[Harp-L] Subjectivity

[Jonathan Ross <jross38@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

jazmaan wrote:

"Some people disagree with the very notion that one player can be the  
"best".  They don't like
comparing musicians period.    I am not one of those people."

I am one of those people, and I'm about to try and show why with the  
following.

"When Charlie Parker was living, he was universally recognized by his  
peers as being the best alto
player on the planet.   In his prime, Bird was so highly regarded  
that when he showed up for an
unplanned unrehearsed guest appearance with the Woody Herman Herd,  
every musician in that band
ceded his solo space to Bird!"

Which goes to show that Parker was highly regarded.  He still is.  Is  
he "the best"?  I have no idea.  Personally, I don't care much for  
bebop, so he doesn't rank high on my list of favorite alto sax  
players in jazz.  I doubt he'd rank high on the list of classical sax  
players (small as it may be) and frankly I think he doesn't rate when  
talking about r&b (and obviously can't be considered for things such  
as funk which evolved after his death).  I've got some truly great  
Ethiopian sax playing on CD, I bet that Parker wouldn't be high on  
the list of players in that genre either, for some reason.  Hell,  
while he may have dominated at his time (and still does) in terms of  
press and the like, there were other bebop altoists who in hindsight  
can make a decent claim for equal talent, if not significance.

"When Jimi Hendrix first arrived in England as an unknown, he asked  
if he could sit in with Cream.
At the time people considered Cream's guitarist, Eric Clapton to be  
"God".  When Hendrix began to
play, Clapton was stunned.  He walked offstage mid-song and asked  
Jimi's manager "Can he really be
that good?"    Jeff Beck saw him play and bitterly asked Pete  
Townsend  "Am I just supposed to
give up playing guitar now?" "

In the context of heavy guitar-based rock of the late 60's, Hendrix  
certainly shined then and shines now (dying young helped a lot in  
terms of the legend).  Was he the best?  Personally I'd rather listen  
to either Townsend or Beck from that time period.  Am I an idiot that  
"the best" player doesn't move me?  Or does that mean that maybe,  
just maybe, my idea of what "the best" is might just be different  
from yours?  If so, doesn't that pretty much negate the concept?  I  
mean, if we define the criteria we can say what "the best" car is or  
"the best" computer within whatever criteria we choose, but even then  
without specifically picking one single category it's meaningless.   
Take the car example, if we're talking about fuel-efficiency it may  
be one thing.  Efficient output of horse-power to fuel another.   
Torque yet another.  If we're talking about the "best looking", well,  
then we're into the completely subjective.

And that is where all this "best harmonica player" stuff resides.  It  
is completely, totally and utterly subjective.  Even making a list of  
the "20 best" is going to be such.  If we all did it we might see  
some general consensus, but that still wouldn't make anything  
definitive--it would just be the generally regarded people amongst  
this group, and no less subjective for that.  Can anyone here  
honestly say that Little Walter is better than Toots?  DeFord  
Bailey?  Can we even find a way to start comparing such radically  
different styles of playing?  I really don't think we can.

"I use Hendrix and Bird as proof of the concept that one player can  
indeed be "The Best"."

And let's go back to Hendrix.  At about that same time most jazz fans  
wouldn't have even recognized him as being any good (hell, most hated  
Miles for liking Hendrix).  Wes Montgomery or maybe Joe Pass would  
have gotten the nod for "the best" in jazz circles.  The same  
situation was going on in bluegrass, country and other genres:  
Hendrix wasn't even on the radar.  And why should he be--he wasn't  
playing in those genres.  But even if we limit the criteria as much  
as possible, ie, British guitarists (which Hendrix essentially was  
during his height) of the late 60's and early 70's heavy rock scene,  
we still end up being completely subjective because to me Hendrix  
wasn't "the best"--as I said, I prefer others of that time period to  
him.  Still, I wouldn't call any of them "the best", because they  
weren't: they are just my favorites.

"If you
accept that concept"

Then I strongly suggest opening your (and here I am copying the  
generic "you"--not a specific person, but anyone who reads this) eyes  
to the beauty of the real, subjective world on these things and stop  
trying to make everything fit a list or into a contest.  Shakespeare  
isn't the greatest writer ever; Bach isn't the best composer ever;  
and "Gone With The Wind" isn't the best movie ever.  They may be your  
favorites, but that's all--and if that's not enough, then I wonder  
who you are trying to convince.

I haven't heard the Stevie thing in question, but I will.  Stevie is  
amongst my favorite musicians ever.  He's also one of my favorite  
harmonica players--very distinctive style yet always focused on the  
song and doesn't let the style get in the way of that.  This is shown  
throughout his career, though his early standards works tend to stand  
out in this way.  An excellent example of how you can always sound  
like yourself, but if you know how to use it never sound out of place  
(Carlos Santana is similar, IMO, to give another example).  It is a  
very, very hard thing to pull off--most people with a recognizable  
sound or style tend not to travel anywhere near the way Stevie can  
with his harmonica playing in terms of changing genres and changing  
roles (sideman, frontman, solo, accompaniment, etc...).




 ()()    JR "Bulldogge" Ross
()  ()   & Snuffy, too:)
`----'