>>> <lbo-talk-request at lbo-talk.org> 11/22/07 7:40 AM >>>
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Wish I Was In Dixie
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.
There's something wrong here. European classical music has been the most innovative of all, that is if you take "classical" in its more inclusive meaning (rather than only referring to the 18th C). You may be mixing up innovation with improvisation. Much music involving improv is extremely un-innovative, most of jazz today, for example. Much of the supposed improvisation is just standardised routines (Adorno's point), which can be maddening to listen to in its utter lack of imagination, and yes, innovation.
The very same problem can afflict blues too. Long solos do not innovation make and blues almost died due to these attempts to turn it into a kind of quasi-jazz in the late sixties. Sure the best players, like Hendrix and Clapton, through their ability, managed to produce some worthwhile stuff, but they also produced some real crap. On the other hand, in his later career, Clapton managed to demonstrate that blues that seeks to simply reproduce the old sound can become the most boring crap of all.
I wouldn't argue that blues doesn't innovate; I've heard too much boringly hackneyed blues to celebrate lack of innovation. What makes blues sound fresh is when it captures the original spirit of the music, through great songwriting, fiery playing, innovative production methods, showmanship, etc. etc. Bluess in its earlier stages was very innovative, and it stays truest to its roots when it remains innovative. From Mississipi-delta slide, through Piedmont-style picking, to big-band jump, to electric blues rock. It's the spirit that constantly must be given new life, otherwise it withers. If you look at some of the supposedly greatest blues players, like BB King - what made them go downhill, was that some of their newer (white) audiences paid them too much deference, especially when they were simply going through the old motions. A lot of Chicage blues became boring in that way (at least to the ears of this someone who's never been to Chicago!). Some of the blues that is played for tourists in New Orleans also suffers from that malady.
I'm middle aged and I've been into blues since my teenage years, but I'm still amazed when I hear how some players can take that music and make it sound as if it was just invented (Junior Kimbrough comes to mind), whereas others make it sound as if it should have died long ago. Sorry, I'm rambling on excessively, but music has been just about the most energising force in my life, and I'm still trying to figure out what makes some of it (unfortunately a minority part) so great.
Tahir -------------- next part -------------- All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal/public/portal_services/disclaimer.htm