Is there anybody here who ISN'T playing along with some traditional blues numbers, trying to learn them? I do, but I don't play them rote when i play live. Yes, you absolutely need vocabulary. You better have some soul and feel too if you expect people to pay you.
To me music is music. Sometimes I like to hear a 4 string banjo whack-a-doodling out some ragtime. I'm glad people still play it.
I guess there are all sorts of drives out there in the world of music, and for some, some sort of cutting edge is it.
Music is always drawing from the past as it marches onward blindly into the future, that's part of the magic and the language that transcends the word. There is a place for everything, and a familiarity that gives it it's musicality.
Life's too short, I wish I could be a musical chameleon and express something relevant in every form I encountered, jam with gypsies, mexicans, rastafari, africans, etc.
All that said, it is amazing how hell bent we human beings are to divide ourselves up in camps and be righteous, self included.
Oh well, that's life in the Great Illusion, I guess that's why we have the Blues;D
I'm not so much against copying people's licks note for note, I wouldn't hold that against anybody, but to try and copy somebody's voice i'e their whole musical identidy (as in signature licks, tone, idosyncrasies)is wrong. Almost like piracy, lol.
If somebody feels the need to steal someone else's entire playing style then they don't, IMO, have the right to call themselve's an artist.
" ...learn 2-3 instrumentals NOTE by NOTE as this increases their vocabulary" AMEN.
For me, it was Mark Ford. He does a solo on the tune "Gimme Some" that I recognized as skillful and inventive very early on. Damn if I couldn't play it though. I worked and worked - and now I can play it norte for note. I DO - we perform it in my band. I STILL can't play it as well as Mark, but I've gotten a lot better. It is one of the rulers I use to measure my progress.
Does that make me sound like Mark Ford all the time? Make me not me? Hell no. If you listen to my show you'll hear me quote (more or less) Ford, Gary Primich, Norton Buffalo, Gary Smith, Rick Estrin and a few other of my harmonica heros. You'll also hear me play stuff you don't often hear others play. The SUM of me is me and me alone.
Ain't nobody who doesn't draw on what they know already to create something new. And although I don't know this Bharath dude, he knows how to play the harp and I'll bet he is very capable of playing his own music too. I certainly wouldn't judge him from that one video.
Jason said in one of his videos to "Imitate, Assimilate, and Innovate". Good advice to me.
I think what a newer player learns from trying to copy is invaluable...especialy players that don't use or care about tabs, scales, or what a flat 3rd means....and there are many.
Blues is a unique genre in regard to duplication. Around the local bluegrass scene, if you can play "Foggy Mountain Breakdown" on banjo just like Earl Scruggs did, you won't get ridicule, but praise.
Again, I'd like to state this thread was not started to talk about the merits of Bharaths playing.
I've only listened to a few of his tunes on Youtube and there was nothing there that I couldn't get by listening to the original. But if I had the chance to see him live, I'd go.
Adam mentioned him and it raised the question in my mind.
There are some thoughtful replies.:o)
I do play some songs note for note.
Why ?
Because I think the particular solo is superb, and enjoy playing and learning them.
Learning them is not easy.
It is far easier to get up and improvise over everything. I could do it, I have the vocabulary and the chops.
If I stopped learning new numbers I'd give up playing. Its what keeps me interested, when I'm not gigging.
The challenge of "How does he do that?" and the mastering of it.
Listening to, and learning from other instruments is no more or less valid than the method I use. I see it as being exactly the same.
Bharath is the first hap player I've heard of that's doing well for himself by copying someone else note for note. Which obviously pushes boundaries. Has anyone else done it before? SO,
I say he is a true original.
Answer to the original Topic: The 'modern' crowd doesn't want the harmonica to be stuck in the 1950's and 60's. Kinda like the kid saying, 'come on gramps, get a microwave, its 2010!'
