Once more. "New" is not an especial virtue in blues. If you want innovation, look elsewhere. The virtue of the blues lies depth of feeling and technical skill in executing traditional forms rather than in creation of new artistic form. In this respect blues is not unlike other folk musics: bluegrass, traditional folk, Celtic musics, you're not supposed to do something "new." You're supposed to what other people have done, just do it well. There's another musical form that's like this: European classical music. An innovative interpretation is not what's sought. Jazz is innovative. Rock is innovative. Soul and R&B are innovative. Not blues. Tell Dave Hole he's not innovative, he'll take it as a compliment.
--- Eubulides <paraconsistent at comcast.net> wrote:
> John Adams wrote:
>
> >> Gawd what a boring cliche.........
> >
> > Hey, the modern blues ain't _that_ bad.
> >
> > Seriously, though, have you heard anything--okay,
> maybe R. L.
> > Burnside--but aside from him, have you heard
> anything new in the blues
> > since Jimi? If so, please hip me to it. I've got
> nothing against people
> > playing well in the classic forms, but I'm still
> bored by it.
>
> ==============
>
> What did Jimi do with blues that Albert King
> couldn't/didn't do?
>
> And don't get me started on the blues-rock syncretic
> thingy :-)
>
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs