Can somebody please..........
Fri Jan 3 12:33:26 EST 2003
Almost every jazz trumpet player in the 30s sounded at least a little bit
like Louis Armstrong. Some (even some good ones) sounded a lot like him.
Most electric blues guitar players who came up in the late 40s played a lot
like T Bone Walker. Charlie Parker influenced a few reed players and not
only musically. Then there was the Mr. B collar and the Lester Young hat.
People do that kind of thing. There is a continuum between impersonation
and originality. It's also possible to be unique and bad.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott" <scotd@INIL.COM>
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: Can somebody please..........
> On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 00:59:29 -0500, Pat Boyack <busjio@AOL.COM> wrote:
> >What is the difference between a guy who wears a SRV hat, shoes, clothes,
> >who stands like him, plays loud like him and tries to even talk like him
> >and a guy who wants to be like Little Walter playing "Juke" every night,
> >wearing a suit like him, greasing his hair like him, and talking like
> >It's funny that both sides make fun of each other.......yet do the same
> >thing. Copy.
> I suppose this will come off sounding like I'm defending Little Walter,
> that's not exactly it. The difference as I see it is that guys imitating
> SRV are imitating a GUY, whereas guys doing the LW thing are going for
> of a specific STYLE or ERA. For example, LW didn't dress or wear his
> hair any differently than any of his cronies from that time. I also don't
> hear anyone who does a LW tribute all night long - guys who imitate LW
> seem to play a variety of sounds from that era, Sonny Boy Williamson, Jr.
> Wells, Big Walter, George Smith, etc. And I think there's also an
> that could be made that imitating LW (or Muddy, or Wolf, or BB, et al) is
> imitating an originator, while imitating SRV is imitating an imitator.
> Someone else mentioned it in this thread, and I think its a good point: SR
> imitators are like Elvis impersonators. Someone who imitates more general
> ERA or STYLE, like '50s Chicago blues, might be better categorized as a
> "classic blues top 40 cover act". Yeah, I know, six of one, a half dozen
> the other, but you asked...
> Of course all of this brings up the (I think valid) point that if you're
> in some way copying someone who came before you, you're really not playing
> blues, but that's a whole 'nother thread.
> BTW, I don't think there's anything "wrong" with SRV clones, LW clones, or
> whatever. If someone can find a market for what they do, more power to
> them. I'm all for a free market society - ultimately the audience will
> decide whether this sort of clone-ism is valid.
NetSpace LISTSERV(R) software donated by L-Soft, Inc. http://www.lsoft.com
More information about the Blues-l