AllenLowe

"You talk to Son House, who taught Robert Johnson, and he says, "When I was growin' up, wasn't nothin' pertainin' to no blues." Blues came in from the north, on records. Now that doesn't mean it didn't have lots of roots in the older music. But it was a new, hot pop style. And you actually talk to older musicians down there, they talk about how blues ruined the nice old music. How "We used to have all these pretty dance tunes, and then that blues came in and wiped it all out." sorry, but this is really WAY oversimplfied about the blues - borderline BS, pardon me for saying. The recollecttions of House are MUCH more complicated - those don't even strike me as real quotes - let's get a citation; I honestly don't belive it - there is some truth, but it is WAY oversimplified in that statement - the origins of the blues are way more complicated than this as well - don't take that interview seriously, please - read Howard Odum first, if you must -

well, these are loaded questions, and I will answer them quickly and imperfectly....what is generally meant by authentic tends, I think, to be socially derived - that the person who is making the music is making it from earned experience, that the music reflects the verifiable reality of the person and not some imagined or invented reality - I don't agree with all of the implications of the above, but I think that that is what is GENERALLY meant by the term - and my counterpoint to those who put down the blues revival white guys is relative to what I said before - that they did not like the music because they thought it was authentic, they thought it was authentic because they liked it, because it spoke to some deep well of life and experience and personal consciousness - and then I would give a deeper definition of authenticity, as something that derives from true personal consciousness, from an awareness of deep levels of life and thought and that is created out of expressive necessity; it involves experience and imagination and thought and feeling and even commercially derived ideas of popularity and distribution, even though it, itself, may remain obscure. my problem with some of the revisionist thinking which worries about sales and statistics is that, using the same standards, someone writing, say, 50 years from now, a history of 21st century jazz might, using these criteria, put prime emphasis on Kenny G; to me, what constitutes the history of an art form is not sales and popularity but strength of expression and, (only incidentally sometimes) influence, and how such expression weaves itself through the production and/or distribution of that art from - we see the picture of the history of the art by looking at what people have done with its forms, regardless of recognition or earnings. These expressions often make up complicated connections of culture and subculture, personality and commerce. So Son House, who maybe sold 18 records in his lifetime - well, his slide style and his singing influenced Muddy Waters and Robert Johnson and THEY influenced countless others - either directly or through the creation of a sounds that permeated the music by way of records and juke joints and dances and informal singing -

don't mean to cast aspersions, as I think he was a very brilliant musician; maybe just caught him on a bad day -

fascinating guy, huge ego - I talked to him when I was working on my 1950s jazz book and he told me about guys like Gil Melle/Mingus/Bley really talking a lot about ways to move the music forward; that was truly an unsung modernist movement in jazz - he also mentioned about some concerts that he said involved Varese, but I never got very far in talkng to him because unless I repeated every 10 minutes or so how much I liked his work, he would get oddly hostile - I hope someone, somewhere, did a decent and detailed interview with him because I finally gave up - I wonder if Chris Albertson ever had any dealings with him - Chris?

there's a few new books and some academic thinking (if that's not an oxymoron) about whites and the roots music phenomenon of the 1960s, particularly the blues revival; it's a complicated discussion and more than I have the energy to deal with right now, but one of the things that it posits is that the white guys who created the blues revival were deluded by the apparent authenticity of the musicians they admired and rescued (eg Son House, John Hurt, et al) and tended to like them because they appeared, socially and perosnally, to be "authentic" - I happen to reject this revisionisim - as I said to Larry kart in a conversation we had last year, it's the other way around - we don't like the music because we think it's authentic, we think it's authentic because we like it - a crucial distinction, because it puts aestehtics first, the SOUND of the music and the mode of creation. So I'm weary of these new theories and dissertations, as intelligent as some of them are (Marybeth Hamilton's book on the blues is very good because it certainly isolates that part of the blues movement which should be questioned in terms of motives and methodology). as a musician most of this relates to what I pick and choose in order to develop my own music - moving these days towards a kind of collage of sounds and trying to get the right touch on guitar, though if one has to try too hard it's likely beyond technical reach. As for Myra M., interesting, because, though it's been some time since I listened to here, I always found her blues unconvincing, as too self-consciously "rootsy," but will go back and take another listen -

