Folk Music And Jazz

[John L]

"The blues is black American folk music."

actually there is no proof of this, and the earliest blues performances/songs we have are tin-Pan alley related, commercial performances. Now, it is very possible that their intial sources were "folk," but we do not really know this for a fact - an equally plausible theory is that the blues was a commercial development of folk sources, a professional codification of black song -

Tin Pan Alley didn't have much to do with what they were playing in the Mississippi Delta and rural Texas in the early part of the century, or what Buddy Bolden was playing in New Orleans for that matter. We don't have recordings from before the 1920s, but we do have studies, memoires, interviews, the Lomax archive, and song lists.

More precisely, I would say that the Blues is an artistic music that is based on African American folk music.

[AllenLowe]

sorry, no proof of that - as I said the earliest BLUES we have are commercial (and not Tin Pan Alley, but the work of professional songwriters) - eg, the verse to Bill Bailey, which was written in a blues format; also a commercial recording from about 1912; also a report of a medicine show blues, but that report may not be reliable. AND, Gus Haenschen recorded a blues in 1916 (he was a commercial pianist). Delta-wise we hear nothing until the 1920s; we have reports of blues-like couplets, but no idea if they were sung in a blues form. So unless you have new evidence, there is nothing to back up what you are saying - the early, pre-blues African American formats we know of are more likely repeated, single-chord songs (similar to some John Lee Hooker things).

Edited March 5, 2005 by AllenLowe

[John L]

Well, maybe we are using the word Blues to refer to two different things. To me, the Blues has nothing really to do with a particular song form, despite the fact that the 12-bar form became very popular at one time, and everything to do with a language of musical communication. It seems to me that the evidence is convincing enough that this language came from African Americans in the South, and has strong roots going back to the 19th century.

By my definition, John Lee Hooker's one-chord drones are most certainly Blues.

Edited March 5, 2005 by John L

[mikeweil]

The late Swedish pianist Jan Johansson was one of those rare musicians who successfully combined jazz with his country's folklore and explored the possibilities.

All the albums where he took inspiration from Sweden's folk music produced some of the most enjoyable music around. I have heard only a few of them but each of those I managed to get proved the combination could be a very swinging and inspiring success.

His CDs are available though CDBaby - I will order some later this year - they have an excellent reputation.

A German jazz bassist, Dieter Ilg, who worked with Randy Brecker among others, did two CDs of jazzed treatments of German folk songs he pulled from the German Folk music archive in Freiburg, where he lives, some of it is very nice.

I think back in the early 2oth century jazz was at least partially folk music, but has developped into an art music at least since the late 1930's. Now good folk music can be artful, must is not as ambitious most of the time.

Edited March 5, 2005 by mikeweil

[A Lark Ascending]

Thanks, Bev! 'Preciate it!

Just a health warning - the recording has virtually none of the Larry Youngish organ of the live date and is a notch or two more subdued. Nice album though with especially interesting takes on 'White Line Fever' and 'Shady Grove'.

I'm hoping there's a live album being prepared!

Edited March 5, 2005 by Bev Stapleton

[AllenLowe]

I am defining blues as the harmonic movement of of 1-4-1, 5-4-1; anything else is really pre-blues or more cause than effect - the blues is, very specifically, that progression, and had a lot of African American antecedents, which we should not refer to as the blues, as they influenced the development of the blues and not the other way around - what people often refer to as "blues feeling" is really a reference to older African American methods of pitch and rhythm - which have influenced musicians with little specific "blues" feeling (eg. Coleman Hawkins).

Edited March 5, 2005 by AllenLowe

[John L]

OK, I understand you now, Allen. For the purposes of this thread (the relationship between jazz and folk music), you might substitute "African American methods of pitch and rhythm" for "Blues" in my posts, although I would still argue that it is more than just pitch and rhythm. It is a whole complex language of musical communication that I like to refer to as "Blues."

[JSngry]

Could we all agree that "Blues" as we know/knew it today is the net result of a lenghty, complicated, and multi-tiered back-and-forth between deep "folk" sources and the marketplace?

I mean, if Allen wants to make the argument that the 12 bar form is the final commercial codification of any number of non-folk forces shaping raw folk materials for popular consumption, I'm not about to begin to argue otherwise. Makes perfect sense to me.

But if the argument is (and it doesn't seem to be, but for the sake of "sureness", let's proceed...) that those non-folk sources created the raw materials that they then also molded, well, that's going to be a harder, if not impossible, sell, at least to me. Like Mr. Litwack, I also believe that "Blues" is a helluva lot more than just a 12 bar form w/a certain set of chord progressions. This opinion might not be a popularly-held one, but it's what I've believed for longer than I care to remember.

[John L]

That sounds right to me, Jim.

[AllenLowe]

Jim, I agree, and I never intended to give that impression - the reason I make these points is that, historically, a lot of claims are made that can never be substantiated. This may seem like quibbling, but a lot of people (and even scholars) make unsupportable claims for the origins of the blues, and I see the source as being much deeper and broader. By labeling everything as "blues" we tend to give short shrift to all that was going on prior to the blues, to the less formal interactions of black and white musicians, to minstrelsey, to religious music, work songs, field songs, early black popular singing; etc; it's like labeling everything in jazz before 1950 as bebop - there were, as we know, other things that came before the modernists. Some may see these distinctions as nitpicking but they are not, especially as we see pre-bues performers (called songsters by Paul Oliver) who sang a lot more than the blues but whose origins and those of the blues have a lot in common, particularly as they relate to Southern music. There is just another whole world of black song that we miss by calling everything the blues - a lot of early jug music and sanctified song, a great deal of the repertoire of Charlie Patton and Blind Lemon Jefferson, the songs of Henry Thomas, hillbilly songs and ragtime/pop tunes. These were folk tunes often altered by pop influence, and sung as traveling entertainments, on streetcorners and at medicine shows. As jazz people (and musicians) we can see the importance of this to jazz, as a great deal of this fed the development of early pop song and hence the jazz musician's original (and developing) repertoire -

Edited March 6, 2005 by AllenLowe

[John L]

Allen: Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

I agree with you that we should view the blues as being distinct from other African American musics, although where to draw the line is a complicated question. Certainly, it is possible to define "blues" by drawing the line at the 12-bar song form (although there are early European folk song forms that are very similar. Should we call them "blues" too?). But I worry that we are missing the essence of what really constitutes the blues when we do this.

What is your opinion of all the recollections of Buddy Bolden in New Orleans as a "blues player?" There do not appear to have been 12-bar blues in his repertoire. On the taped Baby Dodds interviews, he recalled that Bunk Johnson played almost nothing but slow blues around the turn of the century. Sidney Bechet distinguished the music of the Eagle Band as "blues," as opposed to what almost other bands were playing in New Orleans at the time. Do you think that this is just an abuse of the term to mean simply "African American pitch and rhythm?"

You mention Charley Patton. Yes, he played blues and non-blues songs. Yet very few of his songs that we usually identify as blues actually fit the 12 bar form very comfortably.

When people like Mahalia Jackson, Rebert Harris, and Sally Martin were accused of bringing the blues into African American religious music in the 1930s, what did this mean? Was it simply a reference to the fact that they were singing newer songs of Thomas Dorsey and Reverend Brewster? I don't think so. It was the clearly manner in which they were singing, although completely outside of the 12-bar form.

My own feeling is that the blues is indeed a distinct music that is closely related to, but not the same as, many other types of African Amercian music. Despite the absence of recordings before the 1920s (purely a commercial decision), I feel convinced that the distinct musical language of the blues had already evolved to a rather advanced stage by the early years of the 20th century. That interests me much more than the question of the exact time and place that the 12-bar form came into use.

You may argue that, given the absence of recordings, there is no proof of what I am contending. OK, agreed. There is only limited evidence, and that the way that I interpret it. I will continue to believe what I believe until I see evidence to contrary.

Edited March 7, 2005 by John L

[AllenLowe]

interesting about the baby Dodds, and I'd like to hear the exact words he used - (I have the autobiography and will have to take a look if I can find it) but it's certainly quite possible that he heard the blues around that time. That still, however, does not tell us where they came from, and in the absence of real documentation (this intereview was, after all, done well after the fact) we cannot really judge. This "musical language" you refer to, however, was not necessarily the blues (once again we may be confusing cause and effect) and people were likely to use the term "blues" to describe the modern gospel singers because they had no other frame of reference. And if, indeed, blues WAS played by those jazz groups near the turn of the century, well, this gives increased credibility to my theory that the blues was a commercial codification and consolidation of older black musical forms. There is, apparently, old sheet music (from the 19th century) which does contain the 12 bar blues format (there is a professor, Peter Muir, who is currently doing research on the professional songwriter and the development of the blues). It is just that we really should not make statements of fact about things for which we do not have the facts. The origins of the blues are really shrouded in mystery and my belief is that those older references you speak of, vital and important as they are, are really pre-blues.

Edited March 7, 2005 by AllenLowe

[David Ayers]

A useful source on this issue is Peter van der Merwe, Origins of the Popular Style: The Antecedents of Twentieth Century Popular Music. It is a well thought-out argument which proceeds from musicological rather than sociological grounds, and makes important suggestions about the route by which European and specifically Scots/Irish folk music (in turn influenced by Arab music) had a formative influence on the Blues. I can't summarize the argument from memory but anyone with a scholarly interest is recommended to pursue it. (I reviewed it in the Journal of American Studies, some years back, if you have access to that journal).

[AllenLowe]

Davis - I have often cited Van Der Merwe's book in the past, but not long ago someone on the Jazz Research line gave it something of a skewering - can you elaborate on your feeling about the book? Thanks -

[David Ayers]

My feeling is that it was right to follow the migration of musical elements with the result that European harmonic/melodic elements were given a viable looking genealogy, their convergence with West African and Arab melodic and rhythmic elements was mapped, and features some detialed investigation of the emergence of the 12 bar form in the late 19thC. I felt the account added some complexity to the easily overstated formulation that Blues=Black and African. It also gives increased material to your question about what is 'folk' in the context of commercial publishing and urbanisation.

