WeenieCampbell.com
Country Blues => Weenie Campbell Main Forum => Topic started by: OMpicker on February 28, 2004, 06:58:06 PM
-
I've noodled on guitar for (heaven forbid) more than 30 years now, and most of that time primarily played country blues.? Within the past two years or so my playing has been reinvigorated and I've ventured out as in the days of my youth and picked a little with some of the younger set.
Interestingly, one thing hasn't changed -- that is the debate between those who are wedded to the recreation of performances (e.g., "geez, I don't think that's exactly how Big Bill played that phrase...") and those who are absorbing the essences of country blues feeling, phrasing,? etc., and then creating something new, even if it might be called a reinterpretation.
My own thoughts about this have changed with time.? As a young'un it was always the pursuit of recreation; now, I consider creation the more worthy endeavor.? That said, I do think that learning or recreating performances is a key to learning and understanding the nomenclature that allows you to do the creating.? I'm interested in how others think about this and whether your perspective has changed over time?
-
I do think that learning or recreating performances is a key to learning and understanding the nomenclature that allows you to do the creating.
Hi OMpicker - I think you answered your own question right there.? Watching my own kids grow up, it seems to me that they find out a lot about who they are by 'emulating', to some degree, other people - their parents, relatives, just about anybody who makes an impression on them in some cases - and then kind of 'riffing' on the things they see in them.? Sometimes they imitate something they've observed, sometimes they mull over something they've been told, they turn things over & inside out in their minds, usually in the form of play and through some kind of interaction - with other people, or themselves via a toy or game that they've made up on the spot.
I don't think that the way we learn music is very different from that.? We observe, we imitate, we improvise, we make up new stuff.? Just like with kids & their 'mentors', I think it's important to pay attention and imitate (obviously, this can hurt you too!).? I also think that one's relationship to 'mentors' changes over time.? They're always somehow a factor, though, and influence the things you do in ways that are subtle and, sometimes, not subtle at all.
I guess I don't see much of a dichotomy in the creation vs. re-creation argument, although I do occasionally run across personalities who seem to think that you can play music (and let's narrow that down to CB, for the sake of argument) without really attempting to get into the specifics of what makes CB sound the way it does.? Just imagine if you tried to learn a language from such a perspective....? viel Gl?1/4ck!
Welcome to the board!
-
I hope and believe that the world, even the country blues world, is big enough for all approaches. Each individual should find their own way, and I strive not to be critical of those who do things differently than I, nor do I give much thought to those who tell me I should stop doing what makes me happy and do what they think makes them happy. That said, I find myself at a place where I want to learn how Big Bill did it, or Charlie Patton, or Buddy Moss, or heck, even Dave Van Ronk, because all those styles appeal to me and make me stretch in the playing. But I've only come back to country blues recently (3 years) and I feel I'm just developing my vocabulary, learning how to express feelings all over again. Given enough time I hope to be able to recreate any arrangement I want and to go beyond by being able to improvise my own breaks within that framework. That seems exciting to me now. It's not as appealing to me, at this point in time, to think about creating entirely new lyrics, melodies and arrangements with the vocabulary I have, but that may come, too. I have to admit that, as an actor most of my life, I have been an interpretive artist as opposed to a creative artist, but I have a great admiration for those who start with a blank page. I seem to be better at breathing life into the work of others. Both take a sensitivity of mind and spirit. Good topic
All for now.
John C.
-
Hi all,
I agree, a really interesting topic, OMPicker (I guess I could go by that monicker, too). I think Frank put his finger on something, and that is that imitation is the beginning of learning. It's one reason kids are such amazingly quick learners, they're imitating the various things they see people doing that they would also like to do. For adults, conscious imitation can be a little hard to take on sometimes-- it can make you wonder if you have any original thoughts or artistic impulses. Without going through some kind of period of conscious imitation or emulation, though, you may lack the musical vocabulary to express the things you want to say. Just using Lemon Jefferson as an example, if I never again perform a song of Lemon's in public or private, I would still feel utterly recompensed for the time I've spent studying his music, because he was such a genius that it was a privilege spending time with his musical sense, sound, rhythm, way of getting around on the instrument, and approach to phrasing. I would have been wrong NOT to study and copy Lemon. I feel like there's too much emphasis on originality anyway. I think a good way of going about things is to listen to everything and then just be yourself. You will in fact end up being original because no one else has your touch, tone or timing.
All best,
John
-
To all: what a great board to have to field such discussions!? Thank you to the creators and steering committee.? And, as to the comments: exactly!? I agree that emulation (recreation) is essential to the learning process, because it is inspirational -- encouraging us to want to learn -- as well as instructional -- learning to understand and speak the vocabulary.
I also didn't mean to convey that there is a "right" or "wrong" choice to either recreation or creation.? I hope I've at least learned that with age.? For example, these days I might feel comfy using a Buddy Boy Hawkins tune to launch into something that ends up being more a creation than a recreation.? At the same time, as I'm struggling through some of these Jerry Reed tunes (don't ask), I am focused nearly strictly on recreation so I can learn to express myself in that language.? Both are still critical ingredients to musical learning and expression.
I think as we talk with young players, it is important to have these kinds of discussion, i.e., the tolerance for and importance of both recreation and creation, recognizing the valuable roles of each in musical development.? As I tell my guitar-playing son (jazz) all the time...listen to as many kinds of music as you can, go see every guitar player you can -- I can truthfully say I have never seen anyone play, from professionals to beginners at "open mike" nights, that hasn't inspired me to go back home and do something on guitar.
-
Welcome to the forum OMPicker - glad you found us!
I can relate to Johm's comment about too much emphasis on the creating. I too have a guitar playing son (amatuer basis) with some very eclectic tastes - he of course likes County Blues which I'm always happy to teach him - but he almost immediately creates something completely different out of them, partly from not knowing the vocabulary of CB and the other part is the over emphasis on being original. So I complain to him about losing "the feel" of the original piece and he complains to me of not ever being original. We both think it is pretty neat to have this common interest however. ;)
Does your son play professionally? We have another member (Frontpage) who has a Jazz playing son.
cheers,
slack
-
Interesting comments.
After thinking on it a moment, I must say I lean toward the creation side of things. If you ask me, there is so much feeling and passion in Country Blues, that unless you lived it, it's impossible to totally re-create. You could play Dark Was the Night, Cold Was the Ground note for note, but if you're not Blind Willie Johnson, you're not totally re-creating the song. For me, there are two levels of listening to and playing the blues. One is very personal & spiritual. This level includes listening to Blind Lemon, Son House, Skip James, Patton, etc. These guys lived the blues, & in my opinion made their music out of necessity as well as creativity. Shoot, even when they copied each other it was always their own. The feelings I get when listening to there music is impossible to re-create by modern artists.
The second level is that of enjoyment & inspiration. I enjoy the playing of Corey Harris, Chris Thomas King & other modern country blues players, it's just on a different level. I'm equally inspired in my own playing and songwriting by other modern artists who are creating their own brand of Country Blues inspired music. Anyone ever hear of 16 Horsepower, the Gun Club, John Spencer or the White Stripes?? I'm a pretty young guy (31, almost 32) & these bands have helped stoke the fire of Country Blues in my heart. Their creation of music has inspired my business, my life & my search for the traditional.
What can I say, I play clawhammer banjo (sometimes with a slide & lots of effects) & bandoneon in a rock band!?!? I couldn't re-create Country Blues if I tried.
Hope this wasn't too much of a rant!!? :D
Malcolm
-
First, let me point out that the quote generator is back to its old tricks. Remember how it had the knack for putting out quotes that fit the specific email to a t when Weenie was an email-centered chat list? Well, when I clicked on JohnM's response to this topic, the generator put out the Jerry Ricks quote about people's heads getting all weird because they can't master a Gary Davis tune after a few short weeks of effort. Gotta love it.
As for this:
I feel like there's too much emphasis on originality anyway. . . . You will in fact end up being original because no one else has your touch, tone or timing.
Forgive me for stating the obvious, but there's that middle ground that I think only a few players consciously aim for. I think Corey Harris fills that middle ground quite nicely; the last time I heard him in concert, he did a version of John Jackson's Boats Up the River that stayed true to the original but had some definite Corey-ness to it. I was impressed by the fact that I had never heard anyone else play that song in concert except for John himself. Corey's set also included two Robert Johnson songs that were very close to the original, and Bajourou ("Big String"), a standard song that is learned and played by guitarists in Mali; it had some blues feeling to it that was no doubt the performer's experience coming through. I can't remember if Corey said this in the PBS blues series or somewhere else, but I do remember him saying that he thought it was really strange how some modern players of old CB songs go as far as to make the same asides, grunts, and comments in their recordings or performances as in the originals--a case of going way too far toward the copy-cat end of the spectrum.
I've only recently learned how to pounce on my "mistakes" and to make something of them. I've listened to Robert Belfour's Old Black Mattie a hundred times, and I believe he has 20, maybe 25 variations of the basic lick that we learned last summer. I can play 5 or 6 of them, but I've also came up with two of my own while I was flopping around trying to learn his. A simple scenario, but one that I imagine all players have to go through sooner or later. And I can't possibly maintain Belfour's speed, a realization that has led me to experiment with my own speed, touch, and tone--as in the JohnM quote.
I've heard from Gordy a couple of times, he's going through the process of trying to learn chords in different positions in order to join in on jam sessions--a different type of challenge that calls for flexibility and creativity within a fairly rigid set of rules.
Lindy
-
i agree that imitation and emulation are critical elements of learning. when i went to college i was an art student and the first thing we were asked to do in my painting class was to pick a work by a favorite artist and copy it as closely as we could. i did my rendition of a van gogh and it was a lot of fun to observe the piece with the kind of analytical eye that you must to copy it. it's a very different mindset than just looking at it for enjoyment or appreciation.
i think the same thing applies to music learning. copying is the best way to expand your vocabulary and, as johnm said, just to exilerate in the feeling of coming to understand something about the rhythm, phrasing, attack, etc. of an artist whose work you love. but i do think you come to a point where you have to go beyond that and inject something of your own into it.
for me, that point comes when you want to take the music out of your room and into the world of performing. as much as i love the works of gary davis or john hurt, i have no interest in listening to someone perform a whole program of recreations of their arrangements no matter how well they do it. i've got the records if i need to hear that. when i listen to a performer i want to hear their heart and music. i find it very interesting to hear a reimagination of an old piece, especially if it's well done and has a compelling spin as mvidrine mentioned about corey harris playing john jacksons tune. it's not so much you have to change the arrangement radically but you have to make sure you're playing it and singing it from your heart rather than worrying about playing this or that lick like so-and-so played it. it especially bothers me when i hear white people doing bad imitations of the singing of robert johnson or muddy waters or whomever. a performer loses a lot of credibility to me if he/she doesn't sing in their own voice.
so, ultimately i think you need to imitate and learn and if it's more of a hobby or if the goal for you is the fascination of figuring out the old stuff (which is definately fascinating) then that can be enough but if you hope to perform i think you've got to find a way to add more of your own personality to the mix and if you're a singer the challenge is even greater to make sure you're using your own voice and finding a way, much like a good actor does, to imbue the song with emotion drawn from your own unique experience. that way even if you didn't write the words you can make them your own. i forget who said this quote (if anyone knows i'd love to find out) but it goes something like"originality is not saying something that's never been said before...it's saying what you truly feel".
-
Slack, He's a student, and in fact started out as a music student at a college that had a pretty sophisticated guitar program. This semester he has switched and become a History major ("They only wanted to teach me what their idea of jazz guitar was."). He is still playing as much guitar as before, but seems happier about it.
-
Howdy all:
I come from a scientific background (M.Sc. in Geology), so I tend to look at things in that fashion. I know that all great endeavors were not created in a vacuum, it was built by standing on the shoulders of Giants. Anyone who created great works spent a considerable time studying the past masters in their field. To try and re-invent the wheel each time around.is wasteful.
Did Blind Lemon, Big Bill, Robert Johnson imitate? Of course they did! Did they study the guitar tricks of the masters of their day? Of course they did! That they took their music further than their influences is part of their talent and the creative process.
To play or to aspire to play country blues imposes a discipline on your creative world. And I think this discipline is a good thing. I remember going up to John Hammond years ago to get him to autograph an album of his. His bit of advice to me was if you screw around with the Blues too much, it ain't the blues no more. To work within a somewhat structured form forces the performer to identify the essential elements and incorporate them into expressing what he has in mind. And the best way to learn these elements is by study and imitation of the masters, to learn the musical phrases, techniques and approaches, adding them to your toolbox so, if you choose, your own original performances are enriched. The structure the blues imposes is what makes blues music so wonderful.
You say that you would not want to listen to a fellow doing John Hurt perfect recreations all night. Possibly true, but us weenies represent a miniscule fraction of the potential audience, and for the vast majority listening to perfect modern imitations of these great songs would be much better that the original scratchy recordings! This is another aspect. The much better recording technology and better instruments available today means the songs sound better now that on the 75 year old recordings. The fellow who studies a particular tune in depth and faithfully reproduces it is giving the average listener a much better view of the original performer's intention than could be got by listening to the original! Look at all the lyrics discussions we have on this forum. I can have a much better idea what Barefoot Bill was trying to do instrumentally 75 years ago by listening to frankie than by listening to Bill's recoeding. The skilled recreator is revealing a 75 year old creative work in it's true form, possibly for the first time, to be studied and enjoyed by others for years to come.
Most non-country blues fanatic friends of mine (read: all of them) are almost immediately put off by the poor sound quality of the originals. But if I take them to a recreative performance, as I have, and they are exposed to the great music of these 20s and 30s masters, bang, they're hooked. If no one gave these recreative performances, this music would be lost to all but us weenies.
I myself started studying CB 20 years ago via Grossman tab. If he had not recreated the music and written it down, I would never have gotten started. Not may acoustic bluesmen in W. Canada in 1980
It is quite possible that the greatest country blues will be created in our or our children's lifetime. We can stand on the giants shoulders.
Climbing off the soapbox,
Alex
-
Wow - there's lots of 'meat' on this thread! And as I type this, there's another 'on-topic' quote from Mr. Ricks at the top of my page (the one about the 18 year old immitating an 90 year old guy) - very spooky, and I love it! That reminds me of my favorite from Jerry: " "Nobody cares whose voice you sing in as long as it yours!"
I agree with JohnM and OrvilleJ that trying to play stuff that others have laid down is an essential part of achieving some degree of musicality - building a vocalublary, as they have said. Many of my 'epiphanies' have come while playing along with recorded music - trying to 'learn' a piece by first getting the feel and tiimng down. The licks tend to come later. For me, 're-creation' (as opposed to recreation, which is the real reason why I play!) is at best, a distant hope. I've been playing long enough to know that I started too late, and that I'm too lazy and undisciplined to spend hours learning every note of a song. And I think my brain is probably too far gone to remember all those notes anyway. So I've opted for a more 'organic' approach that attempts to use my limited vocabulary as appropriate. That said, a useful side effect has been that bits and pieces of different songs are now? 'surfacing at the strangest times, often to good effect.
It has been interesting to be a spectator as my son's knowledge and playing skills (sax, guitar and keys) have evolved over the past 18 years. I started him on blues rock (Clapton, Hendrix, Zep, etc.) at about age 7, then worked over to electric and acoustic blues. Next thing you know, at the age of 12 or 13, he went our and bought a Billie Holliday box set and started getting into jazz. I knew my work was done!? While his formal training has been in the jazz genre, he listens to everything and sucks it all in. He spent two years in the UK at LIPA; while I don't think the curriculum was all that spectacular, he played his ass off (well, most of it!) in a variety of clubs, and I'm pretty sure that was where most of his useful 'learning' occurred.? From what I have seen, he (and his band - R&B and funk) are pretty disciplined about doing covers - the point being that you want your audience to recognize them. But there is always room for improvisation 'in the moment'.
So I have concluded that once you have learned the language (theory) and built up a vocabulary (chords and licks), you can start to speak your mind by playing what 'feels' right in the context of the song. Consequently, the boundary between creation and re-creation tends to be pretty blurred.
As a quasi-science guy msyelf, I agree with Alex that having tab and instruction to get new players started is very helpful - getting to know where the originaol player's hands were on the frets and strings is still a big help for me. But thanks mainly to JohnM, my ears and brain were taught how to work together, and I started 'hearing' what was actually being played. But as JohnC suggested, starting with a blank page (i.e. compoisng something original) is an entirely different thing. Artistic creativity has my complete respect, admiration and awe.
-
"The fellow who studies a particular tune in depth and faithfully reproduces it is giving the average listener a much better view of the original performer's intention than could be got by listening to the original!"
while i agree with a lot of what you say, alex, i can't let that one go by. i've never heard anybody, anywhere, anytime, play an imitation of john hurt that was better than listening to john hurt's original recording! i've enjoyed listening to lots of folks playing his music but i can't go along with the idea that perfect imitation of intention illuminates original intention. the best you can hope for is to bring your own intention to the piece and hope it resonates as such.
tho i know that old scratchy record sound puts some people off i think for a lot of people it adds to the experience. it kind of helps you feel the time traveling, otherworldly quality of what you're listening to. there's a record store i frequent in seattle and one of the clerks is a young (early 20's) guy who recently got into country blues and he has several friends who are also into it. he told me that he liked the sound for that reason. and, get this, one of his buddies was in the store one day and we were discussing john hurt and his pal, who had several prominent tattoos, pulled up his sleeve and he had a huge picture of mississippi john hurt tattooed on his upper arm! even i am not that much of a fan!
-
The skilled recreator is revealing a 75 year old creative work in it?s true form, possibly for the first time, to be studied and enjoyed by others for years to come.
Hi Alex - I don't know that that's true...? when you come down to it, what I've done with Snigglin' Blues is still an interpretation, although I'm pretentious enough to think that my interpretation is something close to what the author's original intent was.? I can't possibly know that, but I can try to sound like I do on an internet forum.? If someone was really interested in playing this tune based on what I was trying to do, I would be the first person to direct them to Barefoot Bill - that's the real source and the work of art that needs to be assessed by others and made current through the simple acts of listening and playing.
No matter how much better the fidelity of my recording might be, Barefoot Bill has fidelity in his music...
i do think you come to a point where you have to go beyond that and inject something of your own into it.
for me, that point comes when you want to take the music out of your room and into the world of performing.
I dunno Orville - I agree with a lot that you said, but for me, that point has nothing whatsoever to do with performing.? Performing and playing music are two different things, requiring different skills.? Seems to me that a person who loves playing music is going to inject themselves into it without thinking for a minute about who's listening or why.? I don't really think that there is a distinct "point" when you "go beyond" imitation.? How could a person be drawn to imitate something if they didn't first see something that related to them in some way?? If you already recognized yourself in something, you wouldn't need to "inject yourself", you'd already be there, finding new ways to express yourself through it.
Great discussion, btw!
-
Hi all,
This has the look of a topic in which each poster has to make peace on his or her own terms. I love to figure out historic performances as close as I am able; it's kind of an homage, a way of honoring how great the musicians of the past have been, and trying to access the musicality of persons in many instances long dead--an amazing proposition when you think of it. At the same time, I agree with Malcolm and Orville, that my renditions of the music of past masters can not equal their own playing of the same pieces. To put it simply, Blind Willie Johnson had an advantage when it came to playing like Blind Willie Johnson--he was Blind Willie Johnson! At a certain point, I began to feel that if I continued to play re-creations in performance, I was putting myself in a position of constantly playing second best. So I decided to do my own original takes on the music--however good or bad it ended up being, at least it would have the quality of not having been preceded by a definitive version of the same thing, so that for better or for worse, I would at least be speaking in my own voice.
I remember Jerry Ricks telling me that he had often heard a bluesman say, after playing a piece that Jerry knew had originally been performed by another musician, that the bluesman who had just played the piece had "made that song". If it was someone Jerry knew well enough to call on it, Jerry might query, "What do you mean ,"you made that song", so-and-so had a hit with that song before you ever played it." What Jerry said he came to understand, was that when the player said, "I made that song", what he really meant was, "I made that song my own--I put my own stamp on it."
There is a lot to be said for the painstaking study of the music of past masters, but in a way, there's also a lot to be said for the sloppy first take impression of someone else's work, quickly translated into one's own way of hearing and phrasing. Isiah Nettles's "So Cold In China", judged for its accuracy as a recreation of Lemon's playing is an utter failure; judged on its own merits I find it great to listen to. Maybe once we've played this music a while what is needed is to trust our own instincts and assume they will equip us to speak convincingly in the language.
All best,
John
-
Lots of meat indeed. While I find myself leaning towards the note for note school when first approaching a tune, at some point I guess I move away from that and start doing my own thing. I'm no pro though.
Lots of crappy music has been made in the name of creative interpretation. There are great new versions of tunes and painful failures everwhere you listen.
Re. recreation, one of the first people that comes to mind is Ari Eisinger. He is recreating the music he plays and works on to such an authentic degree that it becomes a transcendent experience listening to him play it in front of you. There are others who do their own thing with the music and the effect is just as exhilarating. I think it really depends on the performer and the context.
-
Rev. Gary DAVIS:
My motto's always been to bring out something somebody else hadn't heard before. I always loved to do things different than anybody else did
Pertinent quotation, but none of us are Gary Davis, at least not me.
Excellent discussion. People have touched on some really illuminating analogies of acquiring musical expression. Music, child development, and language are all very close to the heart, alive; therefore, share a lot in common.
I retreat into a guitar world that is controlled, vacuum-like. Like a lab, I have equipped myself with many tools, namely a DVD player, Johnm DVDs, Transcribe!software, microphone, etc.? With these tools I can capture and dissect music in a unprecedented 21st Century way, and thusly am able to RE-create to my surpise MJH, Blind Blake, uncanningly .
Technology has enabled us musicians, especially now that enough time has passed since the great artists of early recordings for enthusused retrospection, to RE-create extraordinarily accurate versions of music that only exists in grooves of our CD discs, the digital processing of our PCs.?
UNprecedented, right.? Or did Blind Boy Fuller copy Davis exactly when they would sit down and play together, and then later was able to play so excellently?
So How does technology factor into this RE-creation discussion?
? ?
-
when i think about technology and how it figures into country blues i remember when i was first learning to play the only "technology" i had was a record player. i dropped the needle thousands of times on certain records and i did have one of those little box shaped record players that had a 16 rpm (16, 33, 45, 78) speed that slowed things down an octave. between that and going to concerts, wheedling my way into the front, watching everything and then rushing home and trying to play what i had seen and heard and learning from anyone who would show me something i managed to learn to play.
one thing that helped me go beyond copying was the fact that i seldom learned a piece all the way thru. i'd learn the parts i liked best and kind of fill in the rest. thru doing that i learned a lot of the vocabulary of guitar but made up some of my own things to fill in the spaces and have actually gone back in more recent years and relearned some things i'd played for years just to get closer to the originals only because i've gained even more admiration for some of these artists over the years and found those bits that didn't grab me back then were of more interest now. funny how that works.
i think it's easier for people to make exact imitations now because there are so many resources that figure it all out for you and hand you the tab, the play-along video, etc. i'm not so sure that's a good thing. i still really like the old-fashioned way of two people sitting together and showing how to do it. i guess that's why i still enjoy teaching at workshops like PT. that said, i have made teaching videos myself so i'm not absolutely against them!? ?
"I don't really think that there is a distinct "point" when you "go beyond" imitation.? How could a person be drawn to imitate something if they didn't first see something that related to them
in some way?? If you already recognized yourself in something, you wouldn't need to "inject
yourself", you'd already be there, finding new ways to express yourself through it."
fair enough. i guess i meant that the point at which you need to concern yourself with "am i making this music my own" is when you leave your room and wish to play for other people. it's like when i copied the van gogh painting for art class, if all i want to do is develop my technical painting skills then copying is fine but if i ever want to show my work in a gallery they're not going to hang my imitations of van gogh. i'll have to do something that expresses my own soul.
-
Rev. Gary DAVIS:
My motto?s always been to bring out something somebody else hadn?t heard before. I always loved to do things different than anybody else did
Pertinent quotation, but none of us are Gary Davis, at least not me.
None of us are Rev. Davis, but even he learned tunes and styles from other people.? Of course he put his stamp on them - to some degree we all do, regardless of the amount of effort we (claim to) put into re-creating/re-hashing/re-gurgitating...? if we all had the same amount of talent, technical command, dedication and personal vision, any one of us might develop a style as unique and powerful.? For better or worse, we have those things in whatever measure and make of them what we can...? fine by me!
So How does technology factor into this RE-creation discussion?
Well, it certainly does... and probably has ever since the 78rpm record.? Players from the 30s sound to me as if they learned more from records, although it's likely that the players in the latter part of the 20s learned some tunes from records as well.? There are definitely a lot of interesting tools at one's disposal these days, especially if a computer is handy.? One thing is interesting, though - no matter how much you slow stuff down or tab stuff out, there's no substitute for just listening, carefully.
Repeat as necessary.
-
Re. recreation, one of the first people that comes to mind is Ari Eisinger. He is recreating the music he plays and works on to such an authentic degree that it becomes a transcendent experience listening to him play it in front of you.
One the things that freaks me out most about Ari is his ability to play a Blind Blake tune, ferinstance, and play licks in it that Blind Blake wouldn't *ever* have played... but make it sound like a perfect Blind Blake lick. He doesn't just cop the tune - he cops the whole style!
Just kinda makes you wanna push him down the stairs. <g>
-
So we seem to be talking more about performing now, something I seem to be getting to do a little more of lately. First let me make an analogy to acting, where a playwright has written a script and actors are asked to interpret that script, to make the characters their "own" and to breathe life into them. I have had a lot more experience in this area. Some actors are quick to change an expression or turn of phrase to something that is more comfortable to them, something they might say in their own daily life. I always found that seeking a way to to be comfortable saying it exactly the way the playwright wrote it would often take me to a deeper place with the character. It might take longer, more rehearsal, but the reward was worth it, to me. I have experienced a respected touring country blues player recently who would announce the song and it's heritage, yet performed everything in a very similar style. I really found it hard to differentiate from one song to the next, altho' he had a very open honest delivery. Another player I've seen on several occasions pays clear homage to the original arrangement, perhaps with a signature lick or chordal progression, yet has the technical ability to launch from there into a statement entirely his own. Yet another has the ability to do highly detailed re-creations of songs I am familiar with, but at the same time I feel the depth of his personal commitment, his feelings, through his playing and vocals. I, personally, am more drawn to some of these performers and less to others, yet all of these performers are warmly recieved by audiences who are clearly moved by their performances. The point is, 50% or more of all art occurs in the heart and mind of the beholder, something you have no control over. And most audience members do not have the technical and historical awareness that most of us fanatics persue (you know, that critical voice that makes it hard for us to really give ourselves over to another's performance, even tho' we strive to). Perhaps they want to be dazzled by technical virtuosity or maybe they want to be moved to feelings they don't normally experience, or maybe they just want to feel the vibrations. In theatre, which I don't think is so different from music, both temporal performing arts, we use the safety of rehearsal, first, to create an honest, organic form, based on a script, like a musical arrangement, and then, to ritualize that form so that we may perform it in front of a room full of strangers, no easy task. But the most important aspect of each performance is to fill that form with the sheer joy of performing, because if you don't, that audience will know you are not enjoying your part of the transaction and it will be difficult for them to experience it fully and enjoy it themselves. So whether a player chooses to change a song to his own style or re-create an arrangement closely, or anything in between, the important thing is to enjoy what you are doing.
All for now.
John C.
-
Re. recreation, one of the first people that comes to mind is Ari Eisinger. He is recreating the music he plays and works on to such an authentic degree that it becomes a transcendent experience listening to him play it in front of you.
One the things that freaks me out most about Ari is his ability to play a Blind Blake tune, ferinstance, and play licks in it that Blind Blake wouldn't *ever* have played... but make it sound like a perfect Blind Blake lick. He doesn't just cop the tune - he cops the whole style!
It's mind-boggling. This is a good point too. Puts a new spin on creation.
Just kinda makes you wanna push him down the stairs. <g>
That'll wipe that damn smirk off his face... :D
-
Emulation to get the vocabulary - after that, do what you will; the importance of jamming for learning to express your musical self seems to me worth a little more emphasis - it can make you "reach" that bit more than you might otherwise do; v interesting thread..
-
Good topic. What I'm looking to absorb from the old music is three things, time on the job, breadth and historical context.
By time on the job I mean I don't get to play out very much, have to pack my playing into evenings and weekends.
By historical context I refer to my not hanging around the corner of Fourth and Beale, drinking white lightning or playing speakeasys. Neether do I ride the rods...
Breadth comes from being able to study all the players I admire. In this respect we have a huge advantage today.
When I get something 'down', at least to my own satisfaction, my own musical personality invariably seeps into it. Having got, say, a nifty little Charley Jordan E lick into my preconscious I'm then free to project it through my own groove sensibilities, make little changes to it, throw it into other songs. This is the colour that, I kid myself, makes it mine.
As for writing original tunes, I don't do it. Somebody said "If you want to become a writer, just write". Time is the problem, and there's no real incentive since I just play for the fun, cameraderie, interest and relaxation of it all.
-
Hi all,
Just a brief point: Frank and Uncle Bud's point about Ari's ability to internalize players' syles to the point where he can speak the language while playing things the original player never played is dead on, and shows a degree of immersion in the music on his part that goes light years beyond "imitation", "re-creation" or any of these other terms we have been bandying about. Ari is his own man, musically, and brings so much to the table in terms of nifty variations of his own added to whatever piece he may be playing that I always find it a treat to hear him. I think he's great.
The piece comparing Theater and Music is really facinating, John C., nice to get those insights from an insider.
All best,
John
-
Gotta love the different tangents this thread takes.
Re: Technology.? Anyone think that using all this technology might be a hindrance to developing ones 'own style'?, a hindrance to making a 'song your own'?? Orville you described how songs used to be learned, and while you did not quite say the above, it seems like that was the direction you were going (without trashing your teaching video? ;) ).? It used to be (20's and 30's) that many more people played musical instruments and presumably many more opportunities to learn the old school way.? Maybe videos and DVD's have just filled the vacuum.
A couple of quotes from the Quote Oracle:
"I never could hardly learn no music by nobody trying to show me..." - Fred McDowell? (and thus a new style is born)
"Lightnin' is the best Lightnin' and Skip is the best Skip" - Lightnin' Hopkins
Which to me seems to sumarize/represent the pinnacle of being a CB player.? So I agree with OMPicker that being a creator is the more worthy endeavor and almost the most difficult!? And I agree with UB (I think it was) that said Alvin Hart is one of the best modern examples of this.
Slack, He's a student, and in fact started out as a music student at a college that had a pretty sophisticated guitar program.? This semester he has switched and become a History major ("They only wanted to teach me what [/i]their idea of jazz guitar was.").?
Ha!?OMPicker, does that ever sound familiar.? My History graduate is back in school (on his own dime) getting some more practical skills in graphic desgin.? ;)
cheers,
slack?
-
"It used to be (20's and 30's) that many more people played musical instruments and presumably many more opportunities to learn the old school way."
i don't have any stats but i kind of wonder about that. tho there was no TV to eat up people's time back then it seems to me that there must be more guitars sold today than at any time in the history of the world. the fact that there are so many custom makers and also a volume of cheap guitars that actually sound pretty good makes me think that an unprecedented amount of people at least own a musical instrument.
but i also think with modern sampling, turntable, computer, etc. ways of making music that young people regard as perfectly valid and normal ways of constructing music (technology again) there is a change in learning methodology. i'm not one to say "the old ways are better" or any old fogey kind of malarkey but i will say that i have? a lot more fun interacting with a human as opposed to a video or a computer.?
-
"It used to be (20's and 30's) that many more people played musical instruments and presumably many more opportunities to learn the old school way."
i don't have any stats but i kind of wonder about that. tho there was no TV to eat up people's time back then it seems to me that there must be more guitars sold today than at any time in the history of the world. the fact that there are so many custom makers and also a volume of cheap guitars that actually sound pretty good makes me think that an unprecedented amount of people at least own a musical instrument.
