[Harp-L] blues, again

[Jonathan Ross <jross38@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Wow, it seems that despite all the attempts to put the blues and  
blues harmonica in perspective, it hasn't sunk in.  So, here's  
another one.

But first, I apologize for going too far out on a limb in my bar-be- 
que metaphor--I really know very little of the history.  What I  
should have commented on was the cultural mix in the South between  
black and white bbq styles across regions as being similar to the  
musical mix without bringing up the origin of either.

Now, Harri writes:

"Country music contains lots of harmonica but who can name really  
prominent C&W harp players in the same sense as blues harp players.  
In other words, who might be the country music equivalents of Little  
Walter and Sonny Boy Williamson? Or masters of today like Rod Piazza,  
Kim Wilson, R.J. Mischo, Rick Estrin, Charlie Musselwhite, Mark  
Hummel and lots of other blues harp players?"

Let's ask a few questions first.  How many blues fans know these  
names?  I know, a lot of people here do, and probably most of the  
blues fans we all talk to.  But outside of us, how many of the casual  
blues fans do?  This is just a guess, but I'd be willing to bet most  
people who buy a Muddy Waters CD don't have a clue who the harp  
player is.

Next, I am always amazed at how someone immersed in one small sub- 
culture (here the Blues) are so oblivious to their own immersion as  
to not recognize that other sub-cultures probably have the same  
effects.  I'd bet country fans before the pop-country of the late  
80's (when it was still much more popular than the Blues, but not as  
mass-market) could have named most of the big country harp players  
just as easily as blues fans the blues players.  It's the nature of  
getting involved in sub-cultures--you know things that most people  
don't.  What shocks me is that people then (a) assume everyone else  
should share their knowledge of the trivia of the genre ("wow, I  
can't believe you've never heard of X") and (b) almost never  
recognize that other sub-cultures are probably the same in terms of  
the level of immersion and knowledge shared by the sub-culture but  
not those outside of the sub-culture.  It's like a Trekkie assuming  
that everyone else knows who Tuvak is and then doubting anyone would  
know who Jar-El is.

And if you know either of those references you are officially a  
member of geekdom.  Welcome, it's a large and pathetic kingdom.

The point?  It seems that people who don't know much about country  
harp are making vast assumptions which only go to show their lack of  
knowledge.  If someone who didn't know blues harp were to ask the  
reverse in such a dismissive manner, ie, "the blues has no Charlie  
McCoy, no Mickey Rapheal, etc..."  I can just imagine the uproar from  
those posting "in defense" of the Blues here.

"You are absolutely right, John. Without prejudice against other  
genres where harmonica appears and shunning off the label of being a  
"blues nazi" the simple fact remains that the most influential harp  
players are blues players."

This is no fact.  It's your opinion.  For the (primarily white)  
generation in their 60's and 70's the most influential harmonica  
players were chromatic players like Adler and the 'Cats--go to a  
convention and see the influence these players had.  The blues  
players are probably the most influential on those under the age of  
60, but that's temporary and transitory--as is the nature of  
influence.  I'd say Levy and Popper have been the two biggest  
influences of the generations under the age of 35 or so--probably  
moreso than the blues players.  Of course, that's my view from this  
list and the conventions.  I'm almost definitely showing a large  
bias.  The most influential player since 1960 is probably Dylan--I  
bet more casual players were influenced by him than both Walters  
combined.  And there are probably tons of East Asian players who  
influenced more people than the above combined over the same period  
who I just don't know about, sadly.

"For comparison, look at other instruments. Take, for example, the  
violin. Probably all would agree that the most influential players  
come from classical music. Clarence Gatemouth Brown played the  
instrument occasionally and Papa John Creach even more devotedly but  
still no one would say that the violin as an instrument owes much to  
the blues."

Again a wonderful example of how quickly you are making judgments  
based on your own tiny frame of reference.  The fiddle/violin is one  
of the most common instruments in the world today, and certainly over  
the last two-hundred years.  Classical players influence each other,  
but there have been many important influences over the years in  
hundreds if not thousands of other genres--indeed, let's go back to  
country where fiddle was a big part of the Western swing sound  
(though one could call that jazz--but it's really part of the larger  
Swing sub-set, of which jazz at the time was a part).  These players  
weren't massively influenced by classical music, but by the  
traditional fiddle playing of the South--which included African- 
Americans, of course.  And they can't be said to be influenced by the  
"Blues" as it didn't yet exist as a separate genre.

To the other point, I just don't understand the concept of an  
instrument "owing" something to a genre.  The harmonica existed  
before the blues, was played in a wide range of styles before the  
blues and while what we know would call the Blues was evolving was  
played in things which both relate and don't relate to the blues (and  
using bends, 2nd position and the like outside of a strict "Blues  
construct--which is natural, as "The Blues" wasn't strictly defined  
before the 1940's, IMO).  True, the saxophone is most prominent in  
jazz--but it was a classical and marching instrument before it became  
the main jazz instrument, and can still be found there.  I don't see  
how it "owes" anything to jazz--again, I just don't understand the  
concept here.

"There are many genres where the harmonica plays an important role,  
which is great, but these cases are an exception to the rule "

The false assumption is that the harmonica plays an important role in  
the Blues as different from the role it might play in other genres.   
I'll say it more plainly: since 1950 the drums are more important to  
mainstream blues than the harmonica.  The harmonica is featured more  
often in the blues than rock, for instance, but that doesn't really  
mean it's more important to the blues.  I think you are overstating  
the importance of the harp in blues significantly.  The harmonica is  
a side-instrument to the all-encompassing guitar and then after the  
50's to the drums and bass as well.  It's like a cherry on a sundae-- 
it's still a sundae without a cherry.  You might not like it as much,  
but to say that the cherry plays an integral role in the sundae is  
massively overstating the importance of the cherry.  I'd say that the  
harmonica has played at least as important a role in many genres  
through the years: Harmonica ensembles (maybe--I'm just not sure  
about the importance of the harmonica here); jug bands; folk duos  
(not always blues); old-time.  That's three off the top of my head  
where the harmonica is found as often and as noticeably as in the blues.

"As to the blues inventing the light bulb, it's pretty much true. To  
put a long story short, most of the greats have been influenced by  
the blues. Elvis, Beatles, Rolling Stones, Aretha, James Brown, Dylan  
etc etc. "

Elvis was influenced by early country, Western swing, what might be  
called "hillbilly music" of the mid-South and a lot more as well as  
the delta blues which we would know tend to call "the Blues" (in  
hindsight, of course--back then it was just "race music").  To just  
hear the blues in Elvis and assume that it is the overwhelming  
influence is missing out on all the rest that went into that mix.   
The same with Little Richard, Aretha (gee, any gospel there?  How  
about some sax-based r&b as descended from Louis Jordan?) and  
especially someone like James Brown, whose on-the-one funk was worlds  
away from the rhythmic identity of traditional African-American music  
of all genres, including the blues.  The Beatles were influenced by  
everyone, but their primary influence was the British skiffle craze  
which was influenced by Buddy Holly and from what little I've heard,  
ragtime.  The blues was there, but not the delta blues which became  
the genre we would today call "the Blues"--at least not noticeably.   
The Stones are another matter, of course--they actively claimed blues  
influence.  But bands like the Who or the Kinks really weren't nearly  
as influenced by the Blues a la Muddy et al as by early rock (which  
was simultaneous with what is now the Blues) and such.  In any event,  
so what?  I don't see anyone saying the blues or the Blues isn't an  
influence on American popular music--just that it's not the only  
influence, nor always the most important one--it depends on the case  
in point.

"Rap-artists of today sample blues. "

Very, very rarely.  They also sample Javanese gamelan music, French  
musette and other genres.  I don't think anyone would argue that  
these are massive influences on hip-hop or rap.

"Looking at a list of most popular music today, it's pretty hard to  
find anything that owes nothing to the blues."

The entire electronica genres.  Most hip-hop.  Almost all of the  
bubble-gum-pop singers.  Punk shares little besides a chord-structure  
and instrumentation--the former predates the Blues, the later not  
exclusive to it.  Do I really need to go on.  Maybe "nothing" is an  
exaggeration, but they owe a lot less to the Blues than they owe to  
many, many other genres.  And that's in the US.  If we were to go  
overseas I'm sure I could come up with more (actually, I wouldn't  
have to--the various electronicas are so huge as to not need another  
example).

And note, we really do need to make a distinction between the Blues  
as a genre itself and the blues as a song form and also from early  
African-American musics in general.  These are three criss-crossing  
things which are not exclusive of each other.

The blues (and the Blues) are very large influences on most of  
American music in the last half-century, and the things from which  
the blues rose (and from which jazz, country, bluegrass, etc... arose  
as well) have really been massively influential around the world.   
But there is no need to overstate either this influence or the  
importance of the harmonica in the blues in order to make the first  
sentence here any more valid.

This reminds me of a memory of Artie Shaw I read in Downbeat.  It was  
during their year-end, "here's who died" issue and the writer felt  
the need to raise Shaw up by denigrating Benny Goodman.  In the end,  
it really didn't do Shaw much justice--he was significant in his own  
right and didn't need the comparison to shine, especially because it  
ended up making his fans seem bitter and as if they needed to  
denigrate someone else just for being more successful.  I feel the  
same way here with the ridiculous exaggerations about the blues--it's  
important enough to stand alone without any false claims of  
overwhelming greatness.



 ()()    JR "Bulldogge" Ross
()  ()   & Snuffy, too:)
`----'