Hey Jazz fan, are you also a Blues fan?

[JSngry]

You know, if we really wanted to stir the pot a bit, we could say that "blues" itself is just the tip of a much bigger iceberg, both in terms of culturally specific manifestation and, even more to the point, a universal/eternal reality of existence/perception, but lunch is just about ready, and I gotta drive my mom home after we eat, so screw it.

[A Lark Ascending]

Far out, man!

[JSngry]

Well, ok. if you look at "blues" being "essential" to "jazz" from a strictly stylistic standpoint, then you draw a line that some people, both of today and of yore, have crossed, sometimes to the point of no return, and there you have your box, geometry be damned . It's a big box, plenty of room inside, but still a box nevertheless.

But if you look at what "the blues" are expressing, and not just at how they are expressing it, you can see that most every culture has, or has had, it's own "blues", and THAT leaves a lot of room for expressions that can resonate across stylistic and cultural barriers. For example, King Lear was a bluesman, and so was Hamlet. Damn fine bluesmen too. And Shakesepere was their Willie Dixon. Those are just two examples.

Some will call this approach nebulous, or too broad to have any real "meaning". Maybe that's true, but fuck it. That's where I'm at now, and going back to more narrow definitions for reasons that I don't relate to anymore just doesn't interest me. ANY music or other expression that has a "meaning" ONLY within certain parameters is pretty much by definition not "universal", and if one is of the opinion that are certain facts of life that are true, and are indeed universal, then I think it behooves one to look beyond one's own immediate point(s) of reference every once in a while, just to see how "it all fits together". I suggest this to those who demand a blatant "blues flavor" and to those who find "blues" to be a limited, stifling medium alike. And to anybody in between. I have no shame.

There's only so many different stories humans can tell. What diferentiates them is indeed the "flavor" of the teller, the culturally specific nuances, but what ultimately gives them their TRUTH is their commonality. Style is cool, meaningful even, but substance is where the action is always gonna be once you leave home. And as anybody who has ever left home will attest, no matter where you go, you WILL find some kindred spirits, even if they seem like totally unknowable strangers at first.

So for me, all this talk about "blues being essential to jazz" is kinda redundant. OF COURSE it is. But there's a LOT more to "blues" than 12 bars and a flatted third, if you know what I mean. Like Anthony Braxton said when asked about the various cycles of the blues (and I apologize for repeating this quote, I used it on Board Krypton), "We can look at the lineages of the last 2000 years..."

Now THAT'S an understanding of the blues!

Edited August 25, 2003 by JSngry

[Jim R]

Well, guys... I think we've finally lost him. Let me give this one more try... JIM, THIS IS HOUSTON... DO YOU READ?...

[Joe]

Yes, I listen to both "jazz" and "blues", though I must admit the so-called "folk blues" (acoustic) often speaks to me more than "electric" or "post-war" blues.

As to what Jim is saying, I think this comment from saxophonist Tim Berne is somewhat along those same lines...

TB: Everybody who plays the saxophone has played the blues at some point.  But the blues… there’s the blues the way the old guys played it, and then there’s the blues form. And I think those are two really different things.  You know, the blues is not just a form; it’s a way of expressing yourself.  These guys like John Lee Hooker, they weren’t playing 12 bar blues necessarily, they were just playing blues.  And if they stayed on the same chord for 500 bars it was still blues.  And I think the jazz thing is sort of… a lot of people perceive it more as… not a style, style’s not the right word, but, a form.

JM: A genre.

TB: Yeah.

http://bagatellen.com/berne.html

[JSngry]

Well, guys... I think we've finally lost him. Let me give this one more try... JIM, THIS IS HOUSTON... DO YOU READ?...

Oh yeah, I'm fine. Never been better actually. Saving a parking place for you, in fact!

Dig - there has been blues since the beginning of humankind. What WE call "blues" today is a culturally specific manifestation of a combination of attitudes, perceptions, and feelings that have been around since the who knows when. Blues is not a "style, blues is a fact of life. "Blues", otoh, IS a style, but like all styles, it bears the stylistic trademarks of the culture that produced it. But the style is not the substance, it's just an expression of the substance, just like a word is not an object (or anything else, really, besides a word), but merely an expression of whatever it is that it is representing.

