...But is it BLUES?

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

So I was lying back in bed last night listening to Muddy Waters and I couldn't help noticing how different his band sounded to what is called "blues" these days.

 

So my question is... is "blues" still "blues"?

 

I mean, a lot of the stuff white guys do these days (and why does it seem to be mainly white guys playing blues these days?) has very little to do with anything from the past.

 

On the other hand, many black blues players still seem to be playing in much the same way as they used to, decades ago. Have the "blues" simply "moved on" or have they split.

 

Should the whole "British Blues" thing have been called something different altogether? I love all those guys dearly, but really, they eventually had very little in common with the stuff that was coming out of Chicago and the US in general. You'd be hard pressed to trace a clear line from, say, Elmore James to Deep Purple or Led Zeppelin.

 

I believe the dark, sweet sound of real blues vocalists got lost, somewhere in the mix. But when did it happen, and why? Can Paul Rodgers, for example, be considered a blues singer?

 

So yeah... is it still blues? Or is it something else altogether?

[Fumblyfingers]

There are many really great white blues players.....guitarists, drummers, keys, bass and harp players etc etc but in general white blues singers do not excite me either. Blues-wise Clapton does very little for me other than that he is a very accomplished guitar player. White blues singers often seem to be trying too hard to sound legit. At least those that come to mind right now.

 

I did like SRV though, he had something about him that to me allowed him to belong to that genre very comfortably. His "soul" seemed in the right place.

 

So I suppose if it follows a blues "form", a 12 bar or whatever and there is an effort to stay true to the genre and be respectful of it..... then yes...it is still blues. But is it real? Does it reach up and grab you inside......? For me very few modern "blues" acts come close.

 

Kinda related, I am listening to Ali Farke Toure, "Savane" right now....good stuff.

[Guitar55]

Music evolves. There are "purists" who would like to keep the genre stagnant, but anytime I've heard the "old masters" talk about it, they were always in favor of young players adopting and growing the form.

[Guitarzan]

is it good music?

does it really matter?

is Yngwie Malmsteen a classical guiarist?

first you have to define what real blues is. and as far as i know a name is only stuck on something to describe it, once that happens then it is used to separate music into groups so you can focus on one "sound" and not listen to everything and judge it on its own merit.

they used to SING the blues.

now we PLAY the blues.

music evolves for sure.

i think music is music.

[Trucks]

You got white man blues and you got the blues.

[skipclone 1]

Muddy Waters had Johnny Winter

John Lee Hooker had Santana

Youssou N`Dour had Peter Gabriel (different style, same formula)

It`s not about what is and isn`t the blues, it`s about what will and won`t be available at your local mall, sorry to say.

[spiral light]

I have to agree with Kramer & Skip' on this one. Folks like Kenny Wayne Shepherd & John Mayer may be nifty on the fretboard, but the main focus is sales and marketability. I call it the Elvis effect: you sound like an older blues musician but you are white and therefore considered "safe" to market to the masses. That's why artists like Eminem & Kid Rock have risen to the top of the Rap world (also, in the past, Vanilla Ice).

 

I'm not the worlds biggest Blues fan but I'd much rather hear 3 minutes of BB King than thirty minutes of Eric Clapton, as Trucks' said "You got white man blues and you got the blues."

[spiral light]

A lot of players in the British Invasion played blues inspired music, most of it I would consider Blues/Rock rather than pure Blues (though Jonh Mayall's Bluesbreakers comes mighty close). The Blues morphed into this new genre, not strictly purist blues, but definitely influenced by it.

 

The same thing has happened to R&B, these days it's artists like Usher that get labelled this way....one case where the music doesn't stay the same!

[Chad Thorne]

IMO a lot of what white guys play "blues-rock". This is my own definition, but blues-rock seems to be characterized by loud, fast, and lots of notes. Supposedly it's capturing the passion of the blues. (If I see one more white-guy vocalist screaming, face red, neck veins popping out, trying to be a "blues singer", I'm gonna puke.)

 

On the other hand it could be said that any music built on that particular African pentatonic scale is blues. I don't buy it, because I think there are other elements that have to be present for it to be blues, but I understand how somebody could get there.

 

And, KFIII, there are actually black musicians playing the blues, expanding and evolving the form, and yet it's still easily recognizable as the blues. Chaeck out "Living Blues" magazine if you get a chance. Lots of folks who fit that description covered in there.

 

And no, Gary Moore is not a blues player.

[picker]

Originally posted by spiral light:

I have to agree with Kramer & Skip' on this one. Folks like Kenny Wayne Shepherd & John Mayer may be nifty on the fretboard, but the main focus is sales and marketability.