Well, I don;t have any stats either and I'm not sure where I get that impression - surely I've read it somewhere! ;) ...and I'm talking about a percentage of the population playing eg the poulation was much smaller at the turn of the centruy, no baby boomers, no radio, no TV etc - just seems like more folks would play. Maybe a little research is in order.
cheers,
slack
-
Well, certainly Oscar Schmidt and others like him were cranking out parlor guitars as there was a huge craze across the country. But something else that made a huge difference, at least before the advent of mass marketing by records and radio, was that an individual performer was judged in a much smaller pool. If you were the best guitar player in your county, you were the best guitar player anyone in your county ever heard. Nowadays, to be considered good you have to be compared to the best in the world. So I think the heights seemed more scaleable, an individual might recieve more positive feedback along the way. A young boy who could thump out a beat with a little lick now and then might be greatly appreciated by the local folks who just wanted to dance on the back porch. Today if you walk into a cafe and do a few nicely fingerpicked tunes, someone walks up and says, "Hey, did you see Rory Block at the Freight last week? Man, she's great." Know what I mean? And the current lore seems to be that one must struggle in obscurity for years to "get a break". Attempting to avoid the current Folk vs Pop furor brought on by Elijah Wald, I do think that at the turn of the century there may have been a more supportive atmosphere for anyone, no matter their economic level, to take up a musical instrument for their own enjoyment and that of their neighbors. Art, in general, but particularly music, was more appreciated by the masses on a far less commercial level. My partner, Gre, who is an Orff teacher, works to bring just such a feeling to young children today, and places like Centrum are also struggling to do this kind of work, but commercialism seems to work against it. I hope this ramble doesn't seem too disjointed as I've been back and forth between the computer and our second flood clean up effort of the year. "To cure these blues gonna take a long, long time."
All for now.
John C.
-
Re: Technology. Anyone think that using all this technology might be a hindrance to developing ones 'own style'?, a hindrance to making a 'song your own'?
Opinions?
I am at the point of really digging into videos, gaining an awesome amount of knowledge and technique that I could only gain if I had real lessons from masters (but actual lessons are better of course).
???
Being young, I want to translate the country blues to my early 20s friends. I need my own style. How do technology, videos influence that? ::) ::) ::)
:)
I like the input on jamming and performing (re: Acting and Painting). When you actually share your music, there needs to be originality, a personal touch in some form, in order to connect with your audience. My interpretation from previous posts, thanks for the insights. :)
-
I vote for technology being a help, not a hindrance. Video, manipulating of speeds, etc. is to me kind of the equivalent of being able to walk up to Memphis Minnie and say, Excuse me maam, could you show me that lick you used in Soo Cow?
Seems to me they are learning tools, which then help you emulate, build your vocabulary, etc., etc. Where you go with them from that point is up to your own imagination and inclination.
-
How could a person be drawn to imitate something if they didn't first see something that related to them in some way?? If you already recognized yourself in something, you wouldn't need to "inject yourself", you'd already be there, finding new ways to express yourself through it.
Frankie, that's it! To me that's the essence of the discussion. The creative process in country blues is largely in material selection. By selection of a previously recorded piece to imitate or perform, you've made a creative decision, an expression of yourself. If you write your own material to play your selection of it is your creative decision. Both of these options gives the listener some incite into you, the performer. Material selection.
In 1929 (that year again) Besse Smith recorded Nobody Knows You When You're Down and Out, perhaps the classic down-and-out depression blues. However she didn't write the song, Jimmy Cox did. She probably didn't arrange or conduct it either. She was a re-creative singer recreating another persons song, probably from sheet music. The creative part for her was material selection and performance. She made it her own, just like Johnm did with Church Bell Blues so long ago and frankie is doing with Snigglin'
I don't try to learn Son House tunes, even though I realize that they are great pieces of music. They just don't happen to appeal to me. That tells you something about me (I don't know what!)
I got to thinking about John Hurt after Orville's comments. And of course he (MJH) is an almost unique example. In his 1928 recordings he expressed the results of his creative efforts in the preceding years which yielded the tunes he recorded at that time. However at the time of his rediscovery in the 60s he was still playing mostly the same tunes with very similar arrangements. He was in fact at that point a re-creative musician, recreating himself! I suspect that is why that kid Orville mentioned had a MJH tattoo (how cool is that!) and not a Clifford Gibson one, MJH was able to re-create his tunes on modern (relatively) recording technology, with a better instrument, making his music accessible to the average listener who did not want to plow through the static.
The many (most?) of the?recorded 20s and 30s country bluesmen were commercial musicians, deriving all or part of there income from performing music, either on the street, at parties, medicine shows or fees for recording. The creative process had pressure on it, pressure to come up with tunes that would move the public to stop and listen (and throw some money your way), dance or buy your record (so the record company would ask you back). Expressing oneself was a distinctly secondary (or tertiary) consideration. These guys (in my opinion) weren't folk musicians, they were professionals. Borrowing was not only essential for their musical development, it was good business, familiarity (especially in lyrics) breeding recognition. I'll bet that no one, passing a bluesman on a street corner in Clarksdale, Miss. in 1928 said "Oh, that guy's not playing original material, I won't stop."
It seems to me, in this day and age, creativity and originality have become synonimis (sp). The cover artist is really looked down upon. This is the age of the singer-songwriter, where the only way to be creative is to drag ones angst out via original songs. Rubbish! Tim Williams, a great (really great) acoustic bluesman from my neck-of-the-woods, often remarks about how he is dismissed when he goes to solo artist workshops because his repertoire is 80% covers (he dosen't care).
BTW, I agree with OMpicker that technology is a great help. To "make a song your own" you gotta learn the song!
Great discussion,
Alex
-
i don't have any stats but i kind of wonder about that. tho there was no TV to eat up people's time back then it seems to me that there must be more guitars sold today than at any time in the history of the world.
I think the relationship between musicians and listeners has changed over the years. In the early part of the 20th century, if you wanted to hear a tune, you basically had to seek out someone who could play. Nowadays, with the hyper-availability of recorded music, a live musician is viewed in the same way as a guy at a party who puts a lampshade on his head: at best, amusing for a moment and at worst, embarrassing and better ignored.
I'm tempted to edit that last bit out, as it sounds more cynical than I'm wont to be. Ahhh, what the hell... how often do I get in touch with my inner grouch?
-
I struggle to keep my inner grouch in check when discussing this topic as well. And I think you're saying the same thing I was talking about, Frank, when I said that all performers are now judged against the best in the world as a standard. Unless they think you're somebody famous you don't get a listen from most. But there are lots of folks out there who will stop and listen, who understand the importance of live art at any level. Which brings me to something Pyro mentioned, above, about early blues artists being commercial because they played songs solely because they thought people would like them, and therefore they were not "folk" artists. This sounds a lot like Elijah Wald's current "groundbreaking" work. (sarcasm added) I haven't read the whole book yet, but my big question is: what IS a "folk" artist. Pyro seems to imply that folk artists only play what comes from their heart. Admirable, but I don't think that's entirely realistic. Calt has an addendum to his Patton book in which he ridicules David Evans' attempt to define Folk Music as the music of a "Folk" or a certain demographic group of people, i.e. rural southern blacks. But I can't imagine anyone playing music that didn't have an underlying psychological need for others to be attracted, and to hear and appreciate. For instance, much folk music seems to be dance music, passed on from generation to generation. Wouldn't a young fiddler learn the most popular dance tunes first? Whoops, by Wald's definition then, he would be a slick professional. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there seems to be a long gradation with much overlap from "Folk" to "Pop", whereas Wald and others act like there is a huge difference, black and white, one or the other. I think you could be folk and pop to a certain extent. Why are they mutually exclusive? What one has to remember is that these are "Pop" writers trying to sell as many books as possible, as opposed to academicians who face a peer review. So sensationalism is primary. As is this Oedipal need to destroy existing ideas, by misrepresenting them, instead of building upon them. It galls me to read something to the effect of: "Scholars" think that all bluesmen were walking barefoot down a dusty road with a guitar on their backs. (not a quote, but almost) I've read quite a few books on blues lately, both scholarly and pop, and I haven't seen such a sentiment anywhere. Perhaps he means pop magazine writers instead of scholars? I just feel that this inflamatory language is meant to appeal to adolescents who are in the throes of individuation and are attracted to "revolutionnary" statements. Certainly Wald and other Pop writers know that it is these youths who supply the lions share of money spent on music and books about music. "Every thing you know about the blues is Wrong!" starts one recent review, but in the last paragraph Wald admits, a large part of his intended audience is those who have never heard of Kokomo Arnold. Well, dang, my grouch did get out. So, anybody think I'm all wet? Trying to reading Calt and Wald back to back has nearly done me in.
Pyro, I love what you said about choice of material. That is probably my biggest concern in deciding what to learn next.
All for now.
John C.
-
And I think you're saying the same thing I was talking about, Frank, when I said that all performers are now judged against the best in the world as a standard.
I think so, except I'm not sure I'd characterize all that stuff as 'best' - I'm not sure why the latest EC album ought to be relevant at all to what I do or don't do, but there's plenty of people willing to line up on one side or another of some imaginary line and start arguing about it.? It's not that I like or don't like EC...? I just don't think he matters at all to me.? The Bad Livers are way more relevant to me & how I live my life.
Trying to reading Calt and Wald back to back has nearly done me in.
I haven't read the Wald book, yet, but I understand how Calt can get to you.
-
I think one of the things that is tough about making "Mississippi Blues" come alive is that it is so beautifully conceived that there can be a tendency to want to make it "exquisite".? I think that, combined with the fact that it was transcribed very early on has sort of relegated it to a?"set piece purgatory", as kind of the Country Blues version of "Stairway to Heaven".? Of course, it doesn't have to be that way--it's a great piece.? It just seems like it could use a version in which someone newly figured it out by ear, arrived at some different left-hand solutions, missed some of the details and added some new ones of his or her own--I just realized I'm describing the way that John Jackson played it.? Did you ever hear it?? It was great.? Sometimes I think with the absolute warhorses you have a better chance of bringing them to life with a quick and dirty version, not figured out too carefully.?
I'm responding to John's post in this thread, because it seems to me to speak to some of the issues brought up here, I'd rather not hijack waxwing's Willie Brown thread, and it's a good excuse to revive an old discussion.
I've never heard John Jackson play Mississippi Blues, but he had such interesting ways of playing what can only be described as "CB standards".? I remember being mesmerized by his Red River Blues when I was at PT.
Re:? exquisite - I think you're right about that.? The music I like best has a touch and tone that's pretty far south of "exquisite".? The impulse to "beautify" CB is one of the things I like least in a lot of current players.? Of course, going in the opposite direction winds up sounding like affectation.? It's a tough balancing act, that's for sure.
Of course, then you stand the chance of having all the people in the know say, "It doesn't go that way."? Oh well.
Hey...? that would be us.? Screw us.
-
Frank, I don't know how to quote other people's messages, but with regard to this particular issue, "Screw us" says it all, as far as I'm concerned. You called a spade a bloody shovel.
All best,
Johnm
-
Hi all,
Figured we had been stuck on that last message long enough. This is a semi-response to Frank's idea on "covers + + ". I hope all who are so inclined will take the time to come up with their own versions of "Nobody Knows You When You're Down And Out" or "Don't Fish In My Sea". Onward and upward--Excelsior!
All best,
Johnm
-
Hi All:
This is an interesting thread!? I like John C.'s comments on the way that performers were judged and supported now vs then.? I think that it's clear that modern recordings, TV and other media provide somewhat universal set of models to us.? On the one hand, we have access to a wide variety of different styles, genres and sub-genres of music.? On the other hand, mainstream, popular music presents much more limited models stylistically.? Isn't it amazing how many Brittany Spears, Madonna, Whitney Houston etc. wannabees we have seen in recents years?? "Star Search" is just lousy with people who are all trying for the same sound.
It seems to me that before the widespread emergence of recordings and other media, individual performance was probably much more encouraged.? After all, people wanted music to sing along with and dance to, and the only way to get that was through local performers.? It makes sense that people would have been encouraged to play and to work to improve if they showed any potential at all.? I think that nowadays, people are often discouraged from performing ("you stink, buddy!") if their efforts aren't similar to or to the standard of what people hear in popular recordings.?
One of the things that I enjoyed about the Workshop this summer was the encouraging, supportive atmosphere and inclusiveness of the experience.? Everyone is encouraged to participate and people are very eager to share what they know with other people.? I think that this is an important part of keeping the country blues alive.
-
Folks,
This question I have been contemplating for many years. I will never be Reverend Gary Davis or Robert Wilkins or Blind Boy Fuller or Blind Willie McTell or Blind Blake or Blind Willie Johnson or ... Why should I feel the need to reproduce their music note-for-note? All of these players either borrowed from one another or built upon the technique of others that came before them. Why should we be any different? Their music stands by itself. It is recorded for posterity and is not likely to be lost in the future shuffle. Thus from that standpoint we need not be living recorders passing the gospel truth on to future generations. If we don't build upon their work and take it further on down the road then what does that make us?
Pic
-
I think this is somewhat of a moot question. Certainly, it's important to build on the work, maybe it is the most important thing, because only by building on the work will country blues continue to be a living art form. However, I think that if you strive to merely reproduce it - you are indeed re-interpreting it. For most of us that is, because of the difficulty and by definition, the very personal nature of solo performance. I suppose, if you are a professional putting in lots of time you can come very close to playing the music how it was originally played... but the pros always put in their own interpretation.
It's the great thing about country blues. You can work and strive to recreate as closely as possible the original work. Or you can take a few ideas of the original and come up with something completely different --- or anything in between. It's all good. :D
-
Hi NevadaPic,
Always a tantalizing question. See this thread http://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/index.php?amp;Itemid=114&topic=272.0
for some more thoughts on the matter.
Cheers,
Andrew
(note: these two topics are now merged)
-
For me there is no choice becasue I"m not good enough to reproduce. :)
-
I think there's plenty room for any approach to playing the blues. The only thing that matters, as with every other music or art is 'is it any good?' I've never heard an approach to blues that I out & out hated but I've hated certain performances.
The note for note reproduction take is important I think because, for me, the blues as I know & love it is becoming more & more the music of history. I may be in the minority but I believe the blues golden age is gone . . . probably long gone. I don't mean to belittle any of the modern/contemporary players (hell, I'm one of 'em!) but the likes of Patton or Muddy do not exist any more. So . . . I play for my own reasons I guess.
-
Ah, the old ones, like chestnuts, are the best ones :D
Unless one has the talent to produce a note for job I would think the best most of us can hope for is a rendition "in the style of... " and if during that rendition a bit happened to sound about right then that's what it's all about, well at least as far as my guitar playing goes!
I know I may bang on about jazz, but the paralell is there albeit with a difference - in that generally, instead just as slavishly producing a copy of an original, a jazzer will tend to pick out the trademark licks from thier favourite musicians and incorportate them into thier own renditions whilst still "in the style of...."
Now that is not to say that some things must not be learnt by rote, for example the clarinet solo from High Society... so with that in mind if you were say, a Lonnie Johnson fan and played "in the syle of..." just add the odd well placed original lick and your audience would never know the difference :P
All that side, it would be nice to have the talent to do a note for note.... but then maybe we just have to settle for what (musically!) gives us pleasure.
-
I think you have to keep in mind there are two elements to the music. Vocals and accompaniment. I think even if we exactly reproduce the accompaniment note for note there is still the element of the vocals. For most of us that is going to be very different then the original Country Blues record. This harkens back to an earlier discussion we've had here about vocals, and whether you should sing in your own voice, accent, etc or should try to reproduce the recorded vocals or some approximation of it.
I think there is a time and a place for both but I think in a performance situation people don't want to hear a "correct cover" but yet your own take on the song, especially if it is one that is pretty widely familiar.
This is a great subject for discussion.
Mark
-
Hi all
I have been struggling with this with myself for a while.
There are times when I want the tune that I am playing to sound exactly like Big Bill, Rev Gary, Blind Boy Fuller.
There are also times when I want to emulate the variation played by Hot Tuna, Roy Book Binder, Dave Van Ronk, etc...
In the end, I invariably end up sounding like a mixture of all of the above combined with my own techniques.
Dave
-
Ah the 'Hamlet' thread again. As in 'To be, or not to be, that is the question'. Hamlet was screwed because he couldn't accept the two exist quite happily side by side. ;D
It's relevant, particularly if you want to be an 'artist' and get out there, play, sing and make a name for yourself, but it's kinda moot, or mute ;). Performers want/need to differentiate themselves and hope the public likes the difference so they can, among other things, get a crowd and sell 'product'. Nobody will ever sound exactly like the original, and at the same time everybody will always sound a little like the original, more or less.
Such thoughts have absolutely no bearing on my playing and never will, I'll always sound like me even if I play some passage note for note. As for concepts often ascribed to blues like sincerity, emotion, feeing... honestly if you met a real blues person and asked them about such stuff most wouldn't know what you're talking about. Though they may embody it to the listener, it's an illusion. If you feel such emotion though I say 'go for it'!
When you're 'on', you're 'on', period. The trick is being 'on' more often than not. That has nothing to do with consciously trying to be or not be something. Such thoughts are liable to get in the way. The mind has to be clear to play well, and that's where it starts for me, in the mind. It can then work its way down to my gut if I'm playing well and generating a good bio-feedback loop. As in 'I sound good, which makes me feel good, which makes me play better, which makes me feel even better, which...' and so on.
Having said that I can consciously dial-in a copy of some stuff. To do so I have to stop my fingers doing things outside that frame. This is a really good exercise especially if you rate the original player's musical taste more than your own inclinations and bad habits. Surely you do rate them highly since you're trying to learn from them. I do this a lot when I'm learning a new piece or copping licks. But once I have it down I know I'm going to change it slightly, throw it into all kinds of places it's never been.
I'm no Hamlet, I'm a 'to be and not to be' guy. I embrace both and believe I'm limiting myself if I lock-in to one or the other. True individuation is not achieved by thinking about it.
-
and even then it's kinda moot, or mute ;).
Thank you former English teacher - I've corrected. ;)
-
Fellas,
Thanks for the thoughts. I wasn't sure if I was going to be 'toasted' for bringing it up or not. I guess in hindsight it is a moot question, certainly in my case anyways. I should have dug a little deeper in the 'archives', I didn't realize that this had already been covered. Thanks Andrew for pointing me to the original thread and 'Hi!' back at ya!
I've got to admit that I am impressed with players reproducing a tune exactly (or nearly so) as the original. Yet on the other hand when I hear a new interpretation of a song that outdoes (to my ears) the original it is even more impressive. Blind Willie Johnson's "If I Had My Way I'd Tear the Building Down" vs. The Reverend Gary Davis's "Samson and Delilah" springs to mind. It's all so subjective though.
Pic
-
I've got to admit that I am impressed with players reproducing a tune exactly (or nearly so) as the original. Yet on the other hand when I hear a new interpretation of a song that outdoes (to my ears) the original it is even more impressive.
And conversely. A slavish reproduction of a great original arrangement is much preferred over a new arrangement that sucks. ;D
-
The audience for this music is virtually non-existent. I think when many people actually hear it performed, they like it a lot. It's fun music. But the only people who would notice a note-for-note reproduction are those who make up the miniscule percentage of the miniscule country blues audience who play guitar and know enough about it to notice. Three or four people. ;D So while the question is not quite moot, it's damn close. You can pretty much do what you want.
That said, my problem is when players start using the "creative interpretation" line as an excuse to deliver at best mediocre versions of country blues material. The point's been made before but is always worth reiterating: Learning to reproduce, at least to some degree, the original versions of the music makes you a better player, gives you deeper insight into the form(s) and the feel of the music for when you do start playing your own versions. I would guess the majority of the revivalists who play this music did this. Paul Geremia, Alvin Youngblood Hart, Ari Eisinger, Corey Harris, whoever. They've paid close attention to the original songs, they may not perform them that way now, but they've done their homework. For the guy sitting at home just amusing himself in his spare time by playing guitar, do what moves you, I say. You may be happy simply goofing around with great tunes, or nailing a Stefan Grossman tablature for a song (but going no further) or writing your own new tune. Whatever makes your tail wag.
But when it's someone who's performing (as in charging me money), or putting out a CD, then the bar should be much higher. And I either want to hear someone who is a natural just doing what they do and is a pleasure because of it, or I want someone who's done their homework and taken it to the next level. While I will always try to give a player the benefit of the doubt and try to be generous in my reception of any performance because I know that just getting up on stage is hard, deep down I think I really object to someone sucking. As one of these revivalists once said, "Wake up mama, turn your amp down low..."
markm brings up the other hugely important point that is central to this discussion IMO but that we guitarists always tend to forget. This is vocal music. That can take a lot of homework too, or can come naturally to some, but whatever, it makes all the difference to me as a listener.
Anyway, aim high, I say.
-
Anyway, aim high, I say.
And speaking of Ari Eisinger. ;) Ari has for years been recognized as tops in interpreting Blind Blake, who many consider the top east coast picker, ever. While Ari does plenty of Blake's licks, he also does plenty, out of his huge palate of licks, that Blake never played -- and you would not know it unless you were one of the 3 or 4 CB or Blake enthusiasts that Andrew mentions.
-
markm brings up the other hugely important point that is central to this discussion IMO but that we guitarists always tend to forget. This is vocal music. That can take a lot of homework too, or can come naturally to some, but whatever, it makes all the difference to me as a listener.
