From: jack9~xcite.com Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 06:34:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Ageless- since when?
Hi all, Very interested in some of the respones to the 'Death of Blues' thread , particularly this 'blues is timeless/ageless etc.' line. Cro-magnon man banging out the good old 12/8 before bars(both musical and liquid) were invented? Correct me but I thought the 'blues' - as we know it - was confined to this century/late last century (Oh no - I mean late 1800s-to 1900s - damn this millenium). A previous thread -last millenium even - where it was pointed out by quite a few on this list that the harp predated the blues- that makes the blues pretty young. The insinuation that the blues is more a 'feeling ', an 'emotion' sort of thing is an insult to every blues lyricist and musician that ever lived. That's like saying Beethoven wrote blues - which is very different to saying he had the blues, which I'm sure was true. There must be a consideration of the structure/mechanics of the genre otherwise all genres become meaningless. Blues may very well be a certain feeling/emotion but that is only a small aspect - that feeling is articulated in certain specific ways and it has traditionally occupied a particular cultural space within life - a sort of 'underdog' tag. Obviously the blues is changing enormously. Consider the fact that a French produced website is now weighing in -quite heavily - as one of the world authorities on blues harp (never happen? just sit and watch). My bottom line is this: I am a great fan of American 'Noir' literature. You can say that noir consisted of a certain 'feeling' and content - but that's saying very little. It was the combination of those factors with a particular style of syntax, characterisation, settings, plots, style - and don't forget the ending, very important (the No Way Out syndrome). All these elements are common to all forms of writing in some form or other- what mattered was their combination. Exactly the same with blues. Noir also grew out of specific racial and class conditions. A lot of struggling white hack writers churning out stuff that was aimed purely for commercial purposes to rake in money to prop up ailing high art publications. Their collective efforts soon merged into a particular collective style. Voila. You can argue that noir - like the blues - could have been written anywhere. But it wasn't. You have to ask yrself that if it wasn't for the American noir writers would we have noir as we know it now? We wouldn't have it at all. Same as the blues. That fact of the origins of blues is being completely thrown away - as was seen in the recent Lil' Walter thread. I'm not arguing any white guy's right to play the blues, I'm just saying it's being transformed enormously because of it and I don't accept Gussow's flimsy argument at all. For a particular group of people at a particular time it was a vital component of their life. In many cases it was all they had. For all of us living in the here and now it's more of pleasure we have the privilege to dip into (We tend to reduce it to a technical problem - one of mastering the mechanics - One of the truest jokes in Scooter's recently posted list - What does one harmonica player say to another the first time they meet- I'm better than you). But I refuse to forget it was born of a particular struggle that was/is never any white guy's and is always something we can walk/and have walked away from. You tell me the difference between Gussow and Mr Satan - one's an academic lecturing in college - what's the other?? Cut the goddamn bullshit.
regards,
jack.
_______________________________________________________ Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite Visit http://freeworld.excite.com