Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
At The Back => Time Out => Topic started by: Lew on June 14, 2010, 03:27:00 PM
-
... but I've learned to despise the 'blues' and cringe when someone talks about themselves as a blues guitarist.
I want to hear a guitar that says something and a production that has space but most blues music I've heard recently just seems to serve for a backing track for a predictable and good guitarist with a mediocre voice to show off typical and over practiced licks. Maybe that's always been the case and I 'just don't get it' with modern blues. I grew up idolizing SRV, Clapton etc... and they still have a special place to me. It sounds a bit contradictory but I feel they were doing something new and fresh and despite the lineage the music doesn't feel like a slave to its influences. I listen to John Mayer and just don't get what I'm missing that everyone else loves.
Anyway... I guess what I'm saying is I'm sick of musicians with no imagination. It has nothing to do with 'feel' or 'emotion'. There's just no point being any good if you don't have an imagination to take it somewhere.
and I just fancied a rant!
-
Youre not the only one.
I liked and listened to blues and blues-rock for a couple of years. SRV, Mayer, Gallagher (the only one I can still stand), johnny winter etc etc. I got painfully bored of the every song sounding the $%&#ing same, mid tempo, 12 bar, 1-4-5, plinky-plinky baby, baby cr@p and am franky left amazed that its endured basically unchanged for 40 years, with the same guys playing the same thing for decades, and the next guy playing the same thing as the previous guy when one guy (this one) got bored of it in less than 2 years.
But its ok, I dont have to listen to it. Lots of music out there. Let those hamsters spin that wheel.
-
Oh, it should be understood that the 'blues' we're talking about here bears little resemblence to The Blues; the real, old school one
Son House, howlin' wolf, robert johnson et al stuff is very different. To my ears at least. I still dont listen to it any more though.
One of the funniest musical things I've ever heard - apparently Bill Gates loves the blues.
-
That's quite interesting... :D
I've never actually got bored listening to something that grabbed me in the first place - I mean an actual recording/performance - I might stop listening to it for a while (or even years), but when I come back I can usually hear the "fire" or whatever made me like it in the first place...
Stuff that didn't grab me in the first place... well... I wouldn't call it boring, but I experience probably the same feelings as folks who do call certain things boring.
Eg.
1) Ronnie James Dio dying got me listening to Rainbow again, which had very much been on the "back-burner" for me as "something I don't have the time to listen to at the moment". But I thought it was BRILLIANT when I first came across it in the late 70s. And over the last few weeks, yeah, BRILLIANT again...
2) I also searched out some DIO, to which I have very little exposure because when I first heard it it didn't grab me... still doesn't, doesn't move me at all, sorry Ronnie :(
Blues* and all other forms of music is about getting a feeling across, that's all it is. It's a form of expression. If you can't hear the feeling the artist/composer was trying to convey, cool, just move on, that one's not for you, no need to feel bad about it...
And I'm not really convinced that any form of music has to evolve or "go somewhere" either. I know it's what we tend to do as humans, but there's nothing wrong with some kid hearing Howling Wolf and thinking "yeah, man, screw P-diddle and that fecker from RATM, that's what I'm talking about... I wanna do that sh1t, just like that..."
There's plenty of room for everyone :D
* Blues = "the blues" or "The Blues", if there really is such a distinction.
I personally think it's kind of an imaginary distinction, there's plenty of folk playing "The Rock" and "The Metal", for example, just as badly and as non-credibly as there are people mangling "The Blues" :lol:
We don't call it "The Rock" etc, why do we call it "The Blues"?
I suspect it's because a bunch of public-school types in the late 50s and early to mid 60s spoke of it in hushed and reverential tones as if it's something amazing and archane. It's not, it's guys and gals using basic forms to express their angst/depression/lust/jollies/wotever - but in a less refined "let your hair down" and "I don't wear knickers" kind of edgy way... You don't need to be black or any other colour to do it and make it sound convincing. But, just like any other improvisational sort of music, you can wheel out some seriously mediocre stuff if your heart's not in it or if you've processed all the "balls" out of it.
-
i like the blues :?
-
i like the blues :?
Lotsa people do :) that's why it's still going.
I like some blues, other blues I can take or leave, some blues I don't wanna hear again.
What I really like is what blues did to 60s pop. Get Off My Cloud, what a stunner that is. Most people wouldn't call it blues, but it is. You could reel them off - Stone Free, My Generation, etc, etc... basically, they're all blues.
Blues isn't about guitar-playing folks.
