...But is it BLUES?

[spiral light]

OK, I must jump in and defend my views here. Firstly, I am not putting down the importance of Clapton et. al. in the grand scheme of things, especially someone like Jeff Beck (needs no explaining). They did bring the genre to the greater masses but by filtering it through their own creativity to produce their own sound.

 

As For Pickers comments on my comments:

"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?"

Of course they did and I don't blame them. I was referring to the record exec. types who salivate over artists who appeal to the target teenage markets. Who is more likely to be put up on a teenagers wall: Muddy Waters or John Mayer?

 

"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. "

I agree.

 

"Crap."

!

 

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

Again, I'm not doubting his ability to play, I think Trucks explained it in a more recent reply.

[Justus A. Picker]

is Yngwie Malmsteen a classical guiarist?

NO!

 

Now that that's out of the way...

 

With the death and funeral of Robert Lockwood Jr, here they've been running a bunch of old interviews. In one they asked him to define the blues and he said it's "whatever you want it to be".

 

One other answer he gave made me laugh. Asked if you had to live the blues to play the blues he answered, "Lord NO! You'd be dead if you tried that!"

[Eric Iverson]

Originally posted by Chad:

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.

Well, if you put it that way, I have to agree with you. More because of the styles of the times I think - Hendrix was crushingly loud, too, after all! Though he never lost the blues feeling.

 

As far as widdly-diddly, that's a matter of perception. Both Hendrix and Bloomfield were considered by some to be tasteless show-offs. I never felt that way about either of them!

 

Is Johnny Winter a widdly-diddly showoff or a soulful musician? IMHO, a little of both...maybe a lot of both! and ain't nobody whiter than the Winter bros.!

 

Two of my favorite white blues guitarists are Robben Ford and Amos Garrett (who no one seems to talk about anymore...)

[antimatter]

Originally posted by Justus A. Picker:

is Yngwie Malmsteen a classical guiarist?

NO!

 

NO! He's a Blues guitarist. <<< Play it Yngwie!

[Gifthorse]

No, Yngwie isn't a classical player.

 

I would say this guy:

 

mullet

torn jeans

thin mustache that isn't getting any thicker.

high tops

Yngwie Fking Malmsteen shirt, chain smoker (reds), drives an old rusted out El Camino and ONLY drinks the 'king of beers' Budweiser..

 

is a recipe for trouble at any bar.

 

Is it Yngwie's fault--You be the judge.

 

HAHA, just kiddin silly imagery though.

[Zephyr]

Im not so sure about the racial distinctions between THE BLUES. Sure, you have a bunch of white folk playing something evolved from THE BLUES, and that cant be called the blues, so in the respect of the white man blues, i agree. But some of them ARE playing something true from their soul, even though it may not be traditional blues, it is still similar. Because the Blues is a feeling first and a musical form as a close second.

[Trucks]

Originally posted by Zephyr:

Im not so sure about the racial distinctions between THE BLUES. Sure, you have a bunch of white folk playing something evolved from THE BLUES, and that cant be called the blues, so in the respect of the white man blues, i agree. But some of them ARE playing something true from their soul, even though it may not be traditional blues, it is still similar. Because the Blues is a feeling first and a musical form as a close second.

I agree that there are some incredibly soulful white blues players. I dont associate white man blues with poor playing or a lack of soul (although there are alot of soundalikes nowdays). Like I said its what I call modern blues... I associate THE BLUES with the unique original style created by them dudes in the mississippi delta. To me that is THE BLUES and modern "rock" blues is white man blues... I can see my chosen description could be read in a negative way buts its not meant to.. on this occasion

[Hardtail]

Originally posted by ellwood:

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

Here ya' go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxpkFUjDqz0&mode=related&search=

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by Picker:

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?

Well, kinda sorta.

 

For starters, I'm not sure that even the most succesful of early black musicians ever made much of a profit, either compared to white standards or (even less) to modern standards. Sure, the Duke Ellingtons did well enough, but then, there were lots of other guys who recorded for the proberbial bottle of gin and lived largely on barroom tips. They made a LIVING, but I don't know that there was ever enough money to make that much of a PROFIT.

 

I think a lot of those guys kept an eye on the bottom line and tried to eke out a living and chased opportunities, but I'm not sure "selling out" was ever an option: record companies weren't buying.

