at the advanced intermediate level and below need more Big Walter, not more Coltrane and Ricci. The fast, innovative, back-to-the-future stuff can come later, when the fundamentals are in place. (By the same token, I think more of my fellow professionals at this point would do better with precisely the opposite mix: more Coltrane and Ricci, less Big Walter.)
It's not hard to figure where that came from: I've played for many years with a real Mississippi-born blues guy who was also a Harlem-bred funk guy, and jazz guy, and a radical individualist. Each of us comes to the table with a different set of experiences. Race--and in particular, the marked racial transformation (whitening) of both the blues audience and the worldwide cohort of performing blues musicians over the past forty years--has helped confuse all these issues, I think. But I also think we're living in a very interesting transitional moment.
Here's a question: After B. B. King dies, who will be sanctified as the new king: the elder?
Will it be Buddy Guy? Taj Majal? Charlie Musselwhite?
None of them can boast what B. B. King can boast: none of them had a #1 hit with a black blues audience. They didn't have any hits with black audiences, in fact. So does this mean they don't play the "real blues"?
I suspect that the ideology of "real blues" will continue to transform itself. I suspect that as black elders continue to die off (like Honeyboy, for example) and a living connection with blues' heroic past (RJ) is lost in that way, the white elders who played with, and learned from, those elders will gain some cultural capital from that connection. Paul Oscher and Bob Margolin, at some point, will be the 75-year old elders. At the same time, the blues-sons and blues-daughters like John Lee Hooker, Jr. and Shemekia Copeland will ascend to elder status, and performers such as Taj Mahal, who can't be categorized as purely blues but who is nothing if not rootsy, will slide in from the side to fill the elder role, too.
Last Edited by on Mar 24, 2010 9:13 AM
|
Bluzdude46
547 posts
Mar 24, 2010
9:36 AM
|
I believe it's the same in music, sports, science, Literature and even politics. Things that happened in the past were great, and done by great people, things never been done before. After they are done some pick up where they left off and continue and innovate. Is the Originator or perhaps the original innovator any less? No still great, Music is a live breathing, living thing. Yes I love to listen to both Walters and Sonny Boy II Does it stop there? Oh hell no.
----------
The Original Downtown Philadelphia Fatman... Accept No substitutes!
|
walterharp
274 posts
Mar 24, 2010
10:13 AM
|
I agree bluzdude,
While you can technically paint as well or better than abstract impressionism, it is very likely there will never be a time when there is an explosion of that type of work.
Sometimes, time, place and events conspire to produce a quantum leap forward in culture or science. The chicago blues scene was one of those times and that is not likely to happen again. Harmonica figured prominently in that and some of the top young musicians of modern music were there.
Harmonica playing may figure prominently again in music (heck after guitar, bass, drum and keys, harp is almost as common of an instrument in contemporary music as any other), so there are/ will be great players.. but probably never a group of innovative blues players that make blues the top of internet music sales
|
Big Nancy
37 posts
Mar 24, 2010
9:41 PM
|
I think history will settle this issue for all of us.... who will people identify as blues greats and who 's music will they seek out 50- 100 years from today???
The Sonny Boys, Sonny T, Little and Big Walters, etc. will still most likely be selling their recordings...!
----------
Last Edited by on Mar 24, 2010 9:42 PM
|
Andrew
932 posts
Mar 25, 2010
1:38 AM
|
It used to be said of Homer that he was the first and the best poet. Someone, possibly Moses Finley, wrote an essay saying what a silly (and common) notion that was.
I've just Googled "the first and the best". I got 197 million hits!
----------
Kinda hot in these rhinos!
|
Ev630
189 posts
Mar 25, 2010
2:21 AM
|
"99% of the players today are brought up to be followers and thusly they don't know how to do anything else other than copy other people. Most of the consumers on the planet today are so conditioned they literally attack the true innovators of today for being "out of line"."
We'll be the judge of who the great innovators are.
|
waltertore
312 posts
Mar 25, 2010
7:58 AM
|
Here is something to throw in the discussion- the live music scene is just about dead compared to when the legendary blues harp guys played. Luther Tucker would tell me stories about playing all night, and recording all day, for years on end.
Live music is a critical ingredient to forging a new sound, and today there isn't a scene vibrant enough to create and support the scenario that forges new and exciting sounds like in days past. Sure a few will emerge in isolation, but the sound of a certain place, that has been a staple of american music tradition, is about dead.
When I lived in Austin in the 80-90's the scene was cooking early on. At one point there was over 100 clubs in town and I could get a gig in about 30 of them. One year the austin chronicles annual musicians band issue listed about 700 bands in town. It seemed everyone you bumped into was either a musician, artist, or somehow connected with both. At gigs you would look out in the audience and there would be jimmy vaughn or kim wilson. This would inspire great playing. You got to hear great players everynight in small clubs and then go on to your gig, or check in after hours at the black cat lounge where I was the house band for years. This constant interaction spurred great competition too. It was all in the name of furthering your sound. I can't describe it right with words. If you never have been a part of such a scene you can't understand it.
Such a scene is also what happened in Chicago in the 50's and then it declined for various reasons. The same things happened in Austin. In that case, the rents went up, no more driving/drinking, carrying beer outside, the age went up, and clubs closed big time. Our house went from $200- $800 a month rent. Soon the guys like me that weren't famous worldwide and did most of our playing in that region of the country, moved on.
Now austin, like chicago is a mere shell of itself. Very few guys today are able to get gigs/tours compared to days gone by. The internet skype thing seems to be the new way to see live shows. This is no better than listening to records. To really learn you got to be there in the flesh, sitting up close.
This is how a sound is created. In austin it was the SRV, Willie Nelson, T Birds, sound. It influenced the world much like the chicago scene has. But I don't see how new greats can emerge in numbers like they have in the past without such scenes. They are organic- you got to be there, in it. The net will never compare IMO. 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.
" No one can control anyone, but anyone can let someone control them"
2,000 of my songs
continuous streaming - 200 most current songs
my videos
Last Edited by on Mar 25, 2010 10:24 AM
|
Joe_L
115 posts
Mar 25, 2010
9:16 AM
|
Walter - the scene in Chicago was similar to what you described during the 1980's before I moved west. A lot of the old guys were still around and playing. The younger guys were up and coming. They were also out a lot. It was a vibrant scene.
One thing I've noticed that is different. People don't go out as much. They are content sitting around the house watching videos on youtube.
The great players of the old days were playing all the time. They earned their living doing it. They had to hustle gigs or play on the street.
It's not like some people today. You can become a "superstar" sitting around in your bedroom wearing your underwear and blowing the harp. Backing tracks are optional. Today, you can be a harmonica star having almost never performed in a band situation or live in public. The miracles of Web 2.0.
Last Edited by on Mar 25, 2010 9:17 AM
|
Buddha
1523 posts
Mar 25, 2010
9:40 AM
|
so what if you can become a youtube superstar?
Why are so many people seemingly fixated on the past? Are you implying it's somehow easier to be internet icon? If so why aren't you doing it?
Stage, venue and platform do not matter. Intent and content does.
This is the modern world, brains matter more than brawn and I doubt any of those "greats" from the past could make it today, so are they really that great?
Stevland Hardaway Morris certainly is one of the greatest musicians ever, the old technology nor today's technology doesn't matter to him.
"The great players of the old days were playing all the time. They earned their living doing it. They had to hustle gigs or play on the street."
That's akin to saying you're not really taking a shit if you use a modern bathroom. Fuck the outhouse I say, gimme running water and some lights. The shit smells the same.
----------
"The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are." - Joseph Campbell
|
5F6H
39 posts
Mar 25, 2010
10:29 AM
|
"This is the modern world, brains matter more than brawn and I doubt any of those "greats" from the past could make it today, so are they really that great?"
