From: kai@sco.COM (Kai Christiansen)
Subject: Re: BLUES: Howlin' Wolf vs. Son House
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:44:12 GMT


In article <1992Aug19.130533.1942@dragon.acadiau.ca> 880139h@dragon.acadiau.ca (Rob Hutten) writes:
>deadhead@beyond.ugcs.caltech.edu (stephen thompson) writes:
>
>>So, I picked up two CD's recently.  The Howlin' Wolf London Sessions
>>and the Library of Congress' Son House Recordings.  The two men have
>>very different styles, but they are both playing the blues.  Son House
>>was playing a country/rural blues, while Howlin' Wolf plays a more
>>urban/Chicago blues.  I was wondering where and why this transition
>>in the blues form occurred...  Any comments?
>
>I think it's a regional thing, just as Texas blues is different than
>Chigago blues which is different than Delta blues.  If I'm not
>mistaken, Son House was from Louisiana, while Wolf was from Chicago.
>I don't think you can call this a transition, really.
>
>Regional differences aside, all the great bluesmen had/have their own
>style.  Stevie Ray Vaughan and Albert Collins were/are both Texas
>bluesmen, but they sound very different.
>
>-Rob

Both Son House and Howlin' Wolf were from Mississippi. Son House is 
considered to be among the first generation of recorded blues men and
specifically, one of the handful associated with early Delta blues (along with
Charlie Patton, Tommmy Johnson, Willie Brown and additional obscurities).
Howlin' Wolf claims that Charlie Patton himself taugh Wolf his first
guitar chords and was one of the primary influences on his vocal style.
While Wolf later lived and worked in Chicago and is often cited as the
one great rival to Muddy Waters, he was, like Muddy, from the south and
heavily influenced by blues from the Mississippi Delta region.
Wolf played in the south for years, working as a farmer, and did not
make his first recordings until he was over 40 years old. These were made
in Memphis at Sam Phillip's Recording Service (e.g. Sun Records of Elvis
fame). Indeed, if you compare his earliest recordings with those of
Muddy Waters made in Chicago at about the same time, you will see that
Wolf's sound was NOT entirely like the emerging Chicago sound. It was
more wild, more boogie influenced and was a bit more "sophisticated" in
a sense. Wolf then moved to Chicago, signing with Chess records, and
eventually worked with a band whose sound was more directly Chicago.

Another posting asked about how/why a transition occured from the
solo acoustic style of someone like Son House to the group electric sound
of someone like Wolf or Muddy. Electricity has a great deal to do with
it, specifically when applied to guitars and harmonicas, but Muddy Waters
was neither the first to use electric guitars in the blues genre nor
the first (by any means) to play in an urbanized delta style.  But he
was an astounding vocalist, an effective guitarist, and against the
backdrop of prevailing late 40's jump and boogie blues, his electric
delta style was startling, deep, familiar to many and immensely popular.
It is very enlightening to compare Muddy's 50's classics with his
first recordings made by Lomax on Stoval Plantation in the early 40's.
(These are available on the Testament label).

Regional categorization is tricky and often misleading. While there are
some broad categories often used with some success in the history blues music
(e.g. Mississippi Delta, Chicago, a number of Southwestern styles),
radio, phonograph (e.g. jukeboxes) and the tendency of most blues musicians
to travel extensively make everything very blurry. It is very interesting to
hear from the musicians themselves in terms of what has influenced them.
Organization: Design, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA