Re: [Harp-L] Harmonicas and respect

[Richard Hunter <turtlehill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Philharpn@xxxxxxx wrote:
<I think it's interesting to note the extremes of Little Walter and Howard. 
<Little Walter played by rote. Howard probably knows how to play more varied 
<music than most people even know about. Walter knew little about music; Howard 
<knows everything else.
<
<Regardless of whatever you think of Howard, the instrument needs more Howards 
<and fewer Walters. And until the harmonica community deals with this issue -- 
<understanding how music works -- the harmonica will regarded as a specialty 
<instrument.   
<
...
<Walter played what he heard in the jump blues tradition. Most of the people 
<who are astounded at Walter's level of playing probably don't know anything
<about how a sax played in jump blues. Today it is much easier to make this 
<connection. It is only a CD or legal download away -- or a youtube or tune sample
<from Amazon etcetera.

Well, I'm certain that these comments are going to produce a firestorm of responses, which they should, because they're insulting and ignorant, not necessarily in that order. There's so much nonsense in this post that it's hard to know where to start, but let me try.

The basic idea in this post is that Walter was an ignorant copycat--that he simply played "by rote", doing nothing more than repeating what he heard, and was incapable of actual creation because of his lack of formal training in theory.  

First, it's ridiculous to claim that artists in general require formal training to express themselves.  Of course more tools are in general preferable to fewer tools, and any artist can use more tools.  But what matters most is how effectively artists use the tools they have.  Walter used his tools brilliantly.  It's just plain silly to pretend that Walter's music doesn't have astounding emotional power, which is really the point of any art form, isn't it?  (I am reminded of a series of letters to Keyboard Magazine in which a conservatory-trained musician claimed that the music of Danny Elfman, who wrote the music for all the Batman movies, among others, couldn't be any good because Elfman didn't have a conservatory degree.  Yeah. Right.) 

Along those lines, it's laughable and ignorant to claim that Walter was anything but an innovator of the first order.  If that's not the case, kindly produce a reference to the amazing player that Walter stole all his ideas from.  Of course he had roots in traditional blues harmonica, but what's remarkable is how far he took the tradition from its starting point, not how much he copied from those who came before him.  Walter's commercial success during and after his life is testimony to the audience's recognition that something special was going on in his music. 

While we're on the topic, Walter was anything but ignorant of theory where blues was concerned.  He had a very strong understanding of the structures that lay beneath his music.  The fact that his theory was acquired by ear and apprenticeship rather than formal training doesn't make it any less valid. It was plenty of theory for what he was doing, which was composing and playing blues, not writing symphonies.  By the way, in most cases theory follows innovation, not the other way around.  The artists create, and the theorists explain what they have done.  Artists who take the opposite path tend to produce art that is essentially an argument in favor of their theories, not art designed to win an audience.

I'm always interested to see how the supposed ignorance of blues artists is emphasized by two very different camps: the self-appointed guardians of blues for whom the ignorant, self-taught blues genius is a romantic ideal, and the self-appointed champions of the formal academy who cannot allow for the possibility that anyone lacking a conservatory degree might be capable of creating brilliant music.  
Unfortunately for both groups, blues artists know plenty about the music they play.  There's nothing casual or accidental about Chicago blues--it's a perfectly realized ensemble form, as internally consistent and convincing as any other small ensemble music.  That's the reason why it was one of the dominant musical forms of the second half of the 20th century.  To argue otherwise is to argue that the mass audience just doesn't know what's good for them.  I hear that argument a lot, of course, but the fact is that the music that lasts tends to last because it's great.  Walter's music has lasted and will last.

Regards, Richard Hunter   
latest mp3s and harmonica blog at http://myspace.com/richardhunterharp