[Harp-L] Harmonicas and respect: I'm with Hunter

[Ken Deifik <ken@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Richard wrote:
> I utterly reject the idea that Little Walter was handicapped as a musician 
> by his alleged lack of theory knowledge,

Phil's original comment, or at least Richard's excellent responses, brings 
to mind, or all things, the Homeric epics.

For several hundred years it was simply a given that Homer himself was a 
myth because the Iliad and the Odyssey were created in pre-literate times, 
and it would be impossible for a blind story teller to compose two sublime 
novel-length poems without the ability to write them down.  The general 
view was that these poems were accreted over time by a long line of poets.

Then in the 1880's it was revealed that Bulgaria, which was still 
pre-literate, had a long history of epic poets who "wrote" beautiful 
stories that were much longer than the Homeric epics - without ever writing 
them down.  Poets would tell their stories for a living, repeating them 
word-for-word at each recital.  Homer was vindicated.

We really have no idea what level of knowlege of music theory Little Walter 
had or needed to create his amazing style.  We have some idea that when 
Howlin' Wolf created his devastating music he had a lesser knowlege of 
music theory because his biographer tells us that after he moved to Chicago 
he took extension classes on the subject.  (Don't you LOVE knowing that?)

My own personal definition of Music Theory is "How certain musicians and 
composers did what they did In The Past."  All the great "trained" 
composers extended the theory, whether you're talking about Debussy or 
Charlie Parker.

Or for that matter Little Walter, who was schooled by both SBW's and any 
number of other swinging blues musicians.  They may not have taught him 
about Plagal cadences and dotted sixteenths, but he learned how they made 
their magic and then made his own.  (And come to think of it, Parker wasn't 
exactly trained at Berklee.)

Depicting such musical illiterates as Walter or Muddy Waters or Robert 
Johnson as simpletons (which I kinda don't think Phil was actually doing) 
mistakes knowlege of musical theory for the ability to invent beautiful 
music.  (For every Berklee student who graduates with the ability to 
excite, 10 graduate with the ability to put you right to sleep.  I've 
worked with both kinds.)

Whether it's the silly rumor that Irving Berlin had "a colored boy" in his 
back office composing all that music, or that Shakespeare "couldn't 
possibly" written the Shakespeare plays, people who cite these 'givens' 
mistake technical knowlege for the magic that it's supposed to help us to 
create.

When Phil said that we need more Howard Levy's I believe he meant that we 
need more people who are blazing new musical trails for diatonic harp.  I 
think that's exactly what Little Walter did, too.

When he said we need fewer Little Walters, I think he may have meant that 
we need more players to take Walter's innovations to very new places, until 
Walter becomes an influence rather than a model.  Hard to argue with 
that.  That is, we all start by sounding like someone else, but the best of 
us go on to make music that is all our own.

All props to Phil and Richard, with a special shout-out to people who are 
exactly like me, wherever they are.

K