White blues guitarists?
David Covell
This has probably been discussed here before, and I don't want to start a flame
war or anything; I would like to see some rational, cool-headed discussion by
this group on a topic very important to me:
I've just been told AGAIN, by someone who's never even heard me play, that
no white guitarist can ever play blues correctly, and I'm getting tired of
hearing that. Even other white guitarists sometimes say this. Discussion of
this in person usually gets emotional and unproductive, so I'd like to see it
kicked around here. I really like to play blues, and find that I'm starting
to get a bit of a complex about the whole thing.
The argument seems to be that since blues developed from southern american
black culture, only blacks can play it right. The rest of us (which logically
should then include non-southern american blacks, too) just don't have the
right background to play blues with the proper feeling. I say this is crap!
The common thread of blues is pain and regret, and the black culture has no
monopoly on that. I, too, have been poor, discriminated against, in jail,
lost a woman, etc, and I'm able to express the feeling on my guitar. To say
that I'm inherently incapable, or worse, that I DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT, is
as racist and insulting as it would be to tell the guitarist from Living
Colour (or maybe Hendrix) that he can't play psychedelic rock since he wasn't
a white hippy during the 60's. This mentality is both illogical and offensive
to all races. I'm not latin, but I play a pretty decent flamenco. I'm not
a contemporary of Bach, but I can play with the same feel. I'm not brazilian,
but I play a mean samba. Why is it that blues should be any different?
Now, I fully agree that some...well, many... guitarists coming from a rock
background tend to overemphasize speed and technique at the expense of emotion.
Maybe this gives the rest of us a bad name. But, I've heard black guitarists
that are guilty of the same thing. Blues has many variations, anyway; I sure
wouldn't consider Robert Cray as following in the blues tradition, any more
than Stevie Ray Vaughan. They and many others play nowhere near a traditional
blues style; does that invalidate their music?
I can understand the frustration of blues purists, who are seeing the
traditional styles fade away. I like good bluegrass (I can hear the groans out
there already) and I sometimes regret the evolution it's undergoing, but that's
just the way it goes. By the way, the best bluegrass band I've ever heard was
from Japan. I doubt anyone's ever told them they can't play it right because
they didn't grow up in Kentucky.
Some of the better blues bands around here happen to consist of black playersand I lke to sit in when I get the chance. I'm really bothered with the idea
that some of them might resent me because I'm white, or feel that I'm
an inferior blues player. I'd like to see this discussed here, with some
input from black players on how they see this issue. I really don't want
to become so preoccupied with this that I can't play blues anymore.
Jim Hori
rhythm sections on many sixties soul records were all white.
"Mustang Sally", "Chain of Fools", Aretha's version of Otis'
"Respect" (in fact most of Aretha's great recordings), "I'm
Your Puppet", "Slip Away", "At The Dark End of the Street",
and countless other soul songs featured rhythm sections made up of
musicians from Memphis' American Studios and Muscle Shoals,
Alabama's Fame and Muscle Shoals Sound studios. Included
in the groups were white songwriters such as the Dan Penn/
Spooner Oldham team that wrote classics like "Do Right
Woman-Do Right Man", "Sweet Inspiration", and so many
others.
Along with Booker T and the MGs, these musicians were a
model for integration at a time when civil rights struggles
were continuing, and anyone who has listened to any one of
these records would be hard pressed to identify the color
of the musician - in fact, anyone who thought the musicians
on these songs had to be black might be said to predjudiced
in reverse. My conclusion: soul is colorless.
Read Peter Guralnick's "Sweet Soul Music" and Barney Hoskins'
"Say It One Time For the Brokenhearted" for an understanding
of how, for a time, black and white came together in the Deep
South to create some of the most eternally affecting music
ever heard (as the success of "The Commitments" proves).
....
jimh
Chris Norley
> I've just been told AGAIN, by someone who's never even heard me play, that
>no white guitarist can ever play blues correctly, and I'm getting tired of
>hearing that.
and ignore the idiot.
"Shut up 'n' play yer guitar" - FZ Let your playing do the talking.
Elrat,
CN.
--
Chris Norley | Imaging Research Labs | Robarts' Research Institute
University Of Western Ontario | P.O. Box 5015, 100 Perth Drive
London, Ont., Canada, N6A 5K8 | Phone: (519) 663-5777 x4135 | Fax: (519)663-3789
Email: cno...@irus.rri.uwo.ca with a led-filled snowshoe, but not too seriously
Dave Jones
> I've just been told AGAIN, by someone who's never even heard me play,
> that no white guitarist can ever play blues correctly, and I'm getting
> tired of hearing that.
One time a very upper-class looking black girl of about twenty, who looked
and smelled like she had made a run on the cosmetics counters at Macy's,
told me that no white person could ever really play the blues. I almost did
a spit-take. She couldn't figure out what I thought was so funny.
Your posting has much truth to it. Racist crap bothers me too. Be glad
that as a white man you are subjected to it very infrequently. As far as
what to do about the remarks, I think the best reaction is to ignore them.
Just play your music and don't worry about other people's hangups.
Or if you want to cause some embarrassment and get a quick apology, how
about this for a response? "Yeah, you're probably right, but I just love
it so much that I'm doomed to keep trying."
Peter Jaemyung Oh
"I have grown, through this b-board, to hate polls."
-P.J. Oh
Joe Lempkowski
dues. :-) Consider a few things:
1. Quite a few white musicians do not share the same influences as
black blues artists. How many black bluesman grew up listening to
the Rolling Stones or Led Zeppelin and stumbled on the blues? Slim
Harpo is different than the Rolling Stones even though both artists/groups
played the same material. The style of blues played by Howlin' Wolf
is different than Led Zeppelin even though some of the songs are the same.
If you go to a jam session talk to some of the white musicians, quite
a few of them could learn a bit about the roots of the blues. I wish
I had a buck for everytime I have seen someone play "Redhouse" or
some Allman Brothers tune. Unfortunately, the majority of white guys
that think they play blues never heard of Elmore James, Howlin' Wolf.
