|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jan 18, 2010 22:16:56 GMT -5
I thought I was pretty clear in the opening of this thread. I was wondering who you guys would consider to be the Father of The Blues or originator if you could give this honor to a single bluesman. I should have stated Modern Blues (1900 to the present) and omitted the most influential bluesman or King of the Blues from the opinion poll, but thought father/originator implied an earlier date than the later music of Robert Johnson, Willie Dixon, B.B. King, Blind Lemon Jefferson and other blind bluesmen. Most were kings or fathers of various regional genres. My whole point is that there were several bluesmen running about Mississippi in the early 1900s and a few years before anyone recorded a true Blues song. Bluesmen like Jim Jackson (1884-1937), Frank Stokes (1888-1955) and Henry Sloan may have started the whole craze because Anglo Blues examples like Hughie Cannon's, He Done Me Wrong-1904, Hart A. Wand's Dallas Blues-1908 and Antonio Maggio's I Got The Blues-1908 were soon recorded. W.C. Handy's Mr. Crump and Memphis Blues weren't recorded until the end of the decade. These two songs sound more like ragtime tunes than Blues pieces, but I'm no expert. All I can say is that Mr. Handy's designation as the "unofficial" Father of da Blues seems a bit undeserved, but who really cares. I agree Handy later became very influential in the music.
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Jan 19, 2010 8:21:35 GMT -5
Early blues was regional and there were a lot of differences between blues from Texas, Memphis, the Delta, the East Coast, etc. Therefore Henry Sloan could be termed the father of the Delta Blues only, not father of the blues. Same with Frank Stokes, he had a lot of influence in the Memphis blues sound but its arguable whether he could be called the father of the blues. Jim Jackson -- you may have a point there.
I think if you want to find a father of the Blues, not just of a regional genre of the blues, the only artists who can be considered are the people with many recordings to their credit and who were known nationally. Unrecorded artists could have influenced only those in their immediate neighborhoods. You can argue that later artists who WERE well-known nationally were influenced by these earlier artists (such as Son House's influence on Robert Johnson and Muddy Waters) but there is no way to know for sure. For instance, there were many Delta musicians who played the same songs, in the same style, as Son House -- Charley Patton, Willie Brown, Tommy Johnson, Kid Bailey and the list goes on. Son House was probably influenced just as much by these musicians as the reverse. There's just no way of knowing.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jan 19, 2010 9:54:58 GMT -5
Think about this:
Many "kids" like me growing up in the early '60s had absolutely no clue that the music the so-called "British Invasion" groups were recording and having huge hits with was really our own home-grown blues. I liked the Beatles, like most kids back then, but for some reason I was always drawn more to the stuff being played by Clapton-era Yardbirds, The Animals, early Stones, Kinks and so on. I didn't know these were songs originally written by Robert Johnson, Sonny Boy Williamson, Muddy Waters, Willie Dixon, and so on. I just knew I liked it. I've been hooked on what I later learned was "the blues" ever since, and it continues to influence my own musical styling on the guitar.
Personally, I don't see how anyone can lay claim to being the "father of the blues", modern era or otherwise. Just enjoy this rich genre for what it is. That's what I do.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 19, 2010 12:24:37 GMT -5
Personally, I don't see how anyone can lay claim to being the "father of the blues", modern era or otherwise. Just enjoy this rich genre for what it is. That's what I do.Paul Exactly right, Paul. I used to write about music and got burned out (and bored) with endless efforts to pigeonhole or typecast various forms of music. Too often an artist would get typecast as a "rocker," or blues, jazz, pop, etc. musician, when, if fact, many of them recorded and/or performed in many genres. I was glad to simply enjoy music of all kinds without paying much attention to the genre. I love jazz, but I don't stop to analyze every song to decide if it's really a jazz number, or maybe a pop song, ,etc. I agree about the Brit invasion groups as well; I don't think the Beatles were much influenced by the blues; much more by early 50s U.S. rock acts. The Stones, Clapton and others were much more influenced by American blues. Allen
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jan 20, 2010 20:07:24 GMT -5
I appreciate all of your points of view and I'm really not that serious about the whole subject. No matter what anyone says in this place, W.C. Handy is already considered the national Father of the Blues without any kind of regional designation on his title. Because Handy declared himself the father of the form, others have codified the title in albums, books and all over the web. I don't think the title is justified and it reminds me of Michael Jackson's declaring himself The King of Pop. Jackson was outsold and outcharted by a few pop stars nationally and rarely toured the United States, but he has been dubbed The King of Pop by the public and media. Nothing will ever change these false perceptions, but I do find it a little annoying and I think it does cheapen the contributions of more humble and deserving artists who came before and after Father Handy and King Jackson. See, I can rag on some musical artists and still enjoy The Blues. I'm listening to Son House right now. ;D
|
|