Basic blues lesson video

[glauber]

I found this (http://www.homespuntapes.com/prodpg/prodpg.asp?prodID=747) mostly by accident. Enjoy! The sample is near the bottom of the page. It's about 2 minutes long in WMV format.

[bjc]

The Steve James tape is a good starting point for Blues mando...

[arbarnhart]

I bought it, used it for a while and sold it, so my opinion is a little mixed. IMO, it teaches you a few tunes and exposes you to technique and it might click for you and launch you further, or you might just learn the songs and enjoy the performances on the DVD. I hate to be such a fence rider, but I am glad I bought it but not sorry I sold it, if that makes any sense. It helps, but it is not a course in fundamentals.

[ira]

i have mixed feelings about it as well. -it's ok would be my review- get it used!

[JimRichter]

My thing about blues mandolin (or blues guitar, etc.) is that, like the cliche goes, the blues is a feeling. #Blues mando really isn't as technically demanding as bluegrass or jazz. #However, what blues has in my opinion, that the others don't have, is nuance. #I remember reading an article on Eric Clapton years ago when he started returning to his blues "roots." #He talked about really studying great singers like Muddy Waters or Freddy King and discovering the microtonal subtleties in their singing/phrasing. #Now that is something that can be practiced, but in reality, it is really only something that will come from listening to that music incessantly. #

As a blues guitarist (and now a mandolinist), I know more about playing music from listening/being exposed to it than sitting down trying to learn anything. #A video tape teaching blues mandolin seems like a pretty sterile environment to learn from. # But it is true that I'm biased against instructional videos anyway. #Blues is not overtly technical, but it has lots of nuance. #You can learn some of the technique from Steve James, but he can't teach the expression. #That only comes from the immersion in the idiom. #Without that immersion, all you end up learning are some hollow cliches.

Jim

[johnsmusic]

I agree with Jim, Just listen to Rich Del Grosso...the man's got the feelin' J

[mandocrucian]

My thing about blues mandolin (or blues guitar, etc.) is that, like the cliche goes, the blues is a feeling. #Blues mando really isn't as technically demanding as bluegrass or jazz. #However, what blues has in my opinion, that the others don't have, is nuance.

Sorry, I've got to disagree.

If blues is so technically less demanding why is that you really don't hear much blues mando that is actually convincing?

Is stop and start phrasing technically inferior than playing a fast never-stopping stream of 16th notes totally devoid of any rhythmic variation? #I suppose so if you've got the (usual) stylistic bias for machine-gun mando .

And how do you define "nuance"? #There's no technique in vibrato, sting bending, tone control, volume control, intentionally pushing half the string-pair out of tune, string splitting, heavy use of hammer-ons pull-offs pick-glides and slides, intentional deviations from down-up-down-up pick direction, working the neck up and down just as much as playing across the string in one position, use of fingers as well as the flatpick....???

I guess none of that is technically demanding compared to playing 250mph fiddle tunes.

Niles Hokkanen

[ira]

both jim and niles make good points- i would disagree with niles re: convincing blues mando- i don't think there is too much out there, but what i have heard is convincing- this aspect is purely opinion.
re: the feel vs. technique- though i don't love the video, i know that i continuously work on blues techniques and have alot to learn in order to grow to where i want to be. these technical aspects of playing in any genre are an important part of the puzzle. but on the flipside, there are genres in which technical proficiency will be enough to make people turn on to what you are doing. i don't believe that this is the case with the blues. there has to be a feeling behind it and those subtleties in voice and instrumentation that give the feeling that the audience can buy into. kinda like a good folk song- you need a good story teller.
all of this is my opinion, but i know that i can sell a rock song by playin the notes and singing the words on key, but to sell the blues to an audience- you need that indescribable something.

just my 25cents,
ira:blues:
ps- please comment, but nothing here is a flame, so don't attack- peace all!

