Hi all,
I've been thinking a lot recently about the role of repetition in Country Blues accompaniment, most especially after being reminded of how effective a compositional device it is by frankie's recent rendition of Robert Wilkins' "Rolling Stone", over in the Performance Corner. I have come to think of repetition as being an essential element in the language of the Country Blues, in whatever era it was or is being performed.
If you think of notably strong recordings of Country Blues down through the years, a telling majority employ some kind of signature lick which answers the vocal phrases, the wordless voice talked about here elsewhere in the past. There are very few performances which employ a wide variety of licks in a scattershot fashion. I think this is because when you're talking about the instrumental side of a Country Blues performance, most often, the identity of the song being played, in particular, resides in that portion of the accompaniment which is being repeated. No repetition = no distinctive identity. The repeated lick identifies the song because it is memorable in and of itself. There is a beautiful conceptual economy in this, too; it takes so little compositional material to make a strong blues, and the stronger the original idea, the better it bears up under repetition.
There is a tendency in recent years, influenced I think by modern electric blues, to value variety in licks almost for its own sake, or as a sign of instrumental mastery and imagination on the part of the player. The problem with using a non-repeating variety of licks in the instrumental response role is that the musical effect of the approach is to make all the songs subjected to this treatment sound more like each other than they would if each song had its own signature lick. So it is that using the same approach for providing response licks to any number of songs results in a repertoire in which the songs sound generic and musically interchangeable, rather than a variety of distinct musical statements. It's the kind of thing that makes some people say "All Blues sound the same."
Another problem with the Random Lick Generator approach to blues accompaniment is that there is never any sense, in listening to music made with this approach, that the licks being played in the response role are responding specifically to the words being sung, or were selected specifically to accompany that one song. So it is that the song being sung and the responses being played end up feeling like two things existing side by side rather than two components of one whole.
Of course, signature licks in some instances end up being associated not just with a particular song, but also with a particular player. Lonnie Johnson and Albert King come to mind in this regard. To the extent that a player utilizes a signature lick across his/her repertoire, as opposed to using it for a particular song, the musical result is an identifiable personal style, with the lick acting as a kind of brand. Hear the lick, hear the sound, and you can identify the player. But even with such distinctive signature licks as those that Lonnie Johnson, Albert King, and other blues players have employed, those licks were played for the first time in a particular context.
It's relatively easy to change this music from what has gone on before, because the building blocks that go into making the music are accessible to hear and use. If you choose to change things, though, it may be worth considering:
* Does your new approach have the compositional rigor, clarity and identifiability of the original?
* Does the new approach link the instrumental responses to the lyrics in something other than a "fill in the blanks" fashion?
* Are you ending up with a musical piece that will be heard as a stand-alone entity or one of countless others of the same type?
All best,
Johnm
I've been thinking a lot recently about the role of repetition in Country Blues accompaniment, most especially after being reminded of how effective a compositional device it is by frankie's recent rendition of Robert Wilkins' "Rolling Stone", over in the Performance Corner. I have come to think of repetition as being an essential element in the language of the Country Blues, in whatever era it was or is being performed.
If you think of notably strong recordings of Country Blues down through the years, a telling majority employ some kind of signature lick which answers the vocal phrases, the wordless voice talked about here elsewhere in the past. There are very few performances which employ a wide variety of licks in a scattershot fashion. I think this is because when you're talking about the instrumental side of a Country Blues performance, most often, the identity of the song being played, in particular, resides in that portion of the accompaniment which is being repeated. No repetition = no distinctive identity. The repeated lick identifies the song because it is memorable in and of itself. There is a beautiful conceptual economy in this, too; it takes so little compositional material to make a strong blues, and the stronger the original idea, the better it bears up under repetition.
There is a tendency in recent years, influenced I think by modern electric blues, to value variety in licks almost for its own sake, or as a sign of instrumental mastery and imagination on the part of the player. The problem with using a non-repeating variety of licks in the instrumental response role is that the musical effect of the approach is to make all the songs subjected to this treatment sound more like each other than they would if each song had its own signature lick. So it is that using the same approach for providing response licks to any number of songs results in a repertoire in which the songs sound generic and musically interchangeable, rather than a variety of distinct musical statements. It's the kind of thing that makes some people say "All Blues sound the same."
Another problem with the Random Lick Generator approach to blues accompaniment is that there is never any sense, in listening to music made with this approach, that the licks being played in the response role are responding specifically to the words being sung, or were selected specifically to accompany that one song. So it is that the song being sung and the responses being played end up feeling like two things existing side by side rather than two components of one whole.
Of course, signature licks in some instances end up being associated not just with a particular song, but also with a particular player. Lonnie Johnson and Albert King come to mind in this regard. To the extent that a player utilizes a signature lick across his/her repertoire, as opposed to using it for a particular song, the musical result is an identifiable personal style, with the lick acting as a kind of brand. Hear the lick, hear the sound, and you can identify the player. But even with such distinctive signature licks as those that Lonnie Johnson, Albert King, and other blues players have employed, those licks were played for the first time in a particular context.
It's relatively easy to change this music from what has gone on before, because the building blocks that go into making the music are accessible to hear and use. If you choose to change things, though, it may be worth considering:
* Does your new approach have the compositional rigor, clarity and identifiability of the original?
* Does the new approach link the instrumental responses to the lyrics in something other than a "fill in the blanks" fashion?
* Are you ending up with a musical piece that will be heard as a stand-alone entity or one of countless others of the same type?
All best,
Johnm