Blues Rock is the best subgenre of rock

[dalsh327]

I think between Jack White, Grace Potter, and Florence and the Machine and Ben Harper, blues rock is doing pretty well. Bonnie Raitt is still drawing crowds and puts on a great show. Even if people think John Mayer's a douche (and some of the things are right up there with Clapton's Enoch Powell rant) , he's still a blues rock guy. Slash and Izzy could just do blues and brews gigs for the rest of their lives and be set without touching the GNR royalty money.

[T.wa.T]

That plus he's usually spot on.

Ive lurked for awhile, and just recently joined about a month ago. The guy comes off as being pretty straight forward, plus hes got some great humor.

[classicrawker]

That plus he's usually spot on.

Only if you happen to agree with his opinion which a lot of times I don't but too each his own...........

[Vincent Vega]

Also, Punk Rock is generally shit.

[Guest Len B'stard]

That plus he's usually spot on.

By the way len I reread your post on page two and it is pretty much totally about race and culture. Definitely didn't bring that in myself, and whatever I said was a direct response to the initial post on page two.

No it's not. Not at all. Would you like to show me where? Nowhere does it say that anybody can or can't play anything because they are white or black, sorry but it just doesn't, now you can pore through it all day and night trying desperately to find something in it that reflects a certain racism or predudice to justify some of the ridiculous comments you've made earlier in this thread but you won't find it cuz it ain't there.

Now since you didn't specify what aspect of my post you thought to be about race so i'm going to have to guess, although the first paragraph does state something you've pointedly ignored and that "i love hearing traces from and taking cues from the blues in other music", that might be relevant a little later when you go on this fuckin' crusade trying to tell me that i was saying that the blues belongs wholly in the pre-50s world, something else i never said.

The comment about 19 yr olds from London moaning about how their woman left him and chuck in a few chords and hey ho, it's as good as the blues, well i'm sorry but it's not, that comment had nothing to do with the race of The Stones it's about how it's someone elses story they're telling. Does that mean they're not allowed to, no, i never said that anywhere, i just said it was less...authentic.

Or was it the bit about Kool G Rap and Polo and how that was more authentic than perhaps Vanilla Ice or something. Is it the fact that i said Vanilla Ice and he's a white rapper and that you percieved to be about race? Well it wasn't, it's just the Vanilla Ice is the all purpose go to point when someones citing a shit rapper but OK, since you wanna make a point of this, OK, it's the difference between the authenticity of Kool G Rap and Polo and the So Solid Crew who are a bunch of rappers from England, who are black that make UK Hip Hop that is totally inauthentic and no, not because they are people from the UK making hip hop but because they dress, talk and attempt to convey their music in a manner than is a poor forgery of American Hip Hop. For example:

Now i say thats inauthentic because they are projecting an image that is simply untrue and unreal to who they are and what they are and where they are from...i mean they're rapping about "no need to go to the Feds to get rich"...what Feds? Complete with faux-American accents. Do you understand what i'm tryna put across here? As opposed to more authentic UK hip hop such as:

Simply because they are talking about a reality that exists in England not just attempting to ape or forge American Hip Hop, complete with their own English accents and everything, there are people from England who can listen to that song and understand it because it talks about THEIR reality and by virtue of that is has a resonance and a realness to it, a sort of personal authenticity...and look, there's a white person in there *gasp*. So there you go, even these offshoots can have a certain authenticity all of their own but then if I was to stack that up against Boogie Down Productions or The Juice Crew there'd be no competition as that shit is PURE fuckin' hip hop, do you get what i'm talking about yet?

You can put your own stamp on a thing, a bluesy something or other and if you do i will respect it more than the British Blues purists of the 60s and their attempting to do like, carbon copy (as a matter of integrity i.e. they made a point of them being carbon copies because they were that militant about it) versions of old original blues songs. They cite a certain purity to that way of doing it but i wonder really if it didn't have more to do with an inability to create something of their own that their consciences would rest easy with. I mean some of these people were the ones that reacted the harshest to the commercialisation of and the popifying end of the 60s British Blues Boom. Why do you think that is? And these are the same people you are kinda sticking up for here, they were fuckin' snobs all of themselves, by proxy. I sometimes wonder whether their snobbery had more to do with a lack of ideas as opposed to a purist streak but i guess thats their issue.

It's like this. My mother dies tommorow, i write the most enduring most powerful song in the world dedicated to her and i sing by fuckin' heart out of over it with tears streaming down my face...tommorow you do it too...is it as emotionally authentic coming from you, is it as true, will you hear the same shit from it? Now, it ain't always that black and white, music is a beautiful thing and in some kind of fuckin' emotional way y'know, The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll can bring me, you and Bob Dylan to tears, regardless of race, you could probably play the song i wrote for my mother and if it's there for you emotionally you could have floods of tears too and maybe even play it better but it STILL...AIN'T...YOURS. Are you getting this yet? It ain't as authentic coming from you as it is from me, period, point blank, full fuckin' stop and i don't care what you say about that, you're entitled to your opinion but this is mine and i stand by it.

I mean Christ Almighty, you're trying to tell me that John Mayall playing Parchman Farm Blues is as authentic as Bukka White doing it?!?! Seriously, you're really trying to tell me that?!?! Bukka White who was on Parchman Farm, who probably got seven shades of shit beaten out of him on Parchman Farm, who slaved in the fuckin' sun and felt despair and anguish and toiled on Parchman Farm and was run ragged there, you think you can just be fuckin' born in your safe little middle class house (again, this is something you made a point of which is why i'm bringing it up, before you accuse me of fuckin' class predudice next) and you playing Parchman Farm means the same thing and is as authentic as Bukka White doing it, the man who wrote it, the man who was on Parchman Farm and you know exactly what thats like because you learnt to play a song? Just get your fuckin' coat man! Now again, i feel like i've said this 40,000 times but apparently i gotta say it again, does that mean you can't play Parchman Farm? No, no it does not. But it does mean that it's less...authentic.

And that is coming from someone who think the Bluesbreakers played the fuck out of Parchman Farm. But y'know what, you could take a tape copy of Bukka and John Mayall version and play it to 100 people who've never heard of the blues and Parchman Farm and all of that shit and 90 out of 100 would say Bukkas version was the original, which one wrote the shit, which one was authentic, which one of these people was on Parchman Farm and the vast majority would twig it was Bukka upon listening.

I don't know why you take that so bad, i don't know why you take that as some kind of big insult, i mean what is it, what do you want, will you settle for nothing less than me saying that you are on a par with all those old bluesmen, is that what you wanna hear? I mean, those were real people, with real lives, i know it's been a long time now and there's a lot of mythology and they ain't around now but that don't mean it's any less theirs.

Now, i know you scoff at notions of authenticity in music but again, these ain't standards that i've set, these exist in punk, in blues, in hip hop (a genre that is obssessed with authenticity and i know you're a fan of that genre to some degree) and in music in general, as long as there is notions of authorship attached to music there will be notions of integrity and authenticity as a result, i'm sorry if that pops your little hippie dippie 'music is free like the air and organic and every changing and swirley and pretty' schtick but sorry, it is what it is.

Or even me, i could fuckin' play "punk RAWWKK", i could slap together three chords and get up onstage and spray paint some stencil slogans over a backdrop and play 1977 by The Clash but i don't because those songs and that music is very very very specific and it is about a time and a place and a culture i'm not a part of, it is not my thing and i love punk to death, if you gimme a tape and say it's punk and it's from that era no matter what it is or who its by I will give it a whirl, i'm just in love with that shit but also i'm not fuckin' delusional, it belonged in that time and to those people, it was about their lives and their representation of it through music and culture and dress, it is simply not mine. Does that mean you can't play music thats fast with three chords and write about your situation and that shit? No, of course not but i can't sit here and dedicate my life to singing' "1977, i hope i go to heaven, i'm too long on the dole, No Elvis, Beatles or The Rolling Stones in 1977" because it is not 1977, i am not on the dole and Elvis, Beatles and The Rolling Stones stopped meaning anything to culture at large in terms of any relevance since back in the 70s, it's just not my story, there is nowhere i could possibly go with it and worse still, the people who actually did make it and who it belonged to would see right through me the minute i strapped on my guitar and hit the stage. The best i can do is take cues from it and make my own thing but then once i've made that own thing i would never ever ever ever sit there and go "yeah man, Johnny Rotten and Joe Strummer have passed the baton to me now and this is authentic punk" because it wouldn't be and quite frankly, at the point where i had my own thing, having taken cues from my inspiration, why would i even want to call it punk, it would be something else already by virtue of it being a reflection of me and my thing and not someone elses.