 

I don't think many of those early bluesmen were "groomed" for a specific market: record companies recorded black musicians and sold their records to black audiences. From what I can gather, for a long time it was largely a hit or miss sort of affair. I don't think many companies ever thought much about audience crossover and chasing the big white audience dollars. So making a profit wasn't really in the cards for most of the bluesmen.

[Dr. Ellwood]

Originally posted by Hardtail:

Originally posted by ellwood:

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

Here ya' go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxpkFUjDqz0&mode=related&search=

LOL HT!!! yep you nailed it!! Sponge Bob always gets er done!!

[Chad Thorne]

Eric Iverson said: "Two of my favorite white blues guitarists are Robben Ford and Amos Garrett (who no one seems to talk about anymore...)"

 

Robben Ford has good moments and not-so-good IMO, but I like him, and Amos garrett (still recording) is one of the soulfulest guys on the planet.

 

BTW, for what I think of as real blues go to www.midnightblues.com, streaming blues music 24/7.

[skipclone 1]

Yeah what Kramer said. I didn`t read some of the middle posts yet but blaming the musicians who get opportunities from big record companies may be missing the point. Original blues players SHOULD be able to play for a profit. The fact that many of them slog along for decades and don`t, while others make a career from building on what they do, many of them not even musicians, is what`s deplorable. It`s not only about blues guys either, if it wasn`t for Mick Jagger no one would have heard about Living Colour-not exactly a stampede of imitators for those guys. Branford Marsalis played with The Grateful Dead, and yeah that`s him playing on `I Love Your Smile` You can`t buy it if it isn`t in the store. If you don`t buy it and don`t hear it you won`t go to see the artist.

[guitarisawayoflife21]

Originally posted by 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.

Just like he said, music undergoes constant evolution. While the music isnt really the same, the roots of the music are the same. Wouldnt it get boring if blues was just the same old "blues" for 50 years. I think the evolution of it is what brings people back to that old blues. I never would have listened to Muddy Waters had I not heard Led Zep and Deep Purple and wanted to check out the roots of their music. As long as the roots remain, I think its safe to call it blues, or at least have blues in the genre name, i.e. Blues-Rock, etc.

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by guitarisawayoflife21:

Wouldnt it get boring if blues was just the same old "blues" for 50 years.

uhmmm... so where's that leave classical then? Beethoven is still Beethoven and yet very few people dismiss him as "boring". And it's been a bit over 50 years!

[Phillydor]

Case in point: Hubert Sumlin was also on this record (which I quite like)but didn't get a guernsey. http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/panther_pawed/howlinwolflondonsessions.jpg

[guitarisawayoflife21]

Originally posted by Kramer Ferrington III.:

Originally posted by guitarisawayoflife21:

Wouldnt it get boring if blues was just the same old "blues" for 50 years.

uhmmm... so where's that leave classical then? Beethoven is still Beethoven and yet very few people dismiss him as "boring". And it's been a bit over 50 years!

Beethoven will always be Beethoven, and Muddy Waters will always be Muddy Waters, and both are great as themselves, but what I'm saying is, what if every blues band since then sounded exactly like Muddy Waters or Elmore James? You dont think the sound would get homogenized and would get boring? I love listening to either of them, but if all blues after them sounded just like them, I wouldnt dig that so much. The repitition would get boring, which is why the evolution from the base that those artists provided is what keeps the music intresting.

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by guitarisawayoflife21:

but what I'm saying is, what if every blues band since then sounded exactly like Muddy Waters or Elmore James? You dont think the sound would get homogenized and would get boring? I love listening to either of them, but if all blues after them sounded just like them, I wouldnt dig that so much. The repitition would get boring,

Well, yeah, but I think my point still stands. The world is full of string quartets playing the same music, note for note, as their counterparts playes in the 1700s. And nobody thinks any less of them for that.

 

Not sure about things getting boring. On the one hand, the world has gone on with all sorts of very ritualized music for thousands of years. Primitive societies make do with the same songs over and over for generations.

 

Mind you, as soon as someone invented ways of transmitting music (either by transcribing it or recording it) the human race developed a really voracious appetite for new music. Were we waiting for variety or is it just a marketing ploy? Who knows, it's difficult to say now.

 

I'm also wondering about where the changes in blues wind up... the fact that we have blues amps, blues distortion pedals, blues pickups and so on imply that for all the talk about innovation there seems to be a RIGHT way to play blues (with the attendant gear) and then there's all the other ways. So what became of the innovation?

