37 (edited by The RiverCat^-^ 2013-11-22 04:38:38)

Re: Is Joe re-defining the modern day Blues?

jim m wrote:
bobkatmsu wrote:
hulldanfan wrote:

I really don't what you mean by 'redefining the blues'

If you really think that Joe is doing that then please tell me how he is doing it. 

Explain what revolutionary changes/advances or innovations he is making to the genre.

I think Joe is great at what he does and at the moment, he is rightly at the top of what is, in reality, a pretty small tree.  I just don't see any differences in what he is doing compared to many other artists and I certainly don't see anything that carries the weight of influence that the giants of the Blues had.

Ok, I am getting real philosophical here for an x-dump jock, so if I screw up don't hit me with to big a stick.  In the Art's and Sciences there have always been ground breaking discoveries and performances where people spend decades or centuries trying to imitate and improve on.  Whether it's Monet and his French Impressionist movement that changed a section of the art world forever, or Robert Johnson's playing three different timings all in one song, people with incredible talent have been taking their art to new levels.  I believe Joe has that type of talent, which is the beginning point.  What I saw at last weekends show, took me to the next level.  As I have stated before I am not a music expert, I am not a instrument, or arrangement or production expert.  I know what I like and I know when I hear something completely different and unique form anything I have ever heard before and I have some experience at this.  It maybe a small tree, that's ok.  Most great artists are not recognized until after they are dead.  Joe does not have to wait for that.  He has enough of us "died in the wool" fans that he can afford any guitar he wants and good for him.
What I see and hear is so pleasurable, I believe, a good portion of the next generation of Blues artists will emulate the style and genius of Joe. Whether it is Joe, in music, Robert Oppenhiemer, in science, Monet in art,  thank God there are those people that push their phenoninal abilities to the limit.  The rest of us are blessed to have them in our midst and our lives are so much richer for their courage.

You are seeing and saying the same thing I saw and said over 10 years ago when I saw him for the first. Re-defining the blues but in much the same way as it has been done for over 100 years. Taking the foundation musically and expounding on it. I have always contended that blues is usually played by musicians that can't play anything but the blues. Joe is a musician that can play anything he wants but chooses the blues. However he is not just a bluesman he is a musician that amalgamates many genre's and influences. He is inspiring another generation of guitar players and giving rebirth to the blues.

As to an earlier post mentioning the Black Keys who are bringing the blues to a younger generation I do agree with that however, they aren't telling where their inspiration comes from much the same way Led Zeppelin didn't. We at the time thought they invented what it was they were doing and only later discovered it was blues. The Black Keys don't want to really be identified as a blues band although we know they are, Joe on the other hand isn't afraid to claim the blues as his love and isn't afraid to name his influences or give recognition to them. In turn those that follow will claim the genre' and not run from the stereotype that so often follows blues players. Average musician with average talent playing tired I IV V progressions often out of tune and out of key but who cares if it is authentic. So yes I think he is re-defining the blues as I said before.

I think Joe is a phenomenal musician who like someone else says plays a lot of different styles at such a high quality level.  It's not just his guitar playing.  It is his whole package and as a live performer, he sets the bar.

I personally don't see anything that he has done that has really redefined or has changed the Blues.
Interested like Hulldanfan to know what is it?

He plays Blues, but he has said he was influenced by British Blues more than American blues.  And that is what I hear in his music.  I think rock fans look at blues a little bit differently than blues fans.  For Blues fans it is more of also an expression of life experience, the lyrics and the emotions that pours into your playing out from your soul.  I do think British Blues was an actual redefinition of the Blues.

I actually would love to hear Joe do another album of traditional Blues, like Blues Deluxe.  I really, thoroughly enjoyed that album.

"Holy Toledo"  -  Bill King   "Just Win Baby" - Al Davis  "The Autumn Wind" - Steve Sabol

Re: Is Joe re-defining the modern day Blues?

Yes he is. He is  ringing the changes regularly also. Bits of pure blues, classic rock, British classic rock and yes a bit of prog rock (a lot of it was good and Joe has stated on radio he is a fan). I don't really care if he throws in new ideas. That's what keeps things fresh and interesting. I am sure if he started to just churn out the same old year in year out he would throw the towel in with boredom. He knows how to progress and what a way to start with the tour de force sets.
If you want traditional blues, watch Seasick Steve http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3Iam7JELDM or Hugh Lawrie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuKA7UTaYB8. I want ever evolving blues based music and I can only see one artist really doing that at the moment. I just say, 'bring it on'. big_smile

Come on the Blades (sorry Idolbone just had to borrow your line)

Re: Is Joe re-defining the modern day Blues?

There's one hell of a lot of waffle on this page, but anyone who thinks that Joe is doing anything with the blues that hasn't been done since 1968 is in my view deluded. Joe is much more a revivalist, than an innovator.

I do agree with the point that his life show has moved further from the blues since Derek joined the band. Maybe it's time to ditch the blues label for good.

"The recently formed Edinburgh Blues Club has identified an appetite for the personal communication between musicians and audience that the blues long ago perfected." The Herald Newspaper (Scotland)
http://www.edinburgh-blues.uk

Re: Is Joe re-defining the modern day Blues?

Greenose wrote:

There's one hell of a lot of waffle on this page, but anyone who thinks that Joe is doing anything with the blues that hasn't been done since 1968 is in my view deluded. Joe is much more a revivalist, than an innovator.

I do agree with the point that his life show has moved further from the blues since Derek joined the band. Maybe it's time to ditch the blues label for good.

Spot On !!

Re: Is Joe re-defining the modern day Blues?

Mmmmmmmmmmm..... waffles............. lol

Come on the Blades (sorry Idolbone just had to borrow your line)

Re: Is Joe re-defining the modern day Blues?

Greenose wrote:

There's one hell of a lot of waffle on this page, but anyone who thinks that Joe is doing anything with the blues that hasn't been done since 1968 is in my view deluded. Joe is much more a revivalist, than an innovator.

I do agree with the point that his life show has moved further from the blues since Derek joined the band. Maybe it's time to ditch the blues label for good.

Wouldn't go that far as Joe is still the Blues.As I have seen and read he calls his interpretation of the blues liberal.

Your rock candy baby
Your hard sweet and sticky

Re: Is Joe re-defining the modern day Blues?

I'd say his music is Blues based but his range is immense. Few players IMO have demonstrated such a diverse mix of musical styles in their output. Reinventing or redefining? No.
Rick

Free download from Vienna! http://mbsy.co/bNLR
Lots of unique videos of Joe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwd5vL8fXTw
Buy Joe's merchandise here. http://www.jbonamassa.com/affiliates/id … hp?id=1381

44 (edited by Bluemac 2013-11-25 03:42:21)

Re: Is Joe re-defining the modern day Blues?

Bluemac wrote:
GMac wrote:

As you say, Jim, the Hammersmith DVD is basically what we got in Europe this Fall and as the Hammersmith DVD is my least favourite of the four, that accounts for my slight disappointment when I saw him live this time. I love the simpler blues stuff and am not keen on prog rock, so of course I would have been a happy bunny if he'd brought the Shepherd's Bush set! But I respect Joe's commitment to always challenging himself. Sometimes he changes so fast that it's hard for us fans to keep up.

I'm intrigued to see what JB Mark III is going to look like next year. Sometimes what he does is more my thing, sometimes less so, but at least he's never boring!



On one of the Tour de Force interviews Joe says he's at his happiest playing on stage with the horns - so who knows, maybe he'll fire up the horns and go back to playing pure blues for a bit...

Having just listened to Joe's Christmas song I'm guessing he didn't bring a whole horn ensemble into the studio just to record that one song - I wonder if this is a taste of what the new album/Joe Mk III is going to sound like next year...!?

Even fools say something worthwhile now and again

Re: Is Joe re-defining the modern day Blues?

Joe's liberal interpretation of the blues includes classing Led Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix as blues artists. While their blues influences were clearly evident, these acts both then and now are commonly seen as rock artists. I think most people would agree with the latter definition. Likewise I'd say most of Joe's material is blues influenced rock music. It is though fair to say that he has been influential on younger guitar players, whether you'd describe their work as blues would follow the same debate

As for his range, I guess that depends who you use as a yardstick, obviously wider than your average blues artist, yet his solo studio albums do follow a regular formula. It's also fair to state that in the industry he is primarily known as an interpreter of guitar based music rather than a multi-genre artist.

