From: ST102315@BROWNVM.BITNET (Jake)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.allmusic
Subject: A Defense of Blues
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:05:46 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Many of you out there may wonder what point there is to write a defense
of an art form.  After all, isn't it all just a matter of taste?  In a
sense, this is so, in that I don't expect everyone to enjoy my blues
recordings, just as I hope they don't expect me to enjoy their Metallica
albums, or Vivaldi works, or any other music.  The problem comes when
the Blues comes under attack as something that is intrinsically not
worth listening to; or rather, when people either say or imply that
all the time I spend listening to blues could be better spent listening
to classical music, or jazz, or rock, or country.  Admittedly this
attitude is more often implied than stated.  Still, there are many
derogatory things said about blues, which I consider myths that need
to be laid to rest.

First, many people consider the blues to be "primitive".  What's
interesting is that many jazz enthusiasts subscribe to this myth,
even though they would rightly bristle if the word were applied to
their own type of music.

The problem with defending blues from this criticism is that it's
by no means certain what "primitive" means.  There was a phrase I
read somewhere that gives me a starting point; it went along the
lines of, "If I only knew three chords, I'd be unhappy, too!"
The idea is, people play blues because they can't play anything
else; the blues is a primitive style because the people who play
it don't know how to use their instruments.  The best way I can
refute this is by citing counterexamples:  Robert Lockwood Jr.,
for instance, played plenty of jazz in his time, and his knowledge
of chords can only be described as "exceptional".  Little Walter
was famed for playing hard-bop style soloes on his harmonica.
For those who still feel that blues is in essence a "primitive"
art form, I ask them only if they would consider Stevie Ray
Vaughn primitive, or Junior Wells's album "Hoodoo Man Blues"
as unsophisticated.

Another common criticism of blues is that "all the songs sound
the same".  Now, I agree that the blues performer's repetoire
is more based on standards and familiar riffs than those of
most other types of music.  Some of us enjoy this, for some
unknown reason.  (Although I have to admit, after having heard
about 150 versions of "Dust My Broom", I wouldn't mind not
hearing it for a while, like...oh...a decade or so.)  Those of
you who don't shouldn't reject all of blues for this reason,
though; there's plenty of variety as well.  Any art form which
can include such diverse people as Charlie Patton, Lightnin'
Hopkins, Blind Blake, Muddy Waters, Memphis Minnie, Howlin'
Wolf, Little Walter, Bessie Smith, Stevie Ray Vaughn, and
B.B. King, would be hard-pressed to sound _completely_
homogenized.

Then, of course, there's my old friend "You can't dance to it".
My usual reply to this one is to put on Junior Wells's "Hoodoo
Man Blues".  Since I can't do this over the net, you can either
track the album down or take my word for it:  There's plenty of
rockin' blues out there.

After having typed much too much, I remain
Your humble friend the math major,
jwgh