The "problem" that we as humans have is a tendency to limit our receptiveness to that which we "know" at at least some level. But would anyboy argue that what we "know" is all there is? I hope not! And also - we LIKE styles, we LIKE categories - they make processing information a LOT easier, and that's nothing to scoff at. But again, if we allow ourselves to view the "style" as being identical to the substance, then we are missing out on a whole range of interconnectivity in human experiences that only serves to keep us isolated instead of bringing us into the greater "one"ness of life. Easy and comfortable, yes, but not necessarily the path to anything other than back to ourselves. Nice place to visit, but...

Anywhere and anytime that people live lives that are not totally programmed from without, anywhere and anytime that people are confronted with unresolvable ambiguities /contradictions of any nature, anywhere and anytime that people laugh to keep from crying, and cry because there ain't words adequate, there and then you have the essence of blues. Most of us know them through their African/African-American manifestations and those idioms which have been touched by same. Cool, that's where and who most of us are to one degree or another. But to think that that is the ONLY manifestations of such realities is hopelessly naive, and not something that I think that any person with soul (another one of those universal words that have taken on a geo/chrono/socio/cultural specific meaning) would argue for more than the time it took for them to think about it.

For those who want and/or need the words, help yourself. Words ain't real to me. Let me have some of whatever it is that makes the words necessary, THAT'S what I want!

Houston, do you read me?

[A Lark Ascending]

I think I agree with JSngry.

The way I'd put it is that there is 'The Blues' as in the musical form; and there is 'The Blues' meaning a depth of feeling communicated through that form. As JSngry says every culture has its blues...I like the Lear analogy. Whether you're talking Hungarian peasants or hardanger fiddle players from Norway or Mongolian throat singers or top twenty singers there are some who just have that ability to set your spine alight. Now that is not unique to 'The Blues.'

There is a tendency to go all mystical on 'The Blues' as if the feeling is something quite unique. Nope. Its the same feeling that some Irish piper is feeling lamenting the fleeing of the Wild Geese. Its the blues format that is unique. And what a format for expressing powerful feeling in the right hands!

When you listen to a blues record you might just hear a musician working through a particular structure but having that ability to create deep feeling that leads to a memorable experience; or you might get someone just running through the choirds and devices with no feeling at all. And you'll get exactly the same in every other form of music.

The deep feeling is universal. It becomes 'The Blues' when expressed through a particular style.

Which, to get back to the start, makes me feel that jazz does not have to contain the Blues format to have meaning; it can express its depth through some other source, borrowing from some other culture or coming from within the musician. Listen to some of Jan Garbareks Sami based music and you'll hear a depth of feeling the equal of any blues-based jazz (well, you will if you're open to it!).

Of course its understandable that some should find the power of blues based jazz so absorbing that they feel no need to listen beyond. But jazz is happening beyond and it has just as much legitimacy.

[Jim R]

Houston, do you read me?

Loud & Clear, my man. As always, you express yourself better than the average person (now THERE is an example of understatement). I hear you, I'm with you (well, in spirit at least), and I'm thankful for the fact that I can take a shot at you for a cheap laugh (at least here at my desk there was a little laughter), knowing that you'll deal with it very nicely and without any serious trauma.

[jazzbo]

Nice stuff and I'll agree entirely as long as we also agree that there can be fundamentally solid "jazz" without even the blue feeling. . . . I find that to be the case from Storyville to Barbary Coast to Harlem to Juan-les-Pins to Gunther Schullerville. . . .

[John L]

I don't know about all of this.

I also think of the blues in a general and mystical sense, but maybe not nearly as general as Jim S. I think of the blues as a very specific language of musical communication. It is a very deep language, a language capable of supporting a dialogue from deep within the human soul. This dialogue can bring to the surface the fundamentals common to the universal human experience that Jim S describes in his posts.

Nevertheless, I think of the blues as one specific language (or a family thereof) that was created by African Americans in the last two centuries. There are many other languages and mediums in music and art as well, even in jazz.

Maybe it is just a semantic question. We need a word to describe the specific language in question. If not "blues," then what?