Sonny Boy Williamson once said, "The English want to play the blues so
bad and that is how they play it." Compare his work for Chess, with his
work for the small European labels. The Chess band consisted of veteran
blues musicians, the European bands consisted of the members of the Animals
and the Yardbirds. The backing band on the Chess stuff is very sympathetic,
the backing band on some of the European stuff is not as good and lacks a
lot of feeling. Unfortunately, there are more than a few white artists
that lack sensitivity and feeling, but there are a few black artists that
sport this same problem. Additionally, more feeling is expected from a
black artist than a white person. More pressure is on the black guy.
2. I don't play guitar, but I think my experience as a harp player will
substitute. I would suggest that you not let people's personal prejudices
have an impact on the way you choose to express yourself. Many people
that you will meet during your excursions throughout the blues world
will try to lay that line of crap on you. Personally, I try not to
let it affect me. I have found the people within the black clubs
(on the south side of Chicago) to be very appreciative. My experience
has shown me to stick with the style of blues being played. If the
band you are sitting in with a traditional blues, stick with the
traditional type of sound. If they don't, find a band that does.
It usually works better for everyone. The instrument can't tell the
color of your skin only people can. Unfortunately, people have
prejudices.
Take a good hard look at the "big" blues bands. John Lee Hooker's band
has white folks in it. B.B. King has white people in his band. Muddy
Waters had white people in his band. Some of the best traditional blues
guitarists I have heard are white and they aren't Elvin Bishop, Stevie
Ray Vaughan, Johnny Winter, or the Led Zeppelin blues-type guitarists.
However, these guys are good in their blues-rock bag.
Joe
P.S. While we are on the topic of blues guitarists, what is the great
fascination with Robert Johnson? Robert Jr. Lockwood and Johnny Shines
are excellent guitarists and have performed on some of the best sides ever
waxed. Why don't these guys get the credit that is due them? I find it
really sad that they remain unrecognized to the casual blues listener.
--
Bruce Dumes
>1. Quite a few white musicians do not share the same influences as
>black blues artists. How many black bluesman grew up listening to
>the Rolling Stones or Led Zeppelin and stumbled on the blues?
Your point is well taken. However, Robert Cray admits that he listened
to rock of the 60's and fell into the blues through those influences
(assuming that you say the Robert Cray is a "black bluesman"). He could
be the "exception that proves the rule", however.
>P.S. While we are on the topic of blues guitarists, what is the great
>fascination with Robert Johnson?
I think it is because he is so much of an enigma. There is so little that
is really known about him that his myth has become as important as his music.
He *was* a great,creative musician; no doubt about that. People still want
to believe all that stuff about going down to the crossroads and making a
deal with the devil. It's a lot more romantic than saying he practiced the
guitar a lot. :-)
Bruce
--
Bruce Dumes | I try my best to be just like I am but |
b...@zen.cac.stratus.com | everybody wants you to be just like them |
Stuart Kingham
>In article <65...@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, che...@udel.edu (Expressio Veri) writes:
>|>
>|> Actually, "Love in Vain" uses some nice imagery. Also "Dead Shrimp
>|> Blues" is quite funny. However, I agree with you, if mediocre chumps
>|> like Clapton hadn't used "Crossroads" and hadn't elevated it to
>|> "god" status, perhaps Johnson would have remained an academic
>|> curiosity and we wouldn't have to put up with box-cd versions of
>|> Robert Johnson (let alone Clapton).
>Actually, the Johnson cult predates Clapton. Elmore James
>covered plenty of Johnson, better IMHO than the original. And as
>you say, the words aren't all dull. But RJ's singing is thin,
>and I'm not wild about him as guitarist: these are more important
>in my impressions of his records than "imagery". Are you joking
>about the mediocrity of Clapton, by the way? I think his version
>of Crossroads, and other things he was doing back before Layla,
>were pretty good....
If your going to talk about Clapton and Johnson in the same sentence, then
forget it. You've both lost my vote as informed or valid critics. We
aren't just talking about the equipment available for recording or the
instruments available. These are two very distinct forms of music!
From different eras, and for different purposes. End of comparison.
I know you were talking specifically about Johnson, and not all early
Blues players, but Johnson, and a whole stack of old blues innovators
(what is the collective noun for old blues innovators?) were commercial
successes, playing under extremly difficult circumstances. Someone must
have liked it, their audiences liked it, I like it, and can't get enough
money to by reissued copys of their work.
Just as a bit of trivia, Johnsons songs were recorded before he actually
hit his creative limit (he died). There are plenty of people who
testify that his best works were never recorded.
I've heard plenty of pop songs turned into jazz numbers, and by far
prefer the jazz arrangements. But we are talking arrangments. Vehicles
by which artists augment and elaborate tunes or songs with which they had
an initial liking. Songs writen by someone else. And for me, it's the
initial creativity which demands the more respect.
I don't think you'd find Eric Clapton or other past and current
blues/rock/jazz/etc. artists bullshiting on about how superior
their renditions are, or how, through hours of frustration, managed to turn
an "academic curiosity" into a viable rock song. If he didn't think it
was worth the effort, he wouldn't have paid tribute. And if you like the
latter version, well and good. It means that another musician, or that
version, is more to your liking. Not quantitativly better, just different.
I suppose I could get onto some spiel about the cultural and social aspects
that this music form (or other forms) has, but it's important anyway. Vance
actually asked this music was innovative at the time (plenty of direct
quotes are available). A valid question. But then says that this isn't
important because we're listening to it now. Cock and Bull!! It's
a directly attributable source of inspiration to hundreds (millions?) of
musicians through out the world who do play now; or played in the past and
then inspired other artists; and will inspire muscians to come. If it's
of little importance lets erase it and be done with it; like many other
forms of artistic expression have been lost, including achitectural.
Listen to what ever you like, but don't suppose you can stand and pass
universal judgement upon musicians. The best you can say is "in my
opinion"
Stuart Kingham.