[Dr. Rat]

This thread reminds me of a couple of things we've discussed before, one is Gunther Schuller's Early Jazz, which suffered a lot from a (I perceived to be political) agenda to tout the almost exclusively african origins of jazz. Which is a pretty big claim consiodering that we are now questioning the exclusively african origin of blues!

This thread also reminded me of a couple of earlier threads about Elijah Wald's book on the legacy of Robert Johnson, which among other thing tries to complicate the story of the blues' origins and early history.

Wald post 1

Wald thread

[JSngry]

I myself am perfectly comfortable with using "blues" to describe the unique African-American musical/cultural elements that made up the Primal Stew which later was contained in part by "Blues".

Hey - I know what I mean, and I ain't a-writin' no scholarly tome for no public consumption, so I'm a-gonna go with what I know and leave the rest of the driving to Greyhound!

[AllenLowe]

all right, you win -

[JSngry]

Aw MAN. That was TOO easy!

Seriously, I just meant that I understand both sides of the coin in this matter, and agree that for scholalry purposes, the distinction should certainly continue to be made and explored. But look, man, down here, a sizable portion of the African-American community refers to anything that's not slick Black Pop as "blues". (Marvin Sease a "blues" singer? You & I might think elsewise, but I'm telling you, to most of the people down hear who buy his stuff, that's exactly how they think of him), and for the kids who were raised on hip-hop and are just now discover the actual concept of honest-to-god SONGS, Luther Vandross is "blues". I kid you not. Happened to me at my straight job last week - this 23 year old woman had headphones on, I aske her what she was listening to, and she said, "some blues". Oh really? Cool! Who ya' listening to? "Luther Vandross." O...k....

But I can see how all this has happened, and when the word "blues" is used like this, I understand what is meant. Now, you know and I know what the deal is at one level, but the word itself has different meanings (and therefore different socio-historical implications) in different worlds.

I live in several different worlds simultaneously (when I live in any at all), so my understanding and use of the word can and must remain flexible in order to function in each. That's all I was trying to say.

But hey, if I still win, WHERE MY MONEY, HUH???

[AllenLowe]

well, you caught me at a tired moment and I wanted to appear to be gracious -

your points are well taken, it's just that I've spent a lot of time listening and studying this stuff and you're right, in common usage people have different ideas of what it is and what it isn't. It's just that once you look at this incredible universe of black music it's so damned complicated and multi-layered. My arguments are not with audiences but with academics who have created these very convenient categories and who have spent so much time "contextualizing" that they never really listen to the music. Fortunately there are people like yourself who actually have real-life experience with the music and I have no real argument with your perspective.

[JSngry]

My arguments are not with audiences but with academics who have created these very convenient categories and who have spent so much time "contextualizing" that they never really listen to the music.

Dig it.

Now, if the world of academia nuts starts getting to you too much, c'mon down to Texas, and I can hook you up with some people for whom grits ain't groceries, eggs ain't poultry, and Mona Lisa was a man.

Ever gone to a gig scrubbing pots in the kitchen of a psychiatric hospital at 5 AM and when you come in the kitchen, there's this WAY scratchy Jimmy Reed Vee-Jay side blaring at full volume through some $10 "record player" and you're the only person in the room who's less than TOTALLY hung over and one of the ladies is still trying to get everything to fit right in her bra while she's simultaneously scrambling eggs and frying bacon, both of which turn out perfectly?

Now THERE'S some contextualizing fer the acadmics!

[Chuck Nessa]

Academia nuts - those be good on farina in the morning.

[John L]

To give a bit more clarity of what I (and I think Jim) are arguing:

Blues can be defined in different ways. There is no sense in arguing over a definition, as definitions, by their very nature, cannot be right or wrong, only more or less useful in various contexts.

In certain musicological contexts, it should make sense to identify "blues" strictly according to the 12-bar form and discuss its emergence and evolution from that point of view.

On the other hand, there is a musical phenomenon, sometimes referred to as "blues," which I believe to be one of the greatest of the 20th century, one that provided the backbone and power to much of jazz and other Amercian music. If we don't use the word "blues" to refer to this phenomenon, which has little to do with the 12 bar form in and of itself, then we need another name for it. "Pre-blues" doesn't really sound too compelling to me, nor does "African American pitch and rhythm."

I'm with Jim. At the risk of abusing the term, I'm going to keep calling it "blues."

[AllenLowe]

on the other hand - I was thinking about this last night just before I fell asleep - many people call Kenny G jazz; would we accept that designation just because so many people use it as part of their own musical points of view and just because it has its own sociological justification? I'm not so sure we can really accept it without some challenge -

[AllenLowe]

my other problem (and this is NOT related to anything you guys have said) is that blues has become something of an ideology for the Wynton Marsalis's and Stanley Crouch's of the world, and sometimes I want to grab them by the scruff of the neck (not a good idea with Crouch, by the way) and tell them that the heritage of which they speak so fondly is much more complicated -