Edited January 25, 2013 by sugaraylen

[classicrawker]

tl:dr...I usually like reading your posts mate but that one is just too long...can you sum it up in a couple of sentences?

[Guest Len B'stard]

tl:dr...I usually like reading your posts mate but that one is just too long...can you sum it up in a couple of sentences?

I was trying to end my particular discourse this thread way back on page 2 and you were like "rant on, i love reading your posts even if they are a little obtuse", make your mind up lad, for chrissakes Everytime i try and find some common ground to settle a thing upon i get accused to backpedalling and being scatty and changing my view in the course of a thread like i did by Sweetness. I tell ya what, you write out a criteria of how my posts should be and i'll try and follow it as best as i can Not too long, not too short, adhering strictly to formative grammar, no slang permitted and please cut down on the swearing, don't be too general but don't get so into being specific that you start citing too many examples to make the post too long..anything else? Can i use both hands to type or...?

Nah, i'm just messin' about, im sorry, that was kind of long but thats what i have to say on the subject and since there was someone in the thread saying that this was about something they believed in deeply i didn't want to be brief to the point of sounding flippant and perhaps insulting the person in question, which i think i have already although totally unintentionally. Just trying to explain myself, i will try and shorten em down in future

[MB.]

tl:dr...I usually like reading your posts mate but that one is just too long...can you sum it up in a couple of sentences?

what I was thinking!

[classicrawker]

tl:dr...I usually like reading your posts mate but that one is just too long...can you sum it up in a couple of sentences?

I was trying to end my particular discourse this thread way back on page 2 and you were like "rant on, i love reading your posts even if they are a little obtuse", make your mind up lad, for chrissakes Everytime i try and find some common ground to settle a thing upon i get accused to backpedalling and being scatty and changing my view in the course of a thread like i did by Sweetness. I tell ya what, you write out a criteria of how my posts should be and i'll try and follow it as best as i can Not too long, not too short, adhering strictly to formative grammar, no slang permitted and please cut down on the swearing, don't be too general but don't get so into being specific that you start citing too many examples to make the post too long..anything else? Can i use both hands to type or...?

Nah, i'm just messin' about, im sorry, that was kind of long but thats what i have to say on the subject and since there was someone in the thread saying that this was about something they believed in deeply i didn't want to be brief to the point of sounding flippant and perhaps insulting the person in question, which i think i have already although totally unintentionally. Just trying to explain myself, i will try and shorten em down in future

I like a good rant but that was like reading War and Peace mate.......

Len you have been on this forum a long time and have always been yourself I would not worry about hurting peoples feelings this point. They either get your style or they don't.........

[sweetness]

Everytime i try and find some common ground to settle a thing upon i get accused to backpedalling and being scatty and changing my view in the course of a thread like i did by Sweetness.

You went from saing "its a load of fuckin shit" to "god knows I listen to and love it"...

I mean really, how do I not call somebody out on that?

Just tired of the "this whole thing has to be written off as shit because it's mimmicking the true authentic original ideas", which is clearly what your first post was saying. That said, nobody was claiming blues rock was or is more authentic than the real thing, and I'm willing to bet anybody who is a fan of any blues rock artist has most definitely been lead to explore where it all began and could easily tell you that yes, the blues musicians from the late 1800's and early 1900's were much more authentic because what they were doing was entirely original.

Fuck, its 2013, that kind of goes without saying doesn't it? Can't some dudes talk about a rock subgenre influenced by the blues without being taken to school about it? That's all I'm saying

[Guest Len B'stard]

Everytime i try and find some common ground to settle a thing upon i get accused to backpedalling and being scatty and changing my view in the course of a thread like i did by Sweetness.

You went from saing "its a load of fuckin shit" to "god knows I listen to and love it"...

I mean really, how do I not call somebody out on that?

Just tired of the "this whole thing has to be written off as shit because it's mimmicking the true authentic original ideas", which is clearly what your first post was saying. That said, nobody was claiming blues rock was or is more authentic than the real thing, and I'm willing to bet anybody who is a fan of any blues rock artist has most definitely been lead to explore where it all began and could easily tell you that yes, the blues musicians from the late 1800's and early 1900's were much more authentic because what they were doing was entirely original.

