Did you ever see an unhappy horse? Did you ever see bird that had the blues? One reason why birds and horses are not unhappy is because they are not trying to impress other birds and horses - Dale Carnegie
I'm trying to see what point you're trying to make, RobBob - the MJ stuff? Assuming you mean rabid fans, are you likening RJ fans to MJ fans? Or establishing you've been listening longer? Or that he's not esoteric enough?
The fact is that Johnson's music might be the "four seasons", "kind of blue", or "With the Beatles" of it's genre, but it doesn't negate that it represents an entree point into a world of less well-known artists for the masses. If they only get as far as RJ, then that's fine with me.
Getting any information on people who are historically inarticulate - that is, they leave little in terms of personal documentation - is deserving of such attention, and as a historian, I really attach to the idea that such micro research occurs. That there is such "hoopla" surrounding this being potentially RJ is warranted, but concede I'd be just as, if not more interested if another Charley Patton, Skip James, BBQ Bob, Blind Willie Johnson, or other photo came to light.
If it's not RJ, it's comforting to know it could be someone who could have used a functional guitar in anger. As with the debunked film, we should take away that it is more documentary evidence of those that are historically inarticulate.
hello friend, to get back to the subject of the picture itself - has this photo been verified to be robert johnson? i was looking at the new gibson email (guitar company) newsletter today. & they had their top ten slide guitarists of all time, & guess what picture they had next to the article? yep! this one. & they had robert johnson leading off the list. they didn't say the picture was johnson, but i think thats what was inferred. i mean, i'm pretty sure it isn't duane allman, right?
Whilst my initial reaction to (just) having see the photo was "wow... a young B.B King", beyond the theory that the image is somehow photoshopped (something I think VF might have investigated thoroughly before opening this can of worms) - the fingers are never going to be B.B's.
B.B. may have short stubby fingers now, but that wasn't always the case. Look at his fingers in this pic from his younger days, especially the left hand.
I know my fingers are slightly stubbier than they were when I was a younger lad.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2009, 04:32:31 AM by cheapfeet »
While others discuss the reasons an artist would use a studio prop in a promo photo, can someone answer me this:
Quote
That's Sam Lawhorn. And the bullhorn was photoshopped in. The picture was taken by Ray Flerlage at Mandell Hall, U. of Chicago, May 20, 1966.
Having watched Sammy Lawhorn from a few feet away during many Monday nights in Chicago's Theresa's Lounge circa the mid-70s, I recollect that he was 1) darker-complected, 2) sunnier-disposited and 3) always six-stringed (Lawhorn would have been a no-brainer first or second guitar choice by either Muddy or Walter, and therefore highly unlikely to play bass). Visually speaking, he looked a lot more like doctorpep's J. Shines picture than the serious bass player who's trying to keep up w/Little Walter's 11-3/4 bar verses. Are u sure that's Sam Lawhorn?
And what-all does this have to do w/RJ? Nothing at all. And that's good! This said, I've got one more grain of sand to extract: The sound - general production - of recordings has a lot to do with what happens decades later. For me, the consistency of sound distinguishes those 41 sides (or is it 43 now?) more than the non-unique musicianship. Take Bo Carter, for example: Many of his recordings' haunting qualities is their exceptional clarity, which (per my meager memory) was new in the CB canon. This speaks to the combination of the artist's choices, the producer's sensibilities and the technology at hand. What happens later, in large part, results from a small group fanning some spinning embers and the rest of us'all being attracted to the fresh flame.
What we need is a good, modern cartoonist to animate these old pictures, with the subjects going on about who is who and the percentage they should get for their pictures receiving so much attention!
jed, October of last year is a long time ago for my feeble mind, but if my memory is at least partially accurate, my ID was from the caption to an unretouched version of the picture included in Blues With A Feeling: The Little Walter Story by Glover, Dirks, & Gaines.
As far as the Vanity Fair published photo: I simply refuse to believe that it is Johnny Shines. It COULD be RJ on the left.
To me, the guy alleged to be RJ looks like Tommy McLennan. Did anyonme else pick up on that? FM
It's pretty easy to believe it's not Johnny Shines, since it definitely is not! I have an e-mail from one of his grand-daughters some where saying "that's not grandpa."
Logged
Puttin' on my Carrhartts, I gotta work out in the field.
jed, October of last year is a long time ago for my feeble mind, but if my memory is at least partially accurate, my ID was from the caption to an unretouched version of the picture included in Blues With A Feeling: The Little Walter Story by Glover, Dirks, & Gaines.
I just found a memory aid; check the attached pic of - it's Otis Spann and Sammy Lawhorn. Dunno the woman.
It is, taken by Len Kunstadt at a festival and first published in Record Research in 1966.
BH - your information never ceases to amaze and I'm sure all Weenies are highly grateful for your informative posts. I suppose you know what colour socks the photographer was wearing at the time as well!
Logged
"I ain't good looking, teeth don't shine like pearls, So glad good looks don't take you through this world." Barbecue Bob