[bjc]

Just to clarify I said the tape was a good STARTING point...i.e. to get your head around how the mando CAN be used in blues...it is not the mando blues bible my any means...I haven't looked at that tape for years, but it got me off to a good start...

[bluesmandolinman]

ira - abarnhart - bjc

what do you expect from a 60 minutes video....
to find the one-lick-that-fits-it-all ?

of course it is not more than just a little step on a long way. some songs ..some licks... learn it and go on to find the next lesson to learn. All the great Bluesmen had to learn it the haaaard way until they were as good as they are recognized...they didn´t make it in one lesson either....

therefore I don´t understand why you are not satisfied with the video ( I am - because I learned another lesson ! )... to me it looks like you simply had unrealistic expectations

[mandocrucian]

i would disagree with niles re: convincing blues mando- i don't think there is too much out there, but what i have heard is convincing- this aspect is purely opinion.

There are some out there, playing the blues - the older country-blues guys Yank Rachell, Carl Martin etc, and then Johnny Young (more Chicago and the players that have followed along those lines (Cooder, Steve James, Del Grosso).

However, a bluegrasser, celtic or contest type guy playing some blues licks or blues scales doesn't usually come across to my ears as being "convincing" (as blues) any more than a classical violinist playing old-time. #The notes may be OK, and the person may be a decent player in their own genre but the actor speaks the wrong accent/language for the role.

NH

[ira]

i think we are agreeing but are semantically at odds- peace!

[glauber]

I just play whatever comes to me, and let others decide if it's Blues of Celtic or what. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif But i agree, if i'm telling people i'm a blues player (or Irish, or whatever), i better do my homework and get myself situated in the tradition.

[Perry]

I cut and paste my reply below from another thread last month or so. To me the way I think of it is that the blues is very physically demanding from an execution standpoint yet not nearly as harmonically complex as let' say a jazz standard. That's what I was trying to express below. I will say that Steve James has got what I consider an "authentic" blues mandolin sound. Watching him tremelo on his blues tape is worth the price of admission. I agree with Bluesmandolinman that The "Steve James" tape and really any tape or book is just the beginning in a lifetime pursuit. If you really LISTEN to what Steve is saying and doing and really try to MIMIC it you will learn a great deal.

I think most of agree that the way to really learn any style is to listen and happily absorb.

-------------------
For that old blues sound I think the best way to learn it is to listen to it.....it's really not so much the note selection as much as the technique and feel. When you listen to guys like Yank, Carl, Johnny it's all feel. They are not playing complicated passages at all. You can never get that feel from a book. I think you just need to attempt to mimic it right off the stereo and just listen to the stuff over and over until you absorb it.

I heard an interesting workshop where guitar player Steve Kimock was talking about how the old blues guys sounded out of tune but in reality they had the right minor third zoned in on on their instruments and today if you tune up to a tuner your minor thirds are going to be a little sharp and not quite right. The discussion was over my head but it is available on archive.org. I can't seem to locate it right now but I think the latest Guitar Player has him discussing the concepts.
-------------------

[JimRichter]

Is stop and start phrasing technically inferior than playing a fast never-stopping stream of 16th notes totally devoid of any rhythmic variation? #I suppose so if you've got the (usual) stylistic bias for machine-gun mando .

I guess none of that is technically demanding compared to playing 250mph fiddle tunes.
Niles, I think we're on the same side of the coin, but just at different ends. #Yes, "nuance" really does require specialized technique. #Yes, blues mandolin does require discipline, study, and development of technique. #However, I still contend it doesn't require the same level of technical virtuosity that bluegrass or jazz takes.

But you miss my point (and honestly, maybe I didn't make it clear enough) is that in blues, you don't have to be a technical virtuoso if you understand the music. That was my point about an instructional tape. #It's a good jumping off point, but something like the blues requires immersion in the music. #Blues, I feel, requires you to make more out of less. #It's the groove, the feeling, and not necessarily how perfect you are. #That's where cats like Hound Dog Taylor truly rocked. #Hound Dog's bag was pure dynamite, yet his playing was pretty limited--though he knew how to use what he knew to the fullest.

