Contemporary Rootsy Americana-y Type Stuff

[A Lark Ascending]

Not doubting that, Jsngry.

But we're talking about two different things. Historical significance and pleasure derived from music.

You can amass the historical evidence to demonstrate that Parker was more musically and historically significant than Adderley (or Charlie Patton than Corey Harris) with ease. But that does not mean that if you listen 'properly' that you will inevitably prefer the former over the latter.

When I refer to the invention of the past I'm referring to the larger-than-life, mythical attributes projected onto astounding musicians (as if they needed it) - the sort of thing that buries the likes of Robert Johnson or Parker.

And I think it encourages dishonesty - I always chuckle when a new listener to jazz proclaims a total conversion experience to Parker or Coltrane. There's often an element of learnt response there - the books tell me these were giants, wow I am filled with divine grace! Comes across as being just a bit too eager to join the club.

Can I stress that I am not accusing you or Allen (or anyone else on this thread) of that sort of fabrication. I might disagree profoundly with many of your views, but the honesty of your love of the music you care for shines right through.

And that is far more powerful than any dismissal of music you don't care for - to me at least.

[JSngry]

A perfectly placed note is all you really need for that "Shiver Test."

Ah, but....there are always going to be those who know where that perfect place is and do it non-beneovelently..."civilians" might not want to consider this (which is why they're al;ways the targets!), but...not all "beauty" is beautiful...cynicism is ugly but necessary lest one get all flipper-headed...but too much cynicism is just as bad as not enough....always a balancing act, and some days are better than others...

Put another way - a lot of musicians (hell, people in general, but for the sake of this discussion...) are pimps at heart, with audiences being eyed as new talent to turn out and new johns to do tricks on. Disbelieve that at your peril, for real.

[JSngry]

You can amass the historical evidence to demonstrate that Parker was more musically and historically significant than Adderley (or Charlie Patton than Corey Harris) with ease. But that does not mean that if you listen 'properly' that you will inevitably prefer the former over the latter.

It's not a question of preferences, really it's not. It's a question of awareness, of knowing where you are. I don't think that anybody would argue that it's a bad idea to know where you are at any given time & place, right?

What you're talking about is what you do while you're there, and on that, yeah, absolutely, follow your bliss.

I mean, running around naked is really cool, but there's a big difference between doing it in your back yard and doing it down the middle of an intersate highway, ya' know? Ain't nobody gonna tell me not to run around naked, but it would much behoove me to know where I am while I'm doing it.

Who among us, the sane and sensible and dedicated to not getting fooled (again or otherwise) can seriosuly argue against that?

That's all I'm saying.

[Big Beat Steve]

A perfectly placed note is all you really need for that "Shiver Test."

Indeed. Happens every now and then, and often in places and with tunes where you'd not really expect it.

And since even in music, "one man's meat is another man's poison", ALL shivers are indeed equal - as long as we remember that not everybody is supposed or can be expected to experience the same shivers to the same tunes.

And even historical significance does not weigh in all that heavily there. Like Bev said, if historical significance gets too much in the way of musical enjoyment, the mujsical experience tends to become artificial. Am I really supposed to enjoy something because it is "significant"?

So just to add a side note to Bev's latest post (in fact IMHO he has pretty much nailed it there - again), agreed that John Lee Hooker was a very important figure in the blues. But how do you measure "significance"? Care to read up on contemporary testimonials where you will find that for a suprisingly long time he just was the laughingstock of his Detroit blues and R&B musician peers (in fact, superiors - at least craftwise) because to their ears he just "couldn't play shit" and "not hold a tune"? Not to detract from his stature bestowed by posterity in any way but is there any reason for superhuman idolatry, then? All in the name of numb fumbling as a sign of utter authenticity?

So, to remain with this example, what would be wrong, then, with enjoying one of today's one or two-man "roots" blues acts who musically are FAR superior that John Lee & his ilk and yet are nowhere near anything that might be called "slick" and their love and feel for the music does sound real and profound? (That is, unless we want to enter that endless debate again of who is "entitled" to play the blues at all)

Just for the sake of enjoyment of that particular music and without any other pretenses that go any further?

For all the awareness of the historical background of the music (and I have no reason to doubt this awareness largley is there both with the musicians and their core target audience), it isn't at each and every moment that a theoretical dissection of the music is called for. I'd even doubt all of the music that is all too often coldly analyzeed when listened to these days was originally intended to be dissected that way.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Big Beat Steve

[Big Beat Steve]

A perfectly placed note is all you really need for that "Shiver Test."

