Dirty-South Blues Harp Forum: For blues harmonica players, students, and fans

Dirty-South Blues Harp forum: wail on! > Why don't more pro players post on the internet?

Why don't more pro players post on the internet?

Page: 1 2 3 4

2holebend 8 posts Jun 13, 2010 8:27 AM	@htownfess...yes, that's me on You Tube....rookieness shows through I know, but I still love learning. I am not too ashamed to post my few videos, because I know that those who know how to play won't mind giving me constructive criticism. I'm sure that you were at my stage long ago. Saw one of your You Tubes....great stuff!! Also, I'm really not speculating on anyone's playing abilities...I just found it odd how the original question ballooned into such fiesty debates with the personal barbs.....
Diggsblues 344 posts Jun 13, 2010 9:28 AM	The question is would you practice what the pros say. Is some guy giving advice like he's a pro just got down the C scale. 7limitji say hi to little Al Price for me. We used to always talk and exchange videos on the old Budhhas Garden. Last Edited by on Jun 13, 2010 9:30 AM
Joe_L 367 posts Jun 13, 2010 10:13 AM	@htownfess - I agree. There are several pro players that are online a lot. They are busy doing things that entertain them. Some read these forums for entertainment value. Others are busy doing all sorts of stuff from playing online chess to online gambling.
tmf714 157 posts Jun 13, 2010 10:27 AM	A lot of pros post at harp-l. It's a more serious,logical trolless place.
Tin Lizzie 87 posts Jun 13, 2010 10:35 AM	Isaacullah said "I don't understand this stuff. This forum is called MODERN Blues Harmonica. It's in the name! It's not called "General" Blues Harmonica forum. What's there to discuss about it?" So, Adam, does the title of the forum mean that anyone who disagrees with your definitions of Modern Blues Harmonica doesn't belong here and shouldn't post here? I don't think that is what you mean but if does, I will gladly leave. As far as I am concerned, anyone's, path or definition of Modern is fine for them. But that doesn't make it true for everybody or true in any absolute sense. And yes, Isaaculah, it would be nice if threads stuck to the topic (they hardly ever do) and if the topics stuck ot harmonica (they often don't). ---------- Tin Lizzie
nacoran 2101 posts Jun 13, 2010 10:40 AM	Thanks Shanester. I really am interested in what you guys think proper forum decorum should be. This is a great site, but obviously some people have gotten offended by what other people have said or posted. I'm all for developing thick skin, but it's kind of silly that you'd need thick skin on a harmonica website, so I really am interested in other people's thoughts on the subject. ---------- Nate Facebook
Ev630 610 posts Jun 13, 2010 10:58 AM	A lot of pros post at harp-l. It's a more serious,logical trolless place. I don't know, Thomas. In my experience when a minority of those guys make a mistake in public they become kind of insane. I had one guy email me with veiled threats and post all sorts of juvenile stuff on my Youtube page because he couldn't stand being wrong. The guy even emailed me when he heard I was being posted to the middle east expressing his hope that I would die here. Crazy, huh? But you're right in general. 99% of guys there are very thoughtful and rational. At least that's my experience.
tmf714 158 posts Jun 13, 2010 11:04 AM	I don't think his hope was for you to die there-that's speculation on your part. Veiled threats? You open yourself to those by signing on here,or any website for that matter. Crazy? No-crazy is speculating someone wishes you die.
Ev630 612 posts Jun 13, 2010 11:20 AM	You may be right Thomas. The irony is, this guy and I have a lot in common. Funny how one online argument can spoil things when folks get hyper sensitive.
isaacullah 1019 posts Jun 13, 2010 2:02 PM	Back in the day, when this forum was brand new, we were all folks who had come across Adam's YT lessons, caught the fire (from his spark), and came here to add some kindling. Adam created this place for us, his disciples, to do so. That time was heady. We were all learning so much everyday. From eachother, from Adam's lessons, from life. And we shared those lessons here, with eachother. Most of the topics were "Adam's new video: How to do that", or "Riff of the Day!", or "Blues in perspective". Now, the forum is a much different place (I compare it to the roman empire as opposed to the republic). We've lost all but a very very small number of the orignal denizens (Me, GH, Zhin, and a few others who still lurk). I'm not dercrying this change, I'm merely stating it as a fact. Lot's of good things have come of it. For example, all the pros and other knowledgable people that post here, and answer newb questions, and even some of the other, more esoteric questions from those of us who've been on the path a little longer. But there's been a ton of bad stuff introduced as well. Now many of the posts have little to do with the original spirit of the forum. Ultimately, this forum is and remains a place created by Adam for those people who he has reached through his instructional videos, live performances, or live workshops to come together and share their experiences in an attempt to grow together, and build a community. The way in which we do so will inevitably continue to change and evolve--and that's cool--but the onus is on us, the forum participants, to keep the forum on it true and proper path. Yeah, Adam is not quite as prolific as he once was with his YT vids, and thus I expect to see less "Hey, how did Adam DO that in Vid 234" type posts, but that doesn't mean we ought to replace these with "All people who do X are cretins and aren't fit to hold a harmonica betwixt their chubby, talent-less lips" type of posts. One must strive to rise above such silly, petty, and ultimately useless back-and-forth arguments, and always have an eye towards the longevity of a place many of us have come to call our harmonica home on the internet. So what do you all say? Shall we continue forth together on our journey towards harmonica nirvana? Shall we raise our harps and play together as the Joyous Disciples of Blues Harmonica? Shall we take our rightful place in the forum of our harp hero, and strive to make him proud with all that we do? Well.... Shall we? ---------- ------------------ View my videos on YouTube!"