"The recently formed Edinburgh Blues Club has identified an appetite for the personal communication between musicians and audience that the blues long ago perfected." The Herald Newspaper (Scotland)
http://www.edinburgh-blues.uk

Re: Is Joe re-defining the modern day Blues?

Greenose wrote:

Joe's liberal interpretation of the blues includes classing Led Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix as blues artists. While their blues influences were clearly evident, these acts both then and now are commonly seen as rock artists. I think most people would agree with the latter definition. Likewise I'd say most of Joe's material is blues influenced rock music. It is though fair to say that he has been influential on younger guitar players, whether you'd describe their work as blues would follow the same debate

As for his range, I guess that depends who you use as a yardstick, obviously wider than your average blues artist, yet his solo studio albums do follow a regular formula. It's also fair to state that in the industry he is primarily known as an interpreter of guitar based music rather than a multi-genre artist.

Greenose wrote:

Joe's liberal interpretation of the blues includes classing Led Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix as blues artists. While their blues influences were clearly evident, these acts both then and now are commonly seen as rock artists. I think most people would agree with the latter definition. Likewise I'd say most of Joe's material is blues influenced rock music. It is though fair to say that he has been influential on younger guitar players, whether you'd describe their work as blues would follow the same debate

As for his range, I guess that depends who you use as a yardstick, obviously wider than your average blues artist, yet his solo studio albums do follow a regular formula. It's also fair to state that in the industry he is primarily known as an interpreter of guitar based music rather than a multi-genre artist.

This again is true.    The actual number of truly 'multi-genre' guitar players can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand.   Always drives me mad when Clapton fans list 'reggae' as a style that he plays just because he covered Marley's I shot the Sheriff.

47 (edited by DougH 2013-11-25 09:00:27)

Re: Is Joe re-defining the modern day Blues?

The one thing that Joe does 'head and shoulders' above anyone is SHARE his knowledge that he's gained over the years.
Try to get anyone of the greats (even if they were alive) to share the depth of knowledge they had garnered, Joe does this freely.
That alone he is defining a new standard for any artist blues or not; try get Miley or JustinB to share freely.

I firmly believe that since Joe is not a 'Delta Blues' guitarist by nature but a 'British Rock Blues' guitarist, the "blues" genre should be dropped.
He'd get a lot more commercial rock station airplay if they dropped that blues moniker.



I think that's about all I want (or should say) in this current debate.

---------------

(If only I had 1% of Joe's guitar talent)

48 (edited by Rocket 2013-11-25 17:39:43)

Re: Is Joe re-defining the modern day Blues?

Joe invites everybody to the table...something about gratitude as an attitude...even in the losing and near defeats...

And who else is playing Soulful Funky Jazz Blues Rock Modern Classical Hard World BLUES??? smile


Soulful Jazz Blues Rock Modern Classical Hard Funky World Conquer Quest ON & Keep the Sorting Blues Faith,
Rocket

Sounds like another year of Thanks Giving wink

"He still doesn't charge for mistakes! wink"
http://jbonamassa.com/tour-dates/
"Everybody wants ta get inta the act!"
“Now, this isn’t your ordinary party crowd, here.  I mean, there are professionals in here.”

49 (edited by gary 2013-11-25 22:01:37)

Re: Is Joe re-defining the modern day Blues?

Rocket wrote:

Joe invites everybody to the table...something about gratitude as an attitude...even in the losing and near defeats...

And who else is playing Soulful Funky Jazz Blues Rock Modern Classical Hard World BLUES??? smile



Soulful Jazz Blues Rock Modern Classical Hard Funky World Conquer Quest ON & Keep the Sorting Blues Faith,
Rocket

Sounds like another year of Thanks Giving wink

Who else?Only the Funky Doctor of Love !

Your rock candy baby
Your hard sweet and sticky

Re: Is Joe re-defining the modern day Blues?

Greenose wrote:

Joe's liberal interpretation of the blues includes classing Led Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix as blues artists. While their blues influences were clearly evident, these acts both then and now are commonly seen as rock artists. I think most people would agree with the latter definition. Likewise I'd say most of Joe's material is blues influenced rock music. It is though fair to say that he has been influential on younger guitar players, whether you'd describe their work as blues would follow the same debate

As for his range, I guess that depends who you use as a yardstick, obviously wider than your average blues artist, yet his solo studio albums do follow a regular formula. It's also fair to state that in the industry he is primarily known as an interpreter of guitar based music rather than a multi-genre artist.