Edited August 25, 2003 by John L

[Brad]

Well, I was a little overbroad Saturday in my comments (what else is new? ). But Jim and John are right. I think I alluded to the fact that there are the blues structurally speaking and there is that bluesy feeling, which is not just prevalent in jazz but in blues as well. Hard bop has much of that bluesy funky soulike feeling, which claim as their parent, the blues. However, I think the blues comes over better in jazz. I also recall hearing songs that transmit the bluesy feeling but are not based on the blues format. I probably wasn't making this point correctly but while blues may be a root for part of jazz, the music form hasn't relied on it for its sole expression (you can have jazz without blues) but the blues form as practiced by its practioners doesn't seem to have gone beyond its well known structure.

[chris olivarez]

Hey you look at music as a whole and there isn't really anything new under the sun.I love both blues and jazz.

[JSngry]

I don't know about all of this.

I also think of the blues in a general and mystical sense, but maybe not nearly as general as Jim S. I think of the blues as a very specific language of musical communication. It is a very deep language, a language capable of supporting a dialogue from deep within the human soul. This dialogue can bring to the surface the fundamentals common to the universal human experience that Jim S describes in his posts.

Nevertheless, I think of the blues as one specific language (or a family thereof) that was created by African Americans in the last two centuries. There are many other languages and mediums in music and art as well, even in jazz.

Maybe it is just a semantic question. We need a word to describe the specific language in question. If not "blues," then what?

"Blues" is fine with me, and truthfully, it's the music and language nearest and dearest to my heart and soul (although I think that even "blues" is an offshoot of something else, just as jazz and gospel are). But I can't pretend that it's the only language that "goes deep". There was a time when I could and did, but that time has passed.

If my appreciation of these other languages is more intellectual than primal, well, that's just my personal evolution. The world is "getting smaller", and I thnk it's inevitable that commonalities will find each other and morph into mutually accomodating forms and such. I'm probably too old and too "set" to get into it 100%, but otoh, thee's a reason why, usually, young folks playing older styles just doesn't "click" - it's not the reality of the times. The reality is that things are coming together, and if there's some awkwardness involved along the way, that's just how it goes.

We only know jazz from the recordings. we have no real idea how it came to be - plenty of theories and lots of anecdotal informational bits, but the process no doubt took a long time and wasn't accomplished effortlessly or overnight, or even intentionally, probably. Times are moving on, obviously, and something new is forming, something that will speak to, for, and of the people who live in these different circumstances. I'm sure that it will communicate the truths of the blues, but I don't know but that its eventual language will be a mixture of God knows what, of which "blues" may or may not be a dominant part. I hope it will be, because that will make it a LOT easier for me to understand!

Nothing to do really, but watch, learn, and when possible, participate. But at 47, the odds are that my life is more than 1/2 over, so....

[James]

This has certainly been an entertaining discussion. My experience on this issue has been seconded by a friend who's familiar with the L.A. jazz & blues communities. There just doesn't seem to be much crossover between the jazz and blues lovers.

When I was a member of a short-lived blues club I was the only member (among dozens) who also had strong feelings about jazz. And none of my jazz friends is into blues to the same extent that I am ----- and this as the vast majority of my time is spent with jazz. There have actually been some friends of mine who have expressed great surprise when I've cranked up the Lonnie Brooks, Luther Allison, or Albert Collins; and even more if it's Delta Blues.

Those of you who have expressed a love of both jazz and blues have made me feel like less of an oddball, and I thank you!

[John L]

Jim S: I agree with you.

In fact, I often think that jazz is currently in a transition period for exactly this reason. In my opinion, the blues language is what gave jazz most of its power, beauty, and logic of development in the 20th century. (Some here might disagree, but that is my opinion.) But the blues core has been weakening since the 1970s. Furthermore, the efforts of Marsalis and others to bring it back illustrate (IMO) the inherent difficulties of such an endeavor. It is doubtful that today's young musicians are going to feel and identify with the blues in the way that young musicians did in 1950.

Therefore, as much as I am personally attached to the blues, I think that it is understandable that artists today should be looking toward other languages, maybe related to the blues but still fundamentally different in some way. I agree with you that other powerful languages also exist that can be fused with jazz. As jazz has become an international music, we may actually be at the dawn of another golden age for jazz. The possibilities are endless.

