Topic: Country/City, Pre/Post-War Blues--What about it?

[Johnm]

Hi all,
I've been thinking more about these classifications or ways of differentiating between different Blues players based on their musical qualities and approach to the music, and realized that there was another sort of definitional dividing line, which can have the effect of throwing players into two different groups, i.e., "Are the player's accompaniments specific to particular songs, or did the player use the same accompaniment for multiple songs?"
? In a way, the use of the same accompaniment for many songs speaks to the Blues becoming more formally consistent, and susceptible to a consistent (or formulaic) phrasing.
I realized that for me the most forward-looking aspect of Lemon's recorded works, in terms of anticipating the future of blues evolution, came when he started doing all those C blues with the same accompaniment framework.? Granted, Lemon had such a huge imagination that he varied things quite a lot while working within that framework, but it's a difference from the early portion of his career when each tune had a different accompaniment and melody.? A far more extreme case than Lemon for repetition would be Lonnie Johnson, who must have recorded pretty much the same accompaniment close to one hundred times, just changing the lyrics.
I think the effect of doing what is essentially the same accompaniment for many different sets of lyrics is to emphasize lyrics over melody, accompaniment and variety in phrasing.? It puts the accompaniment and phrasing in the position of being a "for granted" aspect of the music, and puts things on a footing where all you need to do to make a new song is come up with a new set of lyrics.? In terms of cranking out recordings for the record-buying public, I suppose there is a justification for this, but it does not make for the most interesting music, in my opinion.? I guess I am more drawn to the artists for whom almost every song, in lyrics, melody, phrasing and accompaniment is a one-off.? What do you think?
All best,
Johnm?

[dave stott]

I have been wondering for a while now and have not found it in any of the discussions...

Exactly what is Country Blues??  Is there aspecific style or time frame associated with the name?

At what time if at all, does Muddy Waters stop being considered a Country Blues singer and become considered Rock and Roll / Chicago Blues?

Are Carey and Lurrie Bell, blues singers or country blues singers?



Dave

[waxwing]

"Good" point SJ, even if you are a "bad" girl.-G-

I thought I'd merge dk's perhaps provacative query into a previous discussion that covered the ground pretty well. What do you think, dk?

You might also be interested in two other threads, Harmonic Complexity/Content in Country Blues--Where Did It Go? and Country Blues-writing songs in the style, both of which discuss what it is that defines this genre.

All for now.
John C.

[dj]

Re Johnm's last comment:

"Are the player's accompaniments specific to particular songs, or did the player use the same accompaniment for multiple songs?"

I'm reminded of something I once read about Ishmon Bracey.  I think it was in a David Evans column on Bracey in an old Blues Revue Quarterly.  Bracey was quoted as saying that H. C. Spier told him that it would be a good thing if he (Bracey) didn't use the same accompaniment to every song, so he worked hard at learning new guitar parts.  The implication is pretty clear that Bracey originally used a variant of one accompaniment for most of his songs.

I wish I could remember more details.  I remember the column as being really interesting and as presenting a very sympathetic portrait of Bracey, even though it showed him "warts and all" - like sitting on his front porch with a lucky numbers book hidden inside his Bible.  Unfortunately, the magazine in question is sitting under a pile of junk at the back of a closet which is itself at the back of another closet full of junk.   And if I go rooting for a magazine, my wife will have me spending all weekend cleaning out the closets...   

[poymando]

I like the catch-all "old-time blues". It all fits in there to me, urban, country, rugged, slick etc....I think of the concepts of pre/post war as descriptions of the time an artist might be doing their work rather than a stylistic description.

[JasonE]

My understanding of the country blues is not such that I can say how useful the city/country distinction is for defining the genre.

But, it is absolutely central to my interest and love for the music that we discuss on this board.


I am first and foremost a country music listener. I got into classic country music, and kept following the roots back. I had a truly wonderful music journey doing so.

Well, I got to Hank Williams. Then I got to Jimmie Rodgers. Then the Carter Family. Then I figured out that the Carter Family was just a commercialization of this new-to-me thing called old-time music. Then I learned that old time music was the foundation of hillbilly music, which itself is truly (in my mind at least) the tap root of this commercial musical entity I love called "country music".

So I as studied and learned more about hillbilly music, I learned of "race music"
And in my mind, coming at it from the direction that I did, race music and hillbilly music were the same damn thing, except for the race of the performer.

The music that "fits my soul", is performed by artists like Ricky Skaggs, David Allan Coe, Son House, Mississippi John Hurt, and the Stanley Brothers.

It is all rural, twangy, and down to earth.


My point in all this, is that from my cultural perspective as a 30-year-old white midwestern man, it was the country/city thing that made country blues accessible to me. So whether it is the proper way to look at the music or not, it is a very important consideration none-the-less.


JasonE
 

[Bunker Hill]

Rivers, many thanks for pointing folk (via the Electric Guitar in Country Blues topic) in the direction of this extremely interesting and well considered thread which by passed me due to it taking place long before my tenure at WC. 