It is vocal music and it makes all the difference in the world. The story telling that is the lyrics is really what it's all about I guess. There has always been something unsatisfying about purely instrumental music for me. I would rather listen to an opera sung in Italian than Mozart or Beethoven.
Good vocals, good lyrics and good instrumental backup make the music - any style of music. I have always maintained that everybody has their voice. He or she just has to find it and work with what they have.Anyway, aim high, I say.
You know it!
Pic
-
What do the following august organizations have in common?
Society for Seventeenth Century Music
Vox Saeculorum
Gregorian Association
Lute Society
Catgut Acoustical Society (I?m not making this up.)
WeenieCampbell.com
All of them are in the same racket: preserving old music in its original form, so that (in our specific case) groups of people in the year 2508 can get together, eat barbecue, interpret Geeshie Wiley lyrics, and generally rediscover for themselves the nuances of a form of music whose heyday was several centuries prior.
We?and those at PTCBW 2508?have and will have one humongous advantage over current fans of Early and Renaissance music who want to copy and perform the original compositions note-for-note: we have recordings. Knowing that we have those recordings opens the door for all kinds of experimentation, since we can reproduce the originals whenever we want.
So someone like Corey Harris can let some Malian guitar licks sneak into his blues, and also do a great note-for-note version of ?Boats Up the River? in the same performance.
The range of players that y?all are talking about will probably exist after we?re long gone?hobbyists who want to copy note-for-note, those who want to learn styles instead of individual tunes, those who want to experiment, and the crazy ones who think they can make a living playing country blues.
There are a lot of ?Ancient Music Societies? around the world. The radio station I worked at several epochs ago had a news/classical music format. That?s where I learned that in 1740 there was an ?Ancient Music Society? in England that specialized in preserving authentic reproductions of 16th century madrigals. That's a great example of direct transmission, the same thing that many of our elders have done for us over in the Schoolhouse.
Lindy
-
Hi all:
The thread Andrew quoted above ( one of the best in the history of Weeniecampbell IMHO) states by views on this matter in considerable (too much?) detail. Leave us to say that I am firmly on the side of recreation (vs creation). I have seen (and heard) so much "#%&@*" played and put out on record in the name of "making it your own" that I guess I've become jaded.
Musicians who try to recreate have my undying respect because 1) they respect the craft, 2) are learning more "tools" for their "toolbox" of CB and 3) bless their hearts, they never (well, Ari) succeed and thus (inadvertently) produce new takes on old material.
I can accept (but not agree with) the point of view that "I don't want to learn from the old guys, that's fine. I have less (almost no) sympathy for "I'm not good enough to recreate" (a self fulfilling prophesy) or "Why should I recreate, the old guys didn't" ( many good reasons why you should at least try, and maybe some of the old guys did, and virtually all did to some degree).
In the end, if you put your music out for public consumption (except for the Back Porch) for pay (live or CD), in my humble opinion the music will speak for itself. But, if you please, don't put out lesser efforts just to "make it your own".
Won't cut it with me.
Alex
-
The two topics are now merged since they are identical and complimentary.
lindy said:
That?s where I learned that in 1740 there was an ?Ancient Music Society? in England that specialized in preserving authentic reproductions of 16th century madrigals
Jeez lindy that's pretty amazing, I didn't know that.
-
I had a conversation earlier this evening with a classical cellist who teaches at one of the big time Manhattan music schools concerning the subject of this thread. I asked her what would be likely to happen if suddenly every single score of the Bach unaccompanied Cello suites disappeared irretrievably off the face of the earth and the only means of learning the music was from a few recordings? I asked whether players would feel obligated to copy the playing on the recording exactly, in effect treating it as a score, or would she expect significant variations in interpretation? To my surprise I learned that there were several editions of the scores published, each containing differences from preceding editions, and that cellists could play one or another of these as they saw fit. But even more surprising was her insistence that there was likely to be a wide spread of interpretations, as she claims is already the case even with the existence of the score, and that as far as she was concerned this was all to the good. In her view the musician's self expression was every bit as important as the idea of faithfulness to the score. One can of course conjecture what the response would have been had the recording been of Bach himself playing the pieces or of Bach supervising a cellist playing them. There are however recordings of Stravinsky conducting his works, and subsequent recordings by other conductors that are held to be as good or to be improvements. I own several sets of the Bach Cello suites : Janos Starker, Christopher Coin, Frederick Baumann maybe one or two more. None is as different one to the other as any Gary Davis take of Samson and Delilah is to say, Peter, Paul & Mary's loathsome version, but they do construct very different experiences from essentially the same music.
Prior to this conversation I had already formed the opinion that a classical musicians approach to the Blues, such as I imagined Ari Eisenger's to be (with the addition of an equal concern for vocal presentation), was necessary to carry performance of this music hundreds of years into the future. Now I'm not so sure. Go figure.
I have been thinking about this subject for years. Its been wonderful to stumble on a
fully developed, thoughtful and intelligent discussion of the subject.
BTW far from despising Peter, Paul & Mary's recording, Gary Davis benefited greatly from it and referred to his house in Jamaica as "the house that Peter,Paul & Mary built". It still makes me wanna puke though, like everything they ever did.
-
Hey Muck, I'll hold Peter, Paul & Mary down & you hit em again >:D
It occured to me while rereading the thread that there is only one criteria for performing blues, something I stated earlier & something that applies to all music: it has to be GOOD. I dare say that the staunch recreationists, if they heard a particularly talented musician be creative with a hallowed standard, would be duly impressed & satisfied . . . but GOOD is a tricky thing & would be as personal to each as their definition of beauty. Blues = Good to me when the artist shows knowledge of the form, respect for the already established virtues but plays the music in a loose & familiar way, FROM the tradition & not necessarily IN. I can take someone's IN playing for a while & be impressed & entertained but if they don't play FROM, don't show that they too are bluesmen & blueswomen & not just impersonators than it doesn't hold my attention for very long. The blues are a S.O.B that way. I find that there are a lot of musicians from other genres that would make great blues musicians in their feel & approach & personalities . . . but if they don't know the licks & the rhythms then they won't cut it. When Kurt Cobain did Leadbelly's 'Where Did You Sleep Last Night' my intial thought was, 'What a passionate, gut-wrenching performance . . . too bad he can't play blues guitar'. I do think our music is suffering from a too clinical approach. I believe TABbed blues is a slippery slope & should be used sparingly or not at all. Of course it has aided in a revived interest in the guitar styles of the pre-war players so there you go . . .
-
Another aspect of this is when, say, Fred McDowell was learning to play, as he said himself, he listened to Blind Willie Johnson 78s, and I would guess a limited number of others. We have the whole history of recorded music at our disposal. Not only that we have the ways, means and tools to educate ourselves about any given form. Contrast that with, say, Lemon's musical education.
If you work at note-for-note transcriptions today you have a big advantages re. access to material, teachers and musical knowledge, and likewise the same applies if you are a cherry-picker like I tend to be. The differences appear in repertoire, when performing or playing in company. I was entranced listening to Wax and Andrew playing Lemon, Leadbelly and Patton tunes up in Wax's room at Port T this year. They conjured up the true spirit of the songs on those old instruments and it was magical. I wouldn't be able to do that, more fool me for my lack of application. But I know how to do some other stuff.
It might be possible perhaps to develop a list of the pros and cons of the two approaches that distills the discussion down to its essence. If you could quickly see the possible benefits of both approaches you could chose to work with one or other for a stretch of time with the goal of balancing out your playing.
-
Wow, I wonder what a symphony orchestra would sound like if every instrument decided to recompose their own part?. Heh, conductors would be suiciding left and right. Audiences would be staying away in droves. But even playing all the same notes, one orchestra can do an entirely different "interpretation" of a piece than another. The conductor's approach, and the emotionality of each player can create an entirely different experience on the part of the audience. yet for those in the "you must slavishly change notes" camp none of that is part of "interpretation". Only changing the notes counts?
I mean, don't real creative musicians start with a blank sheet and write their own songs and music (if you really want to get macho about it)? Those wimps who only change some notes around are still stealing the song, right?What's the difference if you steal a little or steal a lot? I can just hear the blues police. "Well, Bob, you only changed 10% of the notes and that doesn't qualify as 'your' arrangement. And besides, the notes you stuck in there all came from someone else. So you can't play that song here until you change more of the notes, like say 30%."
Do we always have to have the word "slavish" before the word recreation? How 'bout the word "loving" instead?
Sure, in terms of copyright laws, if you change the arrangement of a song enough, you can actually make a claim of copyright and call it yours, even if you stole all the turnarounds from RJ. But anyone who can put themselves in the emotional place of the singer of the song, sing the words with honest feeling, and can sell that song to an audience, and move that audience to an emotional place, owns that song, whether they happen to have changed a few notes or not.
I was once criticized by someone for imitating the originals too closely on some of my songs. The other ones were fine, tho'. 'Course, that was because he didn't know the originals of those so he didn't have his "yardstick" to measure how many notes I had changed to be able to apply his totally intellectual rule. The songs worked for him if he wasn't comparing them to the original. Ear of the beholder, maybe? It is unfortunate that some can only judge someone else's interpretation by assessing how many notes have been changed and not from the emotional interpretation.
Another example. I play Mississippi Blues (OH God, not another one, right?). Well, I decided to get a little creative in the breaks and I sorta syncopated and added some slides into positions to the standard verse and added some stuff to the boogie part on one break, too. Whenever I played the song for real blues nuts, I always got all excited, thinking they would notice. Nope, never got a peep outa anyone. Just made me ridiculously self conscious when I was playing my parts. Fortunately, the non-educated folks I normally perform for love it, even with the slavish reinterpretations. Probably gets more mentions than any song I play.
Do whatever feels right for you. I think squabbling about whether players should or shouldn't change some notes around is silly. Whatever works for you, brings you to the music in your heart, is the right path for you. Maybe that path will change with time. But why do we have to point fingers at others and say what they do isn't real blues?
Okay, I was trying to stay away from this thread, but I woke up with a little extra time this morning.-G-
All for now.
John C.
-
To my surprise I learned that there were several editions of the scores published, each containing differences from preceding editions, and that cellists could play one or another of these as they saw fit. But even more surprising was her insistence that there was likely to be a wide spread of interpretations, as she claims is already the case even with the existence of the score, and that as far as she was concerned this was all to the good. In her view the musician's self expression was every bit as important as the idea of faithfulness to the score.
That comment nudges me to say what I left out from my post yesterday: I know better than to claim that the first recorded versions of the songs we love to emulate are *the* definitive versions. I love that quote from Jerry Ricks about how he would think that he "had" a song, then hear the original player do the same song in person and think "I didn't have *that*!"