One aspect of the copy/not copy debate, that transcends whether harp/blues traditional or modern/genres generally ...is that it's worth thinking about a stage set as a bigger picture, rather than just down to specific instruments & solos. Learning arrangements, whether solos are note for note, or just in the vein of, can help give individual numbers a strong identity and break up the set as a whole.
I know & have met many players (of various instruments)who gave me the old, "Yeah man, I never know what I'm gonna play next, it's just my own stuff, never the same twice...", etc & then they proceed to play the same licks, phrasings & patterns all night, just at different tempos & in different keys. Sure, they might be "in the moment" & playing the hell out of the instrument, but after a few numbers you have heard everything that they are ever going to play, one number can start to blurr into another and at the end of the night you can walk away with no memory of what took place - you might have been impressed with the playing, but have retained little in the memory, whereas a few powerful heads & hooks can leave you humming to yourself for days/weeks after & you take something away with you at the end of the night.
I have personally found that guys who set out to learn numbers, note for note - even if after a while that becomes springboard for putting their own twist on it - tend to deliver a more structured, distinct & memorable set, with better diversity.
It's not so much the copying note for note per se, but the discipline to learn & adhere to a groove or arrangement, beyond what they would naturally, comfortably drop into if left entirely to their own devices. Whether many of us accept it or not, we have a time & phrasing that we often naturally favour.
I would also reiterate the parallels with say a spoken language & vocabulary...you have to have a grasp of the common ground & the ability to communicate with your peers, before you can elaborate on that & develop it. If no one understands what you are saying it's hard to keep interested, however novel it might be. Remember Stanley Unwin, Small Faces "Ogden's Nut Gone Flake"? Funny for the first few listens but soon becomes the SOFJ.
MP - Agree that most folks can't help but develop their own style, so even if you do learn note for note, once you have been out playing the number for a while it naturally starts to become more "you".
Having an original style does not necessarily mean one is playing original material. One can interpret well known tunes in a fresh, different, or original manner. Obviously, in doing so, certain melodies or heads may (or may not) need to be played more-or-less note for note in order to preserve the identity of the tune. But it's how the player does that and what the player does with rest of it that defines the player's style.
dont quite understand this long winded argument I pulled up rod piazzas version of little walters sad hours and plays it lick for lick did I enjoy it? yes Is rod piazza copying little walter?who cares it is brilliant playing and I enjoy it-little walter has been gone for 42 years but there is nothing wrong with playing his music when you do it that well-it is timeless
Groyster - I agree with your sentiment, but when you take Rod's output as a whole (dozens of albums), there's a lot more there than the relatively infrequent LW covers/tributes, just as there is with any of the players who have covered a LW tune at one time or another (too many to list). He still plays the LW stuff like "Rod", he's more precise, less loose than LW and although he has the licks down as good as anyone, the amp sound & Rod's "voice" on the harp are very different to the originals (despite that, I actually prefer Rod's version of the Toddle).
Rod is a good example though, of someone who has a good understanding of arrangements & how to give a particular number a strong identity & how to produce a varied set...that's very apparent in his original material, as well as the covers.
@nasty: I'm quite sure that I haven't slandered Bharath. Slander is when you say things about somebody that you intentionally know to be untrue as a way of destroying or undermining somebody's reputation. I believe everything I'm saying to be true, and I'm not trying to destroy his reputation. I've deliberately hedged my claims about his playing by inviting anybody and everybody to point me towards evidence that will force me to revise or retract my claims.
My job as major domo of this forum, a regular participant in it, and one of Bharath's fellow pros, is a complicated one. I don't call people names--as you and many others have done, on occasion. I try to look for the positives rather than harping on the negatives when I discuss the work of top contemporary and historical players. My "likes" are wide, not narrow.
One of my tasks, as I see it, is to think critically--which is to say, as deeply and objectively as I can--about the situation in which the blues harmonica world finds itself in our contemporary moment. I don't just spew my prejudices, my likes and dislikes. I try to think them through. I'm willing to revise my claims when people point me towards fresh evidence or offer me strong claims that convince me I'm mistaken in my thinking.
