El Chicano & Santana

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I rather like El Chicano. I was just listening to their second album, 'Revolucion'

and wondering, as there is quite a bit of stuff that sounds like rock, how they compare with Santana. I've heard almost nothing of Santana (I do have a heavy prejudice against Columbia, to be honest) except, perhaps 'Supernatural',

bits of which seemed to being played all the time in restaurants and bars when I visited Namibia in 2000. Seemed to be OK, but not for me, I thought. But I hadn't heard El Chicano then.

My thought is that Santana is a rock band with Latin influences, while El Chicano is a Latin band with jazz, funk, soul and rock influences.

So, what thoughts do you more knowledgeable people have on the two bands, please?

MG

[A Lark Ascending]

I'd be interested in hearing that record you mention, MG.

Not sure on the genre authenticity angle, but I'd argue that 'Caravanserai' by Santana is as good a rock/Latin record as I've heard (you probably sold it by the bucketload in your record shop days). I like the band from the first record through to 'Welcome' (gets a bit soully there, which might suit you). After that I lose interest. That 'Supernatural' record has little of the spirit of the original band(s) - too many celebrity guests for my liking (not from genres I'm keen on).

But 'Caravanserai' is sublime - probably a rock record with Latin additions but they sound wonderfully well integrated to me. Not just Cuban either, some lovely Brazilian rhythms, especially on the version of Jobim's 'Some Flower' (which was my introduction to Jobim). The guitar playing throughout is outstanding - much more than the standard Clapton/Hendrix imitation of the time.

Edited October 21, 2014 by A Lark Ascending

[mikeweil]

I only have a CDR of the first El Chicano LP somebody gave me many years ago - are these availbale on CD?

I find El Chicano to be a lot jazzier, plenty of Wes Montgomery Verve vibes and Eddie Harris in there - and more freewheelin', their conga player was given a lot more room to improvise, not just solo-wise.

[JSngry]

Caravanserai is one of my "best records ever, by anybody, with Borboletta running neck and neck. Hell, on some days, I like Borboletta a lot more. But don't "decide" about Santana until you're lived with one or both for a while.

The "popular" Santana stuff sounds dated (but still great" to me, but as albums, they're an easy listen. The first two being truly classic "Classic Rock", the third one actually inching towards great. But Caravanserai and Borboletta, whew, that was a zone there. Lotus is in that same area, but it's a lot to listen to if you're not sure about that kind of thing.

El Chicano, yeah, they were nice. But they didn't have the juice that Santana had, which is not a value judgement, just an observation.Santana had Big Idea,s and the arch from the first album through Borboletta is pretty damn impressive in their realizations (Welcome kinda pisses me off though, way to much sheen, they're forcing the point, and no sir, I don't like it, not one bit). After that, they decided that slumping sales mattered after all and came back between the lines. Not bad, really, just...you had to really want to be a fan to be a fan, if you know what I mean.

Two other bands of the same basic ilk you might find interesting are Malo (Carlo's brother was in that one) & Azteca. Malo, overthe years, held enough of a fan base of the contrarian "yeah, Carlos is good, but Jorge's BETTER!" ilk, and well...I don't know about that, but they were too good to not be investigated at least a little, ok? And Azteca...lots of interesting people in that band, lots of interesting music too, and if the albums were victims of over-production, well, sometimes you just gotta hear between the lines to get past the record and into the music.

Another thing that maybe gave El Chicano a different flavor was that they were from L.A.. Santana (as well as Malo & Azteca) were out of the SF/Oakland area, which produced a lot of bands that combined a lot of elements. It wasn't all psychedelia! El Chicano...are you into War at all, post-Eric Burdon? That's a more L.A. flavor too. War albums like The World Is A Ghetto and All Day Music are remarkably consistent listening experiences, they weren't just a singles band (although they were that, too, and a damn good one). Lighter, but still substantial, and still with an unmistakably "Latin" thing going on along with everything else.

