What is Blues?

deefstes · 2012-01-24T12:36:03+00:00

OK, so this is really a question for EZ but all others are welcome to chip in your opinions as well. EZ, I've seen you mention more than just once that many...

What is Blues?

Bob-Dubery

ez wrote: Like I said, the whole SRV thing in Cape Town (maybe elsewhere) is my personal preference at the moment. The sincerity thing is the other half. These two things are unrelated. Maybe I'm just nitpicky.

I'm not sure about the sincerity thing. Conviction is the thing, but does conviction have to come from personal experience - or do you just have to believe the story that you're telling? I hope it's the latter really, otherwise you'd literally have to suffer for your art.

I don't think effort and conviction are the same thing either. I don't find Helmut Lotti convicing, but he works hard at what he does.

vic

Another perspective re blues played by "whites"

........." I will argue that for those interested in the support and study of African-American culture, blues as purveyed by whites appears unauthentic and deeply impoverished; further, it too often represents an appropriation of black culture of a type sadly familiar......"

http://www.bluesworld.com/WHITEBLUES.html

Hammeron

guidothepimmp wrote: What about the deal with devil??

>☹

Mmmm...wrong genre ?.....but on a more serious note, could Ritchie Blackmore play the blues?

DonovanB

Warren touched on John Mayer and I'd like to elaborate a bit more on what he does. He plays a modern blues but in a lot of songs he gets real feeling across.

Take this;
=

and this hits me right in my core;
=

But then, with songs like Gravity, it starts to cross over to Rhythm and Blues, which we all love to despise.

Which blurs into this;
=

Like Warren says, don't define, enjoy.

ezietsman

The two John Mayer tracks above is not blues, besides, he doesn't really market himself as a blues player, although on that one DVD of his he does do a blues set (and says so) which is pretty good.

My issue with the blues label being used in the local scene is that basically you pay money to see a number of 'blues bands' playing 'blues' and then you get rock bands with lots of weedly weedly guitar playing and whammybar squealing. Not all bands are like this, but this happens often. Maybe the scene is too small to carry 4 or 5 blues acts per show, that I can understand, but then marketing the thing as a blues show is not quite right I think.

deefstes

OK, I hear the point you're making about all the weedly bits and whammy bars not being true to original blues but...

We've seen all sorts of fusion genres and I generally enjoy when someone manages to pull off a good mix of two seemingly unrelated genres. How about Goatika (with Tony Levin laying down a flippin brilliant upright bass)?

So why should blues be so special that it cannot be fused with other genres to develop new forms of blues?

I almost get the sense that there is a certain "frame of mind" called blues but there is also a musical style called blues. The latter could be described in musical terms, just like other styles like Punk, Reggae or Baroque can be described in musical terms. And a musician is free to draw from any of these styles or use any of these styles as the basis for his music. You could incorporate Baroque into your Metal without having to be in Vivaldi's frame of mind, not true?

guidothepimmp

Tamla Kahn 'Hammeron' McMahon wrote:
guidothepimmp wrote: What about the deal with devil??

>☹
Mmmm...wrong genre ?.....but on a more serious note, could Ritchie Blackmore play the blues?

Au contraire.. Crossroads tells a different story, bluesmen signing their life away and the only way out was to cut heads.. A guitar dual of such mammoth proportions that will result in the winner getting back his soul, the other being eternally damned..

Hehe

BobC

Vic wrote:
Another perspective re blues played by "whites"

........." I will argue that for those interested in the support and study of African-American culture, blues as purveyed by whites appears unauthentic and deeply impoverished; further, it too often represents an appropriation of black culture of a type sadly familiar......"

http://www.bluesworld.com/WHITEBLUES.html

Not shooting the messenger Vic, but rather the message in the linked article. I'll very much agree to disagree with the perspective posed in that article. The idea that certain races have ownership/domain over musical genres / musical forms is simply fallacious in a few ways - Genetic fallacy, Appeal to Tradition are two such fallacies.

Let me be clear, I am not dismissing nor disrespecting the obviously black origins of the blues, but the entire premise of the article is equally as fallacious as stating that anybody not of French or Italian origin simply is not prima ballerina material, and while they may half-heartedly emulate French and Italian Ballerinas, their lacklustre efforts will be notably inferior in comparison to French and Italian dancers because Italy and France are where Ballet was pioneered.

singemonkey

The colour problem with blues is not that it is too white. It's that it is too whitebread.

A handful of white people have been among the greatest blues musicians ever. But that was because they took it seriously.

Hammeron

singemonkey wrote: The colour problem with blues is not that it is too white. It's that it is too whitebread.

A handful of white people have been among the greatest blues musicians ever. But that was because they took it seriously.

Would Gary Moore feature in that handfull?....and Ritchie maybe.....

majestikc

The Karate Kid versus Satan's Guitarist Steve Vai

=

majestikc

I think the Blues is a state of mind rather than an exact specific musical style

singemonkey

Tamla Kahn 'Hammeron' McMahon wrote:
singemonkey wrote: The colour problem with blues is not that it is too white. It's that it is too whitebread.