Tin Lizzie 88 posts Jun 13, 2010 2:37 PM	Interesting history of the forum. I found Adam and his lessons, many of which I watched and I purchased several, long before I found the forum. But I wouldn't call myself a disciple. My influences are much wider than Adam. In fact it makes me nervous that anyone would want those who watch and use Adam's lessons to be disciples. Why? Well, because this forum undoubtedly reaches many more harmonica players than Little Walter did, in any given time period. There is a good and bad side to reaching so many players all over the world at the same time. The good side is the access so many have to so much music and information. The bad side is that so many people are getting the same influences. I prize the differences in people's playing, which I believe is largely dependent on their influences. In earlier times, you didn't have to go far for the blues to be really different. I love that diversity. I think however you define modern, that diversity is something we should nurture and strive to encourage. What is the point to being the same? Then you would only need one of us. ---------- Tin Lizzie Last Edited by on Jun 13, 2010 2:43 PM
Tuckster 580 posts Jun 13, 2010 6:18 PM	I been refraining from chiming in because it's O.T.but it's so far off topic now,it doesn't matter. Tin Lizzie-Are you reading the same forum I am? Nowhere here do I see Adam saying it's my way or the highway. Just the opposite-he encourages diversity. He's always preached to not look to just harp players for influences-to look at all genres for inspiration.He would not want you to play like him. However I do have somewhat of a problem with his use of the word "modern" in association with blues harmonica. I've never felt that he's given a concrete definition to that "modern" term. I get the implication that it means overblows,but he's never come out and actually said that.
Tin Lizzie 89 posts Jun 13, 2010 6:30 PM	I was responding to what Isaac said, not what Adam said. I said in the post, that I didn't think Adam believed that. My earlier responses in this thread were to Adam and his Modern/retro comments. ---------- Tin Lizzie
Tuckster 583 posts Jun 13, 2010 6:44 PM	"But I wouldn't call myself a disciple. My influences are much wider than Adam. In fact it makes me nervous that anyone would want those who watch and use Adam's lessons to be disciples." That was what I was referring to. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting you? I think Adam's influences are pretty widespread.
isaacullah 1020 posts Jun 13, 2010 8:27 PM	Well, in essence, that's what we were. Disciples. Disciple does not mean clone. It means student. We came here only because of Adam. When we were beginners, it was great to have a leader to look to, who cut through the confusion and clutter of too much advice of dubious quality that was floating around on the internet and in many beginner harp books. "Giving it all away", you know? That's an amazingly powerful thing that was not, repeat, was not available to us from anywhere else. Period. Are we all Adam sound alikes? No. Not in the least. Is Adam our only inspiration? No, not in the least. Would Adam want us to be clones? Not at all! Do we want to be clones? No way! As Adam says: steal from everyone, but give credit. Keep an eye on your past, but tread steadily towards the future. A harp player has got to start somewhere. That is usually at the foot of a harp player who came before them. Then we all eventually move out on our own. But we are ALL still proud of where we came from, and who helped us start out on the way. ---------- ------------------ View my videos on YouTube!" Last Edited by on Jun 13, 2010 8:40 PM
htownfess 130 posts Jun 13, 2010 8:59 PM	"I don't understand this stuff. This forum is called MODERN Blues Harmonica." Actually, it isn't. The site is, the forum isn't.
Kyzer Sosa 635 posts Jun 14, 2010 12:28 AM	the same reason pro athletes dont post on athletic forums... and who hasn't played while pooping? EDIT: ladies, feel free to chime in on this one as well... ---------- Kyzer's Travels Kyzer's Artwork Last Edited by on Jun 14, 2010 12:28 AM
nacoran 2112 posts Jun 14, 2010 1:20 AM	Isaac, I don't know about harmonica nirvana, but I can play a little Nirvana on harmonica! Tin Lizzie, I can see where you are coming from, but I see it a little differently. We had a thread a long time ago where someone suggested that the forum be split into different parts, a section for amp stuff, a section for acoustic, etc. I think one of the great things about this forum is that it's all lumped together. It helps put new ideas in front of people. I can see what your saying about how if we all took the same thing away from here there wouldn't be diversity out there, but I think actually it helps get more diversity. It may be harder to pin down what school of harmonica someone is from if they've been exposed to a lot of stuff, but it lets them chose the stuff they like they might have missed otherwise. I think of it sort of like if you have an empty canvas. In the old days they threw a blob of color here and a blob there. Now the colors have run together. It may seem like it's less distinct because there is smeared area between where the blobs were, but if you look across the spectrum there are a lot more subtle shades in between. The techno harpers bleed into the blues people who bleed into the rockers. Each one may not be as distinct, but now you have cool combinations you wouldn't have otherwise. You still can find someone who choses to stay in the middle of the blues blob or a person who chooses techno, only now the space in between is more filled in too. The down side is if you liked a specific shade there may not be as many performers playing it, but it's easier to find them. ---------- Nate Facebook
captainbliss 139 posts Jun 14, 2010 6:33 AM	OFF-TOPIC 1. RE "modern" IMHO, a modern approach: (a) is characterised a refusal to take the status quo at face value, a refusal to see a natural order in that which is (from a modern perspective) constructed, (b) seeks to understand the way things are with reference to social, historial, cultural, psychological factors (i.e. factors of human creation), (c) challenges existing ontologies and epistemologies (realities and ways in which we know about these realities), (d) can be distinguished from "traditional" in so far as it interrogates what we mean by a "tradition" rather than simply accepting and continuing that tradition. 2. RE "prose-pros" and academics: "Prose-pros" is an excellent phrase, whoever coined it (htownfess?) and it made me smile. Thank you. I think it's worth bearing in mind: (a) from an academic point of view, seeking to provide a more complete, evidenced, historical, cultural, social account of any phenemonon is entirely normal, and seeking to situate one's contributions to a discussion within relevant disciplines and to give a nod to relevant factors is de rigeur, (b) from a non-academic (dare I say "everyday?") point of view, (a) can sometimes come across as obfuscating, over-intellectualised, verbose, pedantic and, in the worst cases - in adversial debate and when there's a huge power imbalance in the currency of crafting words and arguments - as bullying, (c) those of us of academic / "prose-pro" bent would do well to remember that we have a tendency to think that everyone shares our intellectualised world-view, that everyone sees and cares about the complex political, cultural, social ramifications we see and care about in the apparently mundane because, actually, they don't (and in many cases they're right about us and our obtuse intellectual fidgetry). 