|
Post by blueshome on Apr 8, 2010 7:38:47 GMT
Following the discussion started about the Clive Carroll clip of Mississippi Blues, I thought it might be more fruitful to move away from the personal to the general and ask a question of the players and listeners here.
When listening to a performance of a well-known song (someone else's or your own) do you judge it by how near it is to the "original"? What criteria do you use to assess it?
|
|
|
Post by honeyboy on Apr 8, 2010 8:48:10 GMT
Tradition is a guide, not a jailer. We play inspired by an older tradition but we are modern musicians.
It's wrong headed to think that the 'classics' are the work of one musician, or that they arrived 'fully formed'. There was a long oral history of songs being sung, deconstructed, adapted, improved, handed on, copied and mis-copied.
The most important thing as a musician is to find your own truth, to find your own voice.
Take inspiration from those who have walked the path before you, but don't be afraid to explore and experiment, as they all did to get where they got.
It’s OK to mix it up and go where the muse moves.
If you don't, you'll never come close to fulfilling your own potential as a musician..
|
|
|
Post by lewiscohen on Apr 8, 2010 13:33:03 GMT
The most obvious criterion for me is "am I enjoying listening to this?" - that comes before anything else.
After that, I think there's a place for all points on the spectrum between replication and re-invention. It's interesting to see a song taken in a different direction (e.g. John Martyn's take on Skip James), there's a different interest held in seeing someone really nail a song in it's original form (like that Japanese fella who does the Blind Blake).
As long as it's done well, and I get the feeling that the departure from the original is genuinely the result of someone finding a personal expression and not just the result of laziness or incompetence, then I'm very happy to hear classic songs chopped and changed.
As a personal approach to playing those songs myself, I tend to go through a process of getting the original as down as I can, and then perhaps making changes and tweaks. That way I satisfy myself that any changes are because I want to, not because I have to, and that due respect has been paid to the originator.
|
|
|
Post by bod on Apr 8, 2010 14:50:28 GMT
Nice move, Phil - good questions too. You certainly set me thinking and I'll be interested to hear what others have to say. For my part, though, I'm not sure I have that much to offer... Do I judge a version of a well-known song by its nearness to the original? My first response to this was just, 'No, clearly I don't as there are some cases where what I take to be the best version is not the original version' (not to mention those cases where no original is known). But then it struck me that this is only some cases and it wouldn't do to try to generalise on the back of them. In some other cases it might just turn out that what makes a particular version a great version that very nearness to the original. So my answer seems to be "sometimes" - not very informative is it? What criteria do I use to assess a version? The more I think about it the less I can find anything generalisable to refer to (other than extremely abstract and essentially subjective things such as "it gives me pleasure"). Moreover, it seems to me that some of the very same qualities I might invoke positively in rationalising my prerefence for one version might well be mentioned negatively in rationalising the fact that I disprefer another. Maybe I'm just inconsistent... on the other hand I find myself wanting to say something a little more dignified like, a great performance is, among other things, one that leads one to judge it in terms of the values that animate it (but that might just be so much waffle) On the possibly related theme of tradition, I'm kind of taken with the sort of 'folk process' line that Pete Seeger espoused and attributed to his father: 'think of the folk process as something that has gone on through the ages. The folk process occurs in cooking, with cooks rearranging recipes. And lawyers rearrange old laws to fit new citizens. If you look at it this way, then the true importance of folk music is to let ordinary folks change things'. Or, as someone else said in a different kind of context,'An adequate sense of tradition manifests itself in a grasp of those future possibilities that the past has made available to the present'. (There seems to be a short sound clip featuring Seeger on the folk process theme online, but I can't get it to play - anyone know how? sunsite.queensu.ca/memorypalace/kitchen/Seeger02/index01.html )
|
|
|
Post by thebluesbear( al) on Apr 8, 2010 15:30:00 GMT
Hi Phil. this is a great question so ill take a shot at an answer if i can...
It depends IMO on who is playing the music and what Music is being played , on a personal level im a Huge RJ fan , ok and when i hear a RJ cover im looking for a song being done justice too However a good example of interepretation of RJ songs IMHO is Peter Green and RJs song book So for me more factors such as who is doing what need to be taken into consideration
Ill be following this thread with interest ...
greetings all
AL
|
|
|
Post by starboards on Apr 8, 2010 18:11:17 GMT
There is an old Sufi Saying "This too will change." It goes for everything including music. Scrapper Blackwell is credited with creating Kokomo Blues, Kokomo Arnold did an excellent and different version. Robert Johnson moved the song to a different state with "Sweet Home Chicago." Anyone want to argue with RJ? or The Blues Brothers, Clapton, Buddy Guy et al? More recently Bob Dylan wrote "All along the watchtower." then along came Jimi Hendrix, same lyrics but that's about all. Want to choose between them? Things change constantly, and fortunately sometimes for the better.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Apr 8, 2010 18:28:28 GMT
In some cases I would compare a cover version to the original, but mostly I take it at face value.
I do not consciously think about this, but do I like it and does it serve the song or the melody (in the case of instrumentals), and is it respectful to the writer, are my criteria. It is quite often the case that we prefer the version we heard first, no matter how good the original or the cover version is. If I get off on listening to the music is my criteria. If I don't, it's out!
