collapse

* Member Info

 
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
When people from Australia or Japan or Italy say, 'Oh, I love the blues,' they're not talking about the Southwest blues styles, the Georgia 12-string players, ragtime Piedmont styles or whatever. It's the Delta blues. If you say, 'Who do you like?' they'll name Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters, John Lee Hooker, Howlin' Wolf, Son House - Dick Waterman, to Francis Davis, quoted in Davis' book

Author Topic: New Paul Oliver Book  (Read 4050 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline dj

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 2833
  • Howdy!
Re: New Paul Oliver Book
« Reply #15 on: September 17, 2010, 12:25:01 PM »
Quote
Howard Rye seems to buy into and frame/allege elitist concern within a critical dissection - quoting field recordings as "unspoiled" as if a microphone in a field is a somehow more authentic representation insinuating such individuals are stricken with relative Lomaxian romanticism.

Hi Michael,

I'm not quite sure how you meant this, but just to be clear, "field recording" refers to the trips that the major record companies took between 1923 and 1941 to record talent in locations remote from their main studios:  Atlanta, Memphis, New Orleans, Dallas, etc.  The recordings Victor made in 1928 of Tommy Johnson, Ishmon Bracey, Cannon's Jug stompers, and the Memphis Jug Band were field recordings in this sense, as were Robert Johnson's recordings for Vocalion in San Antonio (1936) and Dallas (1937).  These recordings weren't undertaken with any Lomaxian romanticism but rather by people like Ralph Peer, whose favorite music was "the sound of the cash register".

Apologies if you know all this and I'm misunderstanding you.   

Offline Rambler

  • Member
  • Posts: 32
Re: New Paul Oliver Book
« Reply #16 on: September 17, 2010, 04:44:21 PM »
Another angle.  Oliver's latest appears to assumes a 'folklorist' theory of the blues , a view strongly challenged by Elijah Wald's Escaping the Delta, which saw the country bluesmen adapting their style/repertoire to urban blues.  No diss intended--PO has done tremendous scholarly work --but EWs has raised some serious questions about the roots of the blues.

Offline Michael Cardenas

  • Member
  • Posts: 79
  • traditional Blues singer & slide guitarist
    • Myspace
Re: New Paul Oliver Book
« Reply #17 on: September 17, 2010, 06:02:24 PM »
Quote
Howard Rye seems to buy into and frame/allege elitist concern within a critical dissection - quoting field recordings as "unspoiled" as if a microphone in a field is a somehow more authentic representation insinuating such individuals are stricken with relative Lomaxian romanticism.

Hi Michael,

I'm not quite sure how you meant this, but just to be clear, "field recording" refers to the trips that the major record companies took between 1923 and 1941 to record talent in locations remote from their main studios:  Atlanta, Memphis, New Orleans, Dallas, etc.  The recordings Victor made in 1928 of Tommy Johnson, Ishmon Bracey, Cannon's Jug stompers, and the Memphis Jug Band were field recordings in this sense, as were Robert Johnson's recordings for Vocalion in San Antonio (1936) and Dallas (1937).  These recordings weren't undertaken with any Lomaxian romanticism but rather by people like Ralph Peer, whose favorite music was "the sound of the cash register".

Apologies if you know all this and I'm misunderstanding you.   
The keyword is unspoiled and I dig your concern, but as you point out I'm not dileneating from Lomax lugging equipment to Parchman farm in the spirit of capturing folklore and the intent of record companies to capture "unspoiled" sound. My point is that Rye in his critique makes me skeptical as to the depth of his own romantic ideal of Blues since he's the one drawing the comparitive via quote in the first place. The example I would offer could be Son House's work for Paramount and the material that appears on the LOC comp, by Rye's assertion of collective Blues logic Dry Spell Blues is somehow pristine in comparison to Special Rider Blues, yet which is the true or more authentic recording. Sure they both are unless while in Grafton four mics were used, point being they fall under completely different auspice and it's not like the Library of Congress makes any less money off of Son House now than Paramount did. I do wonder how many Blues listeners feel that recordings ala folklorists are fettered as opposed to the slightly more controlled environments record companies operated in, that's the elitism I was alluding to. In Vocalion's case I would offer that jazz in Memphis might have steered the profit motivation more than the jug bands, but the two are overlapping so closely and regionally speaking it was probably a delightful convenience for them. King Oliver made a Vocalion appearance in 1927, but commercial dance jazz faded on the label a year later resurfacing again in 1946. Question is did the jug bands stoke the fires where dixieland fell short?
LISTEN TO BLUES MUSIC

Offline Rivers

  • Tech Support
  • Member
  • Posts: 7274
  • I like chicken pie
Re: New Paul Oliver Book
« Reply #18 on: September 17, 2010, 06:22:18 PM »
Well I have tried to read Paul Oliver's "Barrelhouse Blues..." etc several times and got bored every time so far. I do pick it up and try to continue from time to time. It may take a few years. This is nothing to do with Paul, whom I hold in total respect. It's just not a good read. IMHO. Drawing any conclusions beyond that I simply cannot do, other than it's not his best book.

Tags: Paul Oliver books 
 


anything
SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal