Blues/theory

Actually, I've played blues for so long (over 40 years), that I don't think much about the theory behind it...I just DO it. And, in many years of reading interviews with great blues artists, I can't recall ever seeing one of them discuss how they arrive at the pitches they use. I am also a bit wary these days of overanalyzing a culture's music (or anything else) when one is not part of that culture...sure, we can learn a lot by reading, and that's often the only way to learn about a subject. But, being a part of something is way different than trying to analyze it from afar, for the most part.
That being said, there are 2 really interesting books on blues with valuable info..."Africa and the Blues" (Gerhard Kubik), and "Deep Blues," by Robert Palmer. Both make the observation that the "blue" notes could be related to the African concept of language and music being related; pitches are very fluid here, and the pitch of a spoken word gives it different meanings (and of course this is found in other cultures as well). The "blue" notes (and this is a term used by writers and observers, not by the artists) are often flat to the Western idea of where the pitch lies, and can really add depth and meaning to blues phrases. And, where you put a pitch, even in the same song, can change from performance to performance...it all depends on the FEELING you are trying to convey.
In the book "Louis Armstrong's New Orleans," Louis talks about hanging out with the rag pickers, and how they played cheap bugles to draw the kids around. The pitches they played were not at all like Western notes, for the most part. And, in the same book, it is mentioned that certain people sounded like they were singing when they talked. This makes big sense to me...but, I totally learned blues from copying other players, and then from playing a great deal of blues in live situations. And of course, this is how Arabic and Indian music has been taught for a long time...listen and copy, then develop your own thing.
As far as "neutral" 3rds, flat 5ths and 7ths...I can put those pitches where I want 100% of the time, but there's a lot more "blue" notes than those, that's for sure. Most of my students are blues guys, and for the most part, hitting those "blue" notes is VERY difficult...it has to be done by feel, and any sort of intellectual knowledge of ratios would be of no help whatsoever. And, I'm not against understanding the theory behind blues, it's good fun. And, you can't fake blues...within seconds, it's obvious to tell if someone knows what the hell they're doing...it isn't just the pitches, either; it's the rhythms and timing, which are just as difficult as the pitches. (hearing classically trained folks try to play blues or jazz is a hoot). Anyway, a few thoughts...best...Hstick microstick.net myspace.com/microstick

Dear Neil,

How much do you think what you are calling blues is just a
cultural/stylistic thing and in that sense not some sort of absolute
expression? My question may sound dumb and obvious, let me clarify.
Do you think the timing and tuning of blues is in itself expressive in
a different way than other aural-based folk traditions, or is it
uniquely expressive only within its culture?

Let me clarify once more. Does a Ukrainian folk singer, well versed
in subtle details of his aural tradition, find blues to have something
particularly unique compared to any other aural tradition that is
foreign to him? Is the subtlety of expression in his tradition vs
blues comparable or no? Would a Ukrainian and a blues guy each trying
each other's tradition feel equally uncertain of the other or judge
each other equally inauthentic?

I guess my point is this:
I think that there are absolute theoretical things within blues that
are totally valid to understand. Use of 7th harmonics has a clearly
bluesy feeling. But deviating from pure harmonies or from the simple
shell of the form is clearly part of the tradition as well. My
feeling is that the things that are special to blues compared to other
aural traditions CAN be discussed theoretically. I'd assert that any
aspect of blues that cannot be easily discussed theoretically is
either common to aural traditions in general, or is arbitrary to the
culture (not important that it is one way or another, just that people
got used to it being one particular way).

I totally agree about the classical interpretations of blues -
nonsense awful junk. However, the idea of "authentic" blues is harder
to pin down since it is an evolving aural tradition. Everyone has
slightly different ideas about what does or doesn't exist in "blues."
I am not a total blues guy, and my degree is classical guitar, but I
was raised on blues to some degree, have listened to a very wide range
of blues from pop to obscure, and am very influenced by guitarists who
themselves are blues influenced (such as my hero Frank Zappa). I am
not a classical interpreter of blues by any means. I do not think in
any sort of classical way about what I play when I'm playing blues,
but I may think theoretically at times.

Anyway, blues being an American style, I'd argue that the language
relationships (which are definitely there) are very influenced by
English in addition to the African language roots. Most blues is
certainly sung in English.

As for theory, it seems to me that harmonic intervals - particularly
7th harmonic relatives - seem to be the foundational grid for a lot of
blues, and what you are saying about not applying theory is more about
not being strict to the grid. Classical musicians are often not free
enough with interpretations. The blues feel isn't just playing a
stiff 7th harmonic, but deviating around it expressively. But I think
there are still focal points around which deviation happens, and both
those points as well as the forms of deviation can be discussed
theoretically.

Best,
Aaron Wolf

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <microstick@...> wrote:
>
> Actually, I've played blues for so long (over 40 years), that I
don't think much about the theory behind it...I just DO it. And, in
many years of reading interviews with great blues artists, I can't
recall ever seeing one of them discuss how they arrive at the pitches
they use. I am also a bit wary these days of overanalyzing a culture's
music (or anything else) when one is not part of that culture...sure,
we can learn a lot by reading, and that's often the only way to learn
about a subject. But, being a part of something is way different than
trying to analyze it from afar, for the most part.
> That being said, there are 2 really interesting books on blues
with valuable info..."Africa and the Blues" (Gerhard Kubik), and "Deep
Blues," by Robert Palmer. Both make the observation that the "blue"
notes could be related to the African concept of language and music
being related; pitches are very fluid here, and the pitch of a spoken
word gives it different meanings (and of course this is found in other
cultures as well). The "blue" notes (and this is a term used by
writers and observers, not by the artists) are often flat to the
Western idea of where the pitch lies, and can really add depth and
meaning to blues phrases. And, where you put a pitch, even in the same
song, can change from performance to performance...it all depends on
the FEELING you are trying to convey.
> In the book "Louis Armstrong's New Orleans," Louis talks about
hanging out with the rag pickers, and how they played cheap bugles to
draw the kids around. The pitches they played were not at all like
Western notes, for the most part. And, in the same book, it is
mentioned that certain people sounded like they were singing when they
talked. This makes big sense to me...but, I totally learned blues from
copying other players, and then from playing a great deal of blues in
live situations. And of course, this is how Arabic and Indian music
has been taught for a long time...listen and copy, then develop your
own thing.
> As far as "neutral" 3rds, flat 5ths and 7ths...I can put those
pitches where I want 100% of the time, but there's a lot more "blue"
notes than those, that's for sure. Most of my students are blues guys,
and for the most part, hitting those "blue" notes is VERY
difficult...it has to be done by feel, and any sort of intellectual
knowledge of ratios would be of no help whatsoever. And, I'm not
against understanding the theory behind blues, it's good fun. And, you
can't fake blues...within seconds, it's obvious to tell if someone
knows what the hell they're doing...it isn't just the pitches, either;
it's the rhythms and timing, which are just as difficult as the
pitches. (hearing classically trained folks try to play blues or jazz
is a hoot). Anyway, a few thoughts...best...Hstick microstick.net
myspace.com/microstick
>