I appreciate your points, thanks for making them, and agree with them as factors in what is preserved in recorded music, especially what is captured by videos and then compressed on Youtube.
But I am not sure this level of acoustic reproduction is what Nabbie is objecting to in my music. I think it is the style of what he calls "screaming" but which is technically called belting that is part of what he doesn't like. Since I spent a year with a classical singing teacher to refine this sound I consider it an important part of my acoustic blues preservation work. There was an open throated style that guys like Charley Patton and Son House had that most people who perform blues don't study these days. It requires you to find your own relaxed singing voice for maximum volume in outdoor settings and is an important part of my busking performances. It allows me to sustain high volume for hours It is not a modern style. It will not be everyone's favorite since it is different from the sound people used on mikes later on. (Howlin Wolf is an exception.) We don't have a record of how Robert sounded in this kind of setting, we only have him right next to a mike. But in context, it turns outdoor performance into a high paying gig. In recording sessions I mostly use a different range of my voice because it is almost impossible to recreate the conditions of outdoor performance inside. His other objections to "Look on Yonder Wall" by Elmore James being too fast would look silly if compared to the original rather than a completely different artist with a different song. My push back on his concept of what art is has similarities to what I object to in his other interests in subjectively based knowledge claims. Everyone wants to have their opinion taken as a fact but I don't believe the world really works that way. And believing that one's personal standards and preferences make one able to declare one person's work "art" and another's, NOT art has been and continues to be one of the worst human ideas for the arts ever. Guys like Nabbie were the first to condemn the acoustic blues as worthless back in the day. It was only a handful of preservationists who ignored that view and saved the blues for us today. It was literally being thrown out 78 by 78 record. Now Robert Johnson is still regarded as a primitive folk musician by many musical academics. Thanks for continuing the rap. Your kind intentions are greatly appreciated. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote : Okay Nabbie, I listened to the Robert Johnson recording and to some of Curtis's recordings on YouTube. This is regarding you one note theory of music here. Granted some instruments tone productions can be a thing that must be practised, sounding a note on a violin is rather complex. But many instruments such as the piano, just about anyone can strike a note and it sounds the same. It is the relationships between the notes that make music not just one note. Beauty in a single note is in the eye of a beholder. Take the saxophone. This was originally intended to be a classical instrument, but for the most part it ended up in jazz, brass bands, on the popular side of the tracks. Classical saxophone playing is generally very smooth and mellow. While jazz players are often rather raspy in tone. You have to consider the style of music being played. If you consider 'beauty of tone' as a criterion, most jazz saxophonists sound like crap next to a good classical player. But the classical player probably could never replicate the style of the jazz players. YouTube is not the best way to hear music. It is compressed and often recopied and recompressed many times. Consumer video recorders have microphones that have distorted frequency response, often boosting the highs, and they are recorded at the camera location, not with optimum placement. The Robert Johnson recording is a solo, and 1936 recording technology loses both deep bass and much of the high frequencies (and an abrasive was added to the shellac of 78rpm records to keep the needle from wearing them down too quickly). His sound on the reproduction on YouTube is dead because it has been processed to remove the noise of that technology. So when you compare the musical sound of different musicians, you have to account for how the recording technology, and the recording engineer affect the final sound. Studio recordings tend to be different than live recordings. The atmosphere is more relaxed in a studio recording, and the need to project to an audience is absent so the sound might be more intimate. A completely acoustic performance without amplification requires projecting to the audience, and such a performance might sound a bit more intense than one in a more intimate setting. Comparing solo guitar and voice with what Curtis does with additional instruments is not a telling comparison. The ability to play slowly is nice, but a pro has to be able to handle rapid passages with ease, and without making serious errors. Now I can play slowly, because I am not that skilled, and have no other choice, lacking technical fluency. Five-year-old children can play the piano far better than I ever will. I am pretty good with single notes too. I can play them loud, soft, and in between. There are kinds of music I like, music I like less, and music I do not like, but I do not consider those performing music I do not like as crude etc., because I have not really investigated their artistry and style; some of these musicians seem to be fantastic in their technical ability. I mostly listen to Western European music, Bach, Handel, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven and so forth, so I have a musical bias, I almost never listen to pop, jazz, musicals, rock, or blues. Learning something about the style of a particular kind of musics helps to appreciate more, even if in the end, you do not like it. For example, I do not like rap, but it takes a tremendous amount of rhythmic and verbal and literary skill to produce it. I read somewhere on FFL you were a photographer. Are you an artist or a hack (just taking soulless pictures for money)? I do not believe you have ever given us a sample of your work. I am sure there are critics in the audience who would be glad to evaluate your artistic ability. What do you consider to be art in the field of photography? If we are discussing art versus non art, there must be some general criterion or criteria by which to evaluate it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : "If Curtis were as bad as you say, what do you think he should do to improve?" Good question. First of all I'd recommend practise, practise, practise. He could start by hitting one note at a time, just one note and listening to it, how it sounds, vibrates and how the sound slowly disappears. Just that, very simply and innoscently create one sound, and then listen to it, how pleasing is that sound, does it sound better doing it in another way ? And again, and again, and again. By doing this one acquires an understanding of the basics and a love for the note itself. Without this basics one is lost and will never achieve anything. One should understand that the ability to play fast on any instrument is not the same as playing music. To be able to play slowly is the hallmark of a professional. Many amateurs, like Curtis, make this mistake; they skip the basics and try to convey too much. I recommend you to listen to the video I posted by Robert Johnson. Where is the showmanship in this ? There isn't any because his heart is in it. When you listen to this, perhaps you better understand my disgust when fellows like Curtis comes along claiming to play the blues. Robert Johnson - Kind Hearted Woman Blues (1936) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82yNxiF-T4A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82yNxiF-T4A Robert Johnson - Kind Hearted Woman Blues (1936) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82yNxiF-T4A This Song contains the only guitar solo Robert Johnson ever recorded. I very good example for his amazing talent. He plays rhythm and lead guitar on one inst... View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82yNxiF-T4A Preview by Yahoo