Re: Blues scale: is this accurate?
- From: LJS <ljschenck@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:18:21 -0700 (PDT)
On Jun 23, 5:24 pm, Melodious Thunk <thunk.melodi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 23, 5:42 am, LJS <ljsche...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 23, 12:32 am, Melodious Thunk <thunk.melodi...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Jun 22, 8:15 pm, "Steve Latham" <llat...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Tom K." <tkor...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:EbudnR0kQueoBcPVnZ2dnUVZ_rLinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I think anyone who claims to have "the" definition of
blues is self-delusional.
Yes - despite my previous understanding of what I consider modern blues, I
didn't realize that many of the blues artists with which I was familiar were
from the post war era, and actually much closer to the Rock and Roll era
than I had realized. In fact, I knew my favorite early rockers were
influenced by blues, but I didn't realize how immediately direct it was. For
some reason, my mind sort of sees the evolution: Blues - Jazz - Rock (30s,
40s, 50s) but it's more like Blues - Jazz - one branch - Blues - postwar
Blues - Rock - another branch.
This would be a great subject for another thread. I'd have to argue
that rock, despite some influence from the blues, actually grew
directly out of big-band dance music.
With so many branches for so many genres, we might be able to find roots,
but defining any particular leaf might prove problematic.
Oh a lot of musicologists and musical historians do exactly that. On
the ASU website there's history of jazz course available via podcasts
( you can get it through iTunes as well). I forget the guy's name, an
historian, but it's an impressively diverse course that includes blues
and rock history as well.
Steve
That is not a very different approach than the way many of us look at
it down here. We hear the same type of connection that you hear but
stemming from our jazz marching band style was an influence on the
rhythm and blues of N.O. as well as Southern Louisiana (more or less
Zydeco) and by sound, one can argue (by sound) that there might be a
somewhat direct connection of the two. The early shuffle undercurrent
of R&R is very much like a Louis Prima type of shuffle, but this
connection and the Big Band era are both a bit loose. There seems to
be many different subtle feels that all seem to take on a more
localized flavor depending upon where the musicians came from.
I can see that the Big Band, or as I see it, more aptly the dance
steps may be the connection. This is certainly not my specialty,, but
the Lindy, (if this is indeed the fore runner of the Jitterbug) or
what ever led to the first R&R dance styles must be considered. I had
originally thought about the big band era when I was learning to dance
(if you can call it that!) in the mid 50s and I think it was tunes
like Topsy that triggered the connection for me at the time. As I
learned to play our version of R&R and by hearing the groups on
Bandstand, this connection still seemed valid, but started to get
fuzzy as I began to distinguish the difference of the various area
variations of the rhythms of R&R from the various locals.
Like the Blues, R&R seems to be a folk song genre and the rhythms of
the local dancers would have influenced the rhythms of the music.
There is a lot of difference in feel with the music of the East Coast,
MidWest, the Plains States, California and the West Coast as well as
the local music of the South, New Orleans area and the C&W music, I
see the common denominator to be the local dance styles that was a
result of or defining force of the local areas as R&R exploded.
It does seem like an interesting discussion, however, and it would be
fun to explore the different views. It gets really complicated with
Radio, TV and the expansion of the Recording Industry, however, as
these influences inject a more combined influence because of the
universal access to the local styles by all of the musicians.
I don't know how many other communities have the same situation as we
have in N.O. but there is a radio station here, WWOZ, that is
dedicated to the preservation of our musical heritage. I don't know
the current schedule as I have not had time since the storm to
investigate their entire schedule, but they were (and probably are
still) airing nights that feature a lot of the home recordings as well
as commercial recordings of our local bands from the R&R area. If you
can tolerate some of the bad recording techniques (of some) you can
hear the development of our music and how there were many influences
from our Jazz and Blues heritage but you can see how outside
influences were added and modified. John Sinclare hosted a good show
on R&R for years, but alas, he doesn't any more. I don't know who took
the place, but they do have all the cuts available as I understand.
BTW, WWOZ is on the internet and it is accessible to all and is free.
