I have been a lurker and have been quite content to just bask in everyone's
wisdom regarding various topics up till now. This is my first post.
I have carefully followed the thread about the subject of Race, Gender and
the Blues. I admit I was clearly warned by another poster, but I am one of
those people who has had their blood pressure elevated.
I do not now, nor have I ever cared, whether a blues performer was black,
white, female, male or Samoan. My sole interest has always been to enjoy,
appreciate and listen to a great performance by a great blues performer.
Greatness was never measured by whether the performer allegedly had some
special insight into the blues or "street cred" by reason of possessing a
particular type of genitalia or being a part of a specific racial group.
The article/post I am responding to is just the latest confirmation for me
that we have now devolved into a "Balkanized" country with many and varied
identity groups seeking various kinds of entitlement. You simply have to
be
a part of some special group for certain specific purposes and pursuits
these days. Positions in all walks of life now have to be reserved for
members of various racial, ethnic, sexual orientations, and gender groups.
Sheer talent, ability, art, and reaching out and holding the audience
spellbound is no longer enough. Is the author of the underlying article
that created this controversy suggesting some form of affirmative action
for blues performers?
There used to be an old TV show called "Queen for a Day" where the person
who told the most heart-rending, humiliating and horrifying life story to
the studio audience was voted to be the "winner" and received valuable
prizes. Are we now having such a contest about which person or group has
suffered the most with regard to man's inhumanity to his fellow man (and
of
course that includes women)? I believe that you don't need any particular
background or have to "qualify" racially or otherwise to play the blues.
How does having ancestors a number of generations ago who suffered the
horrible abuse of slavery make the current generation of performers in any
way better? Does blackness or "femaleness" uniquely qualify someone to
perform this particular kind of music? Should Charlie Musselwhite or
Dennis
Gruenling (and others too numerous to mention) be considered "less
authentic" blues performers because they are of the Caucasian persuasion?
I have found their live performances just as wonderful and satisfying (if
not more so) as any others I've heard. Should one or both of them be
disqualified from playing a gig because there is no other slot available
for a black or female performer to play that night?
I grew up in a neighborhood in NYC among far too many people with numbers
tattooed on their arms. They were imprisoned under unspeakable conditions
and had watched unarmed family and friends tortured and killed in the most
inhumane ways imaginable. These people had "thousand yard stares" whenever
there was any discussion (however gently it was attempted) of the
Holocaust
and their lost family members. There were over 6 million Jews who were
slaughtered like cattle. It would be absurd for me to claim that this
religious/ethnic experience awards me any "points", "qualifies" me in any
way, or should somehow entitle me to a slot as a performer to play blues
anywhere. Does having this experience mean that only thereafter I was
entitled to credibly play the blues? Unimaginable sorrow and
discrimination
are not the exclusive province of any racial, ethnic group or gender in
this or any other country or human endeavor. I don't see playing the blues
as requiring payment of some sort of emotional "ante" in a poker game of
"can you top this" played with horror stories. Heartache and sorrow are
equal opportunity experiences.
I am a neophyte musician. My time is better spent working on technique
than
it is reflecting on ancestral sorrows. But even if I were a far better
musician than I currently am, I refuse to accept the premise that my
experience gives me some entitlement or credibility with respect to
performing the blues. I could undoubtedly argue that extermination is
worse
than slavery, and that these events I have related happened far closer in
terms of time. However, I refuse to make such absurd comparisons and play
that destructive game as it does not make me a better musician. The only
qualifications I can think of for a blues performer are the quality of the
player's musicianship, forming a solid connection with their audience, and
how well the performer interprets blues music as an art form.
Is being sick, sore, lame, divorced, beaten, addicted, descended from
slaves, victimized, jailed, fighting in a war, being disabled (or fill in
your particular life's personal tragedy) a prerequisite to play or perform
blues? If so, we are all qualified because there is more than enough
tragedy, death, sadness and heartache in each of our lives for us all to
appreciate and understand the blues. I would even go so far as to say that
maybe it does help to channel some of the pain inherent in being human
into
blues music. I just don't think any particular kind of pain or tragic
personal experience is necessary. Notwithstanding the roots of the blues,
it has evolved to where it does not belong to any one race or group long
ago. I refuse to believe that you have to be a beaten down and depressed
individual, or rendered inconsolable by a claimed lack of social justice
of
one kind or another, in order to perform/play the blues.
My novel suggestion is to JUST LISTEN TO THE PERFORMER AND JUDGE THEM
SOLELY ON THEIR MUSIC!!
Howard Herman