Well I've listened to a fair number of the people noted on this thread now, and I have to say that I reckon Hoot's definition of what constitutes a "true" blues player/ singer and a "copyist" is, IMO, unnecessarily narrow.

Although I'm sure there's still poverty, racism and pain in the southern rural culture, I don't think that it can be the same level of nose-grinding poverty and constant overt racism that applied when the blues originally emerged. So by Hoot's criterion, as the culture has evolved somewhat, there can be no more (or very few) "true" blues artistes and the vast majority of current musicians playing blues *must* be "copyists" as they "haven't lived the culture".

I can't agree with that. It seems to be a similar backward-looking philosophy that some of the more conservative "folkies" on here espouse and would imply pickling the genre in aspic. Just to take one example: I've listened to a whole bunch of Eric Bibb's stuff now and I can't believe anyone would categorise him as a "copyist" despite his relatively privileged New York background.

Or maybe I just don't "get it" yet and need to listen to a whole bunch more stuff, when it'll suddenly become clear to me?