[Justus A. Picker]

I think my point still stands. The world is full of string quartets playing the same music, note for note, as their counterparts playes in the 1700s. And nobody thinks any less of them for that.

By the same token the music that falls under the "classical" umbrella has evolved considerably since Beethovens day. Schoenbergs works are a lot further removed stylistically from Ludwigs than SRV is from Robert Johnson but still are considered "classical" by the general public.

 

I think "blues", like "classical" will spin off many sub-genres and categories over time, all of will will fit under the giant umbrella.

[The Geoff]

I've just read this thread for the first time.

 

As far as the Brit/Blues thing goes, why does everyone seem to think it started with Mayall/Clapton?

 

The father of Brit Blues was ALEXIS KORNER.

 

Have a look at his discography and some of the people he played with as first guitar.

 

Another guy who's an unsung hero & is still around (I think) is TAM WHITE from good old Scotland. He's done some interesting stuff from trad old-fashioned blues to contemporary interpretations.

 

As for the rest, well. If you've got the blues & can sing, then you'll sing the blues.

 

Having the blues isn't the territory of a single ethnic group, it's a human condition.

 

How you express it..........Hmmmm.

 

 

McG

[Phil W]

Yeah, many greats came out of Alexis' band. I used to listen to his radio show as a child and it opened me up to a great deal of music. I think, that by the late 60s; it was less common for most urban black people in America to appreciate and enjoy blues as it was associated with an earlier time and lifestyle; except maybe in Chicago.

The white English guys were hunting out the old, authentic blues records and trying to play it because it moved them. Many of the black US blues musicians played and recorded with English musicians at the time. Everyone certainly benefited from the rise in blues popularity that followed the involvement of the English (and Scottish) guys and the cats like Paul Butterfield and others.

 

When it comes to race and music - it's a difficult and complex issue. I play music mostly of black origin, though I am white. But it's the music I grew up with, it would feel much more alien to me to be playing English folk ballads and suchlike. We have to play the music that moves us, and acknowledge the forefathers of that music.

 

I think Blues has always been hugely adaptable - listen to Son House, Muddy Waters, BB King, Bessie Smith, Howling Wolf and others and it can sound more different than it sounds the same; even if you restrict the comparison to pre-war stuff.

The blues is fertile for development and new musics; probably because of its origins.

 

Aren't most popular US derived popular musics blues-derived (though withmany otehr influences)?

[picker]

Originally posted by Kramer Ferrington III.:

Originally posted by Picker:

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?

Well, kinda sorta.

 

For starters, I'm not sure that even the most succesful of early black musicians ever made much of a profit, either compared to white standards or (even less) to modern standards. Sure, the Duke Ellingtons did well enough, but then, there were lots of other guys who recorded for the proberbial bottle of gin and lived largely on barroom tips. They made a LIVING, but I don't know that there was ever enough money to make that much of a PROFIT.

 

I think a lot of those guys kept an eye on the bottom line and tried to eke out a living and chased opportunities, but I'm not sure "selling out" was ever an option: record companies weren't buying.

 

I don't think many of those early bluesmen were "groomed" for a specific market: record companies recorded black musicians and sold their records to black audiences. From what I can gather, for a long time it was largely a hit or miss sort of affair. I don't think many companies ever thought much about audience crossover and chasing the big white audience dollars. So making a profit wasn't really in the cards for most of the bluesmen.

The music business has changed a lot since then "30's, but one thing hasn't changed; no one was recorded by record companies unless they figured there was a chance of a profit in it for the record companies. The same is true today. While the marketing end of the business is much more sophisticated than it was, the same criteria, ie, are we gonna make money on this or not, is till the deciding factor.

yeah, the blues guys often only got a bottle of booze, a hooker, and a few bucks, but some of the guys today get their drug of choice, a hooker/groupie, and a very modest percentage of whatever money comes in. the Golden Rule (he who has the Gold makes the rules) has always given control to the the suits, and it always will. And the suits want profit, and always have. Little has changed.

 

Prior to the Depression, the record companies were selling a LOT of blues records, primarily females singers, but some men as well, and it was a BIG money maker. People were buying a lot of it, and there were some pretty well-off blues singers too.They got hit hard by the Depression, when folks just didn't have to money to buy records. But rthere was a serious market for the blues back in the day.

[miroslav]

Not sure it's been mentioned...but the accepted "Father of the Blues" is not any one of the known blues guitar players that we often talk about (white or black)...