3. RE this forum's hospitality: (a) we'd all do well to remember to assume that those posting have good intentions; this is in the creed, by posting here it seems that we tacitly accept and endorse it, (b) I think it's safe to say that our host here at MBH (I've met him and have had a sprawlingly interesting conversation or two with him) is, by inclination, a "modern," and is exhuberant in his enthusiasm about the life of the mind, (c) I think it's equally safe to say that this exhuberance doesn't always resonate with everyone but - to put it bluntly - it's pretty small minded to confuse someone arguing excitedly for a position and someone telling you that you should hold this position too. (d) Tin Lizzie brings up the subject of sexism (even misogyny?): in my limited experience, harmonica clubs seem to be populated mostly by men and all-too-often run with boys' club mentality and, using my imagination as best as I can, if I were a women, I'd feel pretty disappointed by the apparent mentality behind some posts and pretty excluded by some of the comments / embedded images / embedded videos I've seen on these boards (a fair few of which have nothing to do with modernity, blues or the harmonica). 4. RE The Inner Ring: @htownfess: a marvellous read. Thank you. Not much to add to CS Lewis other than "he's spot on." ON TOPIC /Most pros would rather make the case for their kind of playing by playing, rather than talking about it.../ I think you're right. I would add: "... and would rather play for an audience that appreciates their playing than talk about their playing with an audience that is all-too-likely to be peppered with bad apples lacking grace, generosity and courtesy." EDITED for punctuation and grammar xxx Last Edited by on Jun 14, 2010 6:53 AM
Tin Lizzie 90 posts Jun 14, 2010 8:19 AM	Tuckster... yes, I see how you could interpret it that way. Adam's influences are wide spread (but so were Little Walters). For the same reasons one should not follow and emulate only LW, one should not follow and emulate only Adam. Isaac, I am glad you said student was your definition. Disciple in the dictionary means follower and spreader of a doctrine.... As for the boys club mentality...well, I wouldn't be proud of it if I were you. It gets tiresome. Kind of like living in the tv show Mad Men... maybe you'd all like to go back to that time. But things weren't all that happy for anyone then. Yes, I am old enough to remember that time. Been around long enough to mostly not be offended by boys club mentality... merely bored by it most of the time. At one point some of you seemed interested in women participating in the forum. But maybe you were just looking for someone to date or lust after. Not what I am looking for here. Nor am I the woman of your boys club mentality dreams. And Kyzer... in my experience it is only men who spend enough time on the toilet to engage in other activities while sitting there. You asked. I've had my say. Either you heard me or you didn't. Not posting any more. ---------- Tin Lizzie Last Edited by on Jun 14, 2010 9:47 AM
Ev630 617 posts Jun 14, 2010 8:52 AM	(b) I think it's safe to say that our host here at MBH (I've met him and have had a sprawlingly interesting conversation or two with him) is, by inclination, a "modern," and is exhuberant in his enthusiasm about the life of the mind, I hope in that comment that you aren't inferring that those of us who occasionally disagree with Adam aren't "enthusiastic about the life of the mind." Besides, the modern mind embraces the dialectic, where as the classical mind prefers rhetoric - as does the totalitarian mind, I might add. A true modernist would find a dialectic over whether there is too much dialectic somewhat oxymoronic.
captainbliss 140 posts Jun 14, 2010 9:06 AM	@Ev360: /I hope in that comment that you aren't inferring that those of us who occasionally disagree with Adam aren't "enthusiastic about the life of the mind."/ Eeek! Not at all what I'm implying. (I hope that subsequent readers will be sufficiently generous to see this.) Although... tongue in cheek You did of course notice that the point was that the exhuberance (not the enthusiasm) doesn't resonate with everyone? slaps self for being tbe kind of smart-arse that no-one appreciates Ouch! xxx
Buzadero 433 posts Jun 14, 2010 9:11 AM	<<<<<slaps self for being tbe kind of smart-arse that no-one appreciates>>>>>> I do. ---------- ~Buzadero Underwater Janitor, Patriot
Ev630 618 posts Jun 14, 2010 9:25 AM	And so do I!
scojo 19 posts Jun 14, 2010 9:30 AM	FWIW, I think there are some people who just want to argue for argument's sake (as distinguished from honest debate for the sake of enlightenment). That's not just a feature of this forum, but of most forums and of life in general. That doesn't make it any less frustrating, any less off-putting, or any less a waste of everyone's time.
Jim Rumbaugh 238 posts Jun 14, 2010 11:25 AM	I was sitting at work (I make eyeglasses) when it hit me. The last time I went to the optiboard forum to read about eyeglasses was about 2 or 3 months ago. Sometimes you get enough of work at work. I go to this forum 2-3 times a DAY, because I am still learning and intrested in harp. There usually has to be a "what's in it for me" for someone to come and participate. ---------- intermediate level (+) player per the Adam Gussow Scale, Started playing 2001
nacoran 2114 posts Jun 14, 2010 11:34 AM	"At one point some of you seemed interested in women participating in the forum. But maybe you were just looking for someone to date or lust after. Not what I am looking for here. Nor am I the woman of your boys club mentality dreams." Tin Lizie I am still very interested in getting a more varied group of people around here. There are a lot of white men around here (myself included). There are exceptions, but I'd guess that represents 90% of us. We are missing out on a whole range other other opinions. I don't want to open a whole can of worms, but a member of the forum and I had a rather protracted debate over a particular word. I thought it was sexist. He didn't. We both stand by our opinion of the word. That's alright. The thing is, I chose to say something, but as a white guy, I'm not in a position where I can just say, 'hey, that word is offensive to women'. The answer I got, from another white male, was, 'No, it's not.' We've had members quit over profanity different kinds of profanity and religion. Half the time they didn't even say anything about it first. They just announced they were leaving. If there is something on here that offends you, let people know and be specific. (I am definitely not trying to restart the argument over the word, I'm just trying to explain why sometimes it's hard to know where the line is.) Back when I was in school I remember seeing a film on a study. Basically, it was set on a beach. A guy came and set his towel down near a group of people. He set out his cooler, and a boom box, and then went back to his car to get more stuff. A moment later, a second man came from another direction and picked up the boom box and walked off with it. Nobody stopped him, even when they did the test over and over with new groups of people. Then they did the study again, only this time, before walking back to his car, the guy asked the people if they could watch his stuff while he went back to the car. Now they all stopped the would be thief and wouldn't let him take the boom box. If people don't want to bring it up on the forum, it's fine to email me. (People have done this before.) I think the other mods and Adam would probably be OK with you contact them too, but I'll let them speak for themselves. My email is the same as my nickname here, hotmail.com. edit: added citation. ---------- Nate Facebook Last Edited by on Jun 16, 2010 4:10 PM