Before I go any further, let me say: if I had a chance to see Bharath in action, I'd leap at it. I'd do so NOT because I want to hear him "do" Little Walter. I don't. That's been done. He's made a concerted attempt to project himself on YouTube as Little Walter reborn. No: I'd go to see him precisely in the hope that I'd see HIM, Bharath, a technically and aesthetically gifted contemporary player who surely has some sort of original voice on the instrument. I just haven't heard that voice yet, and I'd like to.
To the extent that I've expressed something like a critical dismissal of Bharath's achievement as Little Walter's Ghost in my previous posts in this thread, I've done so for two reasons. The first is the frustration of one professional for my fellow pro. I'm sure he's got much more to show us and I'm amazed, frankly, that he's only chosen to showcase his skilled, brilliant imitations. I've invited you, everybody, to point me towards evidence for this "more." You haven't done so. But as least one poster has, and I'm intrigued by that 7 1/2 minute version of "Blue Midnight"--or impressed by hearing a description of it--because it suggests one way in which that "more" might come into being.
The other reason for my critical dismissal is something I've noted several times on this forum: my sense that the contemporary blues harmonica world has been far too beholden, for its criteria of judgment, to the classic players of the past (with Little Walter as the paradigmatic example, and Bharath the extreme version ofthe dynamic) and not as interested as it ought to be in innovation. Good blues harmonica playing, and good blues in general, is always about finding a creative balance or tension between tradition and innovation, the old and the new, the retro and the modern. For various reasons, but unmistakeably, the contemporary blues harmonica world has been overinvested in tradition--at its extreme, to a cult-like degree--and somewhat dismissive of innovation. (Edited to add: This situation may be changing. The fact that Jason Ricci won this year's BMA is one bit of evidence for that.)
The racial component of the situation I've describe above is unmistakeable: younger white (or non-African American) players overinvested in older/dead black players and the older styles they pioneered. "Older" and "younger" need to be understood in relative terms, and these claims of mine should certainly be qualified. But it would be fair to say that if you put Mark Hummel side by side with Sugar Blue, you might be able to crystalize the different between overinvestment in tradition and pointed stress on innovation. Hummel's aesthetic orientation, by and large, is backward-looking. Sugar Blue's is forward looking.
What's important here is something that the self-styled traditionalists tend to miss: Little Walter, in his time, had the same aesthetic orientation as Sugar Blue. He was forward looking.
There's a remarkable paradox, even a kind of absurdity, in other words, in the philosophical position that undergirds what Bharath does--when he reanimates Little Walter, I mean. I suspect that he and many of the people who admire him think that he's being "true" to the spirit of Little Walter. Nothing could be further from the truth. He's missing the spirit of Little Walter. In some sense, through his love for Walter's recordings, he's hiding behind a hardened mask on which is written "Little Walter."
I believe that a genius's spirit deserves to be honored. Now, in the world of classical music, where we've got written scores and a tradition of accumulated concert repertoire, nobody faults a classical musician for sticking to the score. So perhaps all that Bharath is doing is elevating Little Walter's recorded output to the status of canonical concert repertoire. Perhaps those are the grounds his extreme approach should be defended on.
So has blues become classical music, then? Is that what you want it to be? I don't. I want more rawness, more improvisatory energy, than that. (And the truth is that many of the great classical composers were hellacious improvisers. They'd probably be saddened to hear so little improvisation in the world of contemporary concert-going.)
I hold no rancor for Bharath. I'd be delighted, however, if he got so pissed off at me that he uploaded a YouTube video entitled "The F-U Adam Bounce" in which he really threw down some raging new shit that made me go "Whoa." Not in the Little Walter style, but in the Bharath style--a style so powerful, magnificent, and intense, that the entire harp world sat up and said, "Damn, there's a new kid on the block, and Jason Ricci is in trouble."
I haven't seen that video yet, but I keep hoping.
@Nasty: You say you expect better from me. This is the best I've got to give. I hope it makes sense to you. Thanks for prodding me.
Last Edited by on May 10, 2010 7:07 AM
Adam, many of us are into a wider range of players than just Little Walter. The guys who usually throw around phrases like "Little Walter clones" with wanton abandon are the ones, in my experience, who themselves know little about blues players beyond Walter and, maybe, Butter. It's not my responsibility (or any other person who digs traditional playing) that so many guys on this forum and many others are so ignorant of the range of players and styles out there.
As for the paradigmatic example, there's ample evidence that many here want to replace that example with Jason Ricci and, in my view, that would be just as narrow-minded if it were true.
@ Adam "What's important here is something that the self-styled traditionalists tend to miss: Little Walter, in his time, had the same aesthetic orientation as Sugar Blue. He was forward looking."
I'm not sure that we can say that for sure...any more than we can say it for George Smith, or Big Walter, or even Jason...their music was/is about the present...LW peaked in the early to mid 50's and his playing never really evolved much beyond that...listen to "Walter's Jump" from the late 60's, or even Backtrack from '59.
Walter also played his fair share of covers & borrowed arrangements from earlier performers & from his peers.
He lived through the birth of soul & funk music but never "moved with the times". As with many blues performers in the 60's, he was somewhat of a dinosaur, even in his own tragically short lifetime.
The "modern" players see themselves as cutting edge or different. More traditional players are seen as being old figs.
Bharath has nothing to prove. He's not posting on this forum telling people what to listen to, or that you must lip or tongue block, or both.
"The 'modern' crowd doesn't want the harmonica to be stuck in the 1950's and 60's. Kinda like the kid saying, 'come on gramps, get a microwave, its 2010!'"
Yes,its 2010 and the blues is alive and well and still being played traditionally by many after 60 odd years.
Do you think the same will happen to the "modern" harp music being played today?
Great music is timeless.
Music of the moment is just that, it lasts a moment before being forgotten.
"As for the paradigmatic example, there's ample evidence that many here want to replace that example with Jason Ricci and, in my view, that would be just as narrow-minded if it were true."
Ev630 - I entirely agree with you.
Last Edited by on May 10, 2010 10:27 AM
@7limitJI - "The "modern" players see themselves as cutting edge or different. More traditional players are seen as being old figs."
Who has been saying that in regards to traditional players? If those things have been hinted at, I would think it would be in the minority opinion of just a few on this board. You even have multiple references to traditional blues players on this thread that have "modern" players saluting the work of "traditional" players.
Going back to the original topic, I don't even think there is much disagreement about copying others. I personally feel that doing so all the time is not the path to take, but just about everyone who has had an opinion on this topic has said it definitely has its place.
I think even most the pros on the board have discussed quoting other liberally, etc. When it gets to the point where that is all you can do, though, it has maybe gone too far. It can't be truly your voice. However, especially by context, there are times where direct copying is even the "right" thing to do. I still stand by my original statement that if you are playing a style of blues that is based on copying solos note for note as your bread and butter, than it isn't authentic.
It can still be moving, musically great, the right thing to play, thought provoking, impressive, etc...it just isn't authentic.
Regarding Bharath, if he wants to do a tribute, then he has every right. Several people have posted very insightful and thought provoking comments on what he is doing. Personally, I enjoy it for what it is, and appreciate his contributions to harmonica and blues.
@RickDavis and a few others regarding being "innovative". What about players like John Popper, Lee Oskar, Carlos Del Junco, Paul deLay, Mad Cat, etc???? You don't even need to like any of their music, but how is it not innovative? How is it not stylistically a change in how harmonica has been used historically? How is it not sonically *different* than what can be heard from harmonica elsewhere?
It saddens me that some are so quick to dismiss the possibility of being ground-breaking or unique like it is a plaque. How does it not limit your own playing and growth? I've listened to many of the members here who are willing to post their music. This ranges from the most seasoned to the rookies on the board. I hear innovative and unique sounds all the time. Rarely do I hear the same-old-same-old. ----------
Mike - nothing wrong with being ground breaking. I think the people you listed (for the most part) were or are groundbreaking. I just think some of the people who post here who think THEY THEMSELVES are breaking new ground are kidding themselves. Just as people who think you should only play trad blues are kidding themselves.
It's all good. It's all down to personal choice. Do whatever floats your boat.
@EV: I'll name four players who post here and have broken new ground: me, Buddha, Dennis Gruenling, and Jason Ricci.
Me for "Thunky Fing." Third position bluesy funk with overblows on a D harp, early 1990s. If I'm not the first to do that, please tell me who is so I can create a MySpace fan page for them.
Buddha: I'll leave it to him to name songs, but I know that Carlos del Junco wasn't playing that sort of modal acid jazz trio stuff in full overblow mode back when Buddha was inventing it, and I don't think Howard did, either. Buddha created an original approach of his own.
Dennis: "Jump Time," on the album by the same name, was a 12th position swing tune. A traditional sound, a very non-traditional approach. To my knowledge, he was the first player of any note to combine tradition and innovation in this particular way.
Jason: Among other things, the first player to fully integrate overblows at very high speed within a straight-ahead heavily-amped flog-the-Bassman approach. Howard, Carlos, and Buddha all had the overblows, Dennis had what he had, and I got part of the way there (my version of "Don't Get Around Much Anymore" was fast, amped-up, and had overblows back in 1991), but Jason took it a full step beyond, working it all out in a traditional blues context (Big Al and the Heavyweights) and then, with Shawn, in a blues-rock context. "Goenophany" might be exhibit A here.
@5F6H: "their music was/is about the present." Exactly. It was about now--the "now" in which they lived. It wasn't fixated on Back Then. I'd like to see a little more Now and a little less Back Then in our harmonica world.
But I do understand that some people are historians, and I salute them. I also think that it's important that they be recognized for their achievements AS historians, so that we don't confuse them with, for example, people who are actually making, or trying to make, history.
To return to the OP: copying the masters is an essential part of every harmonica student's learning process. It's all preparation for learning how to arrive at your own distinctive voice--one that we'll recognize the moment it comes on the radio. Any harp player with serious ambition surely hopes for that sort of distinctiveness: the voice of a Billie Holiday or Sinatra, the guitar style of an Albert Collins, the piercing attack of a Rice Miller, the immediate stylistic signature of Jon Popper. Players with lesser ambitions just want to achieve professional-grade competence and the respect of their professional peers. That's fine. I'd be delighted if the lessons for sale on this website help a whole bunch of players realize their dreams in that latter way. But I'd be remiss, as a teacher, if I didn't try to provoke the better students, and professionals, to reach a little higher than that.
Ninua, you are confusing "good" with "groundbreaking." All the players you mentioned are very good, but they are all derivative of other players. If every player you mentioned was indeed groundbreaking and changed the very nature of harmonica playing, the state of the art would be MUCH different than it is today.
Why is it so imortant to you to insist that so many players are "groundbreaking" or innovative? It's like bad sports teams that retire the numbers of non-superstar players. It cheapens the sport.
some people are content to "break new ground" in their local area or region. Let's face it, the harmonica isn't even thought twice about in many areas of the world. In my little city of 20,000, I am introducing people to harmonica in a way they have never heard it before.
They are telling me this, not the other way around.
A musician told me last thursday after the jam.." man I haven't heard harp like that since I lived in Chicago." I make no effort whatsoever to sound like chicago blues in most of the stuff i play. For the locals who were there the same night, it was all new to them. They say things like "wow, I didn't know a harmonica could do that."
I think contentment in what you do should be a goal, whether or not anyone thinks you innovate. If you are content to copy, copy away. If you aren't, don't copy.
