Blues and Folk: a synthesis

Subject: Blues and Folk: a synthesis
From: michaelr
Date: 24 May 02 - 01:43 AM

As it says in the masthead, the Mudcat Cafe is " a magazine dedicated to blues and folk music". For some reason, we don't hear much about the blues here in the Forum - the vast majority of the folks here seem to be, well, folkies.

In two weeks, Taj Mahal is slated to appear at a festival in my town. I am unfamiliar with much of his recorded work, but from what I've heard, it appears to me that he must be the major figure today to combine folk and blues in his music, more so than anyone else I can think of.

Any thoughts?

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: Blues and Folk: a synthesis
From: greg stephens
Date: 24 May 02 - 02:42 AM

It's a "what do you mean by folk" argument. If you think, as I do, that blues is a kind of folk music, the title of Mudcat and your question are essentially meaningless.You might as well refer to someone combining "folk and sea shanties" or "folk and fiddle tunes".

Subject: RE: Blues and Folk: a synthesis
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 24 May 02 - 08:21 AM

I think that Greg is right. As with all the arguments about "what is folk?" I think that the categories are a convenient way to break up a continuum. When I think of people like Mississippi John Hurt and Charlie Poole, their music spanned everything from blues and medicine shows to "old-time" music and pop songs. There is a whole sub-category of White Country Blues that would include a lot of what Jimmie Rogers and the string bands did. I've often been put in blues guitar workshops in festivals, even though I am not a blues guitarist or singer. But, I do enough blues to get by. You could say the same about gospel and rhythm and blues. There is a lot of the blues in black gospel and rhythm and blues, and a lot of black gospel in rhythm and blues. Same well. The categories have their value, though and are more specific than "Popular" music. When you go on to eBay and look for gospel, initially, everything buy classical music is categorized as Popular music. In gospel caegories, they at least have "Contemporary Christian" (which sounds like it should be in the Popular music section and Gospel Music as categories in many stores. That saves me a lot of time not having to weed through all the contemporary Christian stuff to find the old gospel. Categories have their value, if you don't take them too literally and you aren't limited by them.

Jerry

Subject: RE: Blues and Folk: a synthesis
From: Wesley S
Date: 24 May 02 - 09:30 AM

Michael - Forget the catigories - go and have a good time. Taj was easily one of the best shows I've seen in the last ten years. His music is a gumbo that draws from a lot of forms of music. What you'll get out of it is a great concert.

Subject: RE: Blues and Folk: a synthesis
From: GUEST,MAG at work
Date: 24 May 02 - 12:24 PM

The original point is well taken: Taj's "Recycling the Blues & Other Stuff" was a big hit w/ folkies.

Subject: RE: Blues and Folk: a synthesis
From: GUEST
Date: 24 May 02 - 01:11 PM

I disagree with greg and Jerry. Da blues is da blues--it ain't folk. And for a whole long time, it especially wasn't white folk. ;-)

I associate the word folk with Anglo music mostly.

Subject: RE: Blues and Folk: a synthesis
From: GUEST
Date: 24 May 02 - 01:13 PM

Sorry clicked submit by mistake...

I agree Taj Mahal does do a fusion sort of folk and blues, but really the labels don't matter so much. He is a dead brilliant musician, which is all that matters at the end of the day.

Subject: RE: Blues and Folk: a synthesis
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 24 May 02 - 03:28 PM

Columbia put out a two CD set of White Country Blues. Jimmy Rogers did a lot of blues. I think of the old time stuff like Bay Rum Blues, Farm Land Blues and many others that sure don't sound like Muddy Waters or Robert Johnson. Where ya goin' to put St. Louis Blues, The Blues My Naughty Sweetie Gave To Me, Wolverine Blues, and all the jazz blues? Is it jazz, or blues?

I dunno, Guest... maybe you should start a thread that tries to define Da Blues. White boyz get the blues, too..:-)

Jerry

Subject: RE: Blues and Folk: a synthesis
From: catspaw49
Date: 24 May 02 - 03:43 PM

I think everybody is right. Blues is Blues but there is often a close relationship to folk....whatever and however you define either one. I think the correlation is easier to see in Piedmont Blues, whereas Chicago Blues is closer to say, rock or something. And it's easier when you think of individual people.....like damn near every folk picker owes something to Mississippi John Hurt.

No matter how hard you try, this isn't a subject you can discuss without feeling you're pigeonholing things which simply gets the argument going even stronger.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Blues and Folk: a synthesis
From: greg stephens
Date: 24 May 02 - 05:26 PM

Totally disagree, Spaw...blues isn't related to folk, it's a kind of folk.I'm not related to my family, I'm part of it. I'm not related to humans, I am one. So are you.

Subject: RE: Blues and Folk: a synthesis
From: michaelr
Date: 24 May 02 - 08:27 PM

Gosh, I did not intend to re-open the old "what is folk music" debate -- after all, it could be said that ALL music is folk music!

Of course the blues are the folk music of African-American southerners, and earlier, that of West Africans. What I'm getting at is Taj's blend of black and white trad music, i.e. Mississippi and Appalachia. Do you know of any other artists who have synthesized the two, as Taj has?

BTW, here's a funny band name: Garaj Mahal.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: Blues and Folk: a synthesis
From: catspaw49
Date: 24 May 02 - 08:49 PM

That's what I meant greg but you are obviously completely and wholly fucked up in the extreme if you believe I am somehow human! I have the artificial parts to prove this and I also resent the implication that I am in any way related to anyone or not related to everyone, whichever comes first, last, or easier if that's more satisfactory than dropping a load in your pants or perhaps your friend's pants...and again, it's your choice.

MichaelR....You didn't open it back up really, it's just tough to discuss withoput playing the definition game no matter how hard you try. Too many semantics games wind their way into the discussion. If you can sit back and think of the "river of music" maybe it's easier....but I doubt it.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Blues and Folk: a synthesis
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 25 May 02 - 12:14 AM

While WYSIWYG contends that Black Gospel music was the wellspring from which flowed the Blues, I believe that the Blues, while owing a debt to both sacred and the "old time" music that was a common culture shared by Blacks and Whites before the Civil War, was a relatively new phenomenon that surfaced in strength around 1900, was formally described by WC Handy, and developed by men like Blind Lemon Jefferson and Son House. Most Blues is only "folk" or "Traditional" in the same sense that Woody and Ledbelly's songs are seen as traditional.

Subject: RE: Blues and Folk: a synthesis
From: michaelr
Date: 25 May 02 - 11:39 PM

LEJ - while that may be true for the strict 12-bar form of blues, the idiom itself is much older. Listen to folk music from Mali, and you'll hear pentatonic scale-based tunes that sound extremely blues-y.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: Blues and Folk: a synthesis
From: Bert
Date: 26 May 02 - 12:39 AM

Hmmm, interesting. I'm not a bluesy singer at all but I do like listening to The Blues. And I consider myself a folk singer.

If you want more Bues here that's fine with me (and I'm sure most Mudcatters) just go ahead, you're most welcome.