[lbo-talk] Wish I Was In Dixie

[andie nachgeborenen]

I don't think I disagree with you, but there's
innovation and innovation. Sure, deferential
reproductions of old recordings, museum perfect copies
of old routines are pretty tedious, as are painfully
careful performances in the pastiche style of old
routines. This is the Carnegie Hall Wynton Marsalis
failing in jazz, and lord knows there is a lot of it
in blues, especially by white artists and some younger
black ones who merely revere the music. It don't mean
a thing if it ain't got that swing. Likewise tired and
cynical stuff for tourists, which, you are right,
infects some New Orleans jazz -- I recently saw a 
band like that at Preservation Hall, very competent
but they were not really trying very hard. You do here
this a lot in Chicago, yes. But the kinds of things
that give "swing" to the blues, that give it that kick
and fire that we both listen for, don't involve that
restless reinvention of everything every few decade or
so that characterizes jazz, or characterized it until
they ran out of radically new things to say. The blues
is a lot more like bluegrass or traditional folk or
Celtic music, which can also suffer from formaldehyde,
but which have shown a lot more stability than jazz.
Something about the range of innovation or whatever it
is that keeps the music fresh when it is doesn't
require the _kind_ of breakneck planned obsolescence
that has shadowed jazz. Btw to my ears Delta-style
blues, acoustic style guitar, is museumy when done
today. Electric blues still can catch fire. You are
right that the analogy to classical music was poor. I
was thinking about modern performance standard.
Composition was ruthlessly innovative in something
like the way jazz was when it was alive up until
about, say WWII, but since then, the lack of
innovation is a sign of senescence.

--- Tahir Wood <twood at uwc.ac.za> wrote:


> 
> 
> >>> <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
> > All Email originating from UWC is covered by
> disclaimer 
>
http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal/public/portal_services/disclaimer.htm
> 
> > ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal. 
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.  http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/