Ah, but....there are always going to be those who know where that perfect place is and do it non-beneovelently..."civilians" might not want to consider this (which is why they're al;ways the targets!), but...not all "beauty" is beautiful...cynicism is ugly but necessary lest one get all flipper-headed...but too much cynicism is just as bad as not enough....always a balancing act, and some days are better than others...

Put another way - a lot of musicians (hell, people in general, but for the sake of this discussion...) are pimps at heart, with audiences being eyed as new talent to turn out and new johns to do tricks on. Disbelieve that at your peril, for real.

So you are sure you always can tell the pimps from the 'onest 'uns?

Please allow me to agree to disagree.

And it is beside the point, anyway. As long as I personally feel those shivers by something that is off the radar of the major mainstream (either now or then) I feel pretty sure I cannot have fallen prey in a MAJOR way to one of those pimps you see out there.

And if you take this cynical stance to its utter extreme, who is guaranteeing you that neither "A Love Supreme" nor "Kind of Blue" have been pimped up either in a way that may escape the "typical" listening target of that style of music? Big, decade-long incessant write-ups (did I hear somebody say "hype" there? might be cause for wariness in some circles, you know ...

Edited March 30, 2010 by Big Beat Steve

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Whilst I'm sure that you're right, Jim, I'm not perfectly certain for whom it's important that X was one of the People Who Changed The World Musically and Y wasn't. See, Dexter Johnson, the Nigerian sax player, also was one of the People Who Changed The World Musically - his work in Senegal led to Mbalax. There are all kinds of X's and Y's all over the world, past, present and, undoubtedly, future. Who should care? Who should care more about Dexter Johnson than about Edison? Or Voltaire? Or Alexander the Great? Or Adam Smith?

Things are as they are and as they will become, partly because of these people, but probably just as much (or more) not because of them but because of general changes in one society or another. We know about the X's because that's what history is supposed to be - and generally is. But the rest is not recorded so no one talks about it - it's as if it doesn't and didn't and won't exist. But it seems to me more likely that it's simply not interesting or important to the people who say what history is supposed to be. But those people, it's always seemed to me, have an "interest" (particularly the historians of the past who developed the notion of what history was supposed to be) - who were/are the employers of historians?

Of course, I'm a cynical anti-authoritarian

(Now Bev is going to hammer me.)

MG

[seeline]

Well-played is well-played, even if the piece of music in which the good playing is done is pretty nondescript (imo, at least).

Señor Sgry, I'm not gonna get drawn into that whole stage presence/pim angle - to me, it's not all that relevant to the discussion as a whole. (And again, that's just an opinion, and mine - nothing even close to being written in stone! )

And as Big Beat Steve has said (paraphrasing), all the chops in the world don't necessarily make for truly satisfying music.

"T'ain't what you do, it's the way...," right?

Or (referring to that blues & Timbuktu thread), boasting about being able to play more, better, etc. than someone else is one thing - doing it is another. (cf. Ali Farka Toure's boasts that people like Clarence "Gatemouth" Brown had nothing to teach him, etc.)

Edited March 30, 2010 by seeline

[JSngry]

Pimps can Change The World too...in fact many have.

I mean, we all enjoy getting played sometimes...wouldn't much fun if we didn't.

Just remember, though, that overconfidence is something a good hustler looks for...makes the game SO much easier....

Get your game any where and any way that works. Just know what your game is...and who's wanting to play it with you.

[seeline]

TMG: are there "historians of the future"? (An entirely silly and lighthearted question... )

[JSngry]

Señor Sgry, I'm not gonna get drawn into that whole stage presence/pim angle -

What I'm talking about has everything to do with the playing and nothing to do with stage presence!

Believe me, everybody plays what & how they play for a reason(s), and not everybody who sounds like they care about you really does. More often than one might consider possible, it's just the opposite...

Whilst I'm sure that you're right, Jim, I'm not perfectly certain for whom it's important that X was one of the People Who Changed The World Musically and Y wasn't. See, Dexter Johnson, the Nigerian sax player, also was one of the People Who Changed The World Musically - his work in Senegal led to Mbalax. There are all kinds of X's and Y's all over the world, past, present and, undoubtedly, future. Who should care? Who should care more about Dexter Johnson than about Edison? Or Voltaire? Or Alexander the Great? Or Adam Smith?

Things are as they are and as they will become, partly because of these people, but probably just as much (or more) not because of them but because of general changes in one society or another. We know about the X's because that's what history is supposed to be - and generally is. But the rest is not recorded so no one talks about it - it's as if it doesn't and didn't and won't exist. But it seems to me more likely that it's simply not interesting or important to the people who say what history is supposed to be. But those people, it's always seemed to me, have an "interest" (particularly the historians of the past who developed the notion of what history was supposed to be) - who were/are the employers of historians?