[Rivers]

You're welcome Bunker. I'm sure I'm speaking for all when I say... <blah blah, etc etc> 

[dave stott]

from an east coast perspective, it is:

yadda yadda yadda

LOL


Dave

[dj]

Bunker Hill was kind enough to send me a scan of an article by Chris Smith from "Keskidee, A Journal Of Black Musical Traditions", No.1 Autumn 1986.  Chris brings up a number of interesting points on the theme of "urban" vs "country" blues.  One of the points that I found the most interesting is one that's occasionally floated around the back of my mind but that I'd never really considered in any formal way.  That's the difference in lyric content between the two.  He makes the point that "urban" blues are apt to be more lyrically coherent and to place a greater premium on "verbal invention and originality", while "country" blues "may tackle a single theme, but [are] more likely to do so from a variety of viewpoints, with little or no verbal connection between the verses" and to improvise on the theme using a stock of traditional verses. 


         

[Rivers]

Just had to kick this topic back into life.

While I agree in general with what Chris Smith proposes there dj, there are legions of exceptions. Rural players were often tightly focused on topic. Urban players, likewise, could spin out into la la land.

For example, Blind Willie Johnson. Nobody could accuse him of being a suburbanite, did he ever leave Texas(?), but his narratives are, without any exception I can think of, tightly focused on the story at hand. Maybe that's the gospel influence. Early Robert Wilkins was no slouch at staying on-topic either even before he got religion. Examples are legion, Frank Stokes, and Furrey Lewis (who was wont to go off into the weeds for a laugh but always brought it back). Sleepy John told great stories in music. So I find it hard to go along with that thesis.

In the other corner, city slickers who were kind of abstract. These are harder to identify, and it's getting kinda late so somebody else feel free to pitch in.

Thinking about it, maybe the reality is that urbanites progressively lost the ability to be incoherent, while rural players could manage to do both coherence and incoherence.

If that's the case, nothing much has changed, and is why I'd like to move out of town, eventually.

[Johnm]

Hi all,
I've continued to think about these distinctions, especially the Country/City one, and thought of a dividing line that might make sense for determining whether a particular player's music might be categorized as Country Blues rather than City Blues.  For players with country origins, if their musical style and sound is based on the musical sounds they grew up with, they're playing Country Blues.  If their musical style and sound is based on the musical style prevalent in an urban setting in which they ended up living as adults, they're playing City Blues.

That way of thinking about the issue certainly doesn't work in every instance, but it sure does in some cases, like with Dr. Ross and John Lee Hooker, both of whom were originally from Mississippi, but who ended up living in Flint, Michigan and Detroit, Michigan, respectively.  The sound of these players remained a Mississippi sound as long as they lived, every bit as much as the sound of people like R. L. Burnside or Junior Kimbrough.  Other players offer a more complicated mixture--Shirley Griffith, for example.  To the extent that his covers of songs by Tommy Johnson and Ishmon Bracey and his own numbers like "River Line Blues" and "Shaggy Hound Blues" have origins in his native Mississippi, they continue to exemplify a Country Blues sound.  But Shirley also played "jump" blues and songs like "A Hard Pill To Swallow" which were very much of the city where he landed as a young adult and remained a resident for the rest of his life--Indianapolis, Indiana.

A player who is particularly interesting when looked at according to this yardstick is Bill Broonzy.  There is almost nothing in his sound that hearkens back to his Mississippi/Arkansas roots, at least when compared to the playing of contemporaries of his who were likewise from Mississippi and who ended up staying there.  Broonzy's sound seems to me to be one that is very much a product of where he ended up as a young man:  Chicago.  His sound didn't end up having any kind of pronounced regional quality, but ended up speaking more of a sort of blues lingua franca, or the language of the blues, per se.  In this respect, he shares a lot with other career pros like Blind Blake, Lonnie Johnson and Tampa Red.

However you look at this issue, it seems important perhaps not to give either Country Blues or City Blues some kind of all-encompassing positive or negative connotation.  Most of us may have a preference for one or the other in a general sense, but I suspect on a musician-by-musician basis, we would find many players whose work we admire in both camps.
All best,
Johnm     

[JohnLeePimp]

I think it's pretty easy to spot a distinction between post and pre-war blues - amplification, music being group oriented, more acclimated, and generally less "country" - was all taking eminence around the 40s in Chicago and in the rurals (e.g. with King Biscuit time).

But then this change didn't just drop out of the sky - blues (was) consistently evolving- maybe there oughta be a further distinction between pre and post depression music and stuff like that

...Over time I've been more drawn to the "Categorisation be the devil's spawn" kinda argument - but mostly for the sake of not dismissing music I may like

[oddenda]

All these "categories" are creations of W.E. (White Europeans) outsiders to help us understand according to OUR historical imperatives of criteria/dicta for cultural expressions. I'm sure if one of us asked Floyd Council (or any other name you might chose) what sort of music he played, he'd say "blues" or "reels", and not "country blues" or "rural blues". These are terms that came initially via Sam Charters - the pre-war/post-war dichotomy comes from jazz record collectors reacting to the intellectual barriers for them that resulted from the AFM strikes brought on by union president James C. Petrillo against the record industry in the 1940s. They are conveniences FOR US on the outside to frame things so that we can get SOME grasp of what the hell's going on. But they're not real to those on the inside unless they take on our understandings/labels from talking with us. That's how John Cephas started using "Piedmont blues"... it worked well enough for him to take it on and use it in conversations with us.

Peter B.

[Johnm]

There's much truth in what you say, Peter B.  My only quibble would be in how you define people.  If I am a White European, than John Cephas must have been a Black African.  In fact, neither is or was the case.  We're both Americans. 
All best,
Johnm