[mikeweil]

I thought War was great with Eric Burdon, but was disappointed a bit by their live album without him, too much jammin' without a noticeable direction.

I love Azteca, btw.Too me it's not an LA vs. SF vibe thing - it's the amount of jazz and Latin in the mix. Santana was mor rock, although I really love Caravanserei, but that's a standout in their discography, along with Borboletta.

[Jim R]

My thought is that Santana is a rock band with Latin influences, while El Chicano is a Latin band with jazz, funk, soul and rock influences.

But... you said you've heard almost nothing of Santana, so... are you forming that from what others have said? Anyway, better not to think about it in those terms, imho, particularly with regard to bands of that period. That time produced a real melting pot of styles and influences. Carlos Santana was heavily influenced by Coltrane, btw. I hear it, and really think highly of his very recognizable and emotionally charged style of playing.

I think people often disparage something like "Abraxas" because it became so popular. I've heard "Black Magic Woman" hundreds of times, and I still love it. It's not the song's fault (or the band's fault) that it became so huge. I tend to prefer the earlier Santana albums, and would recommend them in addition to the later stuff already mentioned.

I'm less familiar with El Chicano. I do like Malo (I dig "Suavecito", which was also played to death on the radio back in the day).

I was a big fan of WAR when I was in high school. Partied like crazy to The albums Jim mentioned, as well as "WAR Live" and "Deliver The Word". I haven't found that their music has aged as well for me, but there are exceptions to that. To me, their stuff is like "mood music". It's great for a sonic backdrop when activities other than focused listening are going on.

[JSngry]

"Slippin' Into Darkness"...that groove hasn't had a chance to age, because it's hasn't stopped yet!

And this John Morales guy did one of the most...understanding remixes I've ever hear, doesn't really change anything, just spreads it out more and lets it groove even longer. It's a groove you can't kill, can not kill it.

Now some might say, well, that's not really "Latin", and no, it's not. But if you take the "Latin" out of it, what do you have? You don't have that, that's for sure, and that is what you want to have!

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Can't say I dug, or even particularly got, the Morales groove. Yes, there's a groove; OK, so? If I want (and I often do) to listen to groovy electronics, I've got lots of (not the same) West African music with that. But I DO like War.

MG

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I only have a CDR of the first El Chicano LP somebody gave me many years ago - are these availbale on CD?

I find El Chicano to be a lot jazzier, plenty of Wes Montgomery Verve vibes and Eddie Harris in there - and more freewheelin', their conga player was given a lot more room to improvise, not just solo-wise.

I just had a quick butch on Amazon UK and found 'Viva Tirado' (their first) and 'El Chicano live' are available as mp3s. So is 'Painting the moment', from 1998; that's rather different from the earlier material, though I like that, too.

MG

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

My thought is that Santana is a rock band with Latin influences, while El Chicano is a Latin band with jazz, funk, soul and rock influences.

But... you said you've heard almost nothing of Santana, so... are you forming that from what others have said? Anyway, better not to think about it in those terms, imho, particularly with regard to bands of that period. That time produced a real melting pot of styles and influences. Carlos Santana was heavily influenced by Coltrane, btw. I hear it, and really think highly of his very recognizable and emotionally charged style of playing.

As a general principle, I'm very out of sympathy with rock - didn't like it back in the day and can't be bothered to learn to like it now - got other music to learn to like So my views are pretty much informed by casually having heard bits of 'Supernatural'. And it doesn't really matter to me that Santana was heavily influenced by John Coltrane (now, if you'd said - truthfully - Willis Jackson ) because to me Trane is just another bloody genius, like Bird, Ellington, Rollins, Monk etc, whose music actually doesn't normally make a great deal of difference to me. So thinking about Santana in THOSE terms (legitimate as they might well be) isn't helpful to my grasp of that band.

