I started to think about this after waltertore wrote about it in the "Should we listen to great blues players"-thread.
Is it really so that one of the reasons why blues seems to have so distinct form and sound is that the business requires it. Players who are too off from the norm won't get airtime and contracts so easily as the more conventional players?
Blues has been formed by lots of different musical forms from Africa, blended in with the American music culture (which have come from Europe, I think + perhaps some influences from the American natives). So the logical thing would be that the blues as a musical genre would be really rich and wide musical genre. Still it seems that it is one of the most strict forms there are. And people seem to expect that the players should sound like the "old greats" - otherwise they will be "kicked out" of the blues scene to some other genre. (This is actually quite religious dynamics that I see here in this scene.)
Is it so that "the blues" is actually just one very narrow musical approach of the original rich variety there once was? This approach was then named the blues and others were ignored and dampened by not rewarding those in public. Is it the product of american approach of creating concepts to sell? I know that the official story is that it was important to create a common form that enables people to start improvising together without a need for reading musical sheets or understanding theory.
What is your view on this? I know that Adam as an academic & author at least will probably have his views on this.
I think the blues is a very wide musical genre, but it comes down to labeling. As we all know much of what we call rock and roll is heavily influenced by and could ealsily be labeled blues. "We" decided to call Zeppelin, the Stones, and many others Rock and Roll bands, when we could have easily called them blues bands. Of course they didn't look like blues bands and didn't exactly sound like blues bands, but I'd argue that they were/are.
Just out of curiosity, how much money do you think the current crop of blues guys are making? Who do you think are the members of this controlling body of people?
@Joe_L: My thinking is that record companies had a big influence on this labeling - to establish a concept that would be easier to sell. And after something has been established in people's minds it just starts to live the life of it's own. Nowadays people just take it for granted.
I have seen that there are many people who try to expand the concept of blues but then there are some "purists" that try to prevent these concepts to change and evolve. And I don't think that it is a bad or good thing, it just seems to be so. Discussions on whether Jason Ricci is a blues man or not is one manifestation of this phenomenon.
Joe, I suspect it's not controlled by money as much as tradition. Just the other day there was a thread posted about singing lyrics about controversial subjects. I chimed in with a huge long post that ranged from grunge to Beatles to blues. I thought it was a brilliant post. The original poster was polite about it, but they gently said they were only interested in blues lyrics. I thought it was kind of odd, since lyrics are lyrics. You can play them in any style. I love taking lyrics from one genre to another, but there you have it.
Any one that received the latest Guitar Center mailing, with Derek Trucks on the cover, be sure to read the interview. He gets it. He explains what he considers important about the past and what it is that a "younger" man needs to do to work in the bizz. ----------
"I have a high tolerance for boredom as long as it has a groove" - Scrapboss
@Joe: I meant the record companies of the past. I don't know all of them, but perhaps at least Chess, Atlantic, Imperial to name a few. I suspect that smaller companies tried to fly with the same concept and thus made the concept even stronger.
Today "the Blues", as we know it, is already established and maintained by players and listeners of the genre. I don't think that there's a real need for any company to try to maintain that genre anymore. It is already highly visible in record shops, libraries etc. Only thing is, that if somebody wants to get blues gigs, as waltertore mentioned, they have to adjust to that style that has been established in the big audience's mind. Of course this works for the best of audience - they know what to expect when they go to some club. Still, it's a shame that this also narrows the possibilities of musical adventures in the field.
I mean nowadays there are things like "Keeping the blues alive" -rewards. For me this seems that it is to maintain the already established genre. It means that the style can't be changed or radically developed in order to fulfill that established concept. Again, nothing wrong with that, as it just serves to maintain a musical culture, but on the flip side of the coin it also keeps people more in the box.
ps. Here's a clip from that Derek Trucks interview Scrapboss mentioned:
As for contestants in the King of the Blues contest, Derek's best advice is for players to listen to their hearts and inner voice. "Melody, tone and timing is the source," he says. "The further you take yourself away from the instrument, the closer you get to the source. Listen to musicians who play other instruments. Guitar players who only listen to other guitar players often fall into boxes and sound like everybody else. It's fun to do something that has already been done, and it's great to carry things on, but you need to add your own personality and twist to it."
Joe L wrote "@apskarp - Which record companies are issuing Blues to a wide audience? How many are multi-million enterprises selling only Blues recordings?"
Apskarp replied "@Joe: I meant the record companies of the past. I don't know all of them, but perhaps at least Chess, Atlantic, Imperial to name a few. I suspect that smaller companies tried to fly with the same concept and thus made the concept even stronger."