Aw come on, guy. Do you think the black guys who recorded blues records in the 30's, 40's, and 50's didn't do it for profit?

 

Originally posted by spiral light:

I call it the Elvis effect: you sound like an older blues musician but you are white and therefore considered "safe" to market to the masses. That's why artists like Eminem & Kid Rock have risen to the top of the Rap world (also, in the past, Vanilla Ice).

Hey, BB King and all the folks who know what really went on say they were grateful to the white guys, especially the Brits, because they wouldn't have gotten half the exposre they did if not for them.

 

Originally posted by spiral light:

I'm not the worlds biggest Blues fan but I'd much rather hear 3 minutes of BB King than thirty minutes of Eric Clapton, as Trucks' said "You got white man blues and you got the blues."

Crap. At least, it's crap if you think Buddy guy and BB King have anything authoritative to say about it.

[picker]

Originally posted by spiral light:

I have to agree with Kramer & Skip' on this one. Folks like Kenny Wayne Shepherd & John Mayer may be nifty on the fretboard, but the main focus is sales and marketability.

Aw come on, guy. Do you think the black guys who recorded blues records in the 30's, 40's, and 50's didn't do it for profit?

 

Originally posted by spiral light:

I call it the Elvis effect: you sound like an older blues musician but you are white and therefore considered "safe" to market to the masses. That's why artists like Eminem & Kid Rock have risen to the top of the Rap world (also, in the past, Vanilla Ice).

Hey, BB King and all the folks who know what really went on say they were grateful to the white guys, especially the Brits, because they wouldn't have gotten half the exposre they did if not for them.

 

Originally posted by spiral light:

I'm not the worlds biggest Blues fan but I'd much rather hear 3 minutes of BB King than thirty minutes of Eric Clapton, as Trucks' said "You got white man blues and you got the blues."

Crap. At least, it's crap if you think Buddy Guy and BB King have anything authoritative to say about it.

[Bbach1]

Seems like I ask myself that same question when it comes to rock. Modern rock music often does not sound like rock to me. But, then I quickly realize I may simply be stuck in an era.

[Eric Iverson]

Why, at this late date, is RACE still the issue?

 

There are after all, great classical musicians and singers who happen to be black!

[Chad Thorne]

Originally posted by Eric Iverson:

Why, at this late date, is RACE still the issue?

 

There are after all, great classical musicians and singers who happen to be black!

Race is not an issue, and I apologize if my post suggested otherwise.

 

Some great white blues players: Anson Funderburgh, Jimmy Vaughan, Paul Butterfield, Johhny Winter. There are others but I can't think of them - oh, Kim Wilson.

 

I just think that it's white guys who are largely responsible for the crushingly loud, widdly-diddly phenomenon.

[Trucks]

Originally posted by Eric Iverson:

Why, at this late date, is RACE still the issue?

 

There are after all, great classical musicians and singers who happen to be black!

I heard that in the states they allow black people to work as doctors nowadays too

 

Anyway that is not the exact issue to start with. White man blues is what i call modern blues. You dont have to be white to play white man blues.. Its just blues that got started off with the likes of Clapton.. Its a genre of blues that is heavily influenced by middle class white guys take on The Blues... SO its white man blues.

 

The Blues was influenced mainly by African slaves.

 

So race has a hand in it only on the level of culture and upbringing.... Wake up Eric... Not everybody is the same and I wish people would stop saying they are. We should have equal rights etc etc.. But we are all still who we are because of where we been, I dont see why we should all become this singular raceless label.

[alfonso]

Music is evolution, any new thing that came out is a transformation of something earlier, this is true for the old blues too.

Music is also contamination, cultural, geographical and historical and this is expecially true for the old blues, that didn't come out from nothing.

 

Blues today is an influence, an element, another brick in many walls, it has become an important part in a lot of different music, it has a more important function than the worship of a tradition.

 

But the most important thing in the blues, typical of the most coded modal forms of music, is subjectivity, personality, the real link between the feelings and the interior world of the performer and the music that is being performed.

That's the essence of the blues, that can make it different, very different from a performer to another one, and also the personal history, the surroundings...

 

It's not a matter of adherence to a form but to ones "soul" when you use that form, i.m.o.

[Trucks]

Oh and of course we cant limit ourselves to 2 genres... I almost forgot Jimi Blues Which I would for starters add Jimi and SRV to.... maybe also the Pearl Jam guitarist could sit on the fence of that one.

[miroslav]

Yeah...it's NOT a race issue...you have to consider the pre-white blues vs. what followed, since it WAS black people that brought us the blues...

...so you can't help but talk about it without some mention of race.

 

That said...I find it very boring to hear anyone argue that ONLY black people can legitimately play the blues.