But when someone calls themselves a "blues guitarist", you know that they can play the 12-bar sh1t. They should also be able to play it major/minor, slow/fast, funky, whatever... and most important: if you put them on a stage where someone's playing songs like Get Off My Cloud, they should be able to jam along (even if they've never heard the song before) and still sound convincing by the second verse - that's what a blues guitarist is. Put them on a stage in the middle of a Mozart Opera, or a Metallica gig, or wotever, they'll be a bit lost - they know a certain set of scales an harmonies quite well, and usually instinctively, but that's it...
EDIT: And most people that call themselves "blues guitarists" are actually putting themselves down slightly - when I call myself a blues guitarist, I mean I can't play shreddy stuff or whatever else, and I never intend to because it doesn't move me emotionally when I hear someone else doing it.
-
Yep, andy, it is all ultimately about self expression, and while it bemuses me that (the/The/_ _) Blues, not counting its derivatives, seems to only have two flavours and I'm amazed that no one that plays it really made it or allowed it to evolve (except into something that wasnt blues anymore) I'm not saying that they *shouldnt* be doing what they're doing. I can just listen to something else :lol:
I suppose "The Blues" is the feeling of being 'blue' that the music was connected with - disenfranchisment and depression. Thrash metal and hip hop have similar socio-economic backgrounds (if much better off than the fellas that first brought us the blues), but arent named for the emotion; they're more indirect ventings and escapes.
While jazz and metal and rock and whatever else often have common emotions they express, the emotions arent synonymous with the the music. Jazz would be "The Cool" or "The Chilled" or something, and rock would be "The Happy" or "The Excited" and metal would be "The Angry" or "The Overexcited", I suppose :lol:
The distinction I made was totally arbitrary, linguistically. the Blues and THE blues would have done as well, to draw a line between the guys that derived it from african beats in cotton fields in the 30s and the middle class white guys in the UK that heard it and went "Well, thats all well and good, but what if it was LOUDER and FASTER!" (that then played it back at guys in the US that then imitated them)
-
I'm not sure when it happend...... but I've learned to despise the 'blues'
Was it when you 'woke up this morning'? :wink:
-
and did someone steal your boots?
-
I'm not sure when it happend...... but I've learned to despise the 'blues'
Was it when you 'woke up this morning'? :wink:
He's just bitter because his woman done left him.
-
You know when you play metal backwards youre supposed to get messages from satan?
What happens when you play the blues backwards?
The bank gives you your house back
Your dog comes back to life
Your wife comes back
You get your job back
Your car starts working again
-
GITS!!! - here am I typing my thesis... and you lot are wheeling out "woke up this morning jokes"!!! :lol:
This actually started as a reply to MDV's, er, post in a different mood some time back... but I'm @rsed if I'm gonna delete this all now I've writ it!! :lol:
Sorry MDV - I kept adding to my post while you was doin yours...
Thing is, blues did evolve into something else... (see 60s pop waffle I added to my previous post)
And "The Blues", a la Robert Johnson etc, wasn't about being "blue". The lyrical content might be, but "the blues", even the accoustic stuff, was about dancing, having a good time, getting laid (and shot for laying the wrong person :lol:), etc...
And the "louder and faster" bit - it was the "old blues guys" doing it just as much as the white guys in the UK. The Delta guys electrified because they couldn't be heard above the dancin/whoopin/etc. And they did it some time before they heard anything from the UK. When they started making records (the ones the white boys in the UK heard and loved) they found they needed drums and stuff to make dance records to compete with this US-white-boy invention of "rock and roll" that was getting aimed at their market.
In the main, it was the UK-white-boys buying into "the blues" that sold the rougher stuff to the white US. The moment the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Creedence Clearwater Revival, etc, who ever you want, understood what the Delta/Chicago boys were doing and started making more of it themselves, "blues" was no longer a black-only thing. The white-boys can't play blues properly thing was a social and political thing, hidden under street-cred and peer pressure.
I do actually pretty much agree with you - but my main thing is that I feel you could draw the line(s) anywhere, it was actually one continually evolving thing, and we've ended up with whatever we see/hear coming out of the speakers now... we can have all stages of the evolution (and whatever else happens) if we want. There's a bloke called Ian Siegal, I haven't seen him for years, but he is the very embodiment of blues (far more than some famous f*ckers), but he ain't gonna get very famous (mind you, he was on the Today program on Radio 4 last week, sounded like Sarah Montague got a bit, er, flustered with him sat across the room singing his bad-boy stuff at her :lol:) - he ain't gonna get very famous cos he's old school Delta and Chicago. He's branching out a bit, but I'll be real surprised if he makes a big career - like me, he likes the stuff that's already happened and he wants some more of it...
