Subject: Blues vs classical - was: Re: Subject: [Harp-L] The name "blues"

[EGS1217@xxxxxxx]

Mr. Bean, when I posted I made QUITE SURE to qualify  my statement by 
specifying that I was NOT 'knocking' formal music  education and said so clearly 
enough for presumably anyone to understand;  perhaps I didn't repeat the 
salient point sufficiently enough or  apologize profusely often enough in 
advance to those of you who fail  to read qualifiers just so I wouldn't be then 
keel-hauled for DARING to express  my personal opinion ---another point I'd 
made clear as in 'but to MY MIND',  etc.
 
So--I've just underlined my qualifiers where you quoted my previous post so 
 you can see just what I'm talking about. I'm honestly unsure if it's a  
comprehension issue or my 'British way of talking'. Can't imagine that would 
be  the case since there are so many real Brits posting here and I'm 
thoroughly  Americanized.
 
Your statement: "the notion that a blues (or jazz, or folk, or whatever)  
musician is somehow expressing deeper or more closely held feelings through  
their playing than players in any other genre is misguided at best, and  
insulting at 
worst."
 
What?
 
Fascinating, but that's not even CLOSE to what I wrote. If you're  
'insulted' then the problem is yours since I did NOT narrow it down to any genre  or 
write anything of the sort. Especially since I love, enjoy and play music 
of  ALL types--including R&B, old standards, folk, rock, Smooth Jazz,  
Pop--anything and everything which catches my fancy and I've written about this  
MANY times before).
 
Except blues--I believe I specified THAT point as well.
 
What I WAS talking about were musicians who play from their hearts--even IF 
 they don't use actual instruments (as I'd mentioned earlier in my  
previous post)--talking about those who began by using their VOICES and their  
BODIES to make sounds to express their innermost feelings when they had no other 
 way to do so..and where the source of what Mr. Ashby was talking about 
'blews'  (ugh) music actually stemmed from: their VOICES and BODIES  expressing 
their pain and awful conditions of life. They didn't use harmonicas  at all 
contrarily to Mr. Ashby's ideas of attempting a  humiliating recreation of 
what he thinks of as black peoples' speech, just  to fit his own invention!
 
 
Blues and folk music existed long before people used harmonicas, so  his 
'theory' is just that. People sang, thumped on their chests, used spoons on  
their legs, bones tied together, jawharps, washboards, rudimentary banjos and 
 guitars long before they played harmonicas--so where did he come up with  
'blowing' as the source of 'blues'? THAT was my main point yet your sole 
focus  is my having the chutzpah to express my own personal opinion that this  
kind of soul-deep music is more expressive to ME than formal music 
education?  Well, shoot me for having a contrary opinion to yourself but isn't that 
what  this list is all about? Expressing different opinions? 
 
Mr. Ashby has since outed himself as being in fact, racist. I saw it  in 
his earlier post (as did Pete Sheridan who took umbrage and stood  up before 
anyone else). 
 
In NO WAY am I 'insulting' everyone who has a formal musical education.  
This is a particularly grating charge because I'm personally a huge fan of  
Robert Bonfiglio--own every one of his CD's and have attended his performances 
 many,many times--have posted at least half a dozen times (both here and on 
 Slidemeister) his playing of The Thais Meditation--referring to it as THE 
most  sublime and heartfelt performance which moves me to real tears each 
time. I KNOW  Robert feels HIS music deeply. I've taken his class at the Grand 
Canyon.  Robert is clearly a proponent of formal music education so why on 
earth would  I make the trek out there from NY if I demeaned formal music  
education? Michal Adler is another classical harmonicist who affects me  
deeply and I also was the beneficiary of 'some' formal music education as a  
child.
 
However--contrary to your experience, I've also met and, as a life long  
music fan watched certain classically trained musicians 'phoning in' their  
performances and becoming hopelessly lost without their sheet music while 
having  no sense of what lies behind the music when out of their element. I've 
never  seen that happen with ear players although I'll allow for the 
possibility that  it 'could' occur. THAT is what I'm also referring to. It fits 
other musicians  too, including some jazz musicians I've seen who play 
everything from sheet  music and never really 'hear' and who have no concept of 
'groove'. I could name  a dozen harmonica players who are likewise awful, but I 
won't since I've never  put down a single harmonica player since joining this 
list. It's not what I do.  In fact I don't know many music fans who have 
NOT seen such 'phoned in'  performances, or the resultant confusion/chaos if 
the sheet music is blown about  outdoors. 
 
I'm not at all down on classically trained musicians: to my mind the best  
have both a great 'ear' as well as formal training. I was talking about  
'feel'--an entirely different thing altogether and I stand by my original  
statement: the MAJORITY of people and musicians I've met over my fairly  lengthy 
life who play and 'feel' the music from their hearts and  'soul'--whatever 
one's interpretation of that word is, TO MY MIND  (there's my qualifier 
again) touch ME far more deeply than  anyone who simply plays written notes. 
Have I qualified this sufficiently now?  Am I not allowed to have this very 
personal opinion? 
 
 
I wasn't 'born' when I began posting on harp-l, nor when I listed myself as 
 an amateur harmonicist. I'll likely always remain an amateur harmonica 
player  which does not displease me. However, I'm a music aficionado as so many 
people  are--outside of their playing-- and I DO believe my opinion there 
is as valid as  anyone else's. What's particularly odd to me is the rush to 
attack my single  qualified comment specified as being personal to me while 
ignoring an  extremely offensive and racist comment pointed at a whole group 
of people.  Thankfully there are people like Pete, Mike and Doug who don't 
sit  back.
 
Elizabeth
 
 
 
 
 
 
Message: 11
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 14:18:32 -0500
From: Barry Bean  <bbbean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Blues vs classical - was: Re: Subject:  [Harp-L] The name
"blues"
To: harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx


On 6/4/2014  2:33 AM, EGS1217@xxxxxxx wrote:
> 'Formal' music education is all well and  good--and I'm certainly not 
knocking it(emphasis newly added by  EGS)but  to my mind (emphasis newly added 
by EGS) nothing touches as  deeply or beats hearing someone
> expressing their innermost feelings  through their music.

I grew up on a steady diet of blues, soul, and  gospel, and I've been 
privileged enough to meet and work with some of the  world's finest 
players in the genre (and others). But I have to say that the  notion 
that a blues (or jazz, or folk, or whatever) musician is somehow  
expressing deeper or more closely held feelings through their playing  
than players in any other genre is misguided at best, and insulting at  
worst. I've never met or worked with a good musician who didn't feel  
what they were playing, regardless of genre. To suggest that improvised  
genres are somehow "truer" than classical genres is on a par with the  
suggestion that "untrained" musicians are somehow lesser musicians than  
classically trained players.

Crux of the issue: There's a reason  Baskin Robbins sells 31  flavors.


------------------------------