All true, I suppose, but if you're looking for a definition of blues, it helps to give some thought to the history and form as well as the content. We seem to be putting the blues on a pedestal here, and using its exalted status as an argument against examining its roots and structure. Admittedly, like a lot of music, it doesn't lend itself to being fully explained in just a few sentences. But I will confess that all this talk about "if you have to ask, you don't know" or the "zen-like" aspect of the blues really doesn't explain anything to me.

You can't sum up a Monet painting by analyzing the brush strokes, or a Shakespeare play by counting the words. But while I would acknowledge that these were inspired works by true masters, I don't think it is inappropriate to look at the forms and structures that were employed in their creation. Shouldn't we do the same with the blues?