People that consider Led Zeppelin, Hendrix, Clapton, as not blues artists probably are not aware that a great number of their hits and all of their influence came from the blues.  Whether it was Muddy Waters, T-Bone Walker, or Clapton's Crossroads by Robert Johnson, the British Invasion led by the above plus The Beatles and Rolling Stones, owe there success to the black blues men of the Delta.  You can add Joe to that same list.   They replaced the harp with an electric guitar and put a hard edge on it, but it's the blues.

The only thing we deserve, is an opportunity.  Everything else has to be earned.

Re: Is Joe re-defining the modern day Blues?

Very accurate !

bobkatmsu wrote:
Greenose wrote:

Joe's liberal interpretation of the blues includes classing Led Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix as blues artists. While their blues influences were clearly evident, these acts both then and now are commonly seen as rock artists. I think most people would agree with the latter definition. Likewise I'd say most of Joe's material is blues influenced rock music. It is though fair to say that he has been influential on younger guitar players, whether you'd describe their work as blues would follow the same debate

As for his range, I guess that depends who you use as a yardstick, obviously wider than your average blues artist, yet his solo studio albums do follow a regular formula. It's also fair to state that in the industry he is primarily known as an interpreter of guitar based music rather than a multi-genre artist.

People that consider Led Zeppelin, Hendrix, Clapton, as not blues artists probably are not aware that a great number of their hits and all of their influence came from the blues.  Whether it was Muddy Waters, T-Bone Walker, or Clapton's Crossroads by Robert Johnson, the British Invasion led by the above plus The Beatles and Rolling Stones, owe there success to the black blues men of the Delta.  You can add Joe to that same list.   They replaced the harp with an electric guitar and put a hard edge on it, but it's the blues.

Murfdog

Re: Is Joe re-defining the modern day Blues?

murfdog wrote:

Very accurate !

bobkatmsu wrote:
Greenose wrote:

Joe's liberal interpretation of the blues includes classing Led Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix as blues artists. While their blues influences were clearly evident, these acts both then and now are commonly seen as rock artists. I think most people would agree with the latter definition. Likewise I'd say most of Joe's material is blues influenced rock music. It is though fair to say that he has been influential on younger guitar players, whether you'd describe their work as blues would follow the same debate

As for his range, I guess that depends who you use as a yardstick, obviously wider than your average blues artist, yet his solo studio albums do follow a regular formula. It's also fair to state that in the industry he is primarily known as an interpreter of guitar based music rather than a multi-genre artist.

People that consider Led Zeppelin, Hendrix, Clapton, as not blues artists probably are not aware that a great number of their hits and all of their influence came from the blues.  Whether it was Muddy Waters, T-Bone Walker, or Clapton's Crossroads by Robert Johnson, the British Invasion led by the above plus The Beatles and Rolling Stones, owe there success to the black blues men of the Delta.  You can add Joe to that same list.   They replaced the harp with an electric guitar and put a hard edge on it, but it's the blues.

Everyone is aware of the influence that blues artists had on rock n roll and early rock artists, yet it was never the dominant style of any of the acts you name.

The reason they were not called blues acts when they emerged because they sounded very different from artists that did play blues. The Brits invaders played rock n roll while later bands like Zeppelin played rock. Listen to the music, it's really not difficult to work out the difference.

"The recently formed Edinburgh Blues Club has identified an appetite for the personal communication between musicians and audience that the blues long ago perfected." The Herald Newspaper (Scotland)
http://www.edinburgh-blues.uk

Re: Is Joe re-defining the modern day Blues?

and this is what happens when you try to define something that does not need defining. sad

My YouTube channel with plenty of my Joe's videos dating from 2009 inc his first Hammersmith Odeon ones:
http://www.youtube.com/ian916fun

Re: Is Joe re-defining the modern day Blues?

The Stones, Yardbirds, Cream, John Mayall etc obviously had strong Blues roots.  Zeppelin did also and spent a lot of their time trying to defend plagiarism cases bought by some of the great blues artists.

Nah to the Beatles though. Virtually no direct Blues influences at all.  They were a Skiffle band. 

You could argue bout some indirect blues influence from Elvis and 50's rock and roll like Little Richard and Bill Haley etc.