I'm not sure how this is relevant, the greats are established, it has happened...that's it. There undoubtedly will be greats around today and in the future. That was then, this is now...the world's a different place, speculating as to whether they could cut it today (though, I don't know why you would doubt it) is as pointless as speculating as to whether a modern player would have dominated the 40's & 50's Chicago scene...it's a waste of energy. LW in particular pretty well eclipsed many of his peers & was Chess's go to player for sessions for a decade. Chess was a label that influenced the world's music, for decades...who's the harp player in that position now?
We're all products of our time & our environment...different times different problems...different approaches...different mediums to work with. You've got to consider them all in context.
Playing the harp hasn't changed, you still suck & blow...like you say, "the shit smells the same".
The internet is just another medium, like radio, jukeboxes, TV...if you can be a internet superstar then go for it. To be "a great" people will also expect a body of work, of influence, a reference for later generations. Though no doubt the cocky "young blades" of the future will question the validity of today's players too, "Yeah, what they did in 2010 was cool, but we're more cutting edge, we'd have cut their heads..." :-)
Ther are many keen hobbyists & weekend warriors who are great at playing, but depending on your playing to pay the bills is as hard today as ever it was, anyone who does that has made it as far as I'm concerned & gets my respect. Are they all "greats"? We can express our opinions but time will ultimately tell.
|
waltertore
313 posts
Mar 25, 2010
10:37 AM
|
Time never stands still, but the american way is to forget its roots and just move forward with as much new as possible. I teach in the public schools at the HS level. You would be amazed how many kids never hear of Hitler. Progress is a great thing, but to be complete, one has to know where they came from or the mistakes made in the past will continue to be repeated. We see this over and over in our history. The old players had a knowledge of their roots because there wasn't all the distraction of today that challenges one to go on endless tangents of threads of interest. The old harp players knew their roots because they physically heard them, lived with them, and emulated them.
Butterfield is a modern white man example. He took the sounds he heard first hand from the greats and turned it his own way. He also lived in a happening scene. I was able to live in NYC, SF, and Austin. I went to each because they had a vibrant music scene. Today there isn't a place in the USA that even comes close to these places. If I was a teen today, I wouldn't know where to go. As a teen these places were known to every music lover and I dreamed of getting to them. That was a huge part of my musical training. To physically immerse oneself in a learning environment is the deepest form of learning. Today there is nothing on this channel.
This is why so many see the junior wells video as crap playing. It isn't about his playing, but his musicality. He oozes it. He was hot and cold as a player and the highs were high and lows, low. But the people of that time knew this about performers and continued to come out because when they were on, they were so on, you never forgot it. Today's players are more technically perfect everytime, but lack that never forget card. That is what makes wolf, lightning, wells, and the rest of that eras stars, immortal.
I think we will eventually see almost a complete demise of vibrant music towns and the almost complete takeover via the internet technolgies. It is happening before our eyes. Then when people realize that watching things on million dollar audio video st ups is unfullfilling, a group of young rebels will forge an new live music scene. It will spread again to the world, much like vintage gear is so sought after today. If we stay connected to our pasts these extremes will not have to keep repeating. My soundclick site has a video on it. It is approaching 20,000 views. Man, when I was playing for a living, if I had 20,000 people digging my sound I would be at a level of the Fabulous Thunderbirds at their peak, but instead, I have no gigs on the calendar. This is a great example of how the web has influenced the shape of live music. You probably need hundred of thousands of hits to make a bare bones living!
I am not knocking the technology boom. It has its great points which we all know. I have been able to become a self contained recording facility that puts out recordings that NBC is using for soundtracks. That would have been unheard of in the musical heyday of live music. Only guys like willie nelson and neil youngs had their own studios.
We should seek a balance with all this stuff. It isn't one thing that is right or wrong. There is no black or white.
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.
" No one can control anyone, but anyone can let someone control them"
2,000 of my songs
continuous streaming - 200 most current songs
my videos
Last Edited by on Mar 25, 2010 10:48 AM
|
Johnster
45 posts
Mar 25, 2010
11:00 AM
|
Seems, to me we're all still talking about and listening to those "old" greats, that in itself signifies their importance and greatness. I find it hard to think of any modern Blues player who will still garner such attention 30 years after their demise.
|
Post a Message
|