 

I think what some of the British white boys did with traditional blues is absolutely pivotal to where we are todayand how we got here.

Without any slight intendedif blues had only been played in its roots formwithout any derivatives.classic and modern Rock/Pop/R&B would all be SOL.

 

I actually prefer the more modernized blues sounds (regardless if white or black is playing) than I do that more basic Delta/porch bluesbut I do enjoy that also.

And as much as the black blues players influenced the white boys, I think there was also a rebound influence that moved from the Rock/Pop music back over towards R&B/Soul/Rap music.

 

Whats niceis that even today, almost all forms/derivatives of classic blues can still be heard, and found intertwined in much of todays modern music.

So the blues seed was planted everywhere and spread by both black and white blues players.

[Gruupi]

I am tending to lean towards Guitarzan's answer, at some point does it really matter. I guess I like to label things as much as the next guy but is there any real pure blues. Did Robert Johnson's followers think that Muddy Waters strayed too far from his roots.

 

Blues as a distinct style was being morphed before way before most of the players we consider blues artists existed. A big part of the jazz tradition was playing blues, from Louis Armstrong to Charlie Parker. So its critics, writers, fans that try and define these genres. Musicians that try to play like someone else get locked into a purist attitude. True artists always take it a step further.

 

I don't think its a race issue although some people would like to make it that. Saying that a white person can't play blues is as silly as saying that blacks can't play classical. Sure the African Americans were the first to play that sound. But if the music doesn't change and grow, it isn't art. The British "blues" groups really idolized the American blues music, that they took it and made their own sound is great in my opinion. I would rather hear someone take it to the next level. It's kind of like the whole big tribute band thing. It is entertaining if the band is good, but I would rather hear someone pushing the limits, melding different influeces, not just trying to copy verbatim what has already been done.

 

So to answer Kramer's original question, no the blues is not the same as it was 50 years ago. Its nice that we have a record of where it was then and can learn from that, but I sure am glad that musicians are allowed to interpret the music as they see fit or life would be really boring.

[Trucks]

Originally posted by miroslav:

That said...I find it very boring to hear anyone argue that ONLY black people can legitimately play the blues.

But it must be true.. Because I am white and I cant play the blues

[Gifthorse]

Personally, I have been pretty bored with he whole thing for years.

 

I mean, do you guys have any idea how many GREAT blues players there are? They are a dime a dozen. I can go across the street almost ANY night and see an exceptional blues player. ALL of them can play. Whether or not they sound white or black I couldn't tell you. I just know I have seen some world class players in there. Including Rick Derringer. Actually there are also alot of players who can obviously play any style. I saw a country guy in there playing some blues that ruled cuz he worked around the chords.

 

Thats my problem with blues guitar. People play it 1 way. You know pentatonic scale, same old rehashed 'guitar' blues licks. Mostly in a box.

 

But a piano player keeps in moving. They approach it in a more musical fashion. I rarely hear blues guitarists that have the technical proficiency to do this, but for me it is the only way to keep my attention.

 

I have already heard about 200 SRV copy cats, and about 300 Hendrix wannabees.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing an Albert Lee wannabee playing the blues. SOMETHING a little different for godsakes. Actually I love Doyle Bramhall, he has some cool tones. Frankly when I walk into a bar where there is a blues band, I turn off my brain to it unless they have something exceptionally different they bring to the table.

 

One player around here I love to see is a guy named Bobby East. He is an example of someone who can play pretty eclectic whenever he plays ANYTHING, and god what a tone (naylor).

 

Not to rip on the blues greats, they did their thing. I am kind of a wierdo I know. In the minority!

[Trucks]

I hear ya gifthorse. Thankfully Blues isnt as prevelent in the UK as it is in the US of A or Canada, so we dont get so much of the same ol same ol from everybody.

 

I think we need a blues revolution... A whole new concept needs to be applied to Blues... But what on earth would it be???? I wish I knew... Id be rich

[Dr. Ellwood]

"Frankly when I walk into a bar where there is a blues band, I turn off my brain to it unless they have something exceptionally different they bring to the table."

 

Yep I know the feeling!that's what I do hearing acoustic bands,I look around to see where the campfire is.

[Trucks]

Originally posted by ellwood:

"Frankly when I walk into a bar where there is a blues band, I turn off my brain to it unless they have something exceptionally different they bring to the table."

 

Yep I know the feeling!that's what I do hearing acoustic bands,I look around to see where the campfire is.

Its in the heart and souls of all the band members.. obviously

[picker]

Purists absolutely kill me, especially blues purists. The idea that the early blues guys were were deliberately forging a style to be dependant on the technology and influences of the time just kills me. Does anybody really think Robert johnson wouldn't have gone electric if he'd had the chance? Ludicrous! Those guys would have used whatever they could get their hands on to make thir music. They're weren't "ar-teests" making a musical statement of style, they were working musicians who used their whatever they had to make money however they could. If the techology was available and affordable, Robert Johnson would have been electric faster than you can say "Jimi Hendrix".

 

As far as volume goes, let's also remember that till the late 50's, amps were mostly 5-20 watt affairs, and in a lot of cases, even having a tone control on an amp had a profound "cool guy" factor. Larger crowds and larger venues required louder amps, and they started growing in the 60's. But shucks, when the Beatles played here in KC on their first full-on American Tour, they had AC-30s and something like 10 Voice of the Theatre cabinets with a 60 watt bi-amp powering each one, and folks were concerned that it might cause structural damage to the stadium! Modern PAs with thousands of watts weren't even concieved of till the late 60's-early 70's.

[Gifthorse]

Well, I can relate to that Lee but I wasn't referring to Electric bands. I mean, I was saying the way BLUES is approached. But to me acoustic music is alot like electric. Pretty diverse, no?

[Compact Diss]

If you haven't read this book you should pick it up, a very interesting story.

 

It's called "Escaping the Delta"

 

Here's a link

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780060524272&itm=1

 

Look for the new printing there is a CD w/ R. Johnson music included.

 

It talks of the real history. We like to enjoy our own vision of what Blues is and we only see half of the true picture. This book gives a lot of insight and if anything is a good book for conversation around the next Blues jam...

 

It's not a strict history of Johnson either. Don't ignore it because you might feel it's the same story over again because it's not.

 

I got the Blues, it's damn cold today!

[Pappy P]

This is a very interesting question Vince.

 

I don't have an answer, I'd just like to say, if not for all the white boys (WBs) that play the blues, I would have never heard of Muddy Waters, Otis Rush or any of the other greats.

 

The WBs did what WBs do, they/we innovate and assimilate. We get as many people as we can get to listen to the music that matters.

 

As long as someone's music is influenced by the "Blues", there will always be someone who will remember the likes of Son House or T-Bone Walker and keep their music and spirit alive.

 

Real Music is about emotion and energy! Not about bringing something new to the table! Although without innovation we'd never have any Eddie Van Halens. But even his music it still blues based in origin.

 

I think that what really happened is that this the WBs were paying tribute to the Blues and it was just easier for the Record Companies to call it the Blues plus it's always a cool marketing strategy. Who doesn't look cool in black shades?

[Trucks]

Originally posted by Picker:

Purists absolutely kill me, especially blues purists. The idea that the early blues guys were were deliberately forging a style to be dependant on the technology and influences of the time just kills me. Does anybody really think Robert johnson wouldn't have gone electric if he'd had the chance? Ludicrous! Those guys would have used whatever they could get their hands on to make thir music. They're weren't "ar-teests" making a musical statement of style, they were working musicians who used their whatever they had to make money however they could. If the techology was available and affordable, Robert Johnson would have been electric faster than you can say "Jimi Hendrix".

 

As far as volume goes, let's also remember that till the late 50's, amps were mostly 5-20 watt affairs, and in a lot of cases, even having a tone control on an amp had a profound "cool guy" factor. Larger crowds and larger venues required louder amps, and they started growing in the 60's. But shucks, when the Beatles played here in KC on their first full-on American Tour, they had AC-30s and something like 10 Voice of the Theatre cabinets with a 60 watt bi-amp powering each one, and folks were concerned that it might cause structural damage to the stadium! Modern PAs with thousands of watts weren't even concieved of till the late 60's-early 70's.

This is interesting Picker. I think on many levels you are correct... But then again I also think there would be artists that would play acoustic and ones that would play electric. During the blues revival there were alot of Bluesmen that came back on the scene, some went electric and others didnt. So although yeah I think maybe they werent all trying to forge a style (more like adapting an existing style) I also think that it wouldnt be so case closed on them all playing electric if they had the oppurtinity. Alot of the old guys had very unique styles (i.e. skip james) so whats to say they would have a totally different approach had they had access to an electric rig??? It seems a bit speculative.

[Dr. Ellwood]

I told this in a thread quite awhile ago but it sort of adds a little tid bit to the conversation. I played a little club in Dearborn Mi. on Ford Rd. called Sullivan's, traveling blues and R&B acts came through there all the time and we would back them up if it was needed. Jimmy Reed played there, we backed him, I got to talk to him quite abit over a week's time plus one weekend. I asked him why he went from acoustic to electric and he said his recording label made him! He said he was very against it in the beginning but he had gotten used to the sound now and it was ok, but he did say it made him feel like everybody else! See that to me is telling comment! He thought he had given up a part of his personality as an entertainer.