Vance Maverick
|> In article <85...@male.EBay.Sun.COM> jo...@bluesman.EBay.Sun.COM (Joe Lempkowski) writes:
|>
|> >P.S. While we are on the topic of blues guitarists, what is the great
|> >fascination with Robert Johnson?
|>
But there *is* doubt about that. I find most of his stuff
very pedestrian. "Hellhound On My Trail" is nicely spooky,
but most of the rest of it just plods. You're welcome to
tell me that it was innovative at the time, but we don't
really know that, given how much blues had been recorded at
the time, and it doesn't really matter, because we're
listening to it now. I've often wondered why he was such
an obsession for everybody, too; glad to hear this doubt
raised on the net....
Vance
Expressio Veri
>
>But there *is* doubt about that. I find most of his stuff
>very pedestrian. "Hellhound On My Trail" is nicely spooky,
>but most of the rest of it just plods. You're welcome to
>tell me that it was innovative at the time, but we don't
>really know that, given how much blues had been recorded at
>the time, and it doesn't really matter, because we're
>listening to it now. I've often wondered why he was such
>an obsession for everybody, too; glad to hear this doubt
>raised on the net....
>
> Vance
Actually, "Love in Vain" uses some nice imagery. Also "Dead Shrimp
Blues" is quite funny. However, I agree with you, if mediocre chumps
like Clapton hadn't used "Crossroads" and hadn't elevated it to
"god" status, perhaps Johnson would have remained an academic
curiosity and we wouldn't have to put up with box-cd versions of
Robert Johnson (let alone Clapton).
Samir
PS If you want a definitive and funky version of "Crossroads" try
Ry Cooder's version off the movie of the same name. The movie
sucked big time, but in very many places the music was excellent.
Vance Maverick
|> >
|>
|> Actually, "Love in Vain" uses some nice imagery. Also "Dead Shrimp
|> Blues" is quite funny. However, I agree with you, if mediocre chumps
|> like Clapton hadn't used "Crossroads" and hadn't elevated it to
|> "god" status, perhaps Johnson would have remained an academic
|> curiosity and we wouldn't have to put up with box-cd versions of
|> Robert Johnson (let alone Clapton).
Actually, the Johnson cult predates Clapton. Elmore James
covered plenty of Johnson, better IMHO than the original. And as
you say, the words aren't all dull. But RJ's singing is thin,
and I'm not wild about him as guitarist: these are more important
in my impressions of his records than "imagery". Are you joking
about the mediocrity of Clapton, by the way? I think his version
of Crossroads, and other things he was doing back before Layla,
were pretty good....
Vance
U19...@uicvm.uic.edu
I have one answer: Why _not_? I figured that it would be a nice tribute and
that it wouldn't be a such a bad idea to figure out-not that it's a life
and death situation-which Miles LPs are people's favorites. What's the big
deal?
>"I have grown, through this b-board, to hate polls."
Maybe so,but no one's putting a gun to your head to either participate or
read the results. As I said before,what's the big deal? Sheeeesh.
Chris Krolczyk,Esq. | DISCLAIMER: Standard.
Maniac-At-Large | "If a book should hit one's head and a
U19...@UICVM.BITNET | hollow sound is heard,is it always the
u19...@uicvm.uic.edu| book?"-Arthur Schopenhauer
Vance Maverick
|> mave...@mahogany.Berkeley.EDU (Vance Maverick) writes:
|>
|> >Actually, the Johnson cult predates Clapton. Elmore James
|> >covered plenty of Johnson, better IMHO than the original. And as
|> >you say, the words aren't all dull. But RJ's singing is thin,
|> >and I'm not wild about him as guitarist: these are more important
|> >in my impressions of his records than "imagery". Are you joking
|> >about the mediocrity of Clapton, by the way? I think his version
|> >of Crossroads, and other things he was doing back before Layla,
|> >were pretty good....
|>
|> If your going to talk about Clapton and Johnson in the same sentence, then
|> forget it. You've both lost my vote as informed or valid critics.
Check the first of these two sentences. You've lost your *own* vote. Who
are you to legislate, anyway, what musics may be compared? Further, I
didn't compare them. (Reread the passage.) I like one piece, and I don't
care much for the other.
|> I know you were talking specifically about Johnson, and not all early
|> Blues players, but Johnson, and a whole stack of old blues innovators
|> (what is the collective noun for old blues innovators?) were commercial
|> successes, playing under extremly difficult circumstances. Someone must
|> have liked it, their audiences liked it, I like it, and can't get enough
|> money to by reissued copys of their work.
This is irrelevant. As it happens, there are other blues musicians of
Johnson's era that I like a lot -- Blind Willie Johnson, Skip James.
|> Just as a bit of trivia, Johnsons songs were recorded before he actually
|> hit his creative limit (he died). There are plenty of people who
|> testify that his best works were never recorded.
This is also irrelevant. When I talk about Johnson, I'm talking about my
impressions of the recordings I've heard -- obviously. I could plausibly
claim that to take hearsay like this into consideration is intellectually
dishonest.
|> I've heard plenty of pop songs turned into jazz numbers, and by far
|> prefer the jazz arrangements. But we are talking arrangments. Vehicles
|> by which artists augment and elaborate tunes or songs with which they had
|> an initial liking. Songs writen by someone else. And for me, it's the
|> initial creativity which demands the more respect.
In the blues tradition, though, when X records a song by Y, Y's
contribution is actually *very small*. The "initial creativity" happened
then, the new creativity (Clapton's guitar, mainly, in the case we're
talking about) is happening now, and is not constrained to be less. To
take a somewhat different example, for whose contribution do you have more
respect in the Bill Evans Trio version of "Someday My Prince Will Come"?
|> Listen to what ever you like, but don't suppose you can stand and pass
|> universal judgement upon musicians. The best you can say is "in my
|> opinion"
You don't seem to constrain yourself this way, do you? "It's a directly
attributable source of inspiration to hundreds (millions?) of musicians
through out the world who do play now; or played in the past and then
inspired other artists; and will inspire muscians to come."
Judgment of art is an exercise of taste. What else is new?
Please define "validity" in criticism. I'm curious....
Vance
Derek Morgan
Many of them seem to think that Stevie Ray was God, and that's the way blues
should be played. Some of them seem to think that Eric Clapton was God, and
that's the way blues should be played. Still another segment seem to think
that Jimi Hendrix was God, and that's the way blues should be played. And
there are a bunch that think Dickey Betts is God, etc.