Apskarp, it's well worth noting that many of the old record labels, that recorded & sold blues records, were not typically selling specific records by the million. Chess were also selling jazz, comedy & sermons for example...even amongst the "greats", financial rewards were not what you might expect by modern standards. Chess's 2 first million sellers were Chuck Berry (who was selling outside of the typical blues market), then a whole decade later Fontella Bass...very poor royalties deals (though typical for the time) meant that artists might only see 1% of sales, in Berry's case he had to share that 1% with Alan Freed to get coverage. Their day to day profits were yielded from performances & recording sessions.
By the mid/late 60's the bands that were making money from the blues were largely not from backgrounds that innovated it (Butterfield, Fleetwood Mac etc).
In 1980 Muddy's entire band walked out on him because it wasn't paying them.
Guys who have enjoyed significant financial success like Buddy Guy and BB King are in a very small minority, many blues artists (even well known ones)have had to (& still do) hold down day jobs outside of music, or other interests in music besides simply playing.
In short, blues has never really been the genre to generate assured "business success".
Note also though, that every few years, companies reissue old recordings, there are always new audiences, whether younger & never heard it before, or older & just "discovered" it...as well as previously unnissued recordings. This happens in other genres too, currently there is a big interest in artists emulating classic soul music, in the late 70's/early 80's was the ska revival...every few years heavy metal & punk get a shot in the arm... Willie Cobb's "You Don't Love Me" was recorded by Rhianna, though more closely based on Dawn Penn's reggae version. Rhianna's fans aren't likely to retrace the song to the original genre & artists, but then neither are Marylyn Manson fans likely to develop a taste for 60's soul after hearing "Tainted Love". Seasick Steve has many fans, but they are not filling out every live blues venue in their insatiable hunger for the music at a grass roots level.
As regards the music business in general, they are like any current commercial enterprise, chasing the latest fads & trends, trying to cover niches in the market. In terms of chart music, that doesn't mean making blues recordings...and it frankly hasn't done since the 60's. However, ignoring the charts, blues is probably more poular now than ever (worldwide) & shifting more sales as a whole. As the cost of recording has dropped & more independent studios & labels have appeared, more and more people are getting a product out there but not necessarily for significant shares of the market.
At some point, maybe it's just a limitation of the audiences/market, if something is so far removed from someone's expectation of the blues, then it's not really blues anymore. I even see this today, audiences witnessing traditional blues assume it is jazz, or rock'n'roll. Also consider that blues is a traditional music, if no signs of that tradition are evident, then it might be very nice, or even great music, but is it blues?
If a music catches the public's ear, & is well promoted, then it will sell, whether it is blues, or blues derived...but just remember that the average CD single/download buying customer is school age (whereas back in the day they may have been post school age teenagers). Nobody is "muddying the water" for neo blues artists (for want of a better phrase), nobody is "holding them back"...if the market doesn't want it, then that's the main issue. If they want to pursue "the market" then they have to make music that the audience will buy & keep the blues at home/for selected audiences, like many artists have over the years, from Joe Cocker, Eric Clapton, Robert Palmer, Chris Rea to Paulo Nuttini.
Last Edited by on Jun 15, 2010 1:10 AM
@5F6H-" In 1980 Muddy's entire band walked out on him because it wasn't paying them." I wish people would do a little more research before posting this kind of stuff. Although the pay may have no longer been what it was,it was not entirely a money situation . Small details at the management level,combined with Muddy's health issues which included stomach blockages and pneumonia,kept the band off the road. Every gig Muddy cancelled cost the whole band-and they were not likely to be invited back. The Chess catalouge is owned by Universal Records,managed by David Geffen of Geffen records,who was a client of mine in the early 90's. David is a great guy-really into giving back to the community and he also donates to many.many charities.
@tmf714 - Isn't it essentially the same thing? It's sort of a subtle difference.
When Muddy's guys weren't playing, they weren't getting paid. When you've got gigs that get canceled at the last minutes, it's virtually impossible to find a replacement. Pinetop and Calvin were pretty good singers, so it wasn't a bad idea to strike out on their own. They had to make money, too.
While we are on the topic of Muddy Waters, he was a huge star, but he wasn't exactly living in a huge mansion on a giant hill overlooking the bright lights of the big city. I lived about a mile away from him. He was living in a modest home in suburban Chicago. Probably about 1200 square feet. I've got a photo of it somewhere.
Can you talk to David Geffen about re-issuing JB Lenoir's recordings? :-)
@apskarp - People seem to have a serious misconception about the "big dollars" in the Blues. Very few of the music's practitioners don't spend their lives hustling crappy gigs and struggling to survive. It's a hard life.
It wasn't uncommon for Louis Myers, Eddie Taylor and Sunnyland Slim to be taking $25 a night gigs in Chicago during the mid 80's.
Blues has had some big stars. Being a big star in Blues doesn't always equate to big paychecks. Dig into the history of the music and you'll see.
"Willie Cobb's "You Don't Love Me" was recorded by Rhianna, though more closely based on Dawn Penn's reggae version. Rhianna's fans aren't likely to retrace the song to the original genre & artists, but then neither are Marylyn Manson fans likely to develop a taste for 60's sould after hearing "Tainted Love". Seasick Steve has many fans, but they are not filling out every live blues venue in their insatiable hunger for the music at a grass roots level." 5F6H
Actually, on the bright side, I think the Pandora/The Music Genome Project, and easy YouTube searches is making it much easier to backtrack a song. Not everyone does it, but I've spent hours watching multiple covers by different bands of old songs. The Covers Project is good for that too, although they are more about making lists than making it easy to listen to the music.
"@5F6H-" In 1980 Muddy's entire band walked out on him because it wasn't paying them." I wish people would do a little more research before posting this kind of stuff."
TMF714, I'm happy to stand corrected on this, the reality of the situation is prime to me, Margolin in particular has openly referred to this on several occasions and I must admit to going by his perhaps simplified version of events.
Informative discussion. I think that you are right, the Blues hasn't ever been really big business for the companies. But it doesn't mean that the companies haven't tried to make it a big business. And I still think that they have had a big influence on the scene - but it might be that there are some other things that have affected it even more. But I don't know what those might be..
record companies traditionally have always controlled the way the music reaches the masses. It is simple- if you want to record a record on my label, you do it my way. This has been going on forever. My friend, the late luther tucker recorded with everyone on chess in the heyday. He said it was their way or no way. Look how those 2 guys shaped the "raw" talent into a much smoother, likable by most sound.
With the rise of the internet, pirating, downloads, and technology in general This technology boom allows anyone to create a great website, recordings, the major blues labels don't controll things as much in theory, but in reality they still do. Why? Because 99%+ of people playing, regardless of how they are releasing their cds now, are trying to sound like, ride on the coatails, of an established sound. Companies like Alligator still are huge in the blues and the sounds they release will be mimicked by countless bands. Business is simple too. Make as much as you can for as little effort possible. It is a whole lot easier to promote a band that is sounding like the popular selling cds than one that is not.
There has been and always will be wildcaters that go their own way. Before the internet they just never got known outside the actual places they played. Now they can become world wide, but still can't hardly make a dime with it. Why? Because the infastructure to tie it all together- management that is good - is rarely there. The club and festival circut is still going pretty much the easy way with the name brand products, which of course are on easily reconized labels. Like i said, things have changed and haven't in this respect. there isn't any footage of slim harpo, and only a few minutes of jimmy reed. Reed had more number one crossover hits than any other bluesman. Now anybody cand do something stupid on a harp youtube and get a million views. But how many people would pay to watch that video? The internet remains a place where one can get their name known, but hardly a soul will pay to hear it on the net.
I write these word with 35 year of dealing with the industry. Walter ---------- walter tore's spontobeat - a real one man band and over 1 million spontaneously created songs and growing. I record about 300 full length cds a year. " life is a daring adventure or nothing at all" - helen keller
Walter, almost no one will pay to watch a video anymore, but if you consistently post good videos you can find advertisers who are willing to put their ads up next to your videos, and you get a small little payment every time someone clicks on it, and actually, I've followed a few people on YouTube from their humble beginnings. One got a record contract, another got featured in a HP video, one got a development deal to work on a TV show.
And then there are the people who get one video that goes huge. Unfortunately, a lot of them get most of their views before the ad companies notice them. There are ways to make money on these sites, you just have to know how to do it. A lot of people are starting to put links to buy the songs they are playing right in the videos too, although I'd warn people to be careful with anything you don't own the copyright to on there.
Hi Nate: this sounds like the new way to make some extra income. I am just not motivated to persue the net as a money maker. It doesn't hold my interest long enough and my day job pays enough in conjuction with my wife's paycheck to be content to watch this new age from the sidelines. No complaints on my end. I just see things have changed and not changed over the years when it comes down to musicians getting money in their pockets. Walter ---------- walter tore's spontobeat - a real one man band and over 1 million spontaneously created songs and growing. I record about 300 full length cds a year. " life is a daring adventure or nothing at all" - helen keller
Thank you Walter, really good to hear perceptions from somebody who's actually witnessed these things happening. I would assume that there are many times few people that will control & contribute to some things and then in the long run those interventions will have a big influence. It's like introducing just a slight 2 degree angle change in the beginning of the journey which will become a huge difference of end point when the distance is hundred miles.
