Contemporary Rootsy Americana-y Type Stuff

[thedwork]

hey bev. i'm skipping the in-depth discussion on... what is it on? and going right for the music since i've been checking out a lot of what i feel you may be wanting to hear about in this thread.

the term 'americana' casts a pretty wide net these days, so i'll not fence myself in. i don't think anyone has specifically mentioned chris thile yet. someone mentioned nickel creek, and they're fine. but he is doing things that are way beyond that. his punch brothers band recording is terrific and the duo album he made w/ edgar meyer is scary. if you know meyer then just imagine someone as open-minded, burning, and virtuostic as him but on mandolin.

if you're interestd in stuff that gets closer to the current 'alt-country,' Wilco sound/feel (for lack of a more well known marker), check out Richmond Fontaine's latest record. they'r pretty under the radar. i reviewed it here:

We Used To Think The Freeway Sounded Like A River

the vid the site chose to accompany my review wasn't the one i'd've chosen. probably the least representative song sonically but... their songwriter has written a few novels as well. i've only read one of them so far. it was quite good.

Check out Duke Levine (there are some videos on youtube).

god bless you Tom in RI for mentioing Duke. for my money, the greatest 'unknown' guitarist alive. his recordings don't do him justice. i used to live in boston and was able to see him play a bunch. masterful. here's a couple clips to get an idea:

Mellow Duke

Rockin' Duke

i have duke's Lava and Country Soul Guitar recordings. they're uneven, but for me, must haves. and he's never disappointed live. every note i've seen him perform live has been worthwhile. he's a special dude.

hope you get some enjoyment from some of these bev .

Edited March 31, 2010 by thedwork

[A Lark Ascending]

...there are those whose Shivers come from hearing the intangible feel of the Broader Unknown being discovered (to one degree or another) in real time.

I think that's where you and I are coming from a very different direction - the capitalisation of Shivers and the Broader Unknown remind me of Stanley Crouch's use of the term Swing in his liner notes for Wynton Marsalis.

Now I know where all that comes from - but I'm an almost Dawkinesque materialist. Whilst I recognise the ability of music, painting, landscape etc to evoke feelings beyond the conscious mind - and that's why we go there - I don't hold with they idea that they do so because of anything spiritual.

So the idea that a Robert Johnson or a Charlie Parker were able to enter a realm of spirituality or grace or 'Swing' that contemporary performers just can't reach just doesn't ring true to me. I think that has been read into this music over the years and almost taken as gospel.

Edited March 31, 2010 by Bev Stapleton

[A Lark Ascending]

and even if the past HAS been invented, what's wrong with that? This is a music of imagination and myth, I think, of invention and re-invention.

Nothing whatsoever, as long as it is presented as such and not as the 'truth'. Claiming music created today is mere imitation of a more real music of the past suggests an attempt to nail down realities. I just think it's all much more slippery - and all the better for it.

Not an exact analogy, but I've very little time for the rock music of the last 30 years, yet I still love what I grew up on in the 60s and 70s. Now I could claim this is so because rock music then had 'soul' and today it has lost it. The trouble is that people in the 70s were saying exactly the same thing about the music that was contemporary then, claiming it was a poor inheritor of the excitement of Eddie Cochran, Gene Vincent, Little Richard.

Edited March 31, 2010 by Bev Stapleton

[JSngry]

...there are those whose Shivers come from hearing the intangible feel of the Broader Unknown being discovered (to one degree or another) in real time.

I think that's where you and I are coming from a very different direction - the capitalisation of Shivers and the Broader Unknown remind me of Stanley Crouch's use of the term Swing in his liner notes for Wynton Marsalis

Except that I doubt that Crouch had his tongue firmly in his cheek when he did it,,,or almost laughed out loud once or twice while typing...

I mean, Dude...er...dude...relax sometimes, ok?

[AllenLowe]

"a discovery really doesn't "mean" anything until it's defined - not in terms of language, but in terms of context to its time, place, people, all that good stuff."

that's where I disagree strongly - new things that are so startling new and brilliant are so because they exist so suddenly, as part of their time yet completely apart from it - as an alternate to what we normally consider to be history. To define them in social terms is to reduce them to things that are finally just utilitarian, that only serve to put them into the kinds of context that, in the process, strip them of their life and essence. The reason these things still sound so good to us - from Robert Johnson to Bird to Varese - is that they stand so completely apart from representational ideas like people, place, etc. Which does not mean they have no context or time, but only that such things are secondary to their way of being.