What I'm trying to express here is my frustration with the lack of roots
knowledge and influences. I'm not flaming any of the above artists; but I
don't see very many young(er ?) guitar players who believe in empty space, and
longer-than-eighth notes. The majority of those players have been white
(around here, blacks seem to prefer playing jazz or pop these days); but not
all of them, while all of the players have this problem.
But I'm not addressing the statement: White guys won't ever be able to play
blues as good as black people. It has to do with tradition, and environment,
which will make you more aware of your background and your life, and the
ability to express that through your musical instrument. What makes the blues
is the ability to make that expression resonate in other peoples' hearts and
souls. The people that routinely make this kind of statement rarely listen to
the music, and they _RARELY_ ever feel it. Believe me, if a white player does
something that runs shivers up and down a black player's spine, the black
player KNOWS that's the blues, even if he won't admit it. (I have a certain
hard-headed harmonica player in mind.)
Whether you can or not? Keep trying. On the day you die, you'll leave this
world without getting that question answered, so I certainly wouldn't worry
about it now.
Sleepy (de...@wubios.wustl.edu)
"Maybe one day I'll get it right."
Tim Bray
colour, or vice versa? I think so; e.g., I don't think you can make sense of
Bessie Smith, or Elvis Presley, or Joe Strummer, without looking at the
milieux they came out of.
Issue 2: can white people play blues? You betcha. I've been a heap big fan
for pushing three decades now, and I've seen 'em all; Hooker & Waters & Wolf
& King & King & King & Collins & Coleman & Guy & James to name a few on one
side, Mayall & Green & Clapton & Vaughan & Richard[1] on the other. The
white guys are definitely outnumbered[2] but not really outclassed. The best
blues guitar I've ever heard was Eric Clapton on a good night (but he has
lots of bad ones). The best blues overall in my little life was Willie Dixon
doing "Seventh Son" at a picnic under the stars a long long long time ago;
who needs guitars anyhow?
With respect to Clapton, Charles Shaar Murray said something that I thought
pretty profound: Clapton should be seen as the Vladimir Nabokov of the blues,
a foreigner who became a greater master of the language than most native
speakers.
Cheers, Tim Bray, Open Text Corporation
[1] *Keith* Richard, of course. Go listen to "Little Red Rooster" off "Love
You Live"; that's blues and then some.
[2] even if you add Robert Cray to the list (sorry, low blow)
Vance Maverick
|> [Stuart Kingham wrote]
|> |> I know you were talking specifically about Johnson, and not all early
|> |> Blues players, but Johnson, and a whole stack of old blues innovators
|> |> (what is the collective noun for old blues innovators?) were commercial
|> |> successes, playing under extremly difficult circumstances. Someone must
|> |> have liked it, their audiences liked it, I like it, and can't get enough
|> |> money to by reissued copys of their work.
|>
|> This is irrelevant. As it happens, there are other blues musicians of
|> Johnson's era that I like a lot -- Blind Willie Johnson, Skip James.
I see now that I missed your point. You're saying Robert Johnson must
be good because he sold more records than these guys. Hmm, the name
Michael Jackson occurs to me in this context. Must be better than (oh)
Xenakis, by the same argument.
Also, about influence. Influence and interest are not necessarily
correlated. Take Cage -- his most influential stuff isn't his most
interesting to listen to, or his most popular. And the fact that
Satie was an influence on a piece of his I like (Four Walls) doesn't
mean that the Satie music in question is interesting. All we really
have to work with is our ears....
Vance
Expressio Veri
>
>Cheers, Tim Bray, Open Text Corporation
>
>[1] *Keith* Richard, of course. Go listen to "Little Red Rooster" off "Love
> You Live"; that's blues and then some.
Yes, but Ron Wood played the slide on that. On the studio version of that
song, Brian Jones played the slide. What does that say about Keith as
a blues guitarist? Well, he is a good master of the Chuck Berry style of
boogie, but no blues guitarist.
Samir "brown people can't play the blues" Chettri
If you are white you are alright
If you're brown, stick around
If you're black, then brother get back.
Vincent E. Kargatis
my favorite musicians: Tim Berne -
The 5 Year Plan Empire (His own label - now defunct)
7X Empire
Spectres Empire
Songs and Rituals in Real Time Empire
The Ancestors Soul Note
Mutant Variations Soul Note
...theoretically Minor Music (w/ Bill Frisell)
Fulton St. Maul Columbia CK 40530
Sanctified Dreams Columbia CK 44073
Fractured Fairy Tales JMT 834 431
Pace Yourself JMT 834 442
Hear him as sideman with Vinny Golia, Nels Cline, John Zorn,
maybe others. Tim Berne's a great player, great composer, and great
leader. Check him out.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
Vincent Kargatis | "Bod-a-WOO-wah! |
Dept. of Space Physics and Astronomy | BOD-a-woo-wah!" |
Rice University, Houston, TX | -- Perez Prado |
[karg...@vega.rice.edu] | "Voodoo Suite" |
_______________________________________|_____________________________________|
Chuck Karish
mave...@mahogany.Berkeley.EDU (Vance Maverick) writes:
>In article <65...@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, che...@udel.edu (Expressio Veri) writes:
>> In article <1991Oct1.1...@agate.berkeley.edu>
>>mave...@mahogany.Berkeley.EDU (Vance Maverick) writes:
>> >
>> > [anti-Johnson diatribe]
>>
>> like Clapton hadn't used "Crossroads" and hadn't elevated it to
>> "god" status, perhaps Johnson would have remained an academic
>
>Actually, the Johnson cult predates Clapton. Elmore James
>covered plenty of Johnson, better IMHO than the original. And as
>you say, the words aren't all dull. But RJ's singing is thin,
Following the changes in the music in the progression from
country blues artists like Johnson to urban blues like James's
to blues-rock like Clapton's, we can see why people say that
white boys can't play the blues.
Elmore James played a much slicker version of "Crossroads" than
Robert Johnson did, without the extra "blue" notes in the
melody and little catches in the rhythm that Johnson put in.
Clapton reached back to try to recapture some of the funkiness
of Johnson's version, but did it in a full-speed-ahead rock and
roll idiom that didn't really pretend to be blues.
The rhythmic hitches and "off-key" singing that gave Johnson's
music and Charley Patton's music and Son House's music their
character and power are seen as imperfections to be polished
away by many modern interpretors. Elmore James himself was
influential in promoting this trend. His influence
overshadowed those of the players who kept more of the
traditional character in their music, people like Homesick
James, Lightnin' Hopkins, Howlin' Wolf, and Fred McDowell.
I understand why white artists feel self-conscious about using
southern black vernacular and singing about failing cotton
crops. There are artists who can overcome these problems and
play authentic blues, though. Two examples are Dave Ray and
John Hammond, Jr. Both of them started out making music that
pretty much reproduced the styles of black country blues
artists, using traditional material. Hammond broke out into a
very distinctive urban blues style with original material. Ray
is now playing his own material in a style that's funkier and
more spare than are those of many of the country blues artists that
inspired him.
The problem in the white blues-rock explosion of the '70s
wasn't primarily that the artists were white but that they
hadn't paid their dues, culturally or musically. They tended
to play to a slicker, more European aesthetic, and lost some of
the character that their critics found valuable in the original
blues.
Chuck Karish kar...@mindcraft.com
Mindcraft, Inc. (415) 323-9000
Bruce Dumes
Well, I'm not going to tell you he was innovative at the time. What I will
say is that his music reaches out and grabs me the in same way as Coltrane,
Miles, and Duke.
I don't think creativity is necessarily tied to innovation. I don't think
Robert Johnson created the blues, or the delta blues style, or anything of
the kind.
I saw Son House play once in the very early seventies. He talked about
Robert a little, although Robert wasn't quite as well known then as he
is today. He said that he never saw anybody play with as much intensity
as Robert. The pure *emotion* is what comes off the records, IMHO.
I can't and certainly won't try to justify this. It obviously is in the
realm of taste, and therefore, there is no argument.
David Covell
>I've played blues bass behind about 100 guitar players in the past 2 years.
>Many of them seem to think that Stevie Ray was God, and that's the way blues
>should be played. Some of them seem to think that Eric Clapton was God, and
>that's the way blues should be played. Still another segment seem to think
>that Jimi Hendrix was God, and that's the way blues should be played. And
>there are a bunch that think Dickey Betts is God, etc.
>What I'm trying to express here is my frustration with the lack of roots
>knowledge and influences. I'm not flaming any of the above artists; but I
>don't see very many young(er ?) guitar players who believe in empty space, and
>longer-than-eighth notes. The majority of those players have been white
>(around here, blacks seem to prefer playing jazz or pop these days); but not
>all of them, while all of the players have this problem.
I'm the one who began this thread, and I'd say Derek here has hit the nail on
the head with the above comment about "empty space and longer-than-eighth notes"This is exactly the problem with many of the newer breed of blues players,
especially those of us coming to blues from a rock and/or jazz background.
I have to continually fight the urge to cram extra notes and fancy technique
into my blues playing. I think that guitarists have a handicap with respect to
the peer pressure we receive/pass on to play fast/furious/fancy/etc. Since the
guitar doesn't allow the long, sustained, breathy expression available on wind
instruments without deriving it through distortion, we tend to compensate by
tossing around a maximum number of notes, or playing some high-tech twist to
scales. This is, IMHO, counterproductive to blues playing, where the emphasis
is on soulful, emotional soloing. Many guitarists resemble old-west gunslingers
trying to use raw speed and accuracy to defeat/intimidate the other guitarists.
This may be what gives us the bad rap. This is not, however, limited to white
guitarists.
I guess we could benefit by listening more closely to the phrasing of good
wind-instrument players and vocalists, to learn how to slow down, drawl out
some of the notes, and use "empty spaces" to punctuate our solos.
Vance Maverick
|>
|> The problem in the white blues-rock explosion of the '70s
|> wasn't primarily that the artists were white but that they
|> hadn't paid their dues, culturally or musically. They tended
|> to play to a slicker, more European aesthetic, and lost some of
|> the character that their critics found valuable in the original
|> blues.
Do you have a problem with B.B. (or Albert) King? Certainly plenty
of slickness there -- "Better Off Dead" from B.B.'s /Best Of/ album,
or "Personal Manager" from the old Stax album with "Born Under a Bad
Sign" and "Crosscut Saw", are very slick. To me, they demonstrate
that new and different blues is always possible. I have no trouble
with the idea of new blues by people who bring new sensibilities to
the form, and I don't want to require them to "pay dues" (what
exactly do you mean? Playing juke joints in the Delta?) or otherwise
conform to an authoritarian vision of The Blues. I think we can
complain about certain bad guitarists (too many notes, recycling of
form without spirit) without legislating.
Vance
Don Steiny
Re: Robert Johnson.
I have not really gotten to like Robert Johnson. However, the
first time I heard Monk, I did not like his music. It was years before
I learned to like Charlie Parker. Often music that is instantly
accessable becomes boring fast. I doubt I will ever find Parker
boring.
Sometimes, I hear people I respect say that they have great
admiration for so and so, and if I hear it from enough people, I figure
that if I listen enough I will "get it," and appreciate the music.
Personally, I do not care much for Clapton or Stevie Ray Vaugn,
and I have never heard any guitarist that I respect recommend listening
to them, so I have not bothered to try to learn to like them. However,
Robert Johnson has been highly recommend by musicians who are both
musicolgist and great musicians. Bob Brozman, who is one of the best
slide guitarists alive, Linda Waterfall, Del Rey, Jim Kweskin,
Duck Baker, Peppino D'Augistino, and Dale Miller have showed me things they
learned from Robert Johnson's recordings. A woman took the time to explain
to me what Robert Johnson was doing (I am a fair guitar player myself,
though blues is not my thing). It was unbelievably complex. The
complexitys was not just harmonic, but also dynamic.
Some of the turnarounds and other things that have become standard
parts of blues today came from Robert Johnson. I believet that the
reason there is a "cult" of Robert Johnson and that so many people like
his music is because he was a great and innovative musician that has
influenced all guitar music since.
Don Steiny
Marc Sabatella
> I've heard plenty of pop songs turned into jazz numbers, and by far
> prefer the jazz arrangements. But we are talking arrangments. Vehicles
> by which artists augment and elaborate tunes or songs with which they had
> an initial liking. Songs writen by someone else. And for me, it's the
> initial creativity which demands the more respect.
Sorry to digress, but I was thinking about a prior string talking about
"covers" by jazz artists. Sure, most "jazz standards" like "My Funny
Valentine", etc were once "pop tunes", but some people claimed "covering"
most modern pop tunes is not as cool. I don't agree in principle, but I do
agree in fact - Miles' "Human Nature" / "Time After Time" included (yes, I've
heard they are much better live, but I missed my chance - oh well), very few
"covers" of post 1950 pop tunes have done anything for me.
Except Bunky Green's version of "The Thrill Is Gone" from "Healing The Pain",
which is one of the hippest things I've heard in a long time.
--------------
Marc Sabatella - "So many drummers, so little time..."
ma...@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
Doug Mitchell
> Sorry to digress, but I was thinking about a prior string talking about
> "covers" by jazz artists. Sure, most "jazz standards" like "My Funny
> Valentine", etc were once "pop tunes", but some people claimed
> "covering" most modern pop tunes is not as cool. I don't agree in
> principle, but I do agree in fact - Miles' "Human Nature" / "Time
> After Time" included (yes, I've heard they are much better live, but
> I missed my chance - oh well), very few "covers" of post 1950 pop
> tunes have done anything for me.
>
even his "Chim Chim Cheree", while we're on the subject? Or Larry
Carlton's "Tequila" (should be experienced live, actually)? Or Bela
Fleck's "Michelle"? Or Tuck Andress's "Europa"?
dpm
"Don't give me any of that 'intelligent life' crap.
Give me something I can BLOW UP!"
Marc Sabatella
> Hmm...that's provocative...:-) How about Trane's "My Favorite Things"? Or
> even his "Chim Chim Cheree", while we're on the subject? Or Larry
> Carlton's "Tequila" (should be experienced live, actually)? Or Bela
> Fleck's "Michelle"? Or Tuck Andress's "Europa"?
How about them? I'll give exception to "My Favorite Things" since it was
written by the same guys who gave us the earlier pop tunes I alluded to.
Who wrote "Chim Chim Cheree", anyhow? In any case, broadway show and movie
soundtrack music has a lineage distinctly different from "pop" music beginning
around 1950.
"Tequila" and "Michelle" are more the type of thing I had in mind, and I
confess to never having heard those particular versions. "Europa" I've never
heard of. Whatever. I didn't mean to imply I didn't think there were any
good covers of recent pop tunes, just that most attempts don't do it for me.
Damballah Wedo
> Sabatella) writes:
> Sorry to digress, but I was thinking about a prior string talking about
> "covers" by jazz artists. Sure, most "jazz standards" like "My Funny
> Valentine", etc were once "pop tunes", but some people claimed
> "covering" most modern pop tunes is not as cool. I don't agree in
> principle, but I do agree in fact - Miles' "Human Nature" / "Time
> After Time" included (yes, I've heard they are much better live, but
> I missed my chance - oh well), very few "covers" of post 1950 pop
> tunes have done anything for me.
I hear you Marc, but I don't agree with your inference that the
problem is in the covers.
As a counterexample of a great cover of a contemporary tune, consider
Abbey Lincoln's version of Stevie Wonder's "Golden Lady." Or Von
Freeman's version of Roberta Flack's "The First Time I Ever Saw
Your Face." Or Lester Bowie's reading of "The Great Pretender."
I think the problem is in the pop tune. I'm too young to remember
pre-1960 tunes first hand, so I'm safe from the "you're just a boring
old fart complainning that they don't write them like they used
to" accusation (:-), but IMO contemporary pop tunes are just not
very interesting vehicles for improvisation and/or reinterpretation.
I mean, not even Miles could do much with "Papa Don't Preach", if I
remember correctly the name of the ditty that was (a) all over
the radio that the gym I then went to played all the time and (b)
so annoying I quit said gym.
But the simple fact that so many people for so long have found new
and meaningful things to say about "All The Things You Are" to
me says there's something about the structure and harmony of the tune
that is conducive to improvisation.
--
Marcel-Franck Simon min...@usl.com, usl!mingus
" Papa Loko, ou se' van, ou-a pouse'-n ale'
Nou se' papiyon, n'a pote' nouvel bay Agwe' "
Steve Albin
>
>I think the problem is in the pop tune. I'm too young to remember
>pre-1960 tunes first hand, so I'm safe from the "you're just a boring
>old fart complainning that they don't write them like they used
>to" accusation (:-), but IMO contemporary pop tunes are just not
>very interesting vehicles for improvisation and/or reinterpretation.
>
artists that perform have also had a hand in writing the songs. In
the good old days :) before my time also, Tin Pan Alley was full of
artists whose ONLY endeavor was to write songs. And the performers
such as Sinatra, Billie Holiday, Ella etc. etc. didn't write the songs
they performed (except for a few harmless dabblings). Well, I know
I'm generalizing and its only based on my casual observation but it
seems that today the artist try to do more than they are able and in
yesteryear they specialized.
Steve Albin
Ste...@zeus.bony.com
Benjamin Weiner
> ... Tin Pan Alley was full of
>artists whose ONLY endeavor was to write songs. And the performers
>such as Sinatra, Billie Holiday, Ella etc. etc. didn't write the songs
>they performed (except for a few harmless dabblings). Well, I know
>I'm generalizing and its only based on my casual observation but it
>seems that today the artist try to do more than they are able and in
>yesteryear they specialized.
As a longtime fan of music which is made by people who may not even
be very musically skilled (punk, etc.) I figured I would say
something: Contemporary pop (and non-popular "pop") just doesn't
have the same relation between performer (singer/player NOT dancer :-)
and songwriter. You are right. (and you're right that the songs
aren't good songs for jazz artists.)
On the other hand there is no reason why this should be a bad thing.