Fuck, its 2013, that kind of goes without saying doesn't it? Can't some dudes talk about a rock subgenre influenced by the blues without being taken to school about it? That's all I'm saying

See that would make sense if i had just said its a load of shit as a standalone statement, which i didn't, the post in question was clearly comparing it to the original stuff, i keep trying to hammer this point home but you refuse to aknowledge this for some reason. Perhaps the phrase load of shit was a little too blunt but the post really wasn't that ambiguous man. And i didn't say anyone was comparing it to the original blues, i was the one doing that in my assessment of it which i think is relevant being that it is an offshoot of the blues, i mean its in the fucking name, isn't it?

And as far as you saying everyone would reach that conclusion about the authenticity well clearly at least one person in this thread doesn't and thats what the majority of discussion here has been about.

And as far as 'can't some guys have a discussion about etc etc without being taken to task' it'd be worth bearing in mind that the person starting this thread was Miser, someone that has something of a habit of trying to make threads to get a rise out of me, although it never works, you'll forgive me for being somewhat brusque in my response, at least it was a post that led to some kind of intelligent discussion as opposed to 'kurt cobain was a talentless junkie coward' or 'Sid Vicious was a murdering bastard' or some such nonsense, like i'm gonna burst out in tears cuz someone slagged off a musician i like

Edited January 25, 2013 by sugaraylen

[Nobodys_Fault]

I usually find AAO's posts interesting and intelligent but man, in this thread all I'm reading is:

You were not completely honest on the internet so your opinion on the blues is invalid and I fucking hate you.

[classicrawker]

Lets all just slow it down and listen to some blues by one of the best and most underrated classic rock blues players of all time IMHO

[sweetness]

And as far as 'can't some guys have a discussion about etc etc without being taken to task' it'd be worth bearing in mind that the person starting this thread was Miser

well shit, I can't argue with that

[Guest Len B'stard]

No, len, it might not be "as authentic." I'm not saying that I or anyone else could do it like Little Walter. That would obviously be a ridiculous opinion to hold.

Right, thank you, we got there in the end, not a moment too soon, thats alls i was saying. And this whole shit about "you don't admit that people of all stripes have studied blues for ages" etc etc, you're right, i don't admit it and the reason for that is because that weren't the point i was making. I didn't deny it either, did i? Why would I, it wasn't something i was addressing.

And as far as this race dichotomy thing, thats just you trying to make up for the fact that you thought there was some race assault going on when there weren't, the very fact that you percieved a race dichotomy goes to show that you're looking through those kinds of eyes...couple that with the fact that you're a white guy that plays the blues, says a lot quite frankly. If i wanted to something about race, i'm not a shy boy, i've done it before and i'd do it again if i wanted to but i didn't so i didn't. Race dichotomy, give me a fuckin' break. So basically, it can never be a happy accident when someone poses and example and on one side of the fence you got a white guy and the other side you got a black guy, it's ALWAYS gotta be about race? Is that not the heart predudice itself, people who can't see beyond race? Are you seriously telling me that i can't ever make an example about any point in which you got a black guy and a white guy on opposing sides of the example without it being about race, seriously, thats what your saying? Or is it that you had a shit-fit thinking i was saying some shit about white guys and then when i pulled you up on it and you realised i hadn't you're just really desperately reaching for shit to make it look like you had a point in the first place?

So you can stand by the fact, put it on your head, sit on it, roll it up and smoke it, whatever you like, you're still wrong about my bringing race into this and you can't show me where either, other than some mealey mouthed bullshit about me citing instances in which there was people of different races on either side of the argument, the point was directly related to the music they produced and no reference was made to their race effecting the quality of said music, that was all in your misinterpretation, perhaps wait until someone says something before throwing darts?

Whats hilairious about all this is that you've pretty much agreed with everything i said with your last post, right up to and including '"they" did it the best', so thank you, i'm glad we got there in the end

[Guest Len B'stard]

No, len, it might not be "as authentic." I'm not saying that I or anyone else could do it like Little Walter. That would obviously be a ridiculous opinion to hold.

Right, thank you, we got there in the end, not a moment too soon, thats alls i was saying. And this whole shit about "you don't admit that people of all stripes have studied blues for ages" etc etc, you're right, i don't admit it and the reason for that is because that weren't the point i was making. I didn't deny it either, did i? Why would I, it wasn't something i was addressing.

