Talk:Blind Willie Johnson
Blind Willie Johnson--Blues or Gospel?
Johnson was not a blues musician by any meaningful definition of the term. I'm changing the first sentence to reflect this. --RobHutten 15:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- What exactly do you mean by "meaningful definition of the term"? If you are going by a musical definition of the blues, then you know that many of Blind Willie's are based around a 1-4-5 chord progression in 12 or 16 bars, and that the songs feature "soulful lyrics...originating from the era of slavery." Or if argue a non-musical definition: "a feeling or spell of dismally low spirits; a state of depression," then remember that Johnson was blinded as a child by his abusive step-mother, made an impoverished living as a street performer (in both Chicago and New Orleans, of all places!), was turned away from a whites-only hospital because he was black, then turned away from a blacks-only hospital because he was blind, and with nowhere else to go, he lived in the burned out ruins of his shack--where he froze to death. You seem omitting him from the blues genre simply because his songs were based on Scripture. While he wasn't singing about Dynaflows or big-legged women, Blind Willie was just about as "blues" as one can get. I haven't reverted back to the term "gospel blues" just yet, regarding the articles opening paragraph, although I believe this to be the most accurate way to describe him. A compromise, perhaps? "...his music is a combination of blues and gospel..." Or maybe the article could elaborate on the idea that Blind Willie transcends genres. Maybe a vote is in order? --buck 21:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
My edit was a reaction to the almost universal categorization of Black American music as blues. I understand the complexities surrounding the definition of the term "blues", but I see no value in broadening it to include, say, all self-accompanied sacred African-American music.
I guess I can accept the compromise "combination of blues and gospel". But what in Johnson's music isn't encompassed by the term "gospel"? --RobHutten 23:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- First let me apologize for my failure to proofread my last rant--sorry, that was atrocious!
- Ah. I understand your point better now. However, what in his music isn't equally encompassed by "blues"? In that light, I'd still argue that Blind Willie was predominantly a blues musician not because he was black (although, admittedly, I believe that has a minor part in defining his music, as he was a black "vocal-with-guitar-accompaniment" musician during the great depression), but by the nature of the performances in these old recordings. Looking beyond the gospel lyrics, the guy had among the most virsatile and aggressive bottleneck styles on record. The delivery of vocals--the booming growls and shouts of his "bass falsetto"--with such ferociousness (and pure Son House). Compare him to Gary Davis for instance--would you call Davis a blues singer or a gospel singer? Can you adequately call him one and not the other? Or Mississippi John Hurt, who sang as many secular songs as he did gospel songs? (And check out Willie's complete recordings--there's one or two secular songs thrown in there, or at least ones that aren't overtly religious.)
- Furthermore, this type of crossover is seen widely these days. Bands like P.O.D. and Creed are recognized as mainstream hard-rock bands but are also considered modern gospel. Labelling them gospel alone would be a bit misleading. I think the same applies to Willie--he's more than strictly blues because he incorporates gospel; likewise, he's more than strictly gospel because he incorporates blues. --buck 03:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
As to what is in BWJ's music that isn't encompassed by the term "blues"? For one, a strong prevalence of sacred themes; for two, a repetoire of set songs, rather than assemblies of floating verses; for three, most of his songs use verse/chorus structures instead of the AAB form which practically defines the blues genre.
I don't equate "bluesy" with "blues", not when it comes to classification. Of course there are bluesy elements in most African-American gospel music; this is (or, at least, was in Johnson's day) due to common antecedants between the two genres, not a direct influence of one to the other. And if we're to define as blues any music created by a tortured individual, or that delivered in a ferocious or passionate manner, let's toss Beethoven, the Sex Pistols and most flamenco music into the mix.
Hence my original "meaningful definition" comment.
Look at the larger context of Johnson's life. For all that he may not have been a saint, I'm fairly certain that he would have objected to any hint of his music being considered blues. There are many musicians who played both styles of music, unambiguously: Son House, Charlie Patton, Fred McDowell, John Hurt, Furry Lewis... etc etc. House even said "you can sing the blues in church if you use the words right". However, many of House's songs were clearly blues; none of BWJ's recordings were. Even the less overtly sacred tunes - When The War Was On, etc. - do not follow any standard blues structure.
How can you call someone a blues musician when there's not a single blues tune in his repetoire? The comparison to Gary Davis is weak; Davis recorded a few blues tunes. Johnson did not.
--RobHutten 14:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- Beethoven, Sex Pistols...if we are reaching outside of the blues genre, then let's go outside music altogether and include Van Gogh, Tolstoy, and Anne Frank. Come on now, you're stretching a little too far to make your point. I'm not defining blues simply as the music (or any other art for that matter) by a tortured, passionate individual. Blues does have a specific sound. And I do feel that Blind Willie's music has that specific sound. But how do we define that sound?
- Certainly not solely by the "AAB" lyrical format that according to you, "practically defines the blues genre" (your number three). Or maybe we should just throw out Skip James and Leadbelly. And half of John Hurt's and Mance Lipscomb's songbooks (but we should probably be calling them "songsters" anyway, am I right? See your number two). Many of the most recognizable blues songs don't follow the "AAB" format: "See That My Grave is Kept Clean" (Blind Lemon Jefferson). "Boom Boom" (John Lee Hooker). "Mannish Boy" (Muddy Waters). "Sitting On Top of the World"/"Come On in My Kitchen" (countless).
- Now, you also say that Blind Willie did not record a single blues song. How about "Mother's Children"--not only is it blues, but it's a blues song that pops up in dozens firmly-defined blues singers' recordings (usually as "Motherless Children"): Son House, Mance Lipscomb, Jessie Mae Hemphill, Big Joe Williams, Josh White, the apparently controversial Gary Davis, and crossover blues performers like Eric Clapton, Odetta, the Steve Miller Band, and John Renbourn. Look at "If I Had My Way" and "I'm Gonna Run to the City of Refuge". While these songs' lyrics are obviously taken from Scripture, the melody sure wasn't. Compare their choruses to the quite un-biblical Robert Johnson tune "Last Fair Deal Gone Down" (which itself was based on Blind Lemon Jefferson's "See That My Grave is Kept Clean").
- Nor do I think the comparison to Gary Davis is weak at all. We are arguing about whether Blind Willie Johnson's music is blues or gospel, right? Regarding your number one--does a blues song have to not have gospel lyrics? Rather, if a blues song has lyrics referring to the Scripture, does that instantly negate it from being "real" blues? Do "real" blues songs have to be about violence, loose women, hard liquor, and fast cars? How many are about God and the devil? Heaven and hell? Sin and repentance? Remember I am arguing that Blind Willie's music is a combitation of blues and gospel. I feel the same about Gary Davis. The vast majority of Gary's music was obviously spiritual. Why is he more "blues" than Blind Willie? Because he recorded "Cocaine" (albeit instrumental), and "Candy Man"? Or maybe he lived long enough to perform at the Newport festivals with John Hurt, Fred McDowell, and Mance Lipscomb as part of the blues revival. --buck 01:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Re: Davis: Actually, I was thinking of his "Cross and Evil Woman". His "Cocaine" is, in my book, a rag. So are many of John Hurt's songs - more rag than blues, that is. That's not a judgement call in any way - Hurt's probably my favourite recorded musician and I love everything he recorded. But lots of his tunes weren't blues - not by my definition.
Re: Motherless Children: I'd say it's probably pre-blues in origin, but I have no evidence at hand to back that statement up. What I do have is its inclusion in a 1929 hymnal in my collection, under a section called "Songs of Death". I'm about 99% certain that most church-going African-American southerners of the '20s and '30s would not have considered it a blues.
Every performer you listed as having performed the song also recorded other songs which were not blues, so I'm not sure where you were going with that. (And since when is Renbourn a firmly-defined blues musician? - no, don't answer that.)
As to Hurt and Lipscomb being "songsters" - right on. Both played some blues, obviously. Would you consider Hurt's "Let The Mermaids Flirt With Me" a blues?
Re: Lemon's "See That My Grave Is Kept Clean" - it's AAAB, which is most definitely a recognized variant of the standard AAB structure.
Re: Hooker's "Boom Boom" - I'd bet good money that he wouldn't call that a blues song. Here's what he said about the similar song "Boogie Chillun" in a Guitar Player Magazine interview with B.B. King in 1993:
BBK: For instance, when John Lee made "Boogie Chillun", that wasn't blues. That was get up and get it!
JLH: Get up and go! That was the first rock!
BBK: That's right!
JLH: So when people say blues and you say "Boogie Chillun", how in the heck could he be blue? He's havin' a ball! He's havin' a good time."
As to "does a blues song have to not have gospel lyrics?" I guess not, but it does have to meet some meaningful definition of the term. And why not go with the definition most common within the culture that created the stuff? There's real value in having meaningful definitions for musical genres, and BWJ's oevre is adequately described by the term "gospel music", especially when taken in the context of a self-accompanied performer of his era.
The "bluesy" elements that you are attributing to blues and to BWJ's music are shared elements in many/most African-American musical styles. So just because a gospel song sounds bluesy to you - "that sound", as you say - doesn't mean it's a blues song, not if the term is to have any usefulness in classifying musical performances. It's African-American music, yes. But blues is one genre in African-American music. It's like calling an Andean huayno a salsa; sure, it's got an identifiably Latin rhythm, but it's not a salsa - it's a huayno.
I see you've gone ahead and changed the page... thanks for at least noting the dispute. I'm not going to remove the word "blues" again, although I'm now even more annoyed by its inclusion than I was when I started this whole rigamarole.
Grumpily yours, --RobHutten 01:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)