MG

[Guy Berger]

Though Santana was obviously influenced by John Coltrane during the early 70s (and drummer Mike Shrieve even more so), I don't think that's the predominant jazz influence I hear in the opening trilogy of albums (1969-71). Jimmy Smith, Les McCann, Gabor Szabo, Willie Bobo, Chico Hamilton, other artists lying in the mid-60s nexus between jazz, pop & latin music - those are the jazz influences that mostly crop up before Caravanserai (though the opening of Abraxas is clearly a nod to electric Miles).

Since nobody asked me, here's my scoring of Santana albums I own:

Fillmore West '68 (B)

Self-titled (A)

Abraxas (A)

#3 (B)

Caravanserai (A)

Welcome (B)

Lotus (A)

Love Devotion and Surrender (B)

Borboletta © [sorry JSngry!]

Amigos (B)

Festival ©

Moonflower ©

The Swing of Delight ©

Blues for Salvador ©

I have also heard a few of the other albums. Supernatural was fine for what it was - a well-crafted Santanabot. The late 70s albums are pretty dire but often hilarious.

[mr jazz]

I bought the Malo box set which I enjoy-very well mastered as well. To me, they suffered from constant personnel changes including vocalists and "borrowing" Carlos licks at times. Enjoyable listening all the same. Borboletta probably my favorite Santana album. It was mixed in quad so a surround release would be nice but I doubt it will ever happen.

[jazzbo]

Borboletta is one of my favorites as well.

Allen, not sure if you'll really enjoy Santana. I would try III just for the heck of it, it's actually the one I think you might enjoy most. If that gets you wanting more work around it up and down.

I'm going to revisit Azteca, it's been a long time, thanks for the reminder Jim.

[A Lark Ascending]

Will give this a play a bit later - a 2 CD I've had for quite a while in this area. Includes El Chicano.

[Jim R]

My thought is that Santana is a rock band with Latin influences, while El Chicano is a Latin band with jazz, funk, soul and rock influences.

But... you said you've heard almost nothing of Santana, so... are you forming that from what others have said? Anyway, better not to think about it in those terms, imho, particularly with regard to bands of that period. That time produced a real melting pot of styles and influences. Carlos Santana was heavily influenced by Coltrane, btw. I hear it, and really think highly of his very recognizable and emotionally charged style of playing.

As a general principle, I'm very out of sympathy with rock - didn't like it back in the day and can't be bothered to learn to like it now - got other music to learn to like So my views are pretty much informed by casually having heard bits of 'Supernatural'. And it doesn't really matter to me that Santana was heavily influenced by John Coltrane (now, if you'd said - truthfully - Willis Jackson ) because to me Trane is just another bloody genius, like Bird, Ellington, Rollins, Monk etc, whose music actually doesn't normally make a great deal of difference to me. So thinking about Santana in THOSE terms (legitimate as they might well be) isn't helpful to my grasp of that band.

MG

?? The only thing that should logically be helpful to your "grasp of that band" is to listen to their music before writing it off because of some nebulous label like "rock" has been attached to it. Do you really think you can assume you're not going to like Santana's entire catalog because you didn't care for bits of one album?

I just re-read all the comments here, and Jim alluded to Santana's earlier recordings being "an easier listen". I would agree, but it seems to me that MG tends to lean that way in his tastes (e.g., Willis Jackson over Trane), so...??

I didn't mention Coltrane's influence on Carlos in order to suggest that this is necessarily an important reason to listen to Santana. It's just one piece of information which might cause one to discount the idea that Santana was just another "rock" band*. I also wasn't suggesting that Carlos didn't have any other important influences (jazz or otherwise).

* The term "rock" annoys me. There's no more meaningless and useless label in the entire world of music, imo.

[JSngry]

In 1971, in the dyas when you could just put on one side of a record and play it over and over and over, anybody who began an album side with this

and ended it with this:

without putting any bullshit in between was gonna be ok with me, and largely, still is.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

My thought is that Santana is a rock band with Latin influences, while El Chicano is a Latin band with jazz, funk, soul and rock influences.