And as far as this race dichotomy thing, thats just you trying to make up for the fact that you thought there was some race assault going on when there weren't, the very fact that you percieved a race dichotomy goes to show that you're looking through those kinds of eyes...couple that with the fact that you're a white guy that plays the blues, says a lot quite frankly. If i wanted to something about race, i'm not a shy boy, i've done it before and i'd do it again if i wanted to but i didn't so i didn't. Race dichotomy, give me a fuckin' break. So basically, it can never be a happy accident when someone poses and example and on one side of the fence you got a white guy and the other side you got a black guy, it's ALWAYS gotta be about race? Is that not the heart predudice itself, people who can't see beyond race? Are you seriously telling me that i can't ever make an example about any point in which you got a black guy and a white guy on opposing sides of the example without it being about race, seriously, thats what your saying? Or is it that you had a shit-fit thinking i was saying some shit about white guys and then when i pulled you up on it and you realised i hadn't you're just really desperately reaching for shit to make it look like you had a point in the first place?

So you can stand by the fact, put it on your head, sit on it, roll it up and smoke it, whatever you like, you're still wrong about my bringing race into this and you can't show me where either, other than some mealey mouthed bullshit about me citing instances in which there was people of different races on either side of the argument, the point was directly related to the music they produced and no reference was made to their race effecting the quality of said music, that was all in your misinterpretation, perhaps wait until someone says something before throwing darts?

Whats hilairious about all this is that you've pretty much agreed with everything i said with your last post, right up to and including '"they" did it the best', so thank you, i'm glad we got there in the end

Not really. As sweetness points out, you are trying to make yourself out to be a lot more moderate than before. Whatever. I'm not going to continue the race argument but it is a lot more apparent in your post than any of your psychoanalytic bullshit has been in mine. Read your initial post, it doesn't agree with my last, at all.

Making myself a lot more moderate than before? Kinda the way you started off in this thread refuting notions of authenticity in music and then in effect illuminating how you subscribe to them yourself by the post before this one? I was dealing expressly and exclusively with what was being said and didn't approach any kind of 'psychoanalytical bullshit' until such time as you took it upon yourself to engage your psychic abilities to try and make some kind of race case out of my post and when i asked to show me where you couldn't do it and the reason you couldn't is cuz it weren't there so then when that stalled on you you started coming out with all this other vague bullshit. Funny how no one else interpreted anything racial from it, except you, the white guy that plays the blues, now is that psychoanalytical bullshit or is that the obvious staring you in the face? You were the one making a point of being a white guy that plays the blues, you were the one going on about black people and them shaking your hand after gigs, so whats more valid, those clear statements and references to race on your part or this implied crap you saw in my post that no one else said anything about noticing, implied or otherwise? Is that psychoanalytical bullshit as well?

You've constantly bought race into this discussion where pretty much no one else has, the crux of my entire point was, to boil it down, that one is more authentic than the other, by whatever degree, this was something you refuted throughout your posts until the one before last, pretty much the closest you've come to having a point is saying that my initial post is saying something different to what i am now, which it isn't, my initial post was just saying it in a more straightforward and perhaps crude way even though its patently obvious that the crude expressions being made were relative by virtue of the post being a comparison between two entities, what it isn't however is a total flip flop like your post before last is in relation to the rest of what you've been saying, specifically in regards to notions of authenticity in music.

You said in page two that "it's THEIR thing," not mine or yours, essentially saying that it isn't worth it for anyone to play Blues if they aren't Little Walter.

You are just DESPERATE to have a point here, aren't you? It isn't essentially saying that at all, it's essentially saying that it's essentially their thing and by virtue of that, it is more authentic and that was my reason for liking it like i do, now where the fuck did you get the bit about 'it isn't worth playing the blues if you're not Little Walter' bit from? You're just reading back through the whole thread and just trying to find ANYTHING you can re-interpret something into saying something it ain't, aren't you?

Go on champion, have another go!

Edited February 15, 2013 by sugaraylen

[moreblack]

Blues, it's definitely the most suitable genre to blend with rock. With some of the other styles you almost have to force it so hard that something usually breaks...

[Guest Len B'stard]

Funk tends to slot in nicely i find