The discography is very varied and you may have to search for what you
want to hear, but they do play a lot of the early music from all the
genres that have become a part of our heritage. They also play some
things on the weekend that doesn't seem to be related to New Orleans
at all, so if you happen to tune into some of those shows, check the
schedule before you write it off. lol)
LJS
Interesting comments, and I'll give WWOZ a listen.
You touched on what I was getting at when you mentioned the expansion
of the recording industry. I would argue (or at least postulate) that
rock 'n roll is hardly just music... in fact, in many respects the
music itself is incidental to the form (as all those 3-chord guitar
bands can attest). Instead, rock 'n roll is primarily a demographic:
intensely youth-oriented, rebellious against prior generations, dance-
oriented, and above all, commercially viable. Unlike some other
musical forms, rock 'n roll music is inseparable from the rock 'n roll
business.
I don't know, there were a lot of older fans of rock as well, although
I agree with the main focus as being exactly as you say. Just that you
exclude some of the older fans that saw it for what it was, a major
advance of musical and social expression using a very simple folk
culture format. It was civilization seen through the Blues (for a
large part) and other simple forms and progressions (the Circle of 6th
comes to mind) Anyone could really learn it, it was very
understandable and the music did get in the way of the message
(although a lot of the messages were really very Bubble Gum) and
provided a universal means of communication for a whole lot of young
people.
The band that really kicked it all off, although I'm probably the only
one that considers them the "fathers of rock," was Benny Goodman's Big
Band. They were in the right place at the right time to build a
national audience via radio; they emphasized danceable swing; they
were the biggest record sellers of their generation; and the parents
of the kids listening to his band tended to vilify the music.
Everything that followed, beginning with strict dance big-bands,
followed the same formula that I described as the demographic of rock
'n roll; and Billboard listings from then until now reinforce my
point.
Yes, I don't disagree although the style that it spawned is not the
same as the big band. I think the connection was the dance and the
blues. The Jitterbug was, I believe the Lindy, (maybe some dance fan
out there can help us out here) and the rhythms had a lot in common.
Translating these elements into the electric guitar, bass, and drums
could account for a lot of the difference and then its simplicity (in
much of the early stages) could be accounted for by lots of new people
entering the music scene, SOME (Notice I said SOME Dave!) that had
messages in verse, but little or no musical training. And that was, I
think, a large appeal. It was simple, easy and anyone could write
lyrics that any band could play. It was truly a "grassroots" ground
swell.
The fact that, all those commercial considerations notwithstanding, I
find that some, maybe even quite a bit, of rock 'n roll truly meets
the standards of art music, is simply amazing. The good bits of rock
'n roll say something important about what happens when an artist sets
firm boundaries on his or her art. A shame that some of the most
popular rock has been, musically, discardable; nevertheless it's
amazing that *any* of it, let alone so much of it, rises to the level
of art music that is rewarding to study. Even today!
'Least I think so.
I have noticed that just like Music for commercials on radio and TV,
if you look at the subtle variations that some composers and arrangers
used in the more musical arrangements, you are certainly correct. And
then of course, a good performance is a good performance no matter
what the genre or style happens to be.
Interesting observations.
Talk later,
LJS
.
- References:
- Blues scale: is this accurate?
- From: BestStudentViolins.com
- Re: Blues scale: is this accurate?
- From: Neil
- Re: Blues scale: is this accurate?
- From: BestStudentViolins.com
- Re: Blues scale: is this accurate?
- From: Neil
- Re: Blues scale: is this accurate?
- From: Tom K.
- Re: Blues scale: is this accurate?
- From: Steve Latham
- Re: Blues scale: is this accurate?
- From: Tom K.
- Re: Blues scale: is this accurate?
- From: Steve Latham
- Re: Blues scale: is this accurate?
- From: Melodious Thunk
- Re: Blues scale: is this accurate?
- From: LJS
- Re: Blues scale: is this accurate?
- From: Melodious Thunk
- Blues scale: is this accurate?
- Prev by Date: Re: 13th Chords and Quartal Voicings Again - Inversions
- Next by Date: Re: Blues scale: is this accurate?
- Previous by thread: Re: Blues scale: is this accurate?
- Next by thread: Re: Blues scale: is this accurate?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|