But... you said you've heard almost nothing of Santana, so... are you forming that from what others have said? Anyway, better not to think about it in those terms, imho, particularly with regard to bands of that period. That time produced a real melting pot of styles and influences. Carlos Santana was heavily influenced by Coltrane, btw. I hear it, and really think highly of his very recognizable and emotionally charged style of playing.

As a general principle, I'm very out of sympathy with rock - didn't like it back in the day and can't be bothered to learn to like it now - got other music to learn to like So my views are pretty much informed by casually having heard bits of 'Supernatural'. And it doesn't really matter to me that Santana was heavily influenced by John Coltrane (now, if you'd said - truthfully - Willis Jackson ) because to me Trane is just another bloody genius, like Bird, Ellington, Rollins, Monk etc, whose music actually doesn't normally make a great deal of difference to me. So thinking about Santana in THOSE terms (legitimate as they might well be) isn't helpful to my grasp of that band.

MG

?? The only thing that should logically be helpful to your "grasp of that band" is to listen to their music before writing it off because of some nebulous label like "rock" has been attached to it. Do you really think you can assume you're not going to like Santana's entire catalog because you didn't care for bits of one album?

I just re-read all the comments here, and Jim alluded to Santana's earlier recordings being "an easier listen". I would agree, but it seems to me that MG tends to lean that way in his tastes (e.g., Willis Jackson over Trane), so...??

I didn't mention Coltrane's influence on Carlos in order to suggest that this is necessarily an important reason to listen to Santana. It's just one piece of information which might cause one to discount the idea that Santana was just another "rock" band*. I also wasn't suggesting that Carlos didn't have any other important influences (jazz or otherwise).

* The term "rock" annoys me. There's no more meaningless and useless label in the entire world of music, imo.

Well, I do agree that listening is the key, but gaily writing off a band - and indeed an entire genre (or multiplicity of genres) of music - which we all MUST do for plain old lack of time to explore them - is a normal reaction in all circumstances but being grabbed round the throat on initial impact. Of course, age enters into it - I have a lot less time now than I had when I was twenty So, yes, I'm more inclined now to dismiss something that doesn't appeal to me without even a slug of conscience.

Just at the moment, I'm exploring lots of different kinds of Latin music and that's probably the reason the thought about Santana and El Chicano occurred to me.

I fear you may have misunderstood the point about Willis Jackson. To me, influence isn't learning about something, it's something in an artist's general life background. So an artist being influenced by Gator Tail isn't anything to do with his music, it's to do with the artist's life. On the other hand, being influenced by Coltrane isn't in anyone's general life background - simply because he's a genius and you have to study it to be in a position to accept the influence. That's not better or worse than Gator's position; it's simply completely different. Santana & others were never in a position to be influenced by Willis Jackson, because they lived in a different world. If they'd wanted to have been influenced, sure, they could have learned one foreign music as well as they learned another - Cotrane's. I feel that would have made them different kinds of people than they were (and maybe their names would have been Randy Johnston), but I certainly would have been more interested in them.

MG

[Jim R]

My thought is that Santana is a rock band with Latin influences, while El Chicano is a Latin band with jazz, funk, soul and rock influences.

But... you said you've heard almost nothing of Santana, so... are you forming that from what others have said? Anyway, better not to think about it in those terms, imho, particularly with regard to bands of that period. That time produced a real melting pot of styles and influences. Carlos Santana was heavily influenced by Coltrane, btw. I hear it, and really think highly of his very recognizable and emotionally charged style of playing.

As a general principle, I'm very out of sympathy with rock - didn't like it back in the day and can't be bothered to learn to like it now - got other music to learn to like So my views are pretty much informed by casually having heard bits of 'Supernatural'. And it doesn't really matter to me that Santana was heavily influenced by John Coltrane (now, if you'd said - truthfully - Willis Jackson ) because to me Trane is just another bloody genius, like Bird, Ellington, Rollins, Monk etc, whose music actually doesn't normally make a great deal of difference to me. So thinking about Santana in THOSE terms (legitimate as they might well be) isn't helpful to my grasp of that band.