Edited March 31, 2010 by AllenLowe

[JSngry]

fwiw - my own Personal Style (if I am allowed to be so bold as to have One) is to capitalize words or phrases when i feel that a little Mockin or Tweaking of A Concept That Should Be Taken Seriously But Not THAT Seriously is being mentioned...kinda like Irrational Fear Of Tastemakers, or Something Like that...

[JSngry]

"a discovery really doesn't "mean" anything until it's defined - not in terms of language, but in terms of context to its time, place, people, all that good stuff."

that's where I disagree strongly - new things that are so startling new and brilliant are so because they exist so suddenly, as part of their time yet completely apart from it - as an alternate to what we normally consider to be history. To define them in social terms is to reduce them to things that are finally just utilitarian, that only serve to put them into the kinds of context that, in the process, strip them of their life and essence. The reason these things still sound so good to us - from Robert Johnson to Bird to Varese - is that they stand so completely apart from representational ideas like people, place, etc. Which does not mean they have no context or time, but only that such things are secondary to their way of being.

I mean real-time definition, not definition by historians...if Lester Young had just hit upon a few wacky phrases and sounds, that would have been that. But no - he discovered, and then he defined. all in real time, And what he defined then stood up as a new reality all its own.

"New" in and of itself..asks the question "now what?" If it doesn't answer its own question, then...some other time, maybe. Or not. Robert Johnson, Bird, Varese, etc. it wasn't just that they were new, it was that they were new and provided their own dfinition of what their newness was, That's when you know you got a bad motherfucker to deal with - when they discover and then define, all in one package.

[AllenLowe]

agreed - they, like Monk, provide their own frame of reference, own system, own world.

[A Lark Ascending]

Sound like good old 19thC Romanticism to me.

The 'Great Man' theory of history.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

"a discovery really doesn't "mean" anything until it's defined - not in terms of language, but in terms of context to its time, place, people, all that good stuff."

that's where I disagree strongly - new things that are so startling new and brilliant are so because they exist so suddenly, as part of their time yet completely apart from it - as an alternate to what we normally consider to be history. To define them in social terms is to reduce them to things that are finally just utilitarian, that only serve to put them into the kinds of context that, in the process, strip them of their life and essence. The reason these things still sound so good to us - from Robert Johnson to Bird to Varese - is that they stand so completely apart from representational ideas like people, place, etc. Which does not mean they have no context or time, but only that such things are secondary to their way of being.

It depends why one listens to music (or reads etc). To me, the social, cultural, geographical, political and temporal context is a large part of why I listen to music. I feel that societies make music through the agency of musicians. Some of those musicians are geniuses, most aren't. What interests me is what they have in common, rather than what sets a precious few apart. It's much more important to me than what you haven't quite described but nonetheless seems to be "Art". I don't want to ignore that, and try not to, but in the end it isn't what does it for me. So I can't really get too worked up about it.

Perhaps if I were a trained musician I'd listen to music in a different way. Well, I suppose that, in a way, it would be my BUSINESS to do so. But that may imply simply a different kind of limitation from mine. So, well...

MG

[JSngry]

Well, if you want to argue that there have never been any Great Men (ooops....great men) or Great Women (great women), then that's pretty much a willful ignoring of reality then, isn't it?

Same thing as if one were to argue that the Not-Do-Great Mean & Women made no distinct impact either. That's silly too.

But have there been Ggreat Mmen Aand Wwomen? Of course there have been! I'd think that only a fool would argue otherwise.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Sound like good old 19thC Romanticism to me.

The 'Great Man' theory of history.

Yes, but it isn't entirely wrong. It's a way of seeing things and undoubtedly it, too, has its utility to those who want or need to see things that way.

MG

[A Lark Ascending]

That there have and are and will be extraordinary individuals, who have been one of the elements in shaping development - of course I accept that. I just see them as part of a much broader range of factors. And I see them as being part of their time (though not necessarily the elements that are immediately apparent on the surface). They have context. Yes, there will be an element of dialectical push and shove against prevailing mores, but I tend to go with the idea that its the socio-economic factors that largely shape things; the individuals nudge things this way or that, sometimes with mega-historic consequences (what if someone with more political acumen than Louis XVI had ascended the French throne in the 1770s?).

I think the interpretation you are putting forward here, JSngry - 'The Outsider' who flies against the nature of the times and then cuts through to somewhere new is very attractive but essentially a late-18thC invention. It's also been very much the traditional interpretation since the time of Beethoven when it comes to writing musical history. Hanging it all on colourful individuals with the wider context providing background scenery.

[JSngry]

Oh, people never did that before the late 18th century.

My bad.

And please - I recommended Frank Hewitt for god's sake...so what is it - do I fetishize the Great Man or do I revel in The Obscure? Or if I do both, what "ideology" do I now advocate?

I think there's an agenda here against perceived agendas... no wonder the dead ends...

[A Lark Ascending]

"a discovery really doesn't "mean" anything until it's defined - not in terms of language, but in terms of context to its time, place, people, all that good stuff."

that's where I disagree strongly - new things that are so startling new and brilliant are so because they exist so suddenly, as part of their time yet completely apart from it - as an alternate to what we normally consider to be history. To define them in social terms is to reduce them to things that are finally just utilitarian, that only serve to put them into the kinds of context that, in the process, strip them of their life and essence. The reason these things still sound so good to us - from Robert Johnson to Bird to Varese - is that they stand so completely apart from representational ideas like people, place, etc. Which does not mean they have no context or time, but only that such things are secondary to their way of being.

It depends why one listens to music (or reads etc). To me, the social, cultural, geographical, political and temporal context is a large part of why I listen to music. I feel that societies make music through the agency of musicians. Some of those musicians are geniuses, most aren't. What interests me is what they have in common, rather than what sets a precious few apart. It's much more important to me than what you haven't quite described but nonetheless seems to be "Art". I don't want to ignore that, and try not to, but in the end it isn't what does it for me. So I can't really get too worked up about it.

Perhaps if I were a trained musician I'd listen to music in a different way. Well, I suppose that, in a way, it would be my BUSINESS to do so. But that may imply simply a different kind of limitation from mine. So, well...

MG

I think there's a lot that is interesting there. The idea of the 'star' performer certainly predates recording (all those 19thC virtuoso pianists, opera singers etc); but 20thC recording and the business world that mediates it have used 'the individual' as the primary means of generating interest and sales. A long way from the social origins of music for ritual, church or dancing.

In some respects jazz is one of the most individualistic of all, putting a premium on the brilliant soloist able to fly above anything he encounters.

I think over the last couple of centuries we've been conditioned to approach music this way. The raising up of your Johnsons and Parkers (whatever their abilities and talents) to almost Christ-like levels of importance just takes this one step further.

I think that in the society we live in in the West we're almost inevitably drawn to individual distinctiveness as a mark of interest and admiration. But I wonder if that is actually universal both geographically and historically.

Not sure.

One of the things that troubles me is the way I see this working in popular history - there's an awareness that a western audience really relates to 'interesting lives' and so quite complex events can get hung on one colourful character from the time. I'm guilty of doing this myself as a history teacher - impersonal forces don't make for riveting lessons; a flamboyant individual does. But that's an issue of presentation rather than a serious attempt to explain what might have been going on.

'The Mystery of Robert Johnson' makes much better copy than 'The socio-economic factors that led to the development of the Blues in 20thC America'.

Edited March 31, 2010 by Bev Stapleton

[JSngry]

Well, for somebody who (rightfully) resents people imposing their theories on your tastes & opinions, you sure seem to be doing the same to others.

Which, ok, that's cool, just own up to it as such. You got a "theory" just as much, if not more, than anybody else.

One thing, though - projecting your percieved notions of other peoples' "theory" is borderline offensive when you don't get it right. And in several places here, you've not gotten it right, in fact, it's been dreadfully wrong here and there. You complain about it being done to you, and you should, I'm just saying...at some point, almost everybody I know likes what they like just because they like it, not becuase it gives them something to construct social theories and cottage empires and intellectal conceipts around.

[A Lark Ascending]

I think that might be a good point to call it a day.

[JSngry]

'The Mystery of Robert Johnson' makes much better copy than 'The socio-economic factors that led to the development of the Blues in 20thC America'.

Maybe so, but anybody who considers - or champions - one at the expense of the other is, dare I say it...wrong.

Both are quite real enough on their own terms, and their intersection and divegence along the way is ultimately much more "true" than looking at them as either/or entitites.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

'The Mystery of Robert Johnson' makes much better copy than 'The socio-economic factors that led to the development of the Blues in 20thC America'.

Maybe so, but anybody who considers - or champions - one at the expense of the other is, dare I say it...wrong.

Both are quite real enough on their own terms, and their intersection and divegence along the way is ultimately much more "true" than looking at them as either/or entitites.

I certainly don't. But I know I have my leaning and I know you and Allen have yours. And I know you are well aware of the broader cultural/social etc aspects of the music and it's on that perception that I rely when taking a recommendation from you. Never failed me yet

I also don't think Bev does. But I also think that his asking for a recommendation on this particular issue is a sucker bet

MG

[JSngry]

[AllenLowe]

I actually think Bev is completely misreading all this as the "great man" theory, which is another thing entirely. That theory refers to socio-historical and political events. What we are talking about here is culture and the elasticity of forms, which always need to change by reason of personal or expressive imperative (as prior forms tend to wear out their welcome, tend to exhaust themselves). And which, in their details, tend to reside quite outside of history in its more coercive sense. More Robbe-Grillet (Toward a New Novel, a book that everyone should read as it applies to all forms across the board) than The Fall of the Roman Empire.

Edited March 31, 2010 by AllenLowe

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I actually think Bev is completely misreading all this as the "great man" theory, which is another thing entirely. That theory refers to socio-historical and political events. What we are talking about here is culture and the elasticity of forms, which always need to change by reason of personal or expressive imperative (as prior forms tend to wear out their welcome, tend to exhaust themselves). And which, in their details, tend to reside quite outside of history in its more coercive sense. More Robbe-Grillet (Toward a New Novel, a book that everyone should read as it applies to all forms across the board) than The Fall of the Roman Empire.

First, I trust you don't mean that culture is different or separate from society and politics, 'cos that's just wrong. Culture is the way people live and that's also what politics is and what society is. But I'm sure you're simply expressing yourself poorly, so I won't make much of that.

Now, this concept "culture and the elasticity of forms, which always need to change by reason of personal or expressive imperative (as prior forms tend to wear out their welcome, tend to exhaust themselves)" is very interesting. It is an observable (and observed) fact. But this change occurs at different speeds in different places and different times. This is also an observable (and observed) fact.

Why?

What is driving these differences?

MG

[AllenLowe]

1) what I'm talking about is historical events, the driving of those events and the alteration and development of politics. Very separate from, say, the musical development of jazz and blues in its arc and cause/effect - very much so because, though I agree that everything has a social context, I also believe it is not worth listening to unless it lives outside of history and independently. Most importantly, what Bev was referring to is really a political phenomenon (though yes, it ultimately impacts the arts) -

2) as for form and the need to change, I think that certain forms just wear out their welcome - bebop leads to repetition, as did swing, and basic orchestral triadic harmony and even chromatic harmony. Many musicians just get bored, feel they've tried the possibilities - same with early blues which, it has been argued, was a very personalized response to the minstrel-ethos (and here I mean minstrel in the broadest sense of the word to encompass various forms of early commercial gospel and basic professional songwriting) which had, in many ways, dated itself by subject and style. The new deep delta blues, in this way of seeing it, was a new expression that came of certain kinds of modernist necessity. There was just new things that had to be said, new subjects covered, people were thinking differently, imaginative imagery was changing. Hense, in these stages of blues, we find Robert Johnson and than T. Bone Walker, to give one evolutionary cycle. In jazz think King Oliver-Armstrong-Lester Young-Coleman Hawkins- Bird - Trane - Ornette (to vastly over simplify). Things change because certain musical gesture are just tired and outworn. Also happens in theater, as in dance, as in every form of expression. (Except, it seems, current day 'old time' music).

Edited March 31, 2010 by AllenLowe

[Big Beat Steve]

'The Mystery of Robert Johnson' makes much better copy than 'The socio-economic factors that led to the development of the Blues in 20thC America'.

Maybe so, but anybody who considers - or champions - one at the expense of the other is, dare I say it...wrong.

Both are quite real enough on their own terms, and their intersection and divegence along the way is ultimately much more "true" than looking at them as either/or entitites.

Having just started reading "In Search Of The Blues" by Marybeth Hamilton, I'll be interested to find out, eventually, what larger-than-life-character myths will have been dispelled (or not) by the time I reach the end of the book.

And, Bev, is your above book title 'The socio-economic factors that led to the development of the Blues in 20thC America' really purely imaginary or could it, in all its "scholarshipness", maybe have been inspired by this one?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Britain-Got-Blues-Transmission/dp/0754655806

Interesting reading, BTW, not least of all for taking a closer look at the doings of those early UK blues "purists" (cf. your Muddy Waters European tour anecdote mentioned earlier in this thread ).

[Neal Pomea]

But to me it is not the music itself that is evolving or developing at all. That's a metaphor with limitations. It's the people playing it who are now different from the older players. They just want to do something new to fit their contemporary context or experience the thrill of discovery/recovery. Yes, I use the word recovery as well as discovery, and I mean to give it praise. I may have misunderstood earlier remarks about a subsequent generation stumbling upon what an earlier generation originally discovered, but I don't see why this needs to be described as more of a technical thing rather than art or tapping into the great unknown itself. Then again, I may have misunderstood.

I subscribe to Ralph Rinzler's quote, "As is always the case, the art of a vital people speaks eloquently for those who create and recreate it." (emphasis mine). Recreation/recovery is as much a part of what is done in traditional music as creation is and deserves credit rather than dismissal, imo.

Carry on.