12 years old. Really?!!?

killdeer43 said:

griehund said:

Kind of begs the question: is the blues just music after all?

Click to expand...

What Pascal said, plus....

It's a musical form, of course, but so much more.
You can play and sing the blues, or you can just have the blues. However you see it, the blues ain't nothin' but a good man feelin' bad. 8)

Bonnie Raitt has always been a great interpreter of the blues, but I don't know if she suffered beforehand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXVoOgwiYc8

Joe

Click to expand...

I agree that everybody has the right to play whatever dang music they want to. I also realize that just about every genre has roots in some sort of expression. When I think about Polka music I imagine a Polish band with some reeds and brass heavy on the bass drum. If a Japanese group decided to play Polka music and mastered the genre then more power to them. Watching them perform would produce for me a cognitive dissonance that would be my own problem to deal with. A Polish polka band might scoff at their Japanese counterparts.
When it comes to blues (like any genre) if the original expression can be replicated then I guess we have to say the artist is successful. I consider blues to be story telling like folk, country, blue grass, et al. I guess I wouldn't expect Buddy Guy to stand in and play blue grass anymore than I would expect Joan Baez to stand in and play blues. Although, Dillon went electric and the BeeGees went disco.
If blues is played in perfect syncopation and form without expressing a heartfelt story then for me it fails no matter who is performing. I think it was BB King who said the blues is easy to learn and hard to master. Listening to Muddy Waters' "Mannish Boy" and Stevie Ray Vaughan's "Crossfire" is like listening to two different genres.
The question for me is this: if you take a blues song and tear it down and put it back together in perfect structure, rythm, and sync does it lose it's original identity? There's got to be a thousand versions of Cross Roads out there. Pascal goes a long way to preserve the original in his version.
The music that was formative in my life goes all the way from LeadBelly to Wilson Picket with some calypso and reggae thrown in so my views are pretty screwed up.
There's always more questions than answers. :?:

Well said, bluesy! Like I said, just playing devil's advocate... I have nothing against the kid, I wish I had his talent!

"Is blues just music after all" could be great thread all it's own!

walrus

Man, if that kid could just learn some chord melodies the skies the limit

walrus said:

"Is blues just music after all" could be great thread all it's own!

Click to expand...

I'm not going to start it but there are some genres of musical endeavor that seem to be more genuine or authentic if the performer is living the lifestyle. Blues is probably one as might be Rap (older Rap, anyway) and Punk. Not to stereotype Metal but there are some sub-genres of Metal that are associated with some disturbing life choices although it is not clear which came first.

fronobulax said:

I'm not going to start it but there are some genres of musical endeavor that seem to be more genuine or authentic if the performer is living the lifestyle.

Click to expand...

What is "more genuine" then? The music? The performer? The ambiance?
And what does "genuine" mean? Good to the ears? Legitimate?
I'm not understanding, sorry. And it reminds me a bit of the 60's and 70's, when we lost so many talents because of the unspoken rule, set in everyone's mind, that you couldn't be a "genuine" musician unless you were a drug addict or an alcoholic.

bluesypicky said:

fronobulax said:

I'm not going to start it but there are some genres of musical endeavor that seem to be more genuine or authentic if the performer is living the lifestyle.

Click to expand...

What is "more genuine" then? The music? The performer? The ambiance?
And what does "genuine" mean? Good to the ears? Legitimate?
I'm not understanding, sorry. And it reminds me a bit of the 60's and 70's, when we lost so many talents because of the unspoken rule, set in everyone's mind, that you couldn't be a "genuine" musician unless you were a drug addict or an alcoholic.

Click to expand...

For me the "genuine" reflects only the form and sound of the music. There's lots of new blues musicians who stick to the post war blues form. I could be wrong but I'm not aware of any new recording musicians doing a pure Delta sound. I've seen some tribute collections done by the Allmans and others but the sub category that I prefer is basically the three Kings, Albert, Freddie, and BB. That's just my preference. I find the Delta form very difficult to follow and I don't want to force it into a structure that's comfortable for me thereby making it not "genuine". In the end I guess we could stick a "genuine" label on any sub set like "genuine Delta", "genuine post war", "genuine Texas blues". To each his own.
I guess I can't have it both ways. I can't have "authentic post war blues" and expect it to last forever. That which does not evolve becomes extinct. I guess my request is for blues musicians to consciously keep their genres or sub sets alive and well without turning them into something else. The one thing I am sure of is that I'm confused. :?

griehund said:

bluesypicky said:

fronobulax said:

I'm not going to start it but there are some genres of musical endeavor that seem to be more genuine or authentic if the performer is living the lifestyle.

Click to expand...

What is "more genuine" then? The music? The performer? The ambiance?
And what does "genuine" mean? Good to the ears? Legitimate?
I'm not understanding, sorry. And it reminds me a bit of the 60's and 70's, when we lost so many talents because of the unspoken rule, set in everyone's mind, that you couldn't be a "genuine" musician unless you were a drug addict or an alcoholic.