MG

?? The only thing that should logically be helpful to your "grasp of that band" is to listen to their music before writing it off because of some nebulous label like "rock" has been attached to it. Do you really think you can assume you're not going to like Santana's entire catalog because you didn't care for bits of one album?

I just re-read all the comments here, and Jim alluded to Santana's earlier recordings being "an easier listen". I would agree, but it seems to me that MG tends to lean that way in his tastes (e.g., Willis Jackson over Trane), so...??

I didn't mention Coltrane's influence on Carlos in order to suggest that this is necessarily an important reason to listen to Santana. It's just one piece of information which might cause one to discount the idea that Santana was just another "rock" band*. I also wasn't suggesting that Carlos didn't have any other important influences (jazz or otherwise).

* The term "rock" annoys me. There's no more meaningless and useless label in the entire world of music, imo.

Well, I do agree that listening is the key, but gaily writing off a band - and indeed an entire genre (or multiplicity of genres) of music - which we all MUST do for plain old lack of time to explore them - is a normal reaction in all circumstances but being grabbed round the throat on initial impact. Of course, age enters into it - I have a lot less time now than I had when I was twenty So, yes, I'm more inclined now to dismiss something that doesn't appeal to me without even a slug of conscience.

If you've already made up your mind (after only hearing a bit of ONE album) that Santana doesn't appeal to you, I'm not sure why we're having this discussion.

I fear you may have misunderstood the point about Willis Jackson.

"Easier listen" than Coltrane. That's all I said about WJ. Santana's earlier recordings are probably an "easier listen" than his later recordings, and thus I thought that they might appeal more to you than the later work.

To me, influence isn't learning about something, it's something in an artist's general life background. So an artist being influenced by Gator Tail isn't anything to do with his music, it's to do with the artist's life.

I'd say that the kind of influence you're referring to here is relatively rare. In music, when people talk about "influences", they're generally talking about the influence of an artist's music (live or recorded), not the kind of influence that results from actually knowing and interacting with that artist, and living in the same world or renting a room from them. So, not rare, but relatively rare.

When you refer to "learning about something", you seem to be suggesting that it's merely an academic pursuit where "study" is performed in order to gain influence from another artist's recordings (for example). I think music is a lot more powerful than that. You don't have to live in someone's world to be influenced by them. The life background and emotions are contained in the music. The life is IN the music. That's the whole point, isn't it?

On the other hand, being influenced by Coltrane isn't in anyone's general life background - simply because he's a genius and you have to study it to be in a position to accept the influence. That's not better or worse than Gator's position; it's simply completely different.

? Never said it was better or worse, and no, I see no difference in the process by which anyone would be influenced by these two artists.

If they'd wanted to have been influenced, sure, they could have learned one foreign music as well as they learned another - Cotrane's. I feel that would have made them different kinds of people than they were (and maybe their names would have been Randy Johnston), but I certainly would have been more interested in them.

I don't think it's always about "wanting" to be influenced, MG. I don't think every player influenced by Coltrane (or any other artist) necessarily decides one day that they're going to sit down and study a book of transcriptions. I would also suggest that in some cultural scenarios, music wouldn't be so likely to be seen as "foreign". As for the Randy Johnston comment, you completely lost me there (very good guitar player, by the way).

I think you might find it very interesting to read about Santana's early development. Perhaps an interview where he went into a lot of detail. I know I've read something like that online... maybe I'll see what I can find.

[JSngry]

Ok, I'll bite - what kind of "different world" are we supposing that Santana lived in so as to have him "never being in a position" to be aware of Pat Martino/Azzara and therefore likely Willis Jackson, or Soul Jazz in general?

[Jim R]

Ok, I'll bite - what kind of "different world" are we supposing that Santana lived in so as to have him "never being in a position" to be aware of Pat Martino/Azzara and therefore likely Willis Jackson, or Soul Jazz in general?

