Subject: Re: Re: [Harp-L] But when it comes right down to it,,
It's also amusing to notice how those of us who responded to a poster's
seeming indictment of ALL of today's modern players as lacking the soul of
yesterday's old masters - harmonica players in particular, are now indicted as
being "defensive, insecure and even subtley (sic) antagonistic". It couldn't
be, could it... that we simply find the poster wrong in his conclusions? <G>
The writer omitted to mention that his original post referenced another post
[both included below]which specifically mentioned "the harp player" and
was, therefore, not generic at all as he insists, but instead a post which
necessitated responses providing the truth about today's harmonica players by
those of us who know these people personally or have actually attended their
shows and concerts, bought their CD's and learned from their seminars... so
perhaps have just a tad more knowledge than the writer about the originality of
the voices of these modern harmonica players ...
...rather than some dry supposition by a group of panelists at a Jazz
symposium who perhaps hadn't heard nor yet been exposed to the musicians discussed
here on Harp-L...living, breathing, real-life, soulful musicians who most
assuredly DO have their own Original Voices.
Did Paul DeLay have "an original voice"? Do Michel Herblin, Curtis Salgado,
Joe Filisko, Chris Michalek, Dennis Gruenling, Jason Ricci, Peter "MadCat"
Ruth, PT Gazell, Olivier Ker Ourio, Robert Bonfiglio, Richard Hunter have
"original voices"? Does Howard Levy have THE most definitively original of the
"Original Voices"? Abso........
..... lutely!
(and these are only a few of those I can personally speak to).
Anyone who thinks these and other harmonica artists don't have their own
uniquely original voices today, and that they all aren't growing in leaps and
bounds with each new song, instrumental composition, Album, show, gig,
teaching seminar....has been living in a time warp/bubble and not spending enough
real time getting out to hear these artists on a continuing basis since none
of them have been wasting time resting on their respective laurels for the
last half-dozen years or so.
While there certainly are musical clones out there...there are enough gems
to be found among the dross. If YOU haven't heard them, then you are simply
not listening closely enough.
What on earth is going on with this lemming-like "me too-ing" attitude of
tarring every Blues and jazz player today with the same brush as if there
aren't a hundred or perhaps even a thousand others who don't also fit that "break
out of the box"/ "break down the barriers" mold? Here's a link to a list of
performers participating in the upcoming Springing the Blues, Jacksonville,
Florida Festival sent to me by a friend. Sure wish I could get there, since
this lineup sure sounds like a wealth of quite original voices: _Click
here: George's Music Springing the Blues Festival - Performers_
(http://www.springingtheblues.com/performers.cfm)
How elitist and arrogant it seems to me (purely in my most humble opinion,
of course) for a bunch of academicians in the jazz field, whether musicians
themselves or not... to conclude that an artist of today, especially in Blues
or Jazz, doesn't have the same level of talent as an earlier musician. Did
they spare a thought that perhaps it's purely due to them either not yet
having been "discovered" or being forced to earn a living outside of Blues and
Jazz (since we all know just how "highly" both those genres pay)... rather than
starving for his/her art?
Formal education, rather, has been the major change in this country...and
why people don't have the freedom to pursue their muse as easily as they did
years earlier, when the same emphasis wasn't placed upon the Holy Grail of a
College Degree. Even a High School Education wasn't as compulsory in the
early part of the 20th Century, so a youngster who had musical talent then could
with less restrictions follow that road, difficult as it may have been. How
blind are these academicians to not see the difference between Real life
then and now, and not recognize other factors beyond their own seemingly very
narrow scope of "blaming the artist"...
...the next Charlie Parker or Miles Davis might be outside, down the
street.... playing his heart out while some elitist snobs are inside a Hotel at a
symposium yattering about the whys and wherefores....
.....never realizing that when those old masters starved for their art due
to the businessmen who so often took advantage of them, taking the biggest
piece of the monetary pie...leaving the artist who'd created the work with a
mere pittance, how is that any different from the same type of businessmen
controlling the music industry nowadays? The music business today is merely
reaping the seeds of its past.
The change in attitude is that today's artists now demand (and rightly so)
some small protection from the chicanery visited upon earlier artists, as
well as some small recompense for their hard work. Why shouldn't they? Why
should someone with no connection to creation of the music get rich off someone
else's art, while the author of it can barely pay their rent?
And what on earth does being paid a decent wage for your art, and expecting
some small measure of respect have anything at all to do with having "soul"?
Absolutely nothing.
One thing most people DO know about Miles Davis is that he demanded
respect...
Elizabeth
(the original post which those of us who commented were referencing:
"Message: 3
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 14:58:26 -0400
From: icemanle@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Harp-L] But when it comes right down to it,,
To: harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <8C933B8B723CCC6-1758-D49D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Old masters played because this was their soul's voice speaking.
Modern players seem to want to achieve fame, fortune using the music as a
vehicle. They try too hard to control the outcome.
Wanting to be a superstar or WANTING people's respect is not the best of
motivation in an art form.
the Iceman
-----Original Message-----
From: rlaughlin@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To: harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 2:52 AM
Subject: [Harp-L] But when it comes right down to it,,
I think what bothers me the most about the harp player is how much he
reminds me
of myself, trying my best to achieve recognition. Maybe it's because he's
standing, when the rest of the band is sitting. Who knows.
Again,,I think in listening to the old blues masters, it seems that they
just
play the music, sing, and get out of the way. It's not so much a vehicle for
them to get noticed as it is them providing a vehicle for the music. There's
not
so much of this modern-day compulsion to mention who played what, etc.
Just a personal observation.
It's about the music"
********************************************************"
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:39:29 -0400
From: icemanle@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Re: [Harp-L] But when it comes right down to
it,,
To: harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <8C935E7A7C7E946-17C0-6F6B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
It's amusing to observe how my generic musician comment gets filtered
through individual psychologies eliciting responses that reveal so much about the
ones posting - the whole gamut, from curious, complimentary, defensive,
insecure and even subtley antagonistic.
There is nothing indicating "harmonica players" in my original post. I'm
talking about the evolution of music from an art form into a business (1960's
onward). This same subject was a panel discussion with jazz luminaries at an
IAJE Convention. The musicians that created an art form (be-bop, modal, swing,
Chicago Blues, Jump Blues) were not fueled by the change in the industry
regarding fame and fortune that occurred when music became a big business.
In regards to jazz, even the education has become a big business - colleges
offering courses and degrees along with the whole publishing industry
offering "How to's", "Transcribed solos of", "Methodologies", "1001 Cool Licks",
"Turnaround Ideas", "Playalong CD's", and thousands of theory books. The
discussion was about "Why are there no new Charlie Parkers, Miles Davis', etc" these
days. There is no definitive answer, but many within the industry agree
that the focus has shifted from the art for its own sake and developing an
ORIGINAL voice towards "what do I get out of it". The focus seems to be on
recreating other's original voices and playing fasterlouderflashiertributesto. This
is the state of the "art" today, agree the panelists (and me, too).
Can't you see a parallel path in the blues world? (God love Stevie Ray, but
look at the clones ever since).
Holy Cow - look at American Idol and the fascination/popularity surrounding
it.
Original Voice - what a concept.
The Iceman
-----Original Message-----
From: EGS1217@xxxxxxx
To: 46long@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx; wmharps@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 4:10 PM
Subject: Subject: Re: Re: [Harp-L] But when it comes right down to it,,
Blake writes in response to Tim's excellent points:
"Yeah, pretty much any of us has an infinitely smaller chance of becoming
rich and famous at playing the harp as a high school bench warmer has of
making it to the NBA. No, I'm not implying that we're "Bench-warmer" caliber
players, either. Do we need to resurrect the list of excellent harp players
who are rich and famous?
- BAT"
On 3/15/07, Tim Moyer <wmharps@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> iceman wrote:
> > Old masters played because this was their soul's voice speaking.
> >
> > Modern players seem to want to achieve fame, fortune using the
> > music as a vehicle. They try too hard to control the outcome.
>
> I don't think the "old masters" had an exclusive on soul.
>
> In my experience, for every one musician I've met who wanted to be a
> superstar I've met a thousand who wanted to play their music to an
> audience. And there's nothing wrong with wanting to reach the
> broadest audience possible, and to be able to make a living doing
> something you love, something that comes from the soul.
>
> I think you'd have a hard time finding very many harmonica players who
> think their music is their ticket to fame and fortune.
>
> -tim"
.....So true, Blake. I actually spent the time giving this some serious
thought. Specifically focused on
those "modern day" harmonica players I've had the privilege of seeing play
in person....and then those
I've witnessed playing only via video/television/DVD's. Nary a one fits
the description of 'seeming to':
"want to achieve fame, fortune using the music as a vehicle. They try too
hard to control the outcome".
Can't imagine anyone possibly believing that to be true about harmonica
players. Given that there are so
few actually making a decent living playing harp..especially those
traversing the country playing gigs for
a pittance. Despite any acclaim....it doesn't put food on the table.
Venues barely pay enough to
warrant the costs of the gas and tolls (not to mention wear and tear on a
vehicle) for a band to get there.
Perhaps the reference was to folks like Charlie McCoy? (a tad older - been
around a bit longer
..so not exactly "young"?) or Toots Thielman's? Both of them actually did
become famous..and
perhaps relatively "rich" by today's harmonica masters' standards....but
only after years of paying their
dues, years on the road and playing hundreds of studio gigs. Hardly what
one might call "using the music
as a vehicle". So perhaps the description was of today's younger
players...I can't think of a single
one of them who don't have "soul", either.
One in particular with whom I'm very familiar with, has a brilliantly
expressive mind and is a wonderful
writer/poet (who could make a living in that field if he ever decided to
quit playing harmonica)....plays
his music from the very depths of His soul (which brings his audiences
back, time and again) ...and
has the infinite capacity to give everything of himself to help those with
less then he has....down to his
last penny...as everyone who has ever met him comes away with knowing.
I tend to wonder about and question those who deem themselves an arbiter of
what constitutes
another musician's "soul" and why they would describe that musician as
attempting to achieve "fame and
fortune", when the truth of the matter is that every harmonicist I've met
so far is simply trying to
achieve a relatively decent standard of living creating and performing the
music he/she loves for the people who love to hear it. Perhaps the writer
meant guitar players, since for the most part even a relatively non
top notch guitarist can achieve fame and fortune a heckuva lot sooner than
even the very best harp player.
Disclaimer: Only In my most humble opinion of course....
Elizabeth
****************************************************************
************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone.
Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and
MHonArc 2.6.8.