I think if you play long enough and forget about what is right and wrong, you will most likely come up with something innovative. Most people never stop thinking about right&wrong/what others will think/acceptance/self doubt. Also if your sound is reconizable, then you have inovated on something because it is identifable. I came up with this inovation. If anyone else has done it, please point me to it. I have been doing it since the early 80's. What is it? Playing lead guitar harmonica and lead guitar at the same time in this way:
---------- 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"
We all play on a continuum. If you are playing a blues scale you are playing something someone else invented. If yo are playing a regular Major or Minor scale, yeap, you are being a little derivative. We all pay homage to some degree or another. I suspect Bharath things of himself more as a living historian. He probably finds joy when he figures out some little subtlety he'd never noticed before. At the other end you have Watler Tore, who doesn't even play his own stuff twice. They both seem to be getting joy from their music.
By a show of posts, when you do a song just right, maybe by changing it a little bit, do you try to do the same thing again the next time or do you get restless to move on and do it different yet again. For me, I keep checking out ways so that I can put all sorts of different versions of the same songs online. I like idea that I get to share more than one take on something with the audience. If I'm doing a cover I try to make it my own, but every now and then, if I discover a song that I can really 'copy' and not make my own, why not give it a shot. It takes a different kind of attention to detail that will probably serve me well in learning tricks and licks in the future. I think if that's all I ever did with music I'd get bored. I'd get bored never going back and reworking what I'd already done at the other end of the spectrum, but that's because I'm neither Bharath or Walter Tore. They seem to have found what they enjoy. We've all got our little dot on the continuum too. We may move one way or the other from time to time, but we usually stay near the area we've staked out. One way to grow might be play something outside out comfort zone.
For those of us in the middle we might try both extremes a couple times. If you are one end or the other see what the view is like from the other end. I suspect you'll end up back close to where you started, but you may pick up some insights along the way.
And as for groundbreaking, as an exercise, I suggest listening to some sort of music that you really hate for a couple weeks. Chances are there are probably both things you'll hate even more and some things you never heard that maybe you want to bring over into the blues.
But maybe you'll become the first fully functional Classical-Operatic-Irish-Harpboxerboxer who writes their lyrics using close pro-Irish analysis of Shakespearian tragedies through post-modern Deconstructionism, with heavily ironic lyrics. I'm not sure, but you could probably tour with The Crash Test Dummies.
And remember, wherever you are on the continuum, there you are. Be happy!
@Ev630 - It is also worth mentioning that we haven't heard everything everyone else plays. I don't know about your particular post, but I was singled out for having the phrase "ground-breaking" in a band bio that is buried on a website for a local blues-based band. So just to illustrate a bit of a point, and hopefully not to come off as defensive...
I've recorded using 4th and 11th position in a context that just isn't normally used - especially with harmonica. The 4th solo being over a blues progression and the 11th over a more modal style vamp during a rock song. I can't speak for everyone else, but just in my playing (which is the only playing I am an expert on and evidence of someone who isn't harmonically "famous" but gigging steadily who isn't doing the norm but playing a large chunk of blues) there are things going on that aren't standard. I also think my approach to the other songs on the latest CD show an approach to blues and funk that isn't normally heard from harmonica players. Just trying to illustrate "official" evidence here, but I don't think anyone on this board has heard a full set from my band other than Buddha - and that was several years ago - less than 2 yrs into my harmonica playing.
Locally, I am one of two players under 30 on the MN "blues" scene - although I'd say my strength is rock. This is significant because I am a local harp player - not a national act, and that is directly what my band has chose to compete with...explicitly. His approach is very traditional coupled with some LD Miller like runs. It is almost all based off 2nd position and using the blues scale. There is at least one other "young" harp player in the area, but he tends to not play much blues and he is uses special tunings and a John Popper-like approach. I sound nothing like those two. My approach is much more grounded in harmony, melody, and a wide range of scales and positions...that isn't a judgement on who is "better" but just pointing out differences. My approach isn't "riff" based (some of there's is), and I don't superimpose blues licks into different genres. I also use overbends and they don't. In fact, as far as the MN blue scene goes, I am it for guys gigging and using overbends. I don't think anyone takes solos out of 1st, 2nd, or 3rd like I do either. Again, not a judgement of value but things I can prove that make me sonically different.