It's not that he couldn't have been aware (via "study"?), I think that MG's view is that in order to be influenced by WJ, you would have needed to live in his world (literally) and know him personally. At least that's what I thought he said.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I'd say that the kind of influence you're referring to here is relatively rare. In music, when people talk about "influences", they're generally talking about the influence of an artist's music (live or recorded), not the kind of influence that results from actually knowing and interacting with that artist, and living in the same world or renting a room from them. So, not rare, but relatively rare.

When you refer to "learning about something", you seem to be suggesting that it's merely an academic pursuit where "study" is performed in order to gain influence from another artist's recordings (for example). I think music is a lot more powerful than that. You don't have to live in someone's world to be influenced by them. The life background and emotions are contained in the music. The life is IN the music. That's the whole point, isn't it?

I don't think we're quite together on this and it's probably my fault. Influence is something that slips up on us out of the culture we live in that makes us prefer brown trousers or black ones and maybe, as fashions change, green ones. And makes some people see some musicians as an inspiration (say Gene Ammons) rather than others (say Dexter Johnson) - or vice versa. In guitarist terms, Grant Green is much more accessible in some places/societies than Barthelemy Attisso - and vice versa (though people in Senegal have heard of George Benson). You have to CHOOSE to be influenced by someone from a foreign society; they're not just there, always in the corner of your mind because you can hear them on the radio or your mates tell you how great they are or whatever. OK, black and white America are closer than America and Senegal (unless you happen to live in Little Senegal, I guess, where some things may be available to you that aren't in San Francisco ) So, if I were to say 'You, guitarist, should be influenced by Barthelemy Attisso, because he's the world's greatest,' (he isn't, though he's very good indeed), you'd have to work like hell to even get to hear more than a small fraction of his work, and that's before you tried to figure out what his objectives were and whether he fulfilled them and how well,,, and so on and so on. But you'd still have a big worksheet to fill out to get all this even from Cornell Dupree.

MG

[JSngry]

Think you might be underestimating all the ingredients that were available for the stew that was Santana's musical live moving from Jalisco to Tijuana to San Francisco. This isn't some guy who just woke up in Bill Graham's living room devoted to Coltrane and rock stardom.

You can get as much grease in the barrio as you can in the ghetto, make no mistake, and plenty of people have cross-dined, believe me.

Guess I'm saying your premise is a valid one in theory, but the theory itself is very likely not valid as applied to Santana's pre-Rock Stardom life.

The next trip you make to North America should begin in coastal northern Mexico, and then go all the way up the west coast to Seattle, or at least to Oakland. Seriously.

[JSngry]

Also - some of the most intensive R&B 45 collections in the world are in the hands of Hispanic Californians. That music still has its place in at least one element of that culture. Still. You can bet that Santana was not under-exposed or unappreciative of it in his formative years.

[Guy Berger]

In 1971, in the dyas when you could just put on one side of a record and play it over and over and over, anybody who began an album side with this

and ended it with this:

without putting any bullshit in between was gonna be ok with me, and largely, still is.

In retrospect not many other bands of that era did broad-yet-seamless eclecticism as well as Santana.

Also - some of the most intensive R&B 45 collections in the world are in the hands of Hispanic Californians. That music still has its place in at least one element of that culture. Still. You can bet that Santana was not under-exposed or unappreciative of it in his formative years.

Also, though CS's "brand" came to dominate the band in later years, the early lineup was much more democratic. Collectively these guys were exposed to lots of different music.

And they covered Gene Ammons.

[Jim R]

I'd say that the kind of influence you're referring to here is relatively rare. In music, when people talk about "influences", they're generally talking about the influence of an artist's music (live or recorded), not the kind of influence that results from actually knowing and interacting with that artist, and living in the same world or renting a room from them. So, not rare, but relatively rare.

