Message Board Archive: Thread Number 60

Tom W. wrote:

>Since Ari's past post made a bold statement, I'd like to
>offer this thought: In my opinion, in 25 yrs of listening to
>country blues, I feel that several of the contemporary
>player/interpreters are BETTER players than the originals
>from the 20's and 30's. Granted, these early players evolved
>a style, but some of the guitar greats of today have taken
>that basic style and refined it. Comments?

For the most part, I think there is too much attention paid to
contemporary players, and not enough to the original masters. Again and
again I find people who hear me play and say, "but the old guys didn't
play anything like that, did they?" meaning that my playing seemed more
advanced than the original recordings. There seems to be a common
misconception about these early players that they were full of emotion
but lacking in technique. This is a kind of romanticization of the idea
of a bluesman which does a grave injustice to the real thing. Someone
like Blind Blake, for instance, is more than a little frightening to
anyone who knows anything about guitar playing; his technique is
untouchable. He, for one, does not fit the misconceived mold of the
tortured primitive wailing away in a style that is compelling but in
some sense not advanced. Many other players of the '20s and '30s are
like that: Lonnie Johnson, Gary Davis, Blind Lemon Jefferson and Willie
Walker, to name but a few.

Why is this misconception so prevalent? A few reasons, I think. One is
that, as has been mentioned before on this message board, most people
don't listen to the old records, so they have only the stereotype to
fall back on when judging these mysterious old records. Another, I
think, is that even when people do listen to the old records, their
preconception of what an old blues player is supposed to sound like
tends to have an effect on what they listen to. People often seem to
gravitate toward the players who are most like their idea of a
bluesman--heavy, emotional, raw, & c.--and end up listening to players
who, while they may be great, are consistent with the stereotype.

As for whether any contemporary players have improved upon the
originals, I suppose it may happen occasionally (I think I saw Woody
Mann do it one night with a Funny Papa Smith-style piece!), but for the
most part I think it's the opposite: today's players don't even come
close to the originals. This, of course, has the unfortunate effect of
perpetuating people's preexisting misconceptions about what the original
masters sounded like. Don't get me wrong--it's great that people are
calling attention to this great music even if they're not equalling the
originals. There are just, as with anything, some unfortunate side
effects along with the many benefits.

Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 12:01:11 -0500 (EST)
From: rob@hub.org (Rob Hutten)
Subject: Feedback: Today's players vs. originals
Message Number: 60.1

I'll chip in my two bits here - if you listen to someone like Ari or
Woody Mann playing a Gary Davis tune, no doubt these modern masters can
get the licks cleaner and sometimes even faster than the good Reverend
played 'em. But it's one thing to get the licks and a whole other thing
to invent them.

What makes the old masters untouchable, in my book at least, is that
many of them completely invented a whole style of guitar playing. Furry
always sounded like Furry. I can play like Furry and even if I could
pull it off flawlessly, I'm still just doin' Furry. Likewise, lots of
people "do" Robert Johnson - some do it frighteningly well, but it
doesn't mean they're as good as Poor Bob 'cause he invented so much of
that schtick.

I loved that article in Acoustic Guitar (??) from a couple months back
where they interviewed Roy Book Binder, Steve James and Paul Geremiah.
Steve James quoted Furry along the lines of "Why play my style? The
reason I'm cool is because I'm Furry Lewis and you're not."

Not to knock any of the modern guys - thank heavens for 'em, because
they're just about the only way some guy on the street is going to be
introduced to the music of Gary, Furry, Robert, etc. And a lot of them
have something new to offer too.

-Rob

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 15:06:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Owner-HyperNews@ComCAT.COM (Jennifer)
Subject: Luckily, it's not a contest!
Message Number: 60.2

Hello, again! I'm a singer (and a blues fan), not a guitarist, so my
opinion may not matter to you gentlemen. I never really understood the
concept of one musician being "better" than another. Maybe "different"!
I was at a club the other night listening to a couple of guys. Maybe
they weren't the "best" in the world, but, brother, they put everything
into it and it was a great show! Maybe "better" than some of the guys on
the radio! The most important thing is being true to yourself, whether
you're playing your own music or keeping someone else's music alive.
Audiences can ALWAYS spot a fake!

Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:29:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Owner-HyperNews@ComCAT.COM (Tom W.)
Subject: Re: Better
Message Number: 60.2.1

I don't know how to copy text from a previous post, so I'm referring to
Jennifer's last post of 2/11. Yeah, I hear what you're saying about
"contest" and "honesty", my ulterior motive was to get some discussion
going, so it was either that topic or "white people can't play the
blues".

One thing I find common with all my interests, be it blues, old guitars,
and so on, is that the more I experience something, the higher my level
of sophistication/expectation becomes. My interest tends to wane when
the level of sophistication tends to be low, (i.e. if I'm watching a
performance)and vice versa. However, it's more complex than that,
because there are players I hear with basic guitar work and great songs
who really knock me out, and guitarists with great skills that really
don't move me. And then there's the whold issue of taste.

Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 15:38:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Owner-HyperNews@ComCAT.COM (Jennifer)
Subject: I Apologize
Message Number: 60.2.1.1

Tom,
I hope I didn't offend you in any way with my last post. Believe me,
that wasn't my intention. As I stated before, I'm not a player, so I
listen to the music that sounds good to me: blues. When I'm watching a
performance, I want to see passion. When I hear the blues, the only
expectation I have is to hear something straight from the heart. I've
never studied music or taken guitar lessons, so I'm not the best judge
of one guitarist's technical ability over another, but I know when
something moves me.
Well, now that I've rambled on for a while, I'll let you get back to
your discussion. I'm sorry I interrupted it. And I'm really glad you
didn't have to discuss the topic "white people can't play the
blues!"haha ....because you've never heard me sing, now have you!
jennifer

Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 22:53:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Owner-HyperNews@ComCAT.COM
Subject: not a contest?
Message Number: 60.2.2

Jennifer, you don't comprehend the prewar blues. tI most definitely was
and is a contest and no one today knows what went on, least of all the
post-war blues singers. If you sing behind the beat and your audience
likes you, then you are all together, but you have nothing in common
with the prewar blues.. This board is for prewar blues people who
understand that the prewar blues was dance music and the singer had to
lead the guitar by a beat-and-a-half in order to make the energy flow
and accelerate to a climax. You seem like a post-war modern blues fan
who is a bit out of place amidst the prewar people. But I love your
name!