Click to expand...

For me the "genuine" reflects only the form and sound of the music. There's lots of new blues musicians who stick to the post war blues form. I could be wrong but I'm not aware of any new recording musicians doing a pure Delta sound. I've seen some tribute collections done by the Allmans and others but the sub category that I prefer is basically the three Kings, Albert, Freddie, and BB. That's just my preference. I find the Delta form very difficult to follow and I don't want to force it into a structure that's comfortable for me thereby making it not "genuine". In the end I guess we could stick a "genuine" label on any sub set like "genuine Delta", "genuine post war", "genuine Texas blues". To each his own.
I guess I can't have it both ways. I can't have "authentic post war blues" and expect it to last forever. That which does not evolve becomes extinct. I guess my request is for blues musicians to consciously keep their genres or sub sets alive and well without turning them into something else. The one thing I am sure of is that I'm confused. :?

Click to expand...

Now that, I can understand.
And I couldn't agree more on the Delta stuff and the challenge it represents to cover.
So your confusion actually clarified mine a bit.
With that said, I don't think the conversation about the legitimacy for some players to play "the Blues" was going that much in depth with respect to sub-genres, but hey, I enjoy shooting the $h!t too. :lol:

I think Leadbelly said something like, "I was playing boogie woogie before it became boogie woogie". Steffan

This is sort of interesting! Based the "authenticity" theory, Paul McCartney is not authentic because he's still alive and healthy! But I agree that the genre of music oftentimes (but not always) matches the person's lifestyle choices (or a lifestyle they were born into). That would be a great PhD dissertation for a social science student!

I don't care for rap and hip hop because I can't "relate" to their lyrics of type of music, I never cared for punk much because I did not have their "angst", etc. so I think there may be something to this generalization.

Back to blues: On one of the bonus tracks of "4 Way Street", on Stills' solo song, "Black Queen", someone in the crowd laughs out loud after he introduces the song, and starts to play. So he stops, and says "One thing the blues ain't, is funny!".

walrus

walrus said:

This is sort of interesting! Based the "authenticity" theory, Paul McCartney is not authentic because he's still alive and healthy! But I agree that the genre of music oftentimes (but not always) matches the person's lifestyle choices (or a lifestyle they were born into). That would be a great PhD dissertation for a social science student!

I don't care for rap and hip hop because I can't "relate" to their lyrics of type of music, I never cared for punk much because I did not have their "angst", etc. so I think there may be something to this generalization.

Back to blues: On one of the bonus tracks of "4 Way Street", on Stills' solo song, "Black Queen", someone in the crowd laughs out loud after he introduces the song, and starts to play. So he stops, and says "One thing the blues ain't, is funny!".

walrus

Click to expand...

Heh, heh, heh, sounds like Mr. Stills was taking himself a little too seriously. There was a period when the blues got pretty raunchy with innuendos and double entendres and secret words like "honey" and "blind snake". BB King did a lot to clean it up and make it more G rated. :lol:

Thanks to Everyone for all of the great information. Regardless of epistomological perspective, although there seems to be a leaning towards constructivism and empiricism, what I found interesting about young Mr. Goren was why he wanted to learn to play the blues and how he did it. From his bio (posted on his website), he stumbled upon B.B. King (when doing a web search for J.J. Johnson): Ray has said that when he heard the music he “felt something that I never felt before. I still don’t have words to describe the feeling but it was strong and powerful”. This is similar to Pascal's experience. He learned by listening to and imitating his favorites, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Freddie King, B.B. King....to name a few.

I am not a blues aficionado, either as a player (quite obvious) or listener, so I can't really tell the nuances of blues classifications. What I do know? I like the blues!

Thanks, again, for the great info, Everyone.

griehund said:

Heh, heh, heh, sounds like Mr. Stills was taking himself a little too seriously. There was a period when the blues got pretty raunchy with innuendos and double entendres and secret words like "honey" and "blind snake". BB King did a lot to clean it up and make it more G rated. :lol:

Click to expand...

:lol: You got that right!
I was cracking up the first time I heard the lyrics of "Terraplane" (R.J.) describing his mechanical issues with the car, left without his care for too long...
Which also proves that despite their living conditions at the time, these guys never lost their wit and sense of humor....

Toni, I had never heard or read about this kid before, but what he describes as his first experience with the Blues: “felt something that I never felt before. I still don’t have words to describe the feeling but it was strong and powerful”, matches exactly my own.
I don't know, and don't think we can explain what makes any given person more or less responsive to any given musical expression. But it sure would be interesting to now.

The kid nailed it! For me it was the moment I saw Josh While play. It was the Oscar Brand show. He walked up to this chair faced it so he was standing behind it, put his foot on the chair, rested his guitar on his leg and launched into Jelly jelly jelly.....I was gone, hooked, even right now I'm getting goosebumps. That was the moment I had to learn to play guitar. Got to meet a few of these guys too, more than once I heard something like Blues ain't something you learn, it's either in you or it ain't. Steffan