When you refer to "learning about something", you seem to be suggesting that it's merely an academic pursuit where "study" is performed in order to gain influence from another artist's recordings (for example). I think music is a lot more powerful than that. You don't have to live in someone's world to be influenced by them. The life background and emotions are contained in the music. The life is IN the music. That's the whole point, isn't it?

I don't think we're quite together on this and it's probably my fault. Influence is something that slips up on us out of the culture we live in that makes us prefer brown trousers or black ones and maybe, as fashions change, green ones.

No, I don't accept that definition of influence, as I tried to explain above. By the 20th Century (let alone in 2014), technologies such as record players allowed musicians to be influenced by recordings (or live concerts from visiting musicians from other places, via airplane travel or motor vehicles) from other places and cultures, via records, tapes, CD's, radio broadcasts, etc etc. Would it be preferable in many cases for a musician to be able to physically immerse themselves in the environment and culture of the artist they're attracted to? Would they be even more likely to be influenced significantly if they happened to live in that same environment? Is it cool when that happens? Of course. Is that common, or even a requirement for influence to occur? Of course it's not.

And makes some people see some musicians as an inspiration (say Gene Ammons) rather than others (say Dexter Johnson)

Naturally, fewer people have heard Dexter Johnson, and there are fewer recordings by Johnson available around the world than those of Jug, but you needn't live in Jug's world in order to be influenced by him. If you do, and can absorb some of the same environmental conditions and experiences, then great, but musical influence doesn't depend on that.

You have to CHOOSE to be influenced by someone from a foreign society

You also have to CHOOSE to be influenced buy someone from down the street, when it comes to musical influence.

...they're not just there, always in the corner of your mind because you can hear them on the radio or your mates tell you how great they are or whatever.

I grew up here in a predominantly white, middle class suburban area on the west coast. I've never been to New York, or Philadelphia, or Detroit, or Chicago, or St. Louis, or Kansas City, or Memphis, or New Orleans. None of the music from those places has ever felt "foreign" to me. Nor does Brazilian music, and I've never been there either. I suppose that's partly because I love music and try to be open to anything that moves me; much of the music I love stems from the same source(s); and because in many major metropolitan areas in the U.S. (including the SF bay area), it's not uncommon for one to have access to the wide world (the whole world) of music via radio (especially non-commercial FM stations which are run by universities or supported by public donations and operated by volunteers). So yes, I've made a choice to listen to a variety of music from places I've never been, but I don't "choose" which music is going to influence me (and I am a musician, though not professional, and I think I understand quite well the concept of "influence", not only for myself, but how it generally works for most musicians). It influences me naturally. The "choice" is unconscious.

I'm not completely rejecting your concept of influence via the physical connection to a given artist or environment or culture, but as I already told you, I think that's a relatively rare form of influence. If that form of influence predominated, and musicians couldn't be strongly influenced from a physical distance, that would be rather unfortunate and sad.

OK, black and white America are closer than America and Senegal

Black and white America are closer than they were in 1954. The overlapping of cultures and musical influences that was going on (and the expanding ethnic and stylistic integration of bands) when Santana was listening to Coltrane (even as far back as the 60's) are a manifestation of that.

So, if I were to say 'You, guitarist, should be influenced by Barthelemy Attisso, because he's the world's greatest,' (he isn't, though he's very good indeed), you'd have to work like hell to even get to hear more than a small fraction of his work

Are you sure about that? Could it be that it would be easier for me to find his work than it was for you? Maybe MUCH easier? Ever shopped at an Amoeba Records? Have you ever listened to (for example) KKUP? It's becoming a smaller and smaller world, MG. 30 years ago, it would have been a huge advantage to live in NYC or Chicago or SF and surrounding areas, and I'm sure it still is to some degree, but that advantage is gradually dissipating, I think.

and that's before you tried to figure out what his objectives were and whether he fulfilled them and how well,,, and so on and so on. But you'd still have a big worksheet to fill out to get all this even from Cornell Dupree.

??? Even if I understood this, I'm not sure what is has to do with the discussion...