Blues...

[kaleb]

I think that quote came from more than one. In fact, I think MOST bluesmen would say the same thing to a guy playing the same thing. I,ve heard it, I think you've heard it. And I'll go ahead and say it again:

 

Slow the F%$# down! BREATH man. Let it fester a bit. Make something sink in before you hit all that stuff at once bro.

 

You sir have missed the point.

 

The only thing that puts me off about blues is the "Master Of Your Territory" thing.

 

A lot (not all!) of those old blues guys are so damn cocky (in their own manner too! But not in the Axl Rose manner) it makes me sick. Not that they put on airs or anything, but they seem to act like everyone should be like them. Like they cannot accept the fact that others embrace the technical side of things. The have a mind that thinks that it is somehow a bad thing to use effects, to know complex chords, to know other scales, and to know the different kinds of picking/shredding (legato, economy, sweep, etc). They don't understand the other side of things. Soul and feeling is important, but so is technique and chops. Maybe not for old-school straight blues, but you have to add fuel to the fire, you know?

 

And Yngwie feels like playing faster than others! So, by slowing him down, you're holding him back and taking away what he's feeling!

 

I always thought the blues wasn't about rules and regulations, and it was about playing what YOU feel and just going for it like a dog on a leftover pork chop!

[kaleb]

It would have been interesting if Hendrix put out 15 albums over 3 decades, I wonder how he would be perceived.

 

On the other hand if Yngwie had died after releasing Odyssey, and assume he was 27 at the time, I wonder how he would be perceived nowadays.

 

Nobody will ever know! He would have evolved (AWAY from what he had been doing) musically and stylistically, had a huge rack system in the 80s. He definitely would have done some albums that would have thrown people off and flopped. Hell, he was already throwing people off when he did Band Of Gypsies....

 

On Yngwie's side....

 

He would be loved more than he is in reality. Because he changed the lives of many aspiring guitar players in the 80s with the Rising Force record and ushered in a new style of metal guitar. He would be a semi-legend in the guitar world. Obviously, not Hendrix-status, cause' they never played Evil Eye or I'll See The Light Tonight on the radio.....

 

Hendrix was a pop icon (he was a pop act, in all earnest, as most successful groups/artists were back then). Yngwie is a guitar icon in OUR community.

 

You'll never, ever run across a person in a bar that will recognize or request a Yngwie number....

[Riffster]

Frankly there are a lot of religion-like opinions about the blues, cultish, if you will and the the cool kind of cult.

 

I have a pretty nice blues collection and listen to it often but, on the other hand I also enjoy Thrash Metal, with all that speed and all of those aggressive rhythms and million notes, all that energy and feel, you can't play that stuff well if you don't feel it and you can't get this kind of energy out of Elmore James music (and he is one of my favorite bluesman by the way and he was a one-trick pony).

 

All of this bullsh!t about "the note that you don't play is the one that counts" "he can say more in one note than other guitar players in a lifetime" "he's got mojo" "no, you cannot play the blues, I don't know who you are but you can't".

 

I bet if Charlie Patton is looking down (or up) from where he is is scratching his head thinking what the hell is going on? this isn't what I had in mind.

 

Sometimes it feels like you need a permit from somebody on the internet to play the Blues...

[57classic]

I'm all for pushing the boundaries of musical genres. When The Mahavishnu Orchestra, Return to Forever, Weather Report and others pushed the limits of jazz, we got Fusion. Jazz purists hated it and said it wasn't jazz. Maybe they were right but it doesn't mean it wasn't great. The roots were in jazz but it it ceased being jazz as we knew it. You can say YM is playing something rooted in blues and just because it isn't something I'd listen to doesn't mean it isn't any good. I just think he crossed a line somewhere along the way to where this ceased being the blues. The labels are a bit arbitrary and only help to categorize. Over time the lines between all genres of music get blurred. If you like it and want to call it the blues knock yourself out.

[FirstMeasure]

I'm all for pushing the boundaries of musical genres. When The Mahavishnu Orchestra, Return to Forever, Weather Report and others pushed the limits of jazz, we got Fusion. Jazz purists hated it and said it wasn't jazz. Maybe they were right but it doesn't mean it wasn't great. The roots were in jazz but it it ceased being jazz as we knew it. You can say YM is playing something rooted in blues and just because it isn't something I'd listen to doesn't mean it isn't any good. I just think he crossed a line somewhere along the way to where this ceased being the blues. The labels are a bit arbitrary and only help to categorize. Over time the lines between all genres of music get blurred. If you like it and want to call it the blues knock yourself out.

In the 30's Jazz was pretty much what we call Boogie and Blues nowadays. So by the time Jazz Purists were knocking John Mclaughlins Mahavishnu Orchestra they were pretty far from pure jazz themselves.