But I do know exactly what Lew means - I think! - I don't find some folk's recordings (eg Mayer) terribly inspiring. But I don't necesarilly think it's their fault. The Mayer stuff I've heard and who's that other bloke, I've got some of his CDs, can't remember his name - their recordings seem to lack balls and emotion. Stunning guitarists, but hey, so am I, I can do that... and on top of that I've already got a wall of CDs by blokes and girls who managed to capture something entirely different that I can't do, and they still inspire me 30-odd years on... so Mayer and Bonamassa - that's his name!! - stunning guitarists that they are, don't find their way into my earphones very often. I'd rather listen to other stuff...
And I'm gonna be a bit sacriligous here... SRV... Texas Flood is utterly stunning and amazing. Couldn't Stand the Weather is OK but I was really disappointed when it came out. Each album becomes increasingly watered down and sanitised in an effort to get commercial and to "evolve"... Why??!!
I would be so much happier if he'd done 4 Texas Floods... but that's just me being greedy...
However, while he was doing the sanitised sh1t, he was still playing live - and he still made the room stand on its head.
He was a stunning performer, very hung up on Howlin Wolf (and others) and Jimi Hendrix, it was so-o obvious watching him... and now everyone says "you're trying to copy SRV, you shouldn't do that..." to someone else who's gone back to the roots and tried to do their own thing. Anyone who picks up a strat and wants to play "blues" and is influenced by Howlin Wolf and Jimi Hendrix, and is any good, will end up sounding like SRV even if they've never heard him!!
Don't be worried if you don't like blues. Don't be worried if you did like it and gone off it. Maybe one day you'll end up in some club and see someone who makes you go "WOW! that's what blues is about..." Maybe you won't. For me, it was this Ian Siegal bloke over 10 years ago in "Crawley Blues Club", with his own bassist and a pick-up drummer. I have never seen anything so stunning blues-wise as that night - and I saw Rory 5 or 6 times, and SRV a couple. Rory and SRV, in their heyday, better guitarists, but only half the bluesman that Ian Siegal was that night (and several nights I've seen him since).
-
And I'm gonna be a bit sacriligous here... SRV... Texas Flood is utterly stunning and amazing. Couldn't Stand the Weather is OK but I was really disappointed when it came out. Each album becomes increasingly watered down and sanitised in an effort to get commercial and to "evolve"... Why??!!
Don't want to get too involved in this debate because I can see where everyone is coming from and I have little to add. And Andy's already delivered his theses.... :P
But.... gotta disagree slightly on SRV. I agree that Couldn't Stand the Weather and Soul to Soul were disappointments after Texas Flood. But, even though it's mellower and more "sophisticated", I think In Step is absolutely marvellous - he'd put his substance abuse problems behind him and it's such a joyful record. Makes it even more tragic that he died so soon afterwards.
-
For me, Blues is best live, loud and raw in a venue where there are lots of others enjoying it. I am not a fan of football but I would imagine that being in an excited crowd watching a match is a million times better than watching the highlights on tv. A fair amount of what is considered blues is possibly skilled but uninspiring ( how you allocated that label would be according to individual taste) but when you get a great player then for me, there is nothing better. I can understand what many are saying in this thread and if one adheres to the 1-4-5 12 bar pattern then yes it can get rather tedious in the wrong hands.
-
Makes it even more tragic that he died so soon afterwards.
... or did he?
-
I dont dissagree on any particular point, and accept some corrections, but I suppose its a question of perspective, and its all relative.
The perspective, to me, is on the variation within blues and the amount that it can and does change/has changed both as a whole and if you take any given blues artists carreer, and compare that to one of the other major Churches of Guitar, like metal, rock, jazz etc.
I find it wanting in that regard. Certainly it *did* change, but how much? Compare Mayer to SRV; very, very similar to my ears. Maybe I'm missing something magical and ethereal (but, y'know what, maybe thats not there, maybe its hype, or beauty in the ear of the listener or whatever, but, carrying on) but they sound really similar to me.
Now compare, say, black sabbath with nile. OK, the latter is faster and heavier and whatever, thats not the point, its also far more catholic and far more sophisticated music. It has a clear mission statement (be $%&#ing heavy, same as sabbath) but is far more free within and around that mission, and includes from MANY other forms of music while still retaining its The Metal identity.
Or even one artist and another form of music: jazz and lenny breau, similar thing; he evolved and changed and experimented, and he didnt at any point sound like, say, joe pass or wes montgomery, who did much the same. These guys all also played music with much the same sort of genre identity, but diversified it and included in it from many other things.
Its the lack of variability that gets me. Its there, its just (relatively) tiny, and I dont understand why the genre is so constrained compared to other forms of guitar music, which are have all diversified and intermingled massively over the years.