kudzurunner 1575 posts Jun 14, 2010 12:43 PM	@all: Whew! I go away to Chicago for a few days to play a couple of gigs and lots of water floods under and over the bridge around here. I think Captain Bliss has characterized my orientation towards the modern with great precision. I also think he's alerted all of us to the problematics that show up when I argue forcefully for certain beliefs here. I also thank Isaacullah for pointing out that this forum started when folks literally demanded that I start a place on this website where people who had been drawn to my YT and MBH lessons would have a chance to compare notes, as it were. I thank my friend Tuckster for the way that he presumes my good intentions even while he occasionally asks whether I might be pushing things a little too far. I pay attention to that. When I've encountered strong, often irritable and exasperated resistance here, it's come not just when I beat the modernist/traditionalist boy, but also when I attempt to inject race into the discussion. I'm trying to do a little consciousness raising among the white folk here (overwhelmingly) who claim allegiance to an art form that is, in every conceivable way, interlaced with interesting, sometimes productive and progressive, sometimes retrograde racial dynamics. My own understandings are complex, not simple, and my own peculiar subject position isn't one that I naively inhabit. I'm an interracially married white guy raising a "black" (biracial) son in Mississippi. Two of my significant mentors were black men, one of whom was a radical innovator and the other of whom was not, but both of whom were genuinely color-blind and only very rarely played the race card. My third mentor was my father--an extremely talented and questing painter/sculptor/environmentalist whose aesthetic approach has been central to my own. I don't make a fetish of black blues; nor do I disparage "white blues" as somehow less legitimate. If I did, I certainly wouldn't be ending my one-man band sets with Cream's "Sunshine of Your Love"! I'm selling a bunch of lessons on this website in which I teach people how to play the harmonica music of the greatest players in the tradition, many of whom were black but some of whom (such as Kim Wilson, whose version of "Got My Mojo Working" was a joy to tab) were not. I'm profiting from black art! Shame on me. I give the money to my wife and she buys nice hair with it. Sue me and send the bill to the Black Power Movement. What I'm trying to do is spread a little more freedom around. My chief aesthetic guides here are Ralph Waldo Emerson and Larry Neal. I want to see a little more personal style and a little less stylization. Some of my favorite blues performers are white people: Richard Johnston, Jason Ricci, Charlie Wood, Bonnie Raitt, Tab Benoit. But I'm also aware that contemporary black blues performers, in many cases, are taking more risks, pushing boundaries, and delivering fresher, less stylized feelings than much of what passes for, well, white blues culture these days. And that probably traces back to the fact that the music, evolving in black communities under siege, had to engage life's challenges in deep and complicated ways. It had to BE a life force. I'm thinking about artists such as Otis Taylor, Corey Harris, Eric Bibb, Keb' Mo'. The blues, as music, should stun us; take us by surprise. God knows the blues themselves do that, when they first smack us in the gut. There's a place for stylization, and I can certainly appreciate it. I watched Dave Specter and Steve Freund play some masterful twin-guitar blues at the Chi Blues Fest. But too much stylization eventually kills the music, and this is especially a risk when the ghosts of blackface minstrelsy rise and turn blues into a comic shadowplay. The Blues Brothers are the farthest extreme of that particular dynamic: a pair of comic fools in sunglasses and hats who mock white rhythmic ineptitude and burlesque black rhythmic knowledge and commitment at precisely the same moment. Isn't John Belushi funny, spinning somersaults up and down the aisles of a black church! And he is. But that lighthearted, comic, and highly stylized image of the blues can't be entirely divorced from the mainstream (white) blues scene. Blues these days is the scenic backdrop for boozy vacations in warm climates. I spoke with somebody at a major blues record label who sells lots of records to this audience was was slightly dismayed that Tommy Castro won Entertainer of the Year at the Blues Music Awards. "Nice guy," he said. "Very nice guy. But he won because he's on every Ultimate Blues Cruise. Everybody knows him and likes him. That's why he won." An interesting theory. You can mock Jason Ricci, if you want, for singing songs like "Broken Toy," but god knows you can't accuse him of reducing the music to low comedy, or mere stylization. He's actually trying to do something original with the music--testing blues/punk and blues/rock and blues/jazz blends to see where they go. That's rare. What's even rare is the fact that he's dared to let his sexuality flame large and unmistakeable in a way that cuts diametrically against the macho tenor of the contemporary scene. I don't like punk, frankly, and I don't like everything he does. But I can recognize genuine daring--somebody who says "F it, this is who I am and I'm going to let it out," and I admire it. It's a rare thing. Emerson would have approved. Whosoever would be a man must be a nonconformist. I have several touchstones for good blues performance, but the primary one is, Does the music make me feel freer? Albert Collins did that; William Clark and Johnny Sansone; James Cotton, back in the day. Sterling Magee used to do that all the time, when I played with him. He had his own style, it was unlike anybody else's style even while it was, ultimately, deeply within the tradition, and he slammed it as hard as he could, right down to the bone. I may have had some complaints about Joe Filisko in past threads, but I will be the first to say that some of the cuts on his new album gave me just the feeling I'm looking for. There is a startling amount of aggression in his playing on certain cuts, enough that it sometimes threatens to unbalance the song, but he lets you know that Joe Filisko is in town. What he plays in those cuts isn't about tongue-blocking, even if that's the technique he used. It isn't about posturing, or mocking the music. It's irreverent, frankly. It stomps all over the music and tries to make it live in the present moment, without excess stylization. When I hear that, I applaud it. Joe may have told Murray Hunter (Wandering Wilf) that "Having your own style to me is ego-driven," but I think he doth protest too much. Joe does indeed have his own style--HIS style, not just an assemblage of stylistic recreations--and I applaud him for it. He's a dangerous player, and I mean that in the best way. We need more of that. That's what I'm preaching here, to the extent that I'm preaching. It ain't about the hat, although some guys wear hats well (and every Chicago harp player I saw this past weekend was wearing a hat, including Joe). It ain't about the make of harp; that stuff is fun to talk about, but it's secondary, finally. It ain't about whether Little Walter played the 69 blow in the opening riff of "Juke": Billy Branch DOESN'T play the 69 octave, and he makes the song live. It is, however, about race, in various ways, and anybody who can't stand it when I address that issue here is shutting down the dialogue at precisely the moment things might actually get risky and interesting. Read Scott Saul's FREEDOM IS, FREEDOM AIN'T. Blues, like jazz, is all about race--and this is true whether you're black or white or whatever: it's about your desires, dreams, and ambitions in a racially diverse and racially stratified world--but it's also about understanding that all that race-stuff is an illusion, too. Which is to say, the blues are complex. They ain't simple. I'll continue to do my part to allow them their full complexity. Last Edited by on Jun 14, 2010 1:22 PM
Joe_L 375 posts Jun 14, 2010 2:53 PM	Who are the people that vote for the Blues Music Awards? They are the members of the Blues Foundation. Any moron with $25 can join and they get a vote. You don't have to know anything about the music or the history to vote. It's true, a lot of people on the cruise are members of the Blues Foundation. I know a lot of them. Some of those people are more knowledgeable than others. However, if what that person was saying is true, Lil' Ed and Ronnie Baker Brooks would be nominated every year, but they aren't. Those guys are on almost every cruise. I suppose race could be a factor. Most of those guys in Chicago are wearing hats because they are losing or have lost their hair. Twenty years ago, there were less hats and more hair on the scene.