 

I think Riffster pretty much nailed it, it's about self importance, not actually "Getting It". If you'll notice, every one who doesn't think Yngwie played blues has been very vague about what disqualifies it as blues. Like you said, he "Crossed the line somewhere". What line and how far did he cross it? If there are Blues Boundries you should be able to define them.

 

I'm an arrogant SOB, I'm pretty sure I know exactly what the blues is. Back Beat and Boogie being very important to the aesthetics, and personal take on the improvisation being the most important part. Self expression, not someone else's view of purity.

[57classic]

In the 30's Jazz was pretty much what we call Boogie and Blues nowadays. So by the time Jazz Purists were knocking John Mclaughlins Mahavishnu Orchestra they were pretty far from pure jazz themselves.

 

I think Riffster pretty much nailed it, it's about self importance, not actually "Getting It". If you'll notice, every one who doesn't think Yngwie played blues has been very vague about what disqualifies it as blues. Like you said, he "Crossed the line somewhere". What line and how far did he cross it? If there are Blues Boundries you should be able to define them.

 

I'm an arrogant SOB, I'm pretty sure I know exactly what the blues is. Back Beat and Boogie being very important to the aesthetics, and personal take on the improvisation being the most important part. Self expression, not someone else's view of purity.

I'm sure there are those who think electric blues isn't blues. I can't define it but to coin an oft used phrase, "I know it when I hear it". It just might not be the same as someone else

[FirstMeasure]

I'm sure there are those who think electric blues isn't blues. I can't define it but to coin an oft used phrase, "I know it when I hear it". It just might not be the same as someone else

I can't accept that. Too much is left to the ear of the beholder. You know you like it when you hear it, but term "Blues" is absolutely definable. It's not magic. Playing anything someone else likes is magic, but the type of music they're playing is just a type of music. It's not like Blues is more or less magical than Hard Rock or any other genre.

 

If you know it when you hear it but can't describe what it is you're hearing that's a vocabulary issue. There's definitely a word in English to describe what you're hearing or not hearing.

[57classic]

I can't accept that. Too much is left to the ear of the beholder. You know you like it when you hear it, but term "Blues" is absolutely definable. It's not magic. Playing anything someone else likes is magic, but the type of music they're playing is just a type of music. It's not like Blues is more or less magical than Hard Rock or any other genre.

 

If you know it when you hear it but can't describe what it is you're hearing that's a vocabulary issue. There's definitely a word in English to describe what you're hearing or not hearing.

So, how do you respond to "purists" who say electric blues isn't the blues? If electric blues isn't the blues, what is it? It's great to say you can give a hard and fast definition, I can't. What is your definition?

 

"Back Beat and Boogie being very important to the aesthetics, and personal take on the improvisation being the most important part. Self expression, not someone else's view of purity. " - This isn't a definition of anything.

[lespaulj45]

This version is "bluesier" then...

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bslSvOKe5Eo

 

The only real spanish castle magic was closed and demolished in 1968-its a Texaco gas station now

[FirstMeasure]

So, how do you respond to "purists" who say electric blues isn't the blues? If electric blues isn't the blues, what is it? It's great to say you can give a hard and fast definition, I can't. What is your definition?

 

"Back Beat and Boogie being very important to the aesthetics, and personal take on the improvisation being the most important part. Self expression, not someone else's view of purity. " - This isn't a definition of anything.

I'm not going to try an write a dictionary definition as I've had no experience writing for dictionaries. But time signature, chord progression, measure count, treatment of tonal centers, and beat positioning are all part of what makes any type of music. A waltz is absolutely different from a minuet, even though there's very little to distinguish them.

 

Off hand I would have to say a Blues needs to be in 12/8 time, must have a 3 or 4 chord progression, must have emphasized back beat. Write it in 4/4 you have Blues Rock, try doing a Blues Waltz and you're in jazz territory. Set on the down beat and you have rock and roll.

 

Edit, I respond to purist who say electric blues is not blues by saying, "You're wrong there, buddy."

[57classic]

I'm not going to try an write a dictionary definition as I've had no experience writing for dictionaries. But time signature, chord progression, measure count, treatment of tonal centers, and beat positioning are all part of what makes any type of music. A waltz is absolutely different from a minuet, even though there's very little to distinguish them.

 

Off hand I would have to say a Blues needs to be in 12/8 time, must have a 3 or 4 chord progression, must have emphasized back beat. Write it in 4/4 you have Blues Rock, try doing a Blues Waltz and you're in jazz territory. Set on the down beat and you have rock and roll.

 

Edit, I respond to purist who say electric blues is not blues by saying, "You're wrong there, buddy."