As for me and the rest of my time here, my heart and soul are gonna stay with my good ole blues.

[JSngry]

I think that REAL blues of today, the direct descendant of all the tradition of ambiguities of emotion and the use of time and pitch to express them, as well as the feelings that come from being a stranger in your own home, are to be found in certain rap/hip-hop artists. Not the top-40 ones or the cartoon gangstas, but the ones who are serious about their craft and their content. Don't ask me to name names, because I really don't follow that scene. But I hear my son playing some stuff, and listening to it on the radio, and I hear and feel the connection quite easily.

A lot of people knock a cat like Roy Hargrove for working with rappers, and they look at the attempts at jazz-hip-hop "fusions" as purely commercial ploys, but I'll tell you what - if I was in my early-mid 20s now, that's EXACTLY what I'd be doing, and entirely of my own volition. It SHOULD have happened a long time ago - remember Max Roach's pronouncements on the subject, and his performances with breakdancers and rappers back in the early 80s? Unfortunatley, there were all these "distractions" in the jazz world at the time, and a lot of "Big Chill"-ing went down as far as keeping the music's street heritage a set quality rather than allowing it to be whatever it needed to be. Hell - the ESSENCE of blues/street/whatever is taking the RIGHT NOW and finding the eternal truth in it. It damn sure ain't about holding up what your parents and grandparents did and claiming that as the absolute standard for time immemorial. BIG difference there.

I fail to see the logic in claiming the street as your lifeblood while at the same time attemtping to turn that same street into a manicured thouroughfare. Discomfort with a/the current vibe is one thing, but the solution there is, and will ALWAYS be, meeting the situation on it's own terms, not a distanced attempt at reclamation for something that is long gone. Gentrification isn't necessarily victory...

Time moves on. Athletes have limited careers, but broadcasters can last seemingly indefinitely. Who sets the standards and makes the action - the player or the commentator? You go to the booth when you can't hang on the field anymore, not when you should be on it. Jazz should've kept this in mind.

[JSngry]

...I'm thankful for the fact that I can take a shot at you for a cheap laugh (at least here at my desk there was a little laughter), knowing that you'll deal with it very nicely and without any serious trauma.

Well hell, I'm a asshole, a jerk, a fat fuck, and an Internet whore all rolled into one, so what would MY gripe be?

[John L]

...well, I was getting ready to write that I agree with you 100%.

But then it dawned on me that that would be calling you an asshole, a jerk, a fat fuck, and an Internet whore.

So I guess that I will just keep quiet.

[JSngry]

Well, there you have it - the ambiguity of the blues!!!

[paul secor]

This is probably pretentious and presumptuous, coming from a middle class white guy, but for me the blues are a form, a feeling, and a genre.

The form will probably always be with us.

The genre, to me is dying and on it's last legs. The last generation of blues musicians is passing all too soon. The younger musicians who are playing that form are playing for a white audience and, to my ears anyway, fall into a category of general popular music. Blues as I hear it, was made by black singers and musicians for a black audience. If white people came to it, they generally came to it at a later time. I realize that there may be exceptions to this, but I don't imagine that there were many white record buyers listening to Blind Lemon Jefferson and the Memphis Jug Band in the 20's, or to Leroy Carr and Blind Boy Fuller in the 30's, or to Big Maceo and Muddy Waters in the 40's, or to Elmore James and Howlin' Wolf in the 50's. White people came to these musicians and/or their recordings some years later. Black audiences had, in the meantime, moved on to other musics. Most, if not all, of the black musicians playing blues today are playing for primarily white audiences. When that last generation passes, the genre will probably exist only on records or as an imitation.

The blues feeling will probably always be with us. Though listening to some of the younger jazz artists makes me wonder if that's so. Some of them sound as if, as Miles once said, they had to learn to play the blues.

As far as rap goes, for me it's a form of r&b. I feel that r&b has always been popular music made by black artists for a black audience, but at the same time there has been a contempoary white audience also. And that white audience has increased as record companies have realized that there's money to be made there.

As I say, this is just one middle aged white guy's opinion.That's all.

Edited August 27, 2003 by paul secor

[danasgoodstuff]

Yes.