I studied with Clint Hoover, who has been teaching for over 20 yrs, and was the only student he'd had interested in learning overbends and a more "modern" approach. I started overbending with him on day one (which was about 1 yr into my playing). He is the only harp player in the area doing anything remotely close to what I am, but he plays mostly chromatic and uses the diatonic for genres other than the ones in which I play. While we come from a similar place inregards to philosophy, we don't really sound alike nor do we play the same music.
Online, most of the music my group has shared out has been blues based, but truth be told, that makes up about half of what we'd do in a given night. Our originals tend to be more funk and rock and a lot of our covers aren't straight blues either. We are the only band in the area (region?) that features harmonica the way we do. I get to play it in context usually left to guitar, keys, and horns. That might be a classic like Feelin' Alright or a more contemporary cover by Sublime. Like with any song, I try to play what musically fits instead of just using the minor pentatonic all the time.
I've received unsolicited compliments from all of my personal harp "gods". I like what I do and others do as well. It is different than what any other band around here can offer and I stand by that 100%. I have no intentions of being a "national" artist or becoming famous via showing off on "YouTube". I just want to do my thing. This is a serious hobby of mine, but not a career. Where I am at for 6 yrs of playing is lightyears beyond what I would have dreamed. ----------
No. I was content that he liked it and it reminded him of home. Maybe the "who" I remind him of is a lousy harp player, for all i know.
The drummer asked me who my influences were. I told him nobody, i just play music on it. I think that's pretty accurate, not to say i haven't learned anything mechanically or musically from some Gussow and Shellist videos. I do pass that on to people who want to learn the harp after they hear me play. I did that last night (well this morning at 5 am) at work when a guy asked to hear me play...after he played me a little tune he wrote. he said.."this makes me want to get more serious." I referred him to Adams youtube series.
Joe L, My two memorized pieces would be oh suzanna and dixie, BTW....lol. I spend very little time learning anyone else's material note for note anymore. I don't think anyone ever starts an instrument without having to memorize something. Everybody needs a starting reference point of some kind. I play guitar, bass, mandolin (these go hand in hand), trumpet, conga, bongo (not the same, BTW), Harmonica, drums and sing. I have copied plenty, as needed, in every instrument over many years.
For Harp, I do learn the predominant melody for EVERY song we play and create a harmony or two for it as well. All of that gets used in various ways with other riffs and licks i like for their bluesy or rock or country flavor. The audience loves it, so i am unconcerned with fitting into anybody's definitions.
I will ask him this thursday, though...out of curiosity. I'll get back to you on that.
Buddha: I know of Iron Mike. We have communicated often via the net. He uses a programed drum machine with his one man band rig. The madcat stuff sounds very traditional. It is done well, but I prefer to listen to those songs by people from the era they were recorded in. Mike actually told me he plays lead guitar notes and and lead harp at the same time. But it is not like the way I do it. I do it like 2 lead guitars. He does like a chorded guitar and and a lead harp. The guitar has always been my dream instrument. I pattern, at least to my soul, much of my harp after a lead guitar and trumpet. 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"
I do think it will. I also think access to Gussow, Buddah and Ricci videos on youtube is going to seriously grow the number of harp players out there. And grow the quality of your average player. Because of these instructional videos, and the fact that they will dominate harmonica player's philosophy, the 'modern' stuff will eventually overtake the older stuff. In 50 years I think harp players will look at 1950's harp playing like modern guitar players look at 1800's guitar playing.
Not knocking it at all, just saying what I think will happen. It's kinda inevitable, unless a powerful enough voice for retro playing comes to dominate.
As for quality and age, others have stated my opinion (which was basically formed from watching Adam's videos). I am a case and point of how the teachers will have a larger influence than anybody else, players included.
Can anyone really play any LW song exactly the way LW played it? Yes, but Big Walter's no longer with us. I've seen the Great James Cotton try it at a LW tribute, and he couldn't do it.
I saw Rod two months ago, and he did several LW tunes, but not even close to note for note, and I'm sure that was intentional.
99.9% of us will never be able to learn a LW, BW, SBW, etc; note for note, so automatically it will have our own flavor.
If you think most of the great traditional blues players of today didn't try to copy the great's of yesterday when they were learning harp, your kidding yourself.
Even though I don't think anyone should be doing a whole set of imitated LW tunes unless it's an occasional tribute. I don't hate Bharath for it.
I'm not afraid to admit that I'm jealous of Bharath's playing, and I'm sure there's others here that are too.
If you like a song, and want to add it to your arsenal, learn it well, copy it note for note if possible, eventually it will become your own.
I know one song note for note (95%), and IMO, it's a tune that should be played the way Rod did it. Little Bitty Pretty One.
The Great's should be celebrated, not imitated!
Last Edited by on May 11, 2010 8:20 AM
The difference between a good harp player and a bad one is this :- The bad player seems to copy a great deal, the good one really does.
Success is dangerous. One begins to copy oneself, and to copy oneself is more dangerous than to copy others. It leads to sterility.
When I was younger and learning to play, I used to pray to God for inspiration during improvisation. Now I just steal licks and ask for his forgiveness ! :o)
Apologies, most of the above quotes were plagiarised.
7LimitJI, do whatever floats your boat, but while that may be the case with some players in some context, there are many who transcend those generalizations.
In fact, some would say copy/pasting riffs may lead to more issues...like what do you do if the band changes the groove or the next song isn't a 12bar, you are out of licks, the riffs don't fit the song, etc.
You're not wrong to copy/paste, but there are many other ways to structure a solo and keep things fresh. That isn't a modern approach...guys like Mark Hummel and RJ Mischo have talked about switching positions, mics, scales, etc. to keep things from getting sterile.
Copying someone else's licks, in fact, can sound sterile from the start. That doesn't mean that a different approach is right either. There is room for all of it. ----------
Getting back to the OP! There ain't nothing wrong with copping songs note for note. Many a top pro will tell you that they wore out the grooves on records with ears glued to speakers to pick up every nuance from the masters. Gruenling will tell you that. Piazza will. Estrin will. Etc...BUT if your goal is to turn pro and entice consumers into buying your product, then you have to offer more than retreads. There has to be some originality thrown into the mix.
Rick Estrin, for example, may take a handful of John Lee Williamson licks and apply them to a song chock full of his original, witty lyrics--and he may mix 'em with some of his own. BUT he learned to play that handful note for note before tossing them around.
Have you never heard Gruenling replicate LW licks perfectly, or George Smith? I have--but then again, he has established his own unique style when it came time to mark his territory.
I can remember Kim Wilson taking criticism for being nothing more that a Little Walter clone. Can he call up those licks verbatim--you bet, because he learned them note for note. He can get all the master blasters' licks going on, then he jams some licks that originated with Kim Wilson through our heads. He knows his note for note.
When Eric Clapton hired Jerry Portnoy for his band, I reckon that he wanted some note for note stuff from Jerry and not original Portnoy licks. Think?
George Smith's tribute album to Little Walter sounds like George Smith, because he developed his style parallel to LWs and didn't come up relying on learning Little Walter licks. He was working his own thing at the same time that the Walter's were working theirs. There are plenty of West Coast cats that hung on every note that Smith played--and tried to replicate it.
My point--most of the top blues harp players learned plenty of stuff note for note. Nothing wrong with that. They'll still pull it out in a live situation---but they don't stake their reputation on doing that, because they've established a style of their own.
Within a few licks I can tell if it's George Smith, Snooky Pryor, Big Walter, Kim Wilson, Dennis Gruenling, Gary Primich, RJ Mischo, Jimmy Reed, etc...because they have their own lick vocabulary and style. Oh, and I try to copy everyone of them.
If you listen to those guys and you listen to what they listened to, you'll know where they got a lot of it. It just requires some digging and that is work. Some people are hesitant (or resistant) to put in the effort.