But we're still in better shape than classical players who would like to figure out some old scores of music written by people other than the Bachs and Resphigis and other heavyweights, with the hope of finding some forgotten or overlooked plums. Where we benefit the most -- and, I think, what also stands as a great argument for experimentation -- is where we have multiple recordings over the course of several decades from the same artist. Rev. Gary Davis, Furry Lewis, and Bukka White immediately come to mind. Some of them *must've* gotten tired playing the same songs the same way, and therefore messed around with their arrangements. And they could play their later versions for longer than 3 minutes, giving them all kinds of space to play with.
Lindy
-
that brings me to the point of "exact replication"
I doubt anyone can attest to being able to replciate it exactly..
Rev. Gary Davis never played a song the same way, heck, he varied it from verse to verse in the same recording.
All of the early artists varied the tunes to suit the environment. Shortening it for recordings, lengthening it for dance parties, etc..
Who is to say which version is the "correct version".
what really bugs the heck out of me is when someone posts their effort at a tune for comments (Big Bill for example)
The immediate reaction is:
"you need to add more bass" "not bad, but add more driving bass to sound like Bill" and other similar comments...
The person did not ask for comments regarding how closely it matched the original...
They were asking for input on the performance!!
DAVE
-
Wax, you must not have been playing Mississippi Blues for the right three or four people. ;) (I don't know that I'd notice a change, but possibly - I'll listen more closely next time. ;)) Anyway, I think that putting in your own break(s) is exactly the right instinct. Why be self-conscious? You've obviously mastered playing it and can now fool around with it. I don't know that it's the best example of a song though, since it really is such a set piece.
The classical analogy is a worthwhile one, but there is the score, of course -- various editions, as noted, some considered more authoritative than others. A classical player is not likely to take a sonata by Mozart, change the key because he or she is more comfortable playing it there, maybe take that movement in 3/4 time and change it to 4/4 etc. Interpretations can certainly vary dramatically, and classical fans can go on way longer than us blues nerds about the merits of this or that performance. And be much more opinionated about it too. :D Also depends on the style. Baroque music is more open to interpretation than later periods where composers began to include many more playing instructions with dynamics, tempi, accents, many in an attempt to force the players to play it exactly like this or that etc. But still, in classical music the overall framework is there, the notes are mostly all written down. Ornamentation can vary from baroque performer to performer, there are "improvised" cadenzas in concertos, but on the whole the musical framework is set. Some people take that framework and just do more with it, or less.
Blues is certainly much more interpretative and subject to change, reworking, rewriting, or improvisation (only a possibility, of course, not a rule). But unless one wants to run things through the pablumizer that makes modern blues so bloody boring, I think a somewhat "classical" approach to learning the language and styles of country blues is important for me and I'd say for a good number of others. We are not Robert Belfour (and even he learned from trying to copy John Lee Hooker records). Or John Cephas (who learned from copying Blind Boy Fuller records and Skip James records). Or John Jackson (who learned from copying Blind Blake and Jimmie Rodgers and many other records). I can claim no connection to the culture that brought about the blues other than my love of the music, my desire to play it and my immense respect for the people that made it. I'm not black, live in the wrong country, have high-speed internet, enjoy learning to cook the cuisines of the world. I'm not likely to be mistaken for your typical Mississippi bluesman from the 1920s or today.
I also have access to way more of the music, different styles and musical distractions. Some people can leap more quickly and naturally into developing their own style. I'm not there yet myself, which is part of the reason I'm still learning to copy rather than create, most of the time.
-
This is an interesting topic so I'll toss in my 2 cents worth with some thoughts and opinions... Firstly, I think blues has become a traditional/folk music while in its early days it was a pop or professionally performed contemporary music. (I feel that bluegrass has had a similar evolution.)
I believe to perform the music with credibility, one has to have put in their time doing homework. While I think learning/performing note perfect arrangements is good homework and crucial to learning the style, carbon copies don't always make for soulful performances. (Interestingly, as much as someone like Eric Clapton might get dissed by the hardcore CB community, he certainly did his homework as did a number of other English blues/rock guitarists. And they certainly made a point of celebrating their heroes when they first came to tour in the US)
This music has become mainly an instrumental style. Unfortunately few revivalists have vocal abilities that do justice to the style. I'm still waiting for the "Sing Like King Solomon Hill" DVD to come out!
My favorite CB artists have done their homework and then speak in their own distinctive voices. (and carry the music forward) Folks like Jo Anne Kelly, Paul Geremia, Alvin Youngblood Hart, and Madison, WI street performer Catfish Stephenson come to mind.
Country blues enthusiasts with an esoteric knowledge of the music are few in number. (And they don't spend lots of money compared to other blocks of music fans) Most folks listening just want to have a good time with their music and aren't overly knowledgeable about the music. (Now that is traditional!)
-
This music has become mainly an instrumental style.
Has become? It certainly has been defined that way (and as a guitar-centric music) based on the "instructional materials" available. It's unfortunate that so many people who play & listen to it see it that way. It's up to the next generation of fans & players to either perpetuate that particular myth or dispose of it.
In my opinion, the best players (and listeners!) absolutely do *not* hew to that particular notion.
-
Has become, was not... A number of the first generation recorded blues musicians were virtuoso singers and pickers. I can only think of a few practicing OT blues revivalists that are outstanding vocalists. The revival has arguably centered on instrumental styles. There are a few fine singers and certainly a few that appreciate good vocals but I will still argue that it is not a priority for the majority. I'm still waiting for the "Sing Like Crying Sam Collins" video!
-
that brings me to the point of "exact replication"
I doubt anyone can attest to being able to replciate it exactly..
Rev. Gary Davis never played a song the same way, heck, he varied it from verse to verse in the same recording.
All of the early artists varied the tunes to suit the environment. Shortening it for recordings, lengthening it for dance parties, etc..
Who is to say which version is the "correct version".
Dave, you took the words right out of my mouth. I have about five different versions of the Reverend's 'Samson and Delilah'. They are all different and I love each and everyone one of them. Blues is improvisation. How it comes out on any given day really depends upon the performers mood and situation just as you point out.
Your other comments are also well taken. I really admire the singing and playing of many blues artists both country and Chicago blues. They inspire me. I will be successful when my own self comes through in my performance in such a way that is pleasing to others hearing it.
Pic
-
"I will be successful when my own self comes through in my performance in such a way that is pleasing to others hearing it".
That is a great line. Nicely said.
-
outstanding vocalists
I don't think instructional videos have much to do with this, but being an "outstanding vocalist" is not really my point. I don't think I would call Clifford Gibson an "outstanding vocalist," but change him just a little, and he's no longer the Clifford Gibson I dig. Seems like there are some pretty ossified attitudes out there in blues-land about what a "good voice" is. This seems to produce guys who either sound like an unholy mixture of Michael Bolton and the cookie monster (in an attempt to reproduce the way they imagine Son House to sound), or don't put any thought into it at all and putt their way through their sung verses on the way to their next exciting guitar break ('cause that's the way they imagine John Hurt or Blind Blake to sound).
There are a lot of voices in the historical record - if we (as a group of players) started to pay attention (and listen), we'd all eventually find our own. In my opinion, there's very little that's more lame than a bunch of instrumental "blues."
I'm completely unwilling to accept any kind of definition of country blues as an "instrumental music," except as a description of the attitude of a particular segment of fans.
-
I'm in the vocalist camp. As I said earlier everyone has their voice. You just have to find it and work with it. Have ya ever heard Tom Waits sing for crying out loud? Closer to home I wouldn't say that Blind Willie Johnson has an outstanding voice but he SINGS nevertheless. Some folks find the Reverend Gary Davis's voice grating (not me) but he SINGS also. It's only the latter day media that has tried to change our perception about what singing is. Make a noise in this world and SING! Does the robin on the tree pass judgment about his/her song? SING!
-
Perhaps we need a vocal thread..Outstanding vocals can mean many things. I don't think it is the quality of the voice that makes it outstanding. It is how you use it. Having a pure, clean sound is not required but if one wants to sing the blues there are definitely vocal techniques and qualities that would make it "blues" singing rather than opera, pop or country style singing. I bring up the instructional videos because I think it is an indicator of what folks want. I bet if CB students were really wanting vocal oriented educational materials, they would start to show up.
I have not been, but are there many workshops on blues vocals offered at Pt Townsend or Augusta? Of the posters here, how many really have spent considerable effort trying to sing as well as play in the style? (If so what have you done?)
-
I don't know. What comes out is authentic in any case. Outstanding is like most everything else we discuss here, a matter of opinion. I will never be an outstanding singer, blues or otherwise, but I will sing them nevertheless. Didn't Robert Johnson sing to the wall with the mike behind him 'cause he thought he couldn't sing? Or was that Jimi Hendrix or both of them? I don't think either one of them took singing lessons or felt the need to. I do make the effort to sing such as it is. Singing in the style goes with the playing. Another jazz player comes to mind Mose Allison. Outstanding vocalist? Probably not. But he sang lot a bird nevertheless...
Pic
PS. poymando, thanks for the kinds words!
-
I would think that teaching someone to sing the blues would be a hell of a lot harder than teaching them to play them on the guitar. I love that quotation from James Brown where he says everyone lost their individuality & style after Mariah Carey & Whitney Huston. I'm constantly listening to vocalists & the art of popular singing has really gone downhill. Rock singers, punk singers, R&B singers, singer-songwriters have never sounded so empty & derivative as they now do. In the rock world the last great singers were from the 'grunge' era. People like Chris Cornell & Eddie Vedder have been copied so much - & poorly - it's unbelievable. There's a vocal trend right now amongst female folky-pop singers that is unbearable. It's like a pixie Billie Holiday. A singer like Christina Aguilera is quite impressive (that girl's got some pipes) but the ridiculous amount of notes & tricks at the end of her vocal lines is just tasteless. Can you teach taste?
-
You know it man. A case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCIyzNISw1Q
The Godfather and Pavarotti. I love 'em both but I don't think James Brown ever had classical voice lessons. I have watched this video over and over and it still amazes me. Both these fellas are singing in the Big Band now. They both sing with soul. They come from a different side of the same coin. It's not about what you think folks are thinking about your singing. It's about you singing and having the courage and the soul to get up there and do it. SING! Sing like the bird on the tree and make your noise in the world. No better kind of music than these blues we love to do it with.
Pic
-
That's great Nevada, never saw that before.
OK, if ya'll will humour me here, don't know exactly where I'm going with this but here's a link to Tony Bennet & Christina Aguilera singing that old chestnut 'Steppin Out'. Now Tony ain't exactly a virtuoso anymore but listen to how much better he sings than Aguilera, someone who can technically sing circles around him. The first impression I get is that He is listening to the lyrics, he is a 'song man', he gets how a song is supposed to be delivered. Aguilera sounds like she's constantly showing off, constantly on 10 & doesn't give a shit what words she is saying. Their age difference is apparent in so many ways! (you may want to fast forward through the dance intro)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhN9MeFRbjw&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhN9MeFRbjw&feature=related)
-
Being a sucker for a pretty face I liked watching her more than him. But I wouldn't argue with ya otherwise. I'm going to have to watch it a few more times though just to be sure. In any case Tony Bennet has been around the block a few more times than Christina Aguilera so I hope his experience shows through. We are straying somewhat from the Country Blues path. And I thought I was pushing the envelope referring to jazz musicians, never mind opera singers and the Godfather... No matter, to paraphrase Louis Armstrong (I think?) we're all people so that makes it all folk music.
Pic
-
An endless series of meaningless crescendos to nowhere, thats the Whitney Houston aesthetic..makes me puke! But that lame successive crescendo business is all over pop music and Broadway these days. Its so un-musical.
Singing has always been important to me, even though my voice, as its gained mileage, has become less than cooperative (ages twelve and forty five-big changes). I do think every bit as much attention should be payed to the vocal as to the guitar part of a song. In the absence of being able to inject oneself with an accent and a "sixty years being Black in Mississippi and picking cotton serum" , I recommend imitation. It won't be pretty at first,or possibly ever, but you'll learn a lot about the song, including things that will make the guitar parts more comprehensible.
After you've learned the vocal part of a particular song seek out another blues voice close to your own range, and study it. Then pick a third singer whose work you love and try singing like them for a while. Then go back to the original tune with those voices and phrasings in your head and I'll bet you emerge with something that elucidates the song, sounds period appropriate, and maybe even original. Synthesis is the name of the game in art. I would be wary of an authenticity test for vocals (I.E. am I singing honestly in my REAL voice?). Many of the singers of the twenties and thirties altered their voices to get a better result. And I guess try to avoid grunting whenever possible.
PS. I love the Michael Bolton (MCD-multiple crescendo disorder) and Cookie Monster observation.
-
When I hit the reply button, this quotation popped up:
"You try to sing like Muddy Waters, and play like Lightnin' sounds. But since I blowed on my harp you're feelin' mean and confused. It's got you chained to your earphones - you're just a white boy lost in the blues - Brownie McGhee, White Boy Lost in the Blues by Michael Franks performed by Sonny Terry and Brownie McGhee"
Coincidence? I think not! :D
Mr. O'muck, the process you describe above is pretty much how I learned how to sing the blues.
-
This seems to produce guys who either sound like an unholy mixture of Michael Bolton and the cookie monster (in an attempt to reproduce the way they imagine Son House to sound)
:D
You do have a way with words, Frank...
-
Here is a related thread named "In Who's(sic) Voice?" about the vocal plights of Weenies in the 21st century. ;)
http://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/index.php?amp;Itemid=114&topic=2771.0
There may be other related vocal topics lying around the forum as well - vocals and how many of us don;t sing enough seems to crop up once in awhile.
I have not been, but are there many workshops on blues vocals offered at Pt Townsend or Augusta? Of the posters here, how many really have spent considerable effort trying to sing as well as play in the style? (If so what have you done?)
Pt Townsend offers singing workshops. Gospel Choir is a big part of PT. Suzy Thompson, Gaye Adegbalola, Maria Muldaur have all taught singing. (I took Suzy Thompson's class - it was excellent.)
What has helped my singing is to join a band where no one else wanted to sing - trying not to make a fool of yourself is a powerful motivator. :P Singing is a lot of work, it is so much easier, less exhausting, to sit down and just noodle play a progression on a guitar. I agree with O'Muck, you've got to work on vocals about as hard as the guitar part.
-
I agree with O'Muck, you've got to work on vocals about as hard as the guitar part.
Personally, I need to put more in to it, for the simple reason that I think it matters more.
Re:Of the posters here, how many really have spent considerable effort trying to sing as well as play in the style? (If so what have you done?)
Listen and imitate. The easiest thing for me to do is to focus on pitch and timing - harder for me is to pinpoint specific methods of tone production. I'm just not good enough of a singer to work that out on my own with any kind of real success, so it's trial and error, there. Working out my tone (my "voice," as it were) is a long-term project for me. Picking apart the singing of Robert Wilkins, Blind Lemon Jefferson, Blind Willie McTell, Dick Burnett, Tom Ashley, Walter Vincson (I'm gaining on my yodel!), Ed Bell and Furry Lewis has been of almost incalculable value to me.
You do have a way with words, Frank...
It's a gift.
-
One of the things I recall from one of Suzy's workshops (into which I wandered miscellaneously with some kind of blues guitar hangover, so correct me if I'm wrong) is the point she made about going over a song vocal line by vocal line, the way us guitarists will frequently go over a guitar part, copying the vocal lines, not with the goal of reproducing the singing part as a carbon copy, but as a way to learn how to sing the material, how this person approaches their vocal, how you could change it etc. She made the point of needing to repeat it until you get it, the same way one learns an instrumental part. For someone who did not grow up singing in a gospel choir or at church, like me, this seems like a really good approach. So much of vocals are feel, but we do need to listen to all the nuances, whether it's Ma Rainey, Clifford Gibson, Jesse Fuller or whoever. Inattention to the vocal part I think can lead to a kind of square reproduction of the melody, ignoring the fact that, oh, that second line is phrased differently, that end of the third verse goes to a different note for variety, she's singing a bit ahead of the beat etc etc.
Advice I need to follow more often myself...
-
A lot of the great singers started out & continued to be great mimics. All the great bluesman & women mimiced someone. Eventually your own voice will emerge. There's skill in mimicing. Some people stumble on their own voice thinking they are copying another faithfully. There should be an open & loose joy in singing, in guitar playing. When your brain is in the back seat but still in control then you're doing it right.
-
A lot of the great singers started out & continued to be great mimics. All the great bluesman & women mimiced someone. Eventually your own voice will emerge. There's skill in mimicing. Some people stumble on their own voice thinking they are copying another faithfully. There should be an open & loose joy in singing, in guitar playing. When your brain is in the back seat but still in control then you're doing it right.
Good!
-
A lot of the great singers started out & continued to be great mimics. All the great bluesman & women mimiced someone. Eventually your own voice will emerge. There's skill in mimicing. Some people stumble on their own voice thinking they are copying another faithfully. There should be an open & loose joy in singing, in guitar playing. When your brain is in the back seat but still in control then you're doing it right.
Right on.
Also, further to O'Muck's point about not worrying about an authenticity test for vocals. This is another question that one sees come up here and elsewhere (and I just know Waxy's blood pressure is already rising at the thought of someone telling him to sing in his own REAL voice!). I say amen to this as well. Much of singing is a put-on, whether you're Christina Aguilera (I agree, great pipes, no taste) or Blind Willie Johnson (great taste, unusual pipes).
The thread that Slack cited above (
http://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/index.php?amp;Itemid=114&topic=2771.0 (http://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/index.php?amp;Itemid=114&topic=2771.0)) is well worth a look as it deals with these questions of vocal authenticity. One song I mention in that thread is Blind Willie Johnson's Let Your Light Shine on Me. Where's his real voice in that song? He starts out natural with a little vibrato, adds a little gravel for the 2nd verse, hits the full "false bass" in the 3rd verse, switches at the last moment in the last line of the song to his "natural" voice again. It's a freakin' masterpiece.
Anyway, thanks for the inspiration fellas, I gotta work on this stuff.
-
Yeah, I sing. 25 years of an acting career (with professional training) has taught me that I can make almost any voice "my own" (altho I seem to have lost my falsetto years ago -F-) . I guess it has also helped me to understand using my vocal apparatus to honestly translate emotion into song. Actually, I would recommend to anyone, of a college age or there about, who really wants to sing the blues, to take a few acting courses. Not only will this help you get over the performing threshold, but vocal production and emotional freedom are invaluable in singing the blues.
All for now.
John C.
-
Here is a related thread named "In Who's(sic) Voice?" about the vocal plights of Weenies in the 21st century. ;)
http://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/index.php?amp;Itemid=114&topic=2771.0
Great thread. But do you think anyone would have been interested in hearing Beverly Sills sing a Rossini aria with a natural, unaffected, genuinely her own, Brooklyn accent? Well now that I put it that way..YES! But only as a novelty. This is ART as in Artifice we're talking about. Picasso said Art is a lie that tells the truth. Back at the open mike nights at the old Gaslight cafe which in those halcyon days of yore were called "hoots", as in nobody gave one, there were people who tried to sing blues in "operatically trained" voices. It was cringe inducing, when not outright hilarious.
This music has a tradition and a sound which includes certain pronunciations and vocal tropes without which it just ain't the Blues. It has now miraculously become a music for the ages, and its progenitors are almost all gone. The vocal inflections and accents of that time and place probably don't exist in Mississippi or South Carolina exactly as they were in the thirties anymore than New York accents are the same as they were then. It seems to me that the Opera analogy is an apt one. If you're going to be singing a nineteenth century Italian aria you're going to try and assume the pronunciation and phrasing most in keeping with the piece. Sounds right to me.
-
'Art is a lie that tells the truth'. Hmm, good line, have to remember that one. Picasso should have gone into politics.
Just for the record I reckon Frankie has an excellent voice. I, on the other hand...
-
The criticisms (constructive, I hope) and praise in this thread pretty much apply to all of us - I know I make lots of bad choices & only occasionally find something that works for me. It's all about being willing to experiment & finding something you can live with that sounds real to you.
I totally agree about the value of mimicry, but if a singer doesn't woodshed pitch & timing, mimicry will definitely come off as a caricature.
ps: thanks for the vote of confidence, Rivers - I'm not so good at graciously accepting anything remotely resembling praise, so I'll just stop there!
-
This reminds me of something I heard, somewhere. A non-native French speaker was in France and having trouble making themselves understood. For some reason, probably out of frustration, one day they tried putting on the hammiest French accent they could muster, positively Python-esque parody of French pronunciation and verbal mannerisms. The story goes that this solved the problem, people understood them perfectly.
What I got from this was that maybe hamming it up can help you throw more of yourself into the material. Easier said than done, but probably an interesting exercise to exaggerate the vocal inflections just a little and try to get closer to 'the vernacular'.
-
What I got from this was that maybe hamming it up can help you throw more of yourself into the material. Easier said than done, but probably an interesting exercise to exaggerate the vocal inflections just a little and try to get closer to 'the vernacular'.
I think you have an excellent point. That is what gives vocals their variety and what people love about vocals. Depends on the style you are after of course, and tougher to do for country blues than say, rockabilly (free license to be a complete goofball), -- but confidently attempting/imitating even a few exaggerated vocal inflections you hear in say, a Son House or a Tommy Johnson, would go a long ways.
-
That is what gives vocals their variety and what people love about vocals. Depends on the style you are after of course,
My point too. Our singing is not going to sound like our heroes no matter how hard we try. But our singing will sound like us and that's all that counts. My singing will never sound like the Reverend's but maybe the passion behind it will. That's what makes it authenticate, the feeling ya put into it.
Pic