Imitation Blues

Karen Hanson
Sat Jun 27 17:26:00 EDT 1998

In a message dated 6/27/98 2:43:46 PM, you wrote:

>Karen wrote:

><<Bill (and many others of us) have no financial stake in whether the
>music "sells" or not. I think that difference results in an entirely
>different point of view.>>
>You better hope it ALL sells...because once it STOPS you won't be
>getting any new material out there in lala land!

Hold your horses, riptips. I didn't say I wanted "Y" to stop selling. I'm all
for people making a living (wish I could). What I'm saying is this: Because I
do not have to depend on "Y" selling in order to pay my bills, I am free to
form an honest opinion without the danger of losing my house or car.

Tell you what. You sell what you want. I'll buy what I want.

><<Much music produced today and marketed as (let's quit with the
>euphemisms) blues is blues-based, perhaps, but it isn't blues. I
>recognize that. Many others on this list do, too.>>
>Isn't this special...just because you and OTHERS think this way STILL
>doesn't make it matter what you think--it is still just YOUR
>opinion (not fact--just opinion).

And vice versa.

><<That doesn't imply that it isn't good music or
>valid music. It just means that it isn't blues. Why is that a problem?
>Why can't people accept their music for what it is?>>
>Good question....please feel free to keep asking yourself this over and
>over (maybe it'll be like Absorbine Jr and finally soak in).

I'm not asking the question of myself. I'm asking other people. I'm interested
in hearing others' opinions on this question. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to
tell me yours. Why can't some people accept their music for what it is?

Here's a wild card: I have heard at least two different artists say they
couldn't "make it" in the rock arena, so they added a shuffle or two, threw in
a hoochie coochie riff now and then, and began marketing themselves as a blues
band...and met with a much better success rate.

><<I hate math. I especially hate algebra. And I hate the "better than"
>game. It's not a matter of one being "better" or "purer" than another.
>It's a matter
>of them being two different things. Can't two things be different
>without implying that one is better than the other?>>
>It seems to me that the X camp (ie purists) is the only one SMUG enough
>to make those assertions! The rest of us seem to think it's ALL good.
>It's folks like yourself whio want to constantly "throw up" boundaries
>to divide what SHOULD be a unity.

No, see, you missed the point:  It may be all *good*, but it isn't all

><<Following this line... (which is absurd, but I'm bored)... Why are Y
>people so threatened by X people? Read that question again.   Why are Y
>people so threatened by X people????>>
>It seems to be the other way around doesn't it--it is you who are
>arguing for exclusion--while we (the Y's) are saying "hey, include us

Why are you so defensive? Why are you so sure that you're a "Y"? Did somebody
tell you that you were? I've never heard your music (I don't even know if you
play). Somehow you seem to recognize for yourself that "Y" is not the same as
"X". That's really the gist of the argument. You've just capitulated.


More information about the Blues-l mailing list