Which isnt to say that the blues hasnt spread into other things, it just seems like there have been people trying to play some pure-bred Platonic Form of the blues for decades now, and it doesnt change or let anything else in.
-
Yeah, I'm with you on all of that MDV. (Although I don't really know much about Mayer - so I don't know whether he sounds like SRV, the clips I've seen on youtube seem to put him more in a Robert Cray area for me, not nearly so aggressive a player as SRV was...)
I suspect that what the problem is, is that if you "evolve" in any way from the 1,4,5 structure, then "the powers that be" (whoever they are!) say "well that's not blues, is it?"
I might be wrong, but for me it is - the blues was never meant to have any sort of rules on it. If you listen to really early stuff - it hasn't even got the 1,4,5 structure! :lol:
And Philly, yeah, I do like In Step, but it's not the SRV I fell for originally, and I do find it not terribly compelling (er... =boring but I don't want to say it :lol:)
-
With blues it's all about hearing the character of the person playing. Check out these characters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51fDIxxdqtQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQMXvuhf6ic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdyvPg0c6bI
When you can play with this much soul it had better be simple or you're not going to get the message across.
-
great freddie king vid fbloke, what a band, the sum greater than the parts as it should be.
-
What happens when you play the blues backwards?
The bank gives you your house back
Your dog comes back to life
Your wife comes back
You get your job back
Your car starts working again
Brillant ! MDV, you made my day 8)
Now about the part where you state that blues didn't evolve... Sure there are some "conservative purists" guys still trying to reproduce this overused overheard canonical 12 bar 1/4/5 stuff and pretending "this" is "The" blues - just like you have some jazz purists, 50s rock fanboys etc that only want to reproduce this old sound as exactly as possible. Now you also have Hendrix, the Groundhogs, Rory Gallagher and quite a few others that breaked out of this jail while still basically playing blues. And I really like to hear more of that kind of blues - I mean, not people trying to reproduce the above artists, but building something personal from the same material. FWIW the closest thing to a (post ?) modern blues band to me is early Sonic Youth - wild, noisy, emotional, out of control, and very inventive.
Sorry, not really a well formed, argumented POV but I'm just back from rehearsal, tired, half deaf, and starving... and my dinner is burning while I'm writing this, duh :(
-
I like some blues, other blues I can take or leave, some blues I don't wanna hear again.
that's the same with any music (for me, anyway). regarding the blues not changing, i know what you're saying, the purists (in anything) can be annoying, but at the same time if you like something, why change it? I mean, not everything has to be on the cutting edge to be enjoyable.
I'm just loving the fact that, for once, there's a thread with loads of gigantic posts and I only feel the need to post three lines.
Good times. :lol:
-
I enjoyed watching Freddie King as he is one of my all time favourites and to me, he is a distinctive player and that makes him great (imo). I was listening to a blues playlist t'other day that I'd created a few years back and had forgotten about and the thing that struck me then was that each player ( The 3 Kings, Muddy, SRV, Jimi ect) had something that, to me, set them apart from each other. Of course not everyone will like it and that is fine. There is something comforting about blues ( to me) but I know a young guy who is into "drum and bass" and he says more or less the same about that. Now I can't see that as being comforting but he does so each to his own.
-
Not alot to add to the chat other than I agree with everything!
-
I'm just loving the fact that, for once, there's a thread with loads of gigantic posts and I only feel the need to post three lines.
Good times. :lol:
That really made me laugh - I know exactly what you mean. I don't know how I got drawn into writing the essays, but when I was halfway through I was thinking "why am I typing all this stuff? who the f cares?" :lol:
And you're right about this:
I like some blues music, other blues music I can take or leave, some blues music I don't wanna hear again.
Fixed!
-
^ haha. the internet's serious business (that's only half-sarcastic). :D
-
I dig old black blues. It gets to me every time. Just one bar and the hairs on my back stand up. Just a few white guys can do it. Gallagher, Billy Gibbons, Fogherty, and the odd Beatles, Animals and Stones tunes.
When Clapton plays the blues, it doesn't come over to me as real.
-
I'm just loving the fact that, for once, there's a thread with loads of gigantic posts and I only feel the need to post three lines.
Good times. :lol:
That really made me laugh - I know exactly what you mean. I don't know how I got drawn into writing the essays, but when I was halfway through I was thinking "why am I typing all this stuff? who the f cares?" :lol:
And you're right about this:
I like some blues music, other blues music I can take or leave, some blues music I don't wanna hear again.
Fixed!
Indeed. But I start typing, and then I dont bloody stop!