Of course, I'm a cynical anti-authoritarian

(Now Bev is going to hammer me.)

MG

That's built into the "jazz is important" attitude, only...the world is so much smaller now than it was when it was only "jazz" that had to butt up against/into the Consciousness Of What Is Important. So as the world continues to shrink...more things gonna have to get into there, definitely, which means more learning, and ain't THAT a drag!

[Big Beat Steve]

Get your game any where and any way that works. Just know what your game is...and who's wanting to play it with you.

Believe me, everybody plays what & how they play for a reason(s), and not everybody who sounds like they care about you really does. More often than one might consider possible, it's just the opposite...

Like I said ... as long as those who might want to play (commerically-minded) tricks with my musical tastes are FAR, FAR removed from anything even remotely resembling Top Forty Hit Parade fare my fears that somebody might try to shove phony commercialism down my throat really are quite limited.

I mean, why would those out to only make a fast buck with their music (instead of caring about the music) go the subculture route and relegate themselves to some musical style that would be preceived by the VAST majority of ANY music listeners (or should I say "consumers"?) as nothing but ODDBALL fare? No really big bucks to be gained there ... takes some special dedication to exert that much restraint if musical effects for effects sake were all these acts were after.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Big Beat Steve

[seeline]

OK, so you're the arbiter of Stage Presence now?

Seriously, other people who've been onstage from time to time are posting on this thread. (And no, I don't have a Facebook or MySpace Music page; someday maybe I'll get around to that, if I really feel the need...)

fwiw, the worst insult that the people from The Other Place were able to come up with was that I am not/was not a musician. Which is kinda stupid, really.

Edited March 30, 2010 by seeline

[JSngry]

Yeah, why would they?

Dude, we MUST play poker together sometimes...

[seeline]

Why would they - ???

Sorry; kinda lost the train of thought there...

[JSngry]

OK, so you're the arbiter of Stage Presence now?

Again..."stage presence" is not - not even one iota -what is being discussed.

And I'm not an arbiter of anything. But I ahve seen up close and personal how and why many different people play what and how they do, and...it's not all the same, and it's not all as "benevolent" as one might assume, and it's not about "the money" far more often than one might think...

Now, anybody who wants to reject outright the notion of music having a "spirit", or even "spirits", hey, our discussion is over right now, becuase we're at a dead end. Otehrwise, I'm not specifically attributing anything to anybody in particular, I'm just saying...people know the The shiver is there to be had and that knowledge is power. and like all power...well you know.

Why would they - ???

Sorry; kinda lost the train of thought there...

A response to Big Beat...

[seeline]

Ah.

I think there's been a lot of talking past each other on the last page or so...

[JSngry]

that happens when people are all going at it in real time on a one-at-a-time platform... c'est la board!

[seeline]

Indeed! (c'est la board, or c'est la software, or whatever...)

[A Lark Ascending]

Things are as they are and as they will become, partly because of these people, but probably just as much (or more) not because of them but because of general changes in one society or another. We know about the X's because that's what history is supposed to be - and generally is. But the rest is not recorded so no one talks about it - it's as if it doesn't and didn't and won't exist. But it seems to me more likely that it's simply not interesting or important to the people who say what history is supposed to be. But those people, it's always seemed to me, have an "interest" (particularly the historians of the past who developed the notion of what history was supposed to be) - who were/are the employers of historians?

Of course, I'm a cynical anti-authoritarian

(Now Bev is going to hammer me.)

MG

Not at all!

There's the past. And then there's history, which amounts to assembling what has survived from the past into something that tries to explain where we are now and how we got there. To my mind history is constructed, not revealed.

The trouble is that we all have different ideas of what matters and so we arrange what survives to suit that picture. You can arrange it according to some determinist model that shows how we went from nothing to the inevitable perfection of the future (call it communist utopia or the Kingdom of God); or you can arrange it to demonstrate a fall from grace.

The idea that music today is but a shadow of what once was (be it a longing for the Busch Quartet or Bukka White or Walter Pardon or Lester Young) is an interpretation that falls into the latter category. I think those who hold that view are emotionally drawn to the idea of the inherent superiority of things past; they then assemble the evidence to prove it.

Nor do I buy into the contrary view of inevitable progress.

