Re: [Harp-L] Race, Gender and Blues

[Boogieman Peeps <boogiemanpeeps@xxxxxxxxx>]

Not to stir the pot on race regarding the blues, but............... if I
were a black blues musician and I was overlooked for a festival that was
chocked full of white blues artist that I am just as good or perhaps better
than -- I would be "upset".  I get aggravated at the news channels giving
the gigs to British figureheads to do my news, entertainment,
business,etc.  I fail to understand why black artists would NOT be
offended.  It's not authentic American news when you hire a foreigner to my
land tell me the news in my backyard.

My original post was directed to the fact that hip hop and rap are taking
the masses attention and therefore the black artists are attracted to the
money - reducing the number of black artist in the blues -- while white
blues artists and particularly female blues artists are seeming to thrive
in the much smaller blues market.  It also seems to me that hip hop and rap
are actually the blues of black society today.  There are plenty of black
bluesmen available for hire today that know how to play the blues.  There
is plenty of room in a festival at the very least.

Now surely I have not offended anyone by speaking freely?  It seems someone
is always offended these days about something.  I'm okay with your
opinion.  Mine are seldom correct anyway, but they are mine until you
convince me otherwise.

Boogie

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 6:50 AM, Rob Paparozzi <chromboy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> Thank You Howard, I couldn't agree more and nicely stated.
>
> all the best,
> Rob Paparozzi
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Howard Herman" <hherman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 11:21 PM
> Subject: [Harp-L] Race, Gender and Blues
>
>
>  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
>>
>>
>