A handful of white people have been among the greatest blues musicians ever. But that was because they took it seriously.
Would Gary Moore feature in that handfull?....and Ritchie maybe.....

Gary Moore for certain. I don't like his voice. But his connection with the blues was real - he wasn't just parading guitar licks. Ritchie I have no idea.

AlanRatcliffe

Music is like language - if it doesn't change, it's dead.

If you don't like a particular direction a branch of the music has taken doesn't mean it's not a valid direction. It's all music, it all has meaning to someone.

Anyway, Townshend once said something like "We took the blues and turned it into something else. Then Jimi came over and took it back".

Bob-Dubery

singemonkey wrote: The colour problem with blues is not that it is too white. It's that it is too whitebread.

A handful of white people have been among the greatest blues musicians ever. But that was because they took it seriously.

I'd say it was because they had a real connection to the form. Clapton, however boring you may or may not find him these days, certainly was a student of the blues, studied the great players (and paid tribute to some of them) and was genuinely inspired by the blues.

A large number of players who emerged from Britain in the 60s were inspired by the blues - even if they used that inspiration as a springboard into new musical territories. As one could in the 60s, and David Gilmour would be a prime example. So would Syd Barrett who named his band after two obscure blues men - Pink Anderson and Floyd Council.

I don't think it's game over for the blues, but it does seem to be a plant that lacks vigour once it's transplanted from the soil it originally grew in - irrespective of the background of whoever is ~~parodying~~ playing it at any given moment.

Bob-Dubery

Tamla Kahn 'Hammeron' McMahon wrote:
singemonkey wrote: The colour problem with blues is not that it is too white. It's that it is too whitebread.

A handful of white people have been among the greatest blues musicians ever. But that was because they took it seriously.
Would Gary Moore feature in that handfull?....and Ritchie maybe.....

Ritchie Blackmore certainly had distinct blues influences in his playing - but you can say that about a lot of players who emerged in the 60s. I don't regard him as a blues player, but he showed his roots on occasion.

vic

Here is an example of what was known in the '50's/60's as "Rhythm and Blues"....unlike the R&B that we hear today

The Stones were quite good at it

=

Warren

ez wrote:
My issue with the blues label being used in the local scene is that basically you pay money to see a number of 'blues bands' playing 'blues' and then you get rock bands with lots of weedly weedly guitar playing and whammybar squealing. Not all bands are like this, but this happens often. Maybe the scene is too small to carry 4 or 5 blues acts per show, that I can understand, but then marketing the thing as a blues show is not quite right I think.

This I can actually fully agree with. Although it might be difficult to completely ring-fence the blues, it's not exactly cricket if bands advertise themselves as blues bands and then play something that doesn't resemble any kind of blues at all. And I don't quite get the advertising of such bands as "blues" bands, since I'm not sure there's exactly a raging market for people into blues music, as such. It's almost like they're trying to snag some kind of false street-cred by tacking "blues" onto the end of the show title. I could be completely wrong, of course.

And on Mayer again, although he really should speak less, here I really agree with him: ?

singemonkey

Now John Mayer really can play blues. But just the thought of hearing him ever speak again has totally put me off listening to him altogether. He may agree with me on every point, but it would take a lot to get me to watch that.

Not being a total A-hole is clearly not a requirement for playing blues.

Alan, I think the problem is that this side-branch has taken only the style and left the substance. To me this King of the Blues jamming, no good songs, lightweight vibe is like baseball compared to cricket. If no one gets that analogy the only thing left is to say, "If you have to ask, you'll never know." ?

Eh. Do not judge. I'd probably be outraged at my own attempts too, if it wasn't me ?

Jack-Flash-Jr

Here's an anecdote to illustrate the overreaching branching problem:
Anyone seen Oh Brother Where Art Thou? In it there's a character called Tommy Johnson (Chris Thomas King). When asked why he was at a crossroad in the middle of nowhere, he reveals that he sold his soul to the devil in exchange for the ability to play the guitar. (obviously modelled on Robert Johnson).
Chris Thomas King is an actual guitarist and plays some great stuff in the movie (he also played Blind Willie Johnson in Soul of a Man (Wim Wenders)) I heard he was playing in a bar in the Village so my wife and I went down to see him. Cool guy, chatted a bit, didn't ask him about the DJ turntables set up next to his guitar rig.
His set started with an introduction to DJ somebody and a quasi rant about how blues needs to be kept alive... seque into 21st Century blues - electric techno blues or something. It was not... just not... just no. I'm not a purist and I've even been know to bop to techno of a certain type every now and then. This made the hip hop blues of the early 90s sound angelic. There was polite response for the entire set.. he turned off the whitebread just once, to do an unaccompanied Hard Time Killing Floor Blues. It was like the devil flipped the door open bought everyone a shot of tequila and commanded groove! Suddenly soul was in the air. Then back to nought.
I didn't buy his cd at the end.