In fact it means that the people singing the songs are more immed-
iately connected to them (why, IMO, someone with a limited range
singing a 3-chord song can have a powerful impact). (I could
envision a Marxist analysis of how the songwriter is not alienated
from his/her production - heh heh.) On the other hand, the notated
musical substance of a contemp. song is not going to capture it at
all well. (As we know, notation ain't that great for jazz - so
imagine a worse situation.) Anyone who has seen sheet music for
the Sex Pistols knows what I mean. (Yes, it does exist).
This does probably mean that the song will be a less successful
vehicle for jazz treatment. That's not new. After all, there's a
million 12-bar blues jazz songs, and I love Robert Johnson, but do
jazz musicians cover "Sweet Home Chicago"?
In my opinion, the "jazz singer expert," Mr. Gene Lees, fails to
recognize the pop-then/pop-now distinction, so he figures if a song
isn't suited to Frank or Mel, it sucks. This is a typical
stick-in-the-mud attitude which has a lot to do with nostalgia for
[the music of] one's youth, I bet. I can't imagine any but the
squarest person under 30 thinking that.
Ben Weiner
bwe...@ruhets.rutgers.edu
"A Reasonable Guide to Horrible Noise" - Lester Bangs
Marc Sabatella
> I hear you Marc, but I don't agree with your inference that the
> problem is in the covers.
> ...
> I think the problem is in the pop tune. I'm too young to remember
> pre-1960 tunes first hand, so I'm safe from the "you're just a boring
> old fart complainning that they don't write them like they used
> to" accusation (:-), but IMO contemporary pop tunes are just not
> very interesting vehicles for improvisation and/or reinterpretation.
> ...
> But the simple fact that so many people for so long have found new
> and meaningful things to say about "All The Things You Are" to
> me says there's something about the structure and harmony of the tune
> that is conducive to improvisation.
I'm with you 100% on that. I didn't mean to imply to problem was with the
covers. It's the tunes. And I can even quantify it somewhat - overly
repetitive melodies, ridiculously diatonic harmonies without any of the
modulating ii-V's of a tune like "All The Things You Are" that attract jazz
musicians.
On the other hand, Coltrane may have had the right idea - you can take a
repetitive mdelody without much harmonic interest, and voila! have a vehicle
for modal improvisation.
Marc Sabatella
> Tin Pan Alley was full of
> artists whose ONLY endeavor was to write songs. And the performers
> such as Sinatra, Billie Holiday, Ella etc. etc. didn't write the songs
> they performed (except for a few harmless dabblings).
I think Billie Holiday managed to transcend "harmless dabblings", but in
general, this is true - many great singers are not great composers. Yet the
same is true now - many pop stars do not write much, and when they do get
partial compositional credit, it is often just for token participation. It
helps increase their royalties, and the real songwriters can't really do much
about it. Kind of like profs who insist on listing themsevles as coauthor on
any paper done by their students...
Dave Jones
> ...
> But the simple fact that so many people for so long have found new
> and meaningful things to say about "All The Things You Are" to
> me says there's something about the structure and harmony of the tune
> that is conducive to improvisation.
Yep. Lots of today's songs not only have no melody to speak of -- (they
just noodle around on a few phrygianish sounding notes) -- they don't
have a chord-progression that moves. The songs just don't go anywhere.
No focus. They are to real songs as wallpaper is to Old Master paintings.
(They don't call me "Mr. Metaphor" for nothing!)
"Standards" may have had lyrics or even melodies that sound trite today,
and of course popular style changes, but dammit, they had chord-progressions!
(Mumble, grumble. Anyone seen my walker? It think I left my drool cup
on it.)
But speaking of "covers"...
Just this Tuesday I was hanging around the bar in The Garden City, a local
casino. Smith Dobson plays piano there several nights a week with a bass
player and various people who sit in from time to time, including your
faithful net.poster and weekend sax-warrior.
So I sez to Smith, I sez, "I want to play this neat Sonny Rollins tune
I just learned, called _Valse Hot_. It's in 3/4 and it cooks." So Smith
says he doesn't know it, can I write out the changes? So I write out the
changes on a bar-napkin and hand them over. Another sax player reads the
changes over Smith's shoulder and sez, "Over the Rainbow".
Sure enough. I hadn't realized it but the changes for Valse
Hot are the Over the Rainbow changes, but without the bridge. Don't know
what the moral is, except that the two tunes have very different feels
to them.
Dave Berry
Maybe you just have to be picky. I'd love to hear the Art Ensemble Of
Chicago cover Voodoo Chile (Slight Return). Their cover of Purple Haze
just didn't cut it, somehow. Although their cover of No Woman, No Cry
was pretty good.
>And I can even quantify it somewhat - overly repetitive melodies,
>ridiculously diatonic harmonies without any of the modulating ii-V's of
>a tune like "All The Things You Are" that attract jazz musicians.
I can't quantify it at all - but I do know that most of the tunes
that have become jazz standards seem completely unappealing to me
in their original forms. Maybe modern pop music doesn't need the
jazz treeatment as much as the old stuff did :-) :-)
Dave.
--
Dave Berry, LFCS, Edinburgh Uni. db%dcs.ed...@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Are you ready for Pachenka?
Gidi Avrahami
>I can't quantify it at all - but I do know that most of the tunes
>that have become jazz standards seem completely unappealing to me
>in their original forms. Maybe modern pop music doesn't need the
>jazz treeatment as much as the old stuff did :-) :-)
No smilies necessary. I think you hit the nail right on the head.
The old pop tunes were basically just that -- great tunes in need of
an arrangement or an interpretation. Not necessarily a jazz
interpretation, but something to lift them above being merely a tune.
Just listen to Julie Andrews singing "My Favorite Things" or Ethel
Merman singing "Night And Day" and you'll scream for Trane and Billie.
With all due respect to Cole Porter and his contemporaries, they were
*not* great composers, only great songwriters. (Yes, even Gershwin
and I suspect, even Bernstein.)
On the other hand, pop songs in the post-Beatles era are little
pieces, fully arranged and executed, and you can't just think of them
as a nice little tune. Do you want to re-arrange "A Day In The Life"?