I'm enough of a woolly-minded liberal to draw my entertainment from the past and the present.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Bev Stapleton

[Hot Ptah]

I really like Levon Helm's "Dirt Farmer" and "Electric Dirt", from recent years. This is music not very much like The Band, and really good to listen to.

Also, I like Tony Rice's albums, all of them in the past ten years, really. His albums with Norman Blake are really good, in my opinion.

I also like Jorma Kaukonen's last few albums, in the acoustic folk/country vein. Who could have guessed in 1968 that he would end up there.

Super Chikan is my favorite current blues artist. I think his songwriting is as strong as his singing and guitar playing. I find him really fun to listen to.

Dr. John seems to be getting better and more interesting to me. I have enjoyed his last few albums more than his earlier stuff.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Hot Ptah

[AllenLowe]

"I hold to the view that the hardliners have invented much of the past (not the quality of the music, just its near mythical unapproachability) and are now using that invention to besmirch the musicians of the present."

I'm not sure, Bev, if you see me as a hardliner - because that runs quite counter to everything I believe in - I see the past as radically use-able - after Phillip Larkin who said, re-jazz, that everything in the music is really happening over and over again, at the same time - "the past refuses to be over."

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.

Wynton is a hardliner - I once said that he makes a club out of tradition in order to beat current heretics over the head.

I don't believe that one needs to know about those old musics that I mentioned - HOWEVER - if one is to try and coin truths about that old time music, or to try to refer to it (as with the Choc. Drops), well than one has a responsibility to have experienced, in one way or another, that which is being referenced. They clearly have not, and I see their alleged historiosity as fraudulent. But that's just me.

as for pimps and great music, let us not forget the most important pimp of all - Jelly Roll Morton.

Edited March 30, 2010 by AllenLowe

[JSngry]

The idea that music today is but a shadow of what once was (be it a longing for the Busch Quartet or Bukka White or Walter Pardon or Lester Young) is an interpretation that falls into the latter category. I think those who hold that view are emotionally drawn to the idea of the inherent superiority of things past; they then assemble the evidence to prove it.

Seems a bit of a broad brush there to me...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. No matter waht else you wnat to say about a style that is being played 4 or 5 or 25 generations later, I don't think you can say that that "thing" is still going to be there. In fact, the verynotion of "upholding a tradition" pretty much runs counter to that. Sure, there's individual discovery going on in that the players are often discovering it for themselves, but that's much more a "technical" issue than anything else... Whatever else is subjective (and lots is), I don't think that that saying that somebody like Lester Young was in the process of defining something that was heretofore undefined is too terribly anything but objective.

Now, all Shivers being equal (including Charlie Shivers, highly underrated, he), the shivers that come from that particular dynamic should be respected just as much as those that come from hearing somebody play something well, discovery or defining or whatever be damned. "Assembling the evidence" would seem to imply that people are making stuff up, saying that Lester Young was doing something that he wasn't, and as long as that "something" is confined to the actual process of invention (and dimension, come to think of it), then...there he was doing what he did, right?

And the Shivers that come from experiencing that reality are just as real as the ones that don't, ok? To imply that all the people who feel it like that are just making it all up inthe service of some nebulous nefariousness is kinda...wrong, at least as wrong as implying that people who don't feel it like are all Lost Souls.

[Chuck Nessa]

What Jim said.

OTOH, things might seem different listening to "random play".

[AllenLowe]

yes, I agree - the shivers come from discovery and recognition of discovery - whether it's Charlie Patton, Charley Parker, or Trane -

[JSngry]

Not just discovery...that can lead to a fetishism of all things "new"...but discovery and then definition...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. Definition ultimately creates meaning (and that will hold true across the evolutionary lifespan of an idea, or style, or people, or...anything) Which is not to say that definition and discovery combined are necessary to produce enjoyment, as Bev points out, there is certainly a place for the simple hearing of music well-played, something that defines itself as nothing more than music being well-played by and for people who enjoy well-played music. ...god help us if we lose the ability to at least appreciate that, and for some people, that is it for them, game over, end of story, and lord knows that's fully legit...but....some other people are wired to get the shivers first and foremost, sometimes exclusively, from the whole discovery/definition thing, and those people could no more make shit up to justify their position than a man can pee on top of a woman's pee and make little pee-babies. They call it as they hear/see/feel it, same as other people who feel other things equally primally. Put them all together, figuratively and literally, and you get a pretty lively dynamic, anything but settled, but always something real going on, and if reality is not always pretty, it is always real!

Of course, as with everything else, there are pimps and whore, scoundrels and charlatans, those who can fake it really well. But that's where the learning of life comes in, learning how to better discern who's who & what's what, and that learning never ends. Never.