...he is none other than W.C Handy...

...and he didn't really play guitar...he played a cornet!

 

Here's a few links:

 

http://www.meridiangraphics.net/blues.htm

 

http://www2.una.edu/library/handy/

 

http://www.songwritershalloffame.org/exhibit_home_page.asp?exhibitId=263

[Eric Iverson]

What HAS changed is that nowadays, with digital recording equipment, people can produce (reasonably) professional sounding recordings at a reasonable cost. And people can distribute said recordings via the Internet very cheaply, in such a way as to hear one or two representative cuts, and entice the listener to order the whole thing.

 

So, while money is still an important factor, especially if the person is doing it for a LIVING,

you don't necessarily have to kiss the tuckus of some corporate creep to get your music out there!

 

Actually, creative people have been finding ways to get around the system for decades anyway, haven't they?

 

(I'm not talking about illegal and immoral ways... just that I don't feel any particular obligation towards the megaconglomerates.)

 

Re: serious market for the blues. There is still a serious NICHE market for the blues... and for bluegrass.. and for bebop... etc. Not enough to make people megastars with megabucks, but I think it's enough for talented people to make a living.. assuming we musicians pool our resources.

[Chad Thorne]

The Blues.

[mdrs]

David Bromberg said "ya gotta suffer if ya wanna sing da blues"

 

Now, he was a white jewish fella....but, he knew of what he spoke!!

 

We all suffer differently. The pain that we feel while suffering, produces "da blues". We all suffer in our own personal, cultural, individual way.

 

It's all good.

[mdrs]

Originally posted by Trucks.Of.Love:

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.

Sorry, but I came late to this thread.

 

It ain't race that differentiates what you guys are calling black blues, from white blues.

 

The main difference is called MARSHALL AND FENDER.

 

What many are referring to as white blues, in many ways came about because of Leo Fender and Jim Marshall. And, as we all know, Jim really copied Leo.

 

It is hard to argue that Clapton in the "Blues Breakers" and Cream Days wasn't totaly incredible. His take on the blues was enabled by the Marshall amps that for the first time brought to the guitarists armamentarium things like sustain, tube distortion, and VOLUME! Suddenly, there was power in your fingertips that quite simply NEVER EXISTED BEFORE!

 

So, the expression of one's loneliness, sadness, pain and suffering, migrated from your vocal cords, to these amazingly powerful nuances of fingers and tubes, which produced sounds that were never heard before, and in fact, never were possible before.

 

It was a powerful time. A convergence of technology and soul.

 

Who knows what will be next? Maybe one of you guys will be the one to figure it out???

[PBBPaul]

I remember when I was first getting into and researching post-war Chicago Blues. I was listening to Elmore James and my father came in and started giving me a hard time. He handed me a Meade Lux Louis record and said "Now THIS is real Blues". It's all in your perspective.

 

I think we can all agree that in its simpest form, Blues is music that uses "blue notes". Any interpretation from there is up to the player and listener.

 

IMHO of course.

[Eric Iverson]

I guess what I listen for is not historical authenticity so much as, "is this guy singing or playing what HE authentically feels?"

 

Even if I don't care for the style per se, I still respect it, and maybe even ENJOY it!

 

Like I met this guy on the train selling CDs of rap music. He made a point of saying, "and this music doesn't degrade women." Caught my attention, so I bought the CD - it was only a dollar. I haven't heard it yet, but I expect to today, if work permits. I talked to him afterwards, and he told he played saxophone in school and wanted to get back into it. More power to him! Though I will never be a rap fan.

 

The point of all this is, isn't people expressing their thoughts and feelings what music is ABOUT? Whether it's blues or any other style... I just want you to be real with me. Even if I don't like you, I respect you!

[Zephyr]

Originally posted by ellwood:

Originally posted by Hardtail:

Originally posted by ellwood:

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

Here ya' go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxpkFUjDqz0&mode=related&search=

LOL HT!!! yep you nailed it!! Sponge Bob always gets er done!!

Here's the same one, except they play it in fast motion at the end lol,:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkCyHHw6Rzg&mode=related&search=

[skipclone 1]

Ultimately the only distinction that counts is, is it good music or bad music. Even if it`s different for each person. If you wanna enroll in the Wynton Marsalis school of mummified categories, knock yourself out but bickering academics won`t change what`s good.