Or the Stones' "Gimme Shelter"? And I certainly cannot think of
"Sitting On The Dock Of A Bay" as a tune, i.e., apart from Otis
Redding's version. I'm not saying that these songs are better than
the Porter ditties, but I am saying that they are a different thing:
Short musical pieces as opposed to tunes. This is part of what a pop
song is in the last 20 odd years, and has nothing to do with good or
bad. A Michael Jackson song is a different entity than a Rogers
and Hammerstein song -- there are simply different things that you
can do with them.
But anyway, who said that the amenability to jazz arrangement is any
kind of criterion to the value of music. I don't think that you could
make a jazz standard out of Woody Guthrie, Mozart, Ladysmith Black
Mambazo, Ravi Shankar, a gregorian chant or an indonesian folk song.
So what. They're just as valid as musical forms on their own.
--Gidi
mu
>On the other hand, pop songs in the post-Beatles era are little
>pieces, fully arranged and executed, and you can't just think of them
>as a nice little tune. Do you want to re-arrange "A Day In The Life"?
>Or the Stones' "Gimme Shelter"?
the mention of the beatles reminded me of something. mike westbrook(sp?)
has got a record out on *enja* with the entire "abbey road" album recast
in a "jazz" context. kate westbrook and phil minton handle the vocal
duties. this may not be the greatest album ever made, but i always get
a kick out of hearing it. its great to hear "come together" with a tuba
intro replacing the bass, and "maxwell's silver hammer" done music-hall
style :-)
>But anyway, who said that the amenability to jazz arrangement is any
>kind of criterion to the value of music.
>So what. They're just as valid as musical forms on their own.
couldn't agree more. my personal feeling is that if you keep your ears
open, you're bound to be surprised once in a while. i certainly was
when i heard dewey redman navigate that old gilbert 'o sullivan chestnut,
"alone again naturally" on one of the two galaxy records that he made
in the late '70s(?) :-)
murari venkataraman
ven...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
Blair P. Houghton
>*not* great composers, only great songwriters. (Yes, even Gershwin
I hope you're paid up; you're going to need fire insurance...
Gershwin never wrote a mediocre note in his life. (Okay,
so that's hyperbolic; but, Miles playing Gershwin is still
better than Miles playing Miles; Miles playing Gershwin is
better than almost anyone else playing Gershwin, too...)
Let's not confuse interpretation with composition. Your
example with Ethel Merman (even the name grates) is
particularly galling.
One can only hope you goofed, and meant Berlin, not Gershwin.
--Blair
"Why not Kate Smith, while you're
murdering the concept of music?"
Steve Albin
>same is true now - many pop stars do not write much, and when they do get
>partial compositional credit, it is often just for token participation. It
>helps increase their royalties, and the real songwriters can't really do much
>about it. Kind of like profs who insist on listing themsevles as coauthor on
>any paper done by their students...
That's not what I had in mind. As an example, I remember back in the
70's when I was listening to Stevie Wonder alot, that it seemed like
he wrote all the songs, sung all the songs, even played all the
intruments on the songs. Well, I like Stevie Wonder but, just how
talented is he? Maybe collaboration would have brought out more of
the best of his talents. Harry Connick succumbs to the same thing on
his album that I can't remember the name of but came out at the same
time as Lofty's Roach Souffle. He wrote and arranged many of the
songs. Is he that proven a talent that he can demand to have that
much control over the material? BTW, I like Harry but I wouldn't buy
'Ella Fitzgerald sings the Harry Connick Songbook':)
Steve Albin
Ste...@zeus.bony.com
Jeff Beer
>In article <1991Oct21....@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> gi...@Hilbert.Stanford.EDU (Gidi Avrahami) writes:
>Gershwin never wrote a mediocre note in his life. (Okay,
>so that's hyperbolic; but, Miles playing Gershwin is still
>better than Miles playing Miles; Miles playing Gershwin is
>better than almost anyone else playing Gershwin, too...)
I don't think i would agree with that, though Gershwin is very good.
Aside from that the grits and gravy of Miles' music is not the themes so
to speak, but the way they play them, the phrasing, ect.,
the way the improvisation is organized. Porgy and Bess is great,
but I wouldn't say greater than Bitches Brew.
Also on the liner notes, when they talk about Monk playing The Man I
Love, they say something to the effect that the way Monk played it is
the way Gershwin should have written it. I have a recording of a
straight version of The Man I Love preformed by that singer who played
Diva in the film. I would have to agree with the liner notes writer,
but then I am a jazz person.
jeff
Marc Sabatella
> bhou...@hopi.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
> >Gershwin never wrote a mediocre note in his life. [...]
> >One can only hope you goofed, and meant Berlin, not Gershwin.
>
> And who are you anyway, Marc Sabatella's
> evil twin?
Heck no. Blair is a Red Sox fan.
Besides, I was never terribly fond of Gershwin or Berlin. Or Cole Porter, for
that matter, although it's hard to argue with "Ev'ry Time We Say Goodbye" or
"Night And Day". Richard Rodgers had his moments, as in "My Funny Valentine",
but I don't know if I can forgive "Oklahoma".
Victor Young, Jimmy Van Heusen, now *there* were some songwriters.
Steve Armil
more adaptable to jazz interpretation than than modern pop music
is that song writers in the '20s and '30s made money from publishing
sheet music for others to work from, rather than from completed works
on CD. The work they produced (sheet music) was necessarily less
complete than recorded music.
Plus the chord changes are "better" :-)
Blair P. Houghton
>Maybe part of the reason that older material (Gershwin, etc.) is
>more adaptable to jazz interpretation than than modern pop music
Is because even "songwriters" used to use the principles of
composition in developing their product. Jazz is composed,
even when it's adapted. Modern pop consists of hooks and
riffs that don't imply coherence.
Gershwin is a special case. He all but worshipped Jazz,
and worked to create music that blended modern classicism
with the Jazz that was being created during his time. The
result is a distinctive style that's not simply a collection
of songs, as has been posited here, before.
--Blair
"And now, Miles Davis, with
'Unchained Melody'..."