Shine On Michael.
|
|
|
Post by SoloBill on Apr 8, 2010 19:39:43 GMT
Hi, I too think it's a good question and not so easy to answer.
When I was younger I almost always preferred the first version of a tune/song that caught my attention and disliked any variation from that. I suppose that makes sense in that it *was* the version that I liked by definition.
Nowadays, I find that I'm interested in finding out what the original sounded like and I honestly quite often prefer that or at least like it just as much. I feel that, especially if it is performed by the composer, the original is presumably how it is supposed to sound and what the composer intended me to hear.
|
|
|
Post by blueshome on Apr 9, 2010 11:29:12 GMT
I believe we are all drawn to the familiar and have a space for the first version of something we hear, even if later we decide it is not the "best" for whatever reason.
I do agree with those who say that the first point of departure is "did I enjoy that performance?" but following on from that I think we tend to be more critical. Whose music is being played? Is the artist attempting a reproduction or an interpretation? How capable is he of achieving what has has set out to achieve?
You only have to go on to youtube for a short while to see many who fail in the latter category (I'm not being critical of them for trying), but when the right combination comes along it can be magic. As an example I'd name Ari Eisinger whose Blind Blake etc pieces are incredible and not just sterile reproductions.
I've been to quite a few gigs where an artist produces credible reproductions but the overall performance just doesn't cut it, he has failed to entertain despite near-virtuoso ability. Not enough variety, too many songs in one key, no break from familiarity - more about his ability than the audience and no soul......
I know from my own feeble attempts that some songs are not easily adaptable and need to be played close to the familiar version or they just don't work, this certainly applies to many country blues numbers where it is the eccentricity of the performance that singles it out and this needs to be retained as far as possible. On the other hand there is much out there that is more adaptable or which becomes adapted as it is played. Like Lewis, I take my starting point from the original performance, work from there and end up with something my own.
When it comes to hearing performances based on other artist's work, but further removed, the "like it test" is first. If not I walk away.
So many people think they can "take the music somewhere else", either because they don't really like it in the first place, can't play it properly, or are just plain arrogant. "Somewhere else" can be down the road to the rubbish tip if they are not careful, listen to many of the dime-a-dozen blues rock bands that clutter the scene. On the other hand there are people out there who are sympathetic to the original and move a long way from it but keep the spirit, a good example to me would be Ry Cooder.
I only realised how difficult a question this was to answer after posting it. Thanks to those who have put up such lucid responses.
|
|
|
Post by wolvoboy on Apr 9, 2010 14:01:19 GMT
I find it difficult to emulate any version of an original tune,song as no matter how i try it allways comes out as my version of it. everyone is different we all have different feelings,its difficult to tell what was in the mind of the composer at the time of writing,we hear the end result ,we play what we think we can hear,an interesting thing a friend said to me who by the way is a really great slide player,far better than myself,he was showing me some licks then he asked me to play something that i had composed after i had finished he said how did you do that ! show me what you've just played,to my surprise he found it difficult to play it the way that i had .what that says to me is that it is easier to play your own compositions than someone elses, play what you hear,add your little bit to it and pass it on
wolvoboy
|
|
|
Post by fitchmeister on Apr 9, 2010 15:15:06 GMT
I wouldn't be able to judge any music beyond what i do and don't like, and that would probably change over time/environment/mood.
Pass me the banjo i feel the need to rock out
Roj
|
|
|
Post by oldmanblue on Apr 11, 2010 7:58:01 GMT
it was listening to cover that got me into listening to the blues ,folk etc one of my all time fav albums is the firat stones album so i am not anti covers ,cover a song,tune etc if your cover adds something to the original .
|
|
|
Post by longtoothslim on Apr 11, 2010 20:50:23 GMT
I'm not sure weather it's incompetence or not, probably is, but i never even try to copy an original. Firstly, for me there is no point why do what has been done already? I admire the ability to do it and the obvious work involved in getting to that point but, I wouldn't want to do it. A lot of the gigs I get aren't playing to blues fans, and to "connect" the music to the audience is for me the thrill of it. Playing music people don't know and getting that connection with it, feels I imagine like the original performers felt. "If they ain't dancing they ain't drinking, if they ain't drinking the man ain't paying "
|
|
|
Post by longtoothslim on Apr 11, 2010 20:52:49 GMT
whether or weather, silly me!
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Apr 12, 2010 9:46:01 GMT
I think that copying an exact performance is in most cases no more than a good exercise. I sometimes do it as a form of practice to develop my skills and I can get lost in it for days at a time. But I don't see the point in doing that on stage unless you happen to be in a tribute band, which luckily has not yet caught on in the blues world.
In the first paragraph I said 'in most cases' because I have seen Ari Eisinger play copies of early blues recordings on stage that are so good and well presented that it becomes an entertaining performance of amazing dexterity and intelligence. I have never seen anyone else do it with early blues as well as Ari does. Within his performance of a song he will prove to the audience that he can play an exact replica of the recording, but he will also add humour into the performance which shows his intelligence and wit. Otherwise it would be like a Blind Lemon Jefferson tribute act, which it is definitely not!
Shine On Michael.
|
|