isaacullah 1021 posts Jun 14, 2010 3:45 PM	Just for the record to clear up further: My deliberate usage of the word "Disciple" stems directly from an early Adam YT video where he set up a "church" of the blues, in which we were all "Joyous Disciples of the Blues Harmonica". So, following his terminology, we are all more correctly disciples of Blues Harmonica, but many of us are also students of Adam in one way or another. This agrees with Tin Lizzie's definition of the term, my original intention, and Adam's original intention too. RE: The Boys Club Mentality. As one of the few remaining early members, I can say with confidence that this forum did not begin that way. It happened at one point, exactly when, I don't know. Maybe gradually. Either way, I don't like it. Never have. I suppose us early and frequent contributors could have done more to assuage the unwelcome intrusion of sexism. But I, for one, only chose not to enter into to it. In retrospect, I wish I had made more of a stand against it when I first noticed it, and I'd like to apologize for not doing that. RE: getting offended. I get offended about a million times every day. If wasn't getting offended that much, I wouldn't be living much of a life at all. I'm a brown man living in a red state. I'm an aetheist (bet none of you knew that, huh?) living in a very relgio-centric society. I'm a modern man with a feminist wife, and I work (as an archaeologist) in a country where women still cover their faces. There are a lot more things that concern me than whether someone thinks my embouchure is stupid. About the only time I ever have gotten riled up on this forum was when I was participating in a thread about the connection between hip hop and blues and the potential position of the Harmonica within Hip Hop, and then folks started popping in on the thread with insightful comments about how Hip Hop was not music, or that it "sucked". I found myself in the awkward position of trying to defend a genre of music as actually being music, when I am not a huge hip hop fanatic, and never had been... But at the end the day, the only way to never get offended is to curl up on your couch with a blanket pulled over your head. One has to confront the world, but one cannot allow the minor irritations to weigh as heavily on the mind, or the ego, as much as the real problems in the world that truly matter. Anyway, I digress. I am currently enjoying the close to 100%n humidity and high temps on Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, where, for some unknown reason, the Summer Assembly conference for the UCGIS was chosen to be held. Forgive me if I now choose to swim out through the humidity to find a cool cocktail! ;) ---------- ------------------ View my videos on YouTube!" Last Edited by on Jun 14, 2010 3:49 PM
Stickman 351 posts Jun 14, 2010 4:02 PM	I'm with Isaac. This old forum aint what it used to be. ---------- The Art Teacher Formally Known As scstrickland
MrVerylongusername 1067 posts Jun 14, 2010 4:21 PM	</lurk> Completely agree Isaac and Stickman. And there has been a recent crop of blatant homophobic bile which personally I don't think has any place here. I know of at least two openly gay forum members. Sheer statistical probability would suggest a lot more. Why is crap like that being tolerated? People have been using the most offensive insults (I have noted C*nt used recently) in arguments all over totally subjective and trivial of matters. Music is art, not maths. There aren't definitive answers; no right or wrong ways to do it, just different ones. <lurk> Last Edited by on Jun 14, 2010 4:24 PM
captainbliss 147 posts Jun 15, 2010 3:05 AM	OFF-TOPIC @Buzadero, @Ev360: Thank you. @kudzurunner: /Captain Bliss has characterized my orientation towards the modern with great precision/ Phew. @isaacullah, @Stickman, @MrVerylongusername: /I wish I had made more of a stand against it when I first noticed it/ I'm a very recent arrival, but... Is it too late to make a stand now? xxx EDIT: included "off-topic" Last Edited by on Jun 15, 2010 3:06 AM
Ev630 620 posts Jun 15, 2010 4:07 AM	Adam, my sense is that you want to think that it goes like this: you challenge people's conservative positions, they become uncomfortable, react, and then you are 'forced' reluctantly in the manner of a disappointed adult to lock threads etc. But reading back through some of the threads that involved discussions of racial issues (Nemeth, Estrin etc), my interpretation is that you yourself didn't enjoy your theories being challenged - and even dismissed. But that's the dialectic, baby. It's a shame because a lot of what you said is true, I just think that you chose the wrong guys to use as the benchmark for a "blackface" type act. Estrin was certainly a poor choice and judging from the reactions I wasn't the only one who disagreed with your choice. The other side of this hand-wringing thread is: there are plenty of examples of other people behaving badly in this forum who NEVER get pulled up. Maybe because they don't directly engage in a dialectic on subjects you may feel you own. There are "protected species" amongst us and hey, it's your forum, but it gets noticed. I'm just saying. And all these guys who come out of lurk mode to post that the forum used to be better... why? Because everyone agreed with everyone? I'm sure that's NOT what Adam seriously wants because if sycophancy rules then traffic will drop.
