Guthrie Govan Discussion

[liquidtension]

Maybe someone can enlighten me on something that has bugged me for a while. Blues. I like it, I enjoy it, and I can listen to it up to a point. But it seems like there are two sorta blues movements out there, both of which have a lot of fundamentals in common, but the one seems like it has had a stunted growth. Yet, in spite of this, many people treat it like it is the 'real deal' or, worse yet, as if it encompasses blues as we have it.

The first started in the very early 1900s in the original 12-bar form and gradually progressed with various chord substitutes into bebop blues and the sophisticated Charlie Parker blues. The people who play this kind of blues understand that while you can play a pentatonic/blues scale across the more foundational changes, you also have proper dominant scales that can be played over each dominant chord, and eventually even more complex chord/scale options with the later developments, including II-V options and dominant scale substitutes.

The second has its roots around the same time and for some reason doesn't seem to have grown past the original 12-bar form. It's kinda the more 'popular' blues, if you will. Its players seem to only know one scale with maybe a couple of licks to break out of 'blues scale' redundancy from time to time, but by-and-large the chord changes really serve more of a background track for them to play some licks, not an integral part of the music with which their melody lines interact.

I hate to name names of musicians in group two because, if I do, I'll have no shortage of welts from stones being chucked at me. But what I don't get is this: the professionals who play type two generally can't play anything beyond the original 12-bar blues patterns. What I also don't get is that those professionals who fit into type two really didn't start until the 1940s or 1950s, so blues had already taken on so many changes by the time they even started, yet everyone treats them like they are roots players when in fact they are playing something that pre-dates them.

But even for those who claim that the group 2 musicians are rootsy kinda players, none of them ever seem to talk about guys like Charlie Christian whose active playing period predated most or all of those guys.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy listening to guys from group 2 every now and then, but I'm far from making crazy statements about them being the 'founding fathers' of blues.

So I guess my question is, why all the hype about group 2 among guitarists? Am I missing something? I mean, I understand they were influential, but influence doesn't necessarily equal musical accomplishment.

[Cass679]

IMO, its popularity is mainly down to how guitarists can 'interact' with the 12-bar format. It's one of the most basic things that (should be) taught at any guitar lesson. 12-bar can be both a simple or a complex format as you ightly pointed, but I really think that the popularity is down to how a listener can replicate those blues licks. Its easier to play some Clapton than it is to play Charlie Chrisitian, giving (IMHO), some players the belief that they are/can be as good as Clapton/(insert blues players name).

Without being too insulting, if the average guitarist is required to think anything beyond the simplistic repetirive blues licks, then said player will most likely not pursue a more complex style of music like jazz.

I'm not trying to give one type of blues more value than another. I like all blues music and give it as much value as any other music that I listen to. It's just my opinion, of course...
_________________
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him a spinal cord would fully suffice." - Albert Einstein

[liquidtension]

I agree that the 12-bar model should be one of the basic things taught because it is a great method to get players started. And there is definitely learning material there in terms of various kinds of bends, expression, etc.

I definitely don't want to insist that every blues player must constantly play the most complicated form of blues to actually be considered a blues player. I guess my gripe is in talking to other musicians who make lofty and defining claims about 'group 2' blues players who got their start in the 40s, and seem to think that if it wasn't for those guys, blues would not have existed...as if they were the pioneers, owners, and creators of something that actually predated them.

I guess it just gets tiring and can even be a turn off to a point. For example, I really like and enjoy Eric Johnson. I really love Ah Via Musicom and Venus Isle. Those albums were very different and really showcased EJ's uniqueness. However, when he switched gears and decided to go more traditional blues, it was one of the biggest musical disappointments for me at the time. In fact, he went from being one of the top 3 guys to whom I listen to a CD stashed away in the closet somewhere.

Another example on perhaps a more nit-pickin level. I also really like Stevie Ray Vaughan. I remember being blown away by the Austin City Limits reruns. As I started to collect his CDs, I remember the disappointment I felt when I heard The Sky is Crying for the first time. It was a mere clone of Texas Flood, almost down to the last detail. To me, that is the epitome of 'group 2' blues on a much larger scale.

To put it another way, if Guthrie came out with a very traditional 12-bar blues album, his lines would sound completely different. But let's assume that his next album was 12-bar blues and ALL his lines did not extend beyond very predictable and cloned lines of Clapton, B.B., and SRV. Sure, there would be the initial thrill of Guthrie doing this, but I bet we'd all have a disappointment in the fact that this is all we had to hold us over for another year or two until another album comes out. Even if we didn't want to express it, many of us would be thinking to ourselves "C'mon, surely you could do more."

It just seems like guys who build an entire career upon playing almost exclusively the original 12-bar blues for 4, 5, or even 6 decades get way more attention than they should.

[frankus]

One is Jazz Blues and one is Blues.

Blues was there, Jazz picked up Blues (like it does with most things) and mussed with it. When it put Blues down again there was Jazz Blues, Blues and Jazz using bits of Blues ideas, the same way Musical tunes got pulled into jazz and the Gershwins pulled Jazz into Musicals.

Charlie Christian is a Jazz musician, he played some Jazz Blues and he played Solo Flight and big band tunes. He was one of the first Jazz musicians to use an electric guitar, to compete in big bands before you had to use a banjo... he was also originally a pianist.

I don't get this type 1, type 2 nonsense. Look at Western Swing Guitar, it's Country and Jazz, is there type 1 Country and type 2 Country where Milton Brown and his Musical Brownies are type 2 but Garth Brooks in type 1 claims authenticity but somehow was predated by Derwood Brown (who broke strings so regularly he had an armoury of Martins and a roady to pass them to him) and Bob Dunn (one of the very first electric guitarists) ?

Jazz is a weird furry Chinese dragon-like creature that wraps itself around musical styles or cultures absorbs things and then creates a hybrid (where the pairing is popular). I reckon if there was something akin to Jazz in it's eclectic assimilation of styles the two would bounce and ricochet amazingly .. maybe that's what beat-poetry/hip-hip is... but I guess that's neither here nor there... now back to Jimi Hendrix for the Klans-men.

Trad blues was rough and raucous and record companies sanitized it by having it re-recorded by white kids. When people got wind of this they wanted to get to the authentic stuff and not feel hoodwinked. Blues is a form of folk music, it has to retain elements to maintain it's identity.

All this hoo-hah about who's capable and who isn't, you can't make rules like this. What of Scott Henderson or Robben Ford.. these people explore blues completely and expressively... then there's Steve Cropper or T-Bone Walker what they don't play speaks volumes, it's meant to be minimal it's about space as much as notes.

Musical styles are the reason people play guitar. Guitar playing isn't an end in itself. A style turns people on and they can live happily in that style..

Have a listen to Tinariwen - Touareg Blues is it type 1, type 2 or whatever?
_________________
Fabulous powers were revealed to me the day I held my magic Suhr(d) aloft and said "by the power of great scale!"

I have the power!

[liquidtension]

That makes sense. I agree, my type 1 and 2 label really quite artificial and even nonsensical. I wasn't sure how to express a distinction that was roaming around in my head, when really that distinction was a lot easier than I was making it: Jazz Blues and Blues.

Underneath it all, I guess I just have this inner desire to see Blues go somewhere, grow, or minimally show some kind of direction. I guess the impression I've gotten is that, comparatively speaking, Blues has taken baby steps compared to many other styles and genres (not just Jazz). Then again, maybe it is has grown more than I realize and I'm just not seeing it.

Scott Henderson is a great player. I can't get into him as much as others do, but I definitely appreciate his blend of what I'd call 'respect for traditional blues' along with his own experimental edge that leaves his playing in a category of its own. I'd love to see more guys have the same experimental edge and passion that he does within a Blues context. I think that's what it needs.

Maybe my gripe is from a bad childhood experience where a relative of mine would always be overly eager to have me listen to the newest blues album he picked up. It was one of those scenarios where you are kindly pressured into and can't seem to find a way out until you are actually let out. Sure, there were tone differences and some minor nuances in style, but almost everyone I was forced to listen to sounded like a clone of the previous guy. There were about 4 varieties of blues songs that each of them seemed to make 12 songs out of. After about 5 or 6 guitarists, it just got very redundant. The progressions were the same, the feel and tempo of the songs were the same, the instrument arrangements were the same, and the licks were the same. It almost made listening to the theme song from Titanic a refreshing change!

Anyway, I digress...

Oh, and Tinariwen is just...I'll let you know when I actually find words

[frankus]

I'm the same with folk musicians. I got "taken" (read dragged) to Sidmouth Folk festival for the first 12 years of my life and I learnt to fear and hate folk musicians, and them me. I also learnt that a decline in fame leads to a campsite with a bigger number and fewer facilities.

My Mum organised a surprise 60th birthday party for my Dad in a Folk-music friendly pub. Mum got together about 100 people and he never guessed , he really enjoyed it; but for the rest of the family it was like Dusk Till Dawn

The problem might be that when Jazz got it's mits on Blues it assimilated it and figures out the places The Blues were going to trudge (mile after mile) and gets there much earlier, stealing the thunder of Blues (stealing the margerine too ;^) without it ever knowing.. but leaving it with an identity crisis.

Maybe Jazz is more like an Alien Xenomorph without the new genre rupturing from the stomach of the old... or maybe it is that cathartic for followers.

Are there any genres it hasn't got yet?
_________________
Fabulous powers were revealed to me the day I held my magic Suhr(d) aloft and said "by the power of great scale!"

I have the power!

[RD]

Funny... I kinda noticed the same thing in the sence that as soon as some form of music is played in a creative manner, they put the jazz-stamp on it.

Here in The Netherlands, you got the North Sea Jazz Festival and in our newspaper Alicia Keys was on the cover, because she was performing on this Jazz festival. She's more like an R&B artist to me. Perhaps she can play Jazz too, and maybe she did, but still... I'm sure there are more Jazzier artist that can be put on the cover of that paper. It's all about promotion I think.

I kind of like that aspect of creativeness in riffs, chord changes, etc in Jazz, but I don't like that they call everything Jazz.

Perhaps you can also wonder if Jazz music would have been develloped as it did without the influence of Classical music. For instance, Coltrane is also said to be inspired by certain Classical musicians. I've also heard that it was Classical music that first started to use scales in different keys/positions, but I'm not sure about that. I do think that if you can combine the best of the two genres it can be a very empowering thing.

[Yeah but guthrie]

I find the blues (12 bar form) either totally boring to listen tio, or I love it depends on loads of variables like drum beat, bass line etc. Eg i find 'checkin up on baby' from gary moores new album completly, un-exciting, however I was listeing, or actually watching steve vais jiboom (based around srv's scuttle buttin)off his astoria dvd and can say I loved it even tho is mainly just a 12 bar blues, but the licks are exciting and work so well in it, same with jeff healeys while my guitar gently weeps, thats blues, its not 12 bar but it is made more exciting buy combining blues licks but adding in aeolian notes hear and there and the phrasing seems fresh and well thought out, while still retaining some of the blues cliche's. I think it is definately down to the player and not the style of music, be it blues, jazz blues. The other thing I love about blues is the amount of influeces it has and how many styles it has, I could list about 16 different styles of blues which span from 1900 to 1970 before even getting to jazz blues. Incedently my favourite blues is mainly by tom waits.
_________________
"The reason why guthrie is so good, is that he doesen't spend most of his time on the petrucci forum bitching about vai"

[Wickedpicker]

these kind of topics are hard to engage without postulating a bunch of "i think" responses. To me (i think), blues isn't an idiom its a vibe. Everything from bluegrass to jazz to swing to rock to country has evolved the traditional blues stuff. If blues is at its core, negro spiritual rythmic and melodic motifs stretched across contemporary themes (fallen men and women groping for salvation in a shared experience) then everything that has come after has expanded on the form. I can't be very objective about it because it means alot to me, as a fallen kind of guy seeking some comfort in the amens of the weary masses nodding knowingly along with my plight, and perhaps finding some comfort in the shared moment. Make your music cry honestly, without pretense, and you've got the blues down cold, whatever your stylistic bent.
_________________
It goes to eleven!