love Junior Parker - the first black hillbilly - which brings us to Pat Hare, the greatest blues guitarist ever -

the biggest problem for me has been finding the right musicians - while I'm happy with my CD, I feel like I've gone beyond it now; and have recently found a bassist whom I think will work well with some of my current ideas - only took me 12 years -

agreed on the Motian band - that was a FANTASTIC group, best work for all involved - good and accurate characterization - "NPR Americana thing" - might want to check out my latest thread in miscellaneous; I decided to expand upon this theme -

was reading Gary Kamiya's intelligent article on jazz vs rock - and thinking, why do I almost never listen to jazz anymore? My wife thinks I've gone nuts, but all I put on are: 1920s/30s hillbilly; 1920s/30s blues; 1920s/30s songsters; really old sorta/jazz, pre 1935; congregational/small group and guitar gospel, 1920-1955, approximately; No Wave/punk from 1970-1978, approximately; 1960s rock and roll - and so I think I've finally figured this out - aside from just general burnout (listening to jazz since 1968, sometimes up to 8 hours/day) I find that those musics that I am now listening to better satisfy my desire for fragmentary expression as a more accurate and interesting reflection of consciousness than smoother, continuous, more linear expression; why no free jazz than? I would listen if the solos/performances were shorter and more concise (lets say 2-4 minutes tops). I like the anarchy of those kinds of music above, the lack of continuity, the rawness, yet great discipline and abstract yet real organization; for me personally it relates to what a great writer once said about all the stories having been told, and his belief that the current subjects should be states of consciousness. I realize there are exceptions, things that I like that don't fit into this scheme of things. But that, in a brief statement, is why I almost never listen to jazz (or maybe contemporary jazz, or maybe post-war jazz). AND - as a player - I feel I can play better in this style - meaning the fragmentary approach approximates my own consciousness and personal scattered state better than, say, the more organized lines of bebop. I don't want to create a melody that is coherent and nice and perfect - I want to produce pieces of nothing, the opening words of sentences that I may never complete. this is my new philosophy. Maybe born of necessity, out of my own personal internal/external chaos. Now I gotta start practicing again -

whatsamatter, not enough chickens in Wisconsin?

did she have any inside info on the Reichstag fire?

problem is that jazz guys listen to some Bill Monore, maybe some Chet Atkins or Merle Travis and Hank Williams and LeftyFrizzell and than T Bone Walker and BB King and they think they understand the forms -

Frisell can play, but, truthfully, when it comes to roots forms of American music most jazz guitar players don't really have the aptitude, from issues of touch to repertoire to style and rhythm. There's nothing wrong with jazz guitar, but when I see players like one of Cassandra Wilson's guys playing banjo, I cringe - I only know of one guitarist with a true jazz background who understands this stuff -

and 18 years ago a skunk carrying a mandolin walked accross my back yard -

that's weird - last night an old guy with a dog walked past my house - what're the chances?

"some day we will need someone like Hitler again, but this time he should go for the young people..." I KNEW Eva Braun didn't die in that bunker -

what hath Chris wrought?

let's not forget Cousin Brucie -

and Imus -

also, Tokyo Rose -

few people know this, but Chris also gave Phil Schaap his start -

actually, vis a ve Larry and Chris, I left 1936 out of my jazz history -

I'm a little late here - but the best sounding Basie/Deccas were the old gatefold LPS - IF you can find one that has not been out into fake stereo - pristine sound -

I liked Jimmy McPartland - years ago he had a show on Public Television with Art Hodes - nice relaxed sessions - fine if unspectacular player - he and Marian had a nice long term relationship; years after they were divorced she took care of him when he was fading out - sweet lady, fine pianist if a little stiff on some things -

any time -