MrVerylongusername 1069 posts Jun 15, 2010 4:15 AM	No. The forum was better because people could debate an issue, take multiple viewpoints and even become quite heated in the argument and still manage to refrain from calling people "c*nt" and "dick" etc... It's the mutual respect that is being eroded. It is possible to have different points of view and still respect each other. The sycophancy irritates me too. Last Edited by on Jun 15, 2010 6:44 AM
Ev630 621 posts Jun 15, 2010 6:17 AM	I don't think there's anything wrong with calling someone a dick if they insist on acting like one. It's pretty mild. But the other word is pretty extreme and I can't see the need to quote it even if others may have used it.
MrVerylongusername 1071 posts Jun 15, 2010 6:44 AM	Apologies to anyone who has been offended by my quoting. I have edited my post to censor the offending word. My sentiments remain wholly unchanged.
Joe_L 377 posts Jun 15, 2010 8:00 AM	To the person who originally asked the question, "Why don't more pro players post on the internet?", I think you now have your answer.
kudzurunner 1580 posts Jun 15, 2010 8:39 AM	@Ev360: I certainly don't want sycophancy. I just want dialogue. A little more real conversation, a little less irritable and unreasoned dismissal of thoughtful, evidenced points. You, in particular, have repeatedly violated the board creed by trying to catch me in Aha! moments, presuming the worst of me rather than asking whether I might have forgotten to consider Item X. You're a smart, experienced guy. If you wanted to, you could be an eloquent spokesperson for the positions I gather that you hold, rather than someone content merely to mock. I value those few moments--and there's a glimmer of one here--when you actually do something other than presume I'm a fool and a Jason Ricci fan-boy. If you think (wrongly) that I bash the "tradition" in favor of a wild-eyed modernist program, why don't you actually invest a little time and make a good case for why traditionalism is vitally important to the contemporary blues (and blues harmonica) scene? I have full confidence in you. Show me what you've got. If you don't, I'll be forced to perform as my own loyal opposition and make all the strong, thoughtful arguments that you should be making. I've never said they can't be made. They can. Make them. Surprise us. For the record, I have not on this forum claimed that Rick Estrin was engaging in something like blackface minstrelsy. I said that twenty-one years ago, in 1989, I'd made that claim in a young man's letter to Living Blues. I also said that I had tempered my position since then, and that I was a huge fan of his chromatic playing (I mentioned the cut) and had told Rick so during a conversation we'd had last year at the Arkansas Blues and Heritage Festival. As for John Nemeth: extremely talented singer, good harp player, but I can't pretend I enjoy the sustained racial burlesque he engages in on the song I invoked in that same thread. (I supplied video, as all will recall). I'm in the minority, clearly. That's sort of my point. I'm trying to raise consciousness, and I'm not surprised by the dimensions of the resistance. :) Last Edited by on Jun 15, 2010 8:45 AM
Ev630 623 posts Jun 15, 2010 9:09 AM	I think you've mischaracterised me. I have occasionally stepped in when you've started (or fueled) one of these provocative issues. If you're going to be provocative yourself, you have to expect the same in return. If you want to characterise your contributions as Socratic method, so be it. I prefer to feel I'm engaged in an egalitarian dialectic - not being guided by a seer. Point of fact, your singling me out in your post really backs up what I wrote earlier. Right from the time I started posting here I had some guys really go after me because the place was cliquey and I dared to express a dissenting view. Good times. I'm not complaining about the fight. But the rules aren't always fairly applied, so please don't single me out as "you in particular". Regards the fan-boy issue: in another thread I made a joke about you brewing the issue up with Jason. It was a facetious comment (and actually had been made in a different way by someone earlier in the thread with no adverse response) and I have to say I was taken aback at how much of a reaction it got. In hindsight I wish I hadn't posted it - I regretted it when I saw your reaction, as it was a throw-away comment. But anyway, this is an imperfect mode of communication and sometimes we don't get the tone right. So, sorry about that. Maybe we need smileys. Okay, that's it from me in this thread. G'nite.
kudzurunner 1581 posts Jun 15, 2010 9:44 AM	Let me give you an example of what I mean. The most obvious ground on which I might be critiqued is judgmentalism: I seem determined to subdivide the contemporary blues scene in various ways and then claim that some parts of it are good, progressive, useful, etc. and other parts are retrograde, regressive, minstrelsy-tinged, engaging in racial bad faith, etc. But if I'm really interested in understanding the scene as fully as possible, maybe it would be better if I dropped all judgment. Why not begin by saying, It's all good. It is what it is. Why not approach it like an anthropologist and simply ask, What IS the contemporary scene? What are its constituent parts? How does it work? More like an anthropologist. One of the first things that would become indisputably clear is the remarkable transformation of the blues scene in the past 50 years. Blues has become, in some profound way, white people's music. The great majority of members of this blues harmonica forum are white--or, more precisely, non-African American. And yet things weren't always like this. In 1952, when "Juke" was released, blues harmonica was a black man's thing. So that's interesting. A huge cultural shift, with an indisputable racial element. Nothing wrong with that--we're not judging. It's just a fact. One worth noting. Why and how did blues harmonica become important to white people--and white guys, in particular? Another interesting question. Maybe if we suspend judgment, we could examine it and learn a few things. Even as this massive cultural/racial shift took place, a modest number of black guys were still playing the instrument. Billy Branch, Sugar Blue, and Phil Wiggins come immediately to mind. Did their experience as black players seeking to inhabit a musical tradition undergoing such a radical shift in racial makeup differ from the experience of white players? Since younger blacks, as B. B. King and others have told us, were disowning the blues in favor of soul between 1960 and 1970, even as whites were embracing the blues (and the blues harmonica, led by Butterfield and Musselwhite and Tony Little Son Glover), what was it like for Billy and Sugar to come along during the 1970s and seek to inhabit the tradition? Did the older players (Junior, Cotton, Big Walter etc.) treat them differently than they treated the younger white players? As the racial makeup of the cohort of blues harmonica players and the audience for blues harmonica playing shifted radically from black to white over the decades since 1960s, as blues harmonica playing became, in effect, "white culture" more than black culture (and this is a debatable point that needs clarification), did cultural understandings about the role of the blues, the proper way of playing blues harmonica, and so forth, also shift? These are all interesting and valid questions. Here's one theory I've had for a long time, based on wide reading cross-fertilized by my experience in Harlem: one central value held by black blues harmonica players of that earlier period was individuation: precisely because the world wanted to view you generically (boy, n-word, etc.), you needed to make the world take you as YOU, not to be confused with anybody else. That's also how you made a living: by being the one-and-only, original, the guy with HIS name on the record. That's why Little Walter left Muddy, for example, the moment "Juke" made him a name. This drive for individuality, which had an economic component, meant that you had to develop some constructive aggression vis a vis the other players in your vicinity (you didn't want them to steal your s--t) and especially vis a vis the older men of the previous generation. They may have trained you, as Sonny Boy trained Cotton, but you needed to push away, too, and modernize, find the hip sound of today. Cotton was an innovator in that respect; he's always had bands that push the envelope towards rock and funk. I call this constructive Oedipal aggression: a willingness to push back at the fathers, the aesthetic fathers. Or the mothers. In August Wilson's "Ma Rainey's Black Bottom," the character of Levee, a younger trumpet player, keeps characterizing Ma's stuff as "that old medicine-show shit." He's determined to find a new sound that will capture the public's ear. Within racial communities, it's nothing special to find sons rebelling against their fathers. But the moment you're talking about cross-racial dynamics in the context of America in the 1960s and beyond, things get very strange. Blues in the 1960s, was a way in which younger whites manifested their interracialist bona fides. Liking blues was akin to saying, "I'm one of the good guys, not one of the racists." The same was even more evidently true for white blues players who crossed the tracks and actually lived and worked there--guys like Bloomfield, Musselwhite, Butterfield. The "fathers and sons" theme was big in the late 1960s: black fathers handing off the blues to white sons. The Muddy/Butterfield album, FATHERS AND SONS, was the most visible example of this, but there were others. The metaphor consoled the older black guys (even as younger black men were running away from the blues, white stepsons had shown up to take their place), but it also validated the younger white guys (if a black bluesman is your father, and accepts you as a son, that relationship testifies to your "right" to play the blues). The key thing here, though, is that the (black) fathers and (white) sons theme completely dissolves the normal element of constructive, individuating Oedipal aggression. Blues playing becomes an interracial, intergenerational love-fest. What younger white bluesman could possibly say, as Little Walter essentially did, "Fuck you, Muddy! I've got to make my own way!"? None of them could. None of them wanted to. To say that would have seemed racist, in fact. Much, much too much interracial aggression. For a young white blues player to say of Muddy's music, "That shit is old-fashioned! I'm going to update" would have run that white player the risk of falling off the blues bandwagon and playing......rock. Interestingly enough, white blues players--harp and guitar--in the 1960s were nervy enough, or maybe just uncultured and ignorant enough, to break away. Butterfield's EAST/WEST, early J. Geils, and the stuff Clapton did with Cream are, in retrospect, as transformational as the sort of stuff Jason is doing right now. But something happened during the 1970s, in the aftermath of the collapse of the Black Power movement. I think that white people decided they were going to REALLY learn how to play the blues, and they went back to the source: Muddy, Jimmy Rogers, George Smith, and the other players of that generation. Kim, Rick Estrin, Rod Piazza, were all part of that generation of white blues players. I think they settled in, with love and dedication, and decided to get down into the blues for real, mastering all the nuances of style, tone, and showmanship that characterized the blues of the 1950s. I think that some Oedipal aggression is necessary in order for art forms to remain vital. But I think it's possible to argue that the second generation of white blues harmonica players have, by and large, foregone it. Rather than say, "What the old guys are doing is old-fashioned; I'm going to update it," which is what Cotton and definitely Junior Wells said, the white blues players said what Kim Wilson literally said in an interview in Kim Fields's book: "I really think I'm one of them. In fact, I KNOW I'm one of them....They made me one of them." The black fathers made me one of them. That's an amazing statement. I'm not judging, now. I'm seeking to understand. I think that the interracialism that undergirds the contemporary white blues scene--the desire, if you will, to sing black, play black, style oneself in a black-derived style, eat soul-food, like the juke-joint life--can be understood as a process of racial healing, a decades-long apprenticeship in embracing black culture, or "black culture" as it manifested when blues was still black music. When guys like Billy Branch and Sugar Blue come along in the aftermath of the Black is Beautful and "Roots" period, they ended up modifying and Oedipal aggression that I'm talking about so that it becomes, instead, "embracing the ancestors." Billy, spending his entire adult performing career in Chicago and hanging out with Junior, Big Walter, Cotton, Carey Bell, views his mission as a "carrying on of the tradition" that is arguably somewhat different from the way in which those earlier players understood THEIR role earlier in their careers. When I speak about over-stylization in some parts of the contemporary blues harmonica world, what I think I'm sensing is what feels to me like too much embrace of the (black) fathers--and now, at this point, the white fathers like Kim, Hummel, Rod--and not quite enough Oedipal aggression in the service of individuation. Somebody standing back from this forum and taking a dispassionate view of my positions might argue that I'm engaging in an Oedipal struggle with my own white blues fathers, or (more correctly) big brothers. Maybe that's true. Maybe it's time for that. In purely aesthetic terms, I'm cheered by Jason's presence on the scene because his own rebellion is pointedly clear, even if he might not describe it in so many words. Whatever he learned from the time he spent in Junior Kimbrough's juke, it's impossible to imagine him saying "They made me one of them." Lipstick and a blonde wig definitely is NOT part of the prevailing Hill Country blues style! Jason is a decisive next step in every respect. But maybe I've been unfair to the traditionalists. Maybe I've mocked the hats and suits when, as Waltertore has noted, they're a way of saying, "Hey, I was trained well by the old guys and I'm going to carry on their style." Maybe a healthy blues scene needs a healthy dose of ancestor-worship. And god knows Kim, Hummel, Rod, and Rick can play hell out of their harps with every audible subtlety, all the cultural inheritance intact. (I've never said, or even suggested, that they couldn't.) Or maybe every vital scene runs the risk of devolving into a Baroque period unless iconoclasts come along and manifest some necessary Oedipal aggression. But what's not to like? It's all good. White people--including me, I might add!--have worked extremely hard over the past 50 years, with indisputable and soulful results--to master the blues harmonica and to make blues harmonica culture part of the broader American and world fabric. Not just white people: Asian people, Native peoples, all the world's peoples. (Modern Blues Harmonica gets hits from more than 120 countries.) This is a great thing. Last Edited by on Jun 15, 2010 10:40 AM
Joe_L 379 posts Jun 15, 2010 11:26 AM	Adam - You might want to ask Billy, but I suspect the way he views his role as a caretaker of the tradition may have been instilled in him during his time working with Willie Dixon. During the last couple of decades of Willie Dixon's life, he seemed very focused on keeping the legacy and tradition going. He even went so far as to create the Blues Heaven Foundation. Billy also seems very passionate about spreading the message and educating kids about the history of the music with his Blues In The Schools program. He's probably introduced more young Black kids to the history of the Blues than anyone in the history of the music. (In my opinion, his story should probably be told at a SPAH conference since he has done a lot to preserve and advance the harmonica.) Regarding his playing, he's not a super traditional guy. If you've ever seen a Sons of Blues performance on the South Side of Chicago, he plays a lot more than traditional postwar Blues. During the 80's, they played a lot of Soul and R&B tunes mixed with traditional Blues. He's the only guy that I've ever seen playing Bill Withers, Tyrone Davis and Latimore tunes on the harmonica. That what the music of the day that was popular on the South Side of Chicago and that's what the SOB's did and continue to do.
yogi 22 posts Jun 15, 2010 11:47 AM	@ captain bliss ''(c) challenges existing ontologies and epistemologies (realities and ways in which we know about these realities),'' Thanks for assuming that we all so stupid you need to explain the words you use.
captainbliss 155 posts Jun 15, 2010 12:04 PM	OFF-TOPIC @yogi: /Thanks for assuming that we all so stupid you need to explain the words you use/ Are you suggesting that people who are unfamiliar with philosophical terminology are stupid? I would beg to differ. Still, I seem to have offended you and I regret that. My apologies. xxx EDIT: included off-topic Last Edited by on Jun 15, 2010 12:50 PM
Stickman 352 posts Jun 15, 2010 12:47 PM	@Ev630 It's not a question of coming out of lurk mode but WHY many of the old school posters have disappeared or gone into lurk mode. Go back 18 months and you will see most of the regulars today were not around then and vice versa. Maybe they grew board of the forum or moved on In life or took up other hobbies. I cant speak for them, I can only wonder. However as for the reason for my "lurk mode" is that the tone of this forum has changed. It once was a community of learners who were interested in progressing on a journey together. There was never a time that everybody agreed, but they were (for the most part) respectful and would often "discuss" and issue rather than "argue" an issue. It was a feel good kind of place with user sponsored competitions and lots of people posting vid of their progress. Now the mood has changed. The forum (for me) has become a dark place where every thread seems to boil down to an argument; This thread for example. More often than not the more interesting reads quickly get off subject; This thread for example. And instead of excepting that others have a different viewpoint, Posts are made with an "I have to WIN" mentality. It becomes hard to follow the original topic and I often give up reading. So why even make a post when it is just going to get lost in a maelstrom of bickering. Then there is the increase of disparaging and frankly disrespectful language. If some here can't make a reasoned point the try to WIN with F-bombs and insults. You would think I was on a forum with 14 year olds. Others use such language on almost every post they make. I am not offended by foul language, just annoyed by it. I like a little salt on my food, but too much leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Don't get me wrong. I still love this forum and check in every day, but I feel that my friends have moved on and the mood has changed. About 2 years ago when things got hot at MBH Adam challenged us to leave the Forum for a week and woodshed, then come back and let everybody know what they had learned. I think I will do just that. Go into my woodshed and work on my journey for a while and leave the bad feelings here. ---------- The Art Teacher Formally Known As scstrickland
Chinaski 95 posts Jun 15, 2010 1:03 PM	Gotta agree with pretty much all of that, Stickman. ---------- Myspace
Kingley 1258 posts Jun 15, 2010 1:35 PM	Stickman - I agree with so much of what you said. I'm glad somebody has said it so eloquently.
isaacullah 1022 posts Jun 15, 2010 2:18 PM	Just swam in from the beach through what feels to this dessicated Arizona resident as 130% humidity. I too, will be doing as Sean (aka Stickman) suggests. btw: Very good to see Stickman and MrLUN are still haunting this joint! I'd thought y'all had left. Where are all our old buddies? I miss Mickil! :( Remember back when HE was our most "cantankerous" member? Wow. I sure do miss those days ---------- ------------------ View my videos on YouTube!"
nacoran 2127 posts Jun 15, 2010 2:40 PM	"I am currently enjoying the close to 100%n humidity" Isaac Your typo and my dyslexic nature made me read that as you were enjoying close to 100% nudity! I suppose in that kind of weather you cool off any way you can. ---------- Nate Facebook
7LimitJI 204 posts Jun 15, 2010 3:07 PM	This thread was started as a genuine question. It was going along nicely until Adam brought up traditional vs modern, again. Totally off topic Next, the racial aspect of Blues was brought up, again by Adam and totally off topic. I started another thread about colour in music to try and gauge the reaction of the other members, in which Adam has taken a different line to that in this thread. Here is a reminder. "It is, however, about race, in various ways, and anybody who can't stand it when I address that issue here is shutting down the dialogue at precisely the moment things might actually get risky and interesting. Read Scott Saul's FREEDOM IS, FREEDOM AIN'T. Blues, like jazz, is all about race--and this is true whether you're black or white or whatever: it's about your desires, dreams, and ambitions in a racially diverse and racially stratified world--but it's also about understanding that all that race-stuff is an illusion, too." The world is not racially stratified anymore. Its financially stratified and has been for some time. As I see it Adam fuels most of the darkness on the forum, not always directly, but by his dogmatic approach to modern blues, and for what I see as HIS need need for atonement for what was done to Afro-Americans. Most of his diatribe would be best kept for the university where he works. I respect what he has done for the harp community, on Youtube, but have been completely disillusioned by a lot of his postings, and lack of fairness in dealing with members who are not in the clique. ---------- Those Dangerous Gentlemens Myspace Youtube Due to cutbacks,the light at the end of the tunnel has been switched off.

Post a Message

Modern Blues Harmonica supports

§The Jazz Foundation of America

and

§The Innocence Project

Follow @AdamGussow

ADAM GUSSOW is an official endorser for HOHNER HARMONICAS