I'll give you credit for getting specific but the irony I see is how the most organic music is made to sound so clinical in your definition. I still contend that just because what YM is playing is blues in it's form does not make it blues. Nuance, effect and other tangible and intangible things take it from being the blues. Elevator music of the Beatles isn't Beatles music anymore even though the basic form of the song is still there.

You make a good case but I don't agree.

[damian]

I, um, er, gotta say......Sure, Yanni Mallstream can play the blues.......Helen Keller was also a great blues player.......

 

I, ah, do not like watching, um, er, ah, er, fake permed hair, and dumb *** spandex, and, um, er, dumb *** stage moves,

 

as, um, er, a NEEDED ego crutch to display in order to play the blues............It looks pathetic and very stupid........

 

It sells though.......That's great................For him, that, er, um, Yanni Mallstream, um, Velvetta Cheese guy.................

 

Sure, ANYONE can play the blues...........What level the quality is, well, that's very subjective............

 

Yeah, I liked Yanni's playing, the visuals gave me the runs and made me puke........and LAUGH again and again........

[kaleb]

I think Yngwie's one of the best guitar-slinging entertainers.....

 

Pretty cool live. He's all over the stage.

 

A far cry from Satriani whom just stands there and moves to his music....Which isn't a bad thing at all, mind you.

 

Now, I'll always be a musician first and an entertainer second, but showmanship is important sometimes. (I try to be entertaining....)

 

It's true.

[FirstMeasure]

 

Sure, ANYONE can play the blues...........What level the quality is, well, that's very subjective............

 

 

That's all I'm saying.

 

 

I'll give you credit for getting specific but the irony I see is how the most organic music is made to sound so clinical in your definition. I still contend that just because what YM is playing is blues in it's form does not make it blues. Nuance, effect and other tangible and intangible things take it from being the blues. Elevator music of the Beatles isn't Beatles music anymore even though the basic form of the song is still there.

You make a good case but I don't agree.

Even the elevator version of a Beatles song is still that Beatles song, as gawd-awful as it may be in that form.

 

I wouldn't even argue is you said, "Blues shouldn't be played like that". It's a valid statement, but to say it's not blues because it doesn't move the listener is not. That simply makes it poorly executed Blues.

 

By your definition I could say Iron Maiden's "Run to the Hills" is Blues because I think it is.

[zigzag]

Blues uses the Blues scale, a minor pentatonic with a b5, is usually three chords, I-IV-V, usually is structured around 12 bars, often uses call and response phrases, and was derived from the gospel music and field chants of slaves. But those are simply guidelines and much of Blues music doesn't adhere strictly to them. More than anything, Blues is a feeling and an attitude. Other than that, I can't define it, but I know it when I hear it.

 

If you want to call what YM and Gary Moore play the Blues, that's fine. I'd call it Blues Rock.

[stein]

Interesting conversations and arguments. Entertaining.

 

I think Yngvie tends to polarize and even cause controversy. A lot of it is because he can play so fast and is able to display a lot of skill in doing so. Playing fast or displaying skill in doing so is one thing that is thaought by many to be the hardest thing to do, so many may tend to think of him as the "best" or consider him to be capable of playing anything, or that his "technique" is advanced more so than the norm.

 

It causes a lot of backlash because he is not the best, not anywhere near it. There may even be more that he CAN'T play than the average studio musician. Add to that that the type of music he plays is a very specialized form that isn't the most popular. But a lot of this backlash as I call it is more directed at the PERCEPTION and the fans of his that would want to call him the "best", or his techique the "best".

 

I am reminded of KENNY G, who was HUGELY popular for a breif time and marketed as "Jazz", and was hated by Jazz fans. Meanwhile, the guy was hopelessly trying to say that what he plays is not Jazz at all. And he was a guy who was a fan of Jazz and some Jazz musicians who eneded up more often than not snubbed by his peers and those he admired. He hated that he was marketed as Jazz.

[Versatile]

It can be illuminating to consider the colour aspects to most of art's statements...

 

Picasso's 'Blue Guitar' being an obvious example...alongside his famed 'Blue Period' of original artistic expression

 

The Rolling Stones' 'Black and Blue'...subtle as always

 

Duke Ellington's...'Mood Indigo'

 

Miles Davis'...'Colours'...award winning album...

 

Roy Orbison's...'Blue Bayou'...

 

The influence of colour is all-pervading...

 

V

 

[stein]

Blues IS a separate form of music that you can define:

 

Blues and Jazz are both closely related, although not the same. They are AMERICAN forms of music. That isn't to say that any American who plays music is playing it, or that it can't be played by non-Americans. It is rather a form of music that was created in America as opposed to borrowed from other cultures. It is one of the only TRULY American art forms, if not the only one.

 

Firstly, the NOTES and the scale is not the same as "Classical" music or any other form of music. Even as we still use European classical music to define and study scales, it doesn't apply to blues. It has a lot to do with the heavy use of the 7th and the fact that a "scale" or choice of notes changes constantly going from one chord to the next. Another element is the use of minor scale notes over Major type chords. It creates a sort of dissonence that is important to the tonality and the notes played to create it.

 

One reason that it is so hard to define is because we still use the classical scales and the European method of defining notes and scales, as well as writing them down. It is a constant point of frustration for me personally. There should be an "American" method, but there isn't. So I guess Blues and Jazz are a form of music without it's own form of writing it.

 

Another element to it, and this to Blues AND Jazz, is improvisation. This is more than just soloing or making up solos to play over it. It involves every player, including the rhythm section. There are certain rythms that we think of that are distinctly "Blues" or "Jazz", such as a shuffle or a swing. (One guy here on this thread called it the "backbeat"). But it is more than that: it is not only the use of these, but the very idea that these are meant to change from one moment to the next, or be improvised as it is created. Again, the use of writing it down gets in the way somewhat. You CAN write it down, or communicate it between each other. But it isn't meant to be adhered to as written all the time, but rather adjusted to and played with.

 

All these elements, or the Rythem types, the chords and scales and such, are meant to be created and altered in real time as it is played. "Improved", if you can dig. So while with a lot of forms of music, like Rock, folk, classical, even playing cover tunes in a band, if you create or play a song and adhere to what is written or how the tune goes, it sounds good and interesting. With Blues, you may start with a chord structure and a rhythm and lyrics, but you must CREATE a groove as it happens to make it good. That is one big difference. You must also create a tonality and a feel as it happens. Other forms of music do not allow this aspect as much, or give much room to change...but with blues, it is required to make it sound good and interesting.

[zigzag]

I agree with all you said, stein, but I'd like to make these comments. First, Blues is a subgenre of jazz. Second, classical musicians play the same notes as Blues musicians with the exception of the "blue note," which is a bent note that is somewhere around a quarter step sharp or flat of the referenced note. Bends are a characteristic of Blues not found in classical music and not used that much in jazz.

 

The Blues scale uses the 1, b3, 4, b5, 5, b7 of the Major scale or could also be considered a Dorian or an Aeolian (natural minor) scale with a b5. Often, a Mixolydian scale will fit, and of course throw in bends at the right time, and that is the scale structure of the Blues. However, often times a major, Ionian scale can be substituted as well as scales that are compatible with chord extensions and alterations (e.g. 9ths, b9ths).

 

Also, classical musicians were occasionally known to leave areas in their music open for improvisation. One of the great things about the blues is that improvisation is expected, and performances of songs are never the same.

[ShredAstaire]

Man i just read through this whole thread.

 

How can some of you guys move around in that tiny box you have created for yourselves?

 

Blues is THIS and ONLY THIS.

 

Lame.

[Kimbabig]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADoMfL78Mcc

[Riffster]

Sure, ANYONE can play the blues...........What level the quality is, well, that's very subjective............

 

And that applies to everybody, including the members here that say they can play with all the feeling in the world right?

 

'cause I think I can play the blues but a video recording may show differently.

 

As guitar players we are very pretentious to think that blues even needs a guitar, acoustic or electric, take John The Revelator as sung by Son House, no guitar, no tempo, no problem. I started paying more attention to Jack White when he brought up this (one of my favorite songs) in the It Might Get Loud film.

[FirstMeasure]

Blues uses the Blues scale, a minor pentatonic with a b5, is usually three chords, I-IV-V, usually is structured around 12 bars, often uses call and response phrases, and was derived from the gospel music and field chants of slaves. But those are simply guidelines and much of Blues music doesn't adhere strictly to them. More than anything, Blues is a feeling and an attitude. Other than that, I can't define it, but I know it when I hear it.

 

If you want to call what YM and Gary Moore play the Blues, that's fine. I'd call it Blues Rock.

More than that, Blues uses "Blue Notes", which roughly means Minor tonalities played over major tonalities. That means Flatted 3rd, Flatted Fifth, and Flatted 7th played. Don't know why the Flatted fifth gets all the attention.

 

Edit: Just saw your last post where you pretty much covered this, except the "Played over major tonalities" part.

[badbluesplayer]

Jazz is blues plus swing plus improvisation, according to Winton Marsalis. So certain aspects of blues are obviously part of jazz, but jazz is more than but not limited to blues.

 

Somebody see if they can find a clip of that guy Malapropism, or whatever his name is, playing in a shuffle rhythm mixing chords, double stops and lead work all at the same time like SRV. That'll be a start. If he can't do that, then he needs some lessons.

[badbluesplayer]

 

 

Gotta try me some 14 bar.