I love the blues. #I was immersed in that culture for over a dozen years before returning to old time/bluegrass. #This is boastful and opens me up to challenges, but I know good blues from bad; cliched from exciting. #The guys who got it know the subtleties of the music. #When I played electric guitar, I knew lots of guys who could technically outplay me--but they couldn't play the blues the way I could. #I listened to and studied the stuff--much the way Compton studied Monroe or you've studied the rock side of mandolin. #I got to a point where I didn't try to copy--it was just me.

I'm not a fan of machine gun mandolin (or guitar) and didn't say that. #I'd take Son Seals over Walter Trout (or Mike Compton over Chris Thile) any day. #Doesn't mean I don't appreciate the virutosity, but it doesn't move me.

In the end, my clumsy point is that although there are lots of very subtle techniques in blues playing (microtonal bends, vibratos, tremelos, slurs, hesitations, etc), the technique is not as important as understanding how to use those techniques. #Lots of people learn the technique, but are duds when it comes to expression. #This doesn't mean that a person with incredible technique can't play the blues--but they have to understand the music. #That's what separates an SRV from Gary Moore (in talking of heavyweight guitarists. #SRV lived that music; although Gary Moore could get close to the blues, he still approached it too much from the rock edge of things).

And, when I speak of convincing blues performance, I'm talking in general and not specific to mandolin. #Unfortunately in terms of mandolin, I here I lot of guys who think blues mando stopped at Yank. #That's where cats like Billy Flynn and Rich DelGrosso are refreshing cause they are the real deal and don't stop at merely copying someone. #

Jim

[mandocrucian]

However, I still contend it doesn't require the same level of technical virtuosity that bluegrass or jazz takes.

I'm willing to go along with the jazz comparison, especially if you're talking about "Donna Lee" , "Giant steps" etc. #Lot of harmonic complexity to navigate. #But as far as BG being requiring more virtuosity, that's really debateable. First it all depends on your definition and criteria of the term. #Weight-lifting vs. marathon running or hurdling, or swimming...so what muscle group outranks the others?


But you miss my point (and honestly, maybe I didn't make it clear enough) is that in blues, you don't have to be a technical virtuoso if you understand the music.

You don't have to be a technical virtuoso to play good bluegrass either; you just need taste. Play something that is melody related and eliminate all the notey 'glop' and the "look at me" self-indulgent trash licks. There's plenty of the latter in every genre - rock, country, funk, jazz....

What I object to is what seems to be the elevation of fast tempo playing (usually without any rhythmic variation or interest) to be the definition of "superior technique." #As if that's the only technical aspect of playing that really matters. It's a skill, but it's not the only skill.


In the end, my clumsy point is that although there are lots of very subtle techniques in blues playing (microtonal bends, vibratos, tremelos, slurs, hesitations, etc), the technique is not as important as understanding how to use those techniques. #

If you don't have control over those techniques, knowing when you should use them, if you could, is a moot point. The same thing could be said about using the major scale; being able to physically play one isn't as important as knowing when and how to play one.

How are you going to understand when to apply these things without first being able to do them? And then spending all the trial-and-error time to know when and where to most effectively apply them?

Being able to play a note sequence one way (say, every note with a pickstroke), but ultra fast #vs. being able to play the same passage a dozen different ways (different slurrings, different articulations etc.) as your mental ear hears it at the moment. Who says the former is more demanding than the cumulative flexibity of the latter? Playing fast is only one component, not the only component! #But it seems like the only thing a lot of folks are interested in is who gets the checkered flag first.

Something else to keep in mind is that most of those techniques are a whole lot toughter on a mandolin with it's short, tight string length than it is on an electric (or acoustic) guitar. And to do some of the same rhythm playing stuff on a mandolin is way more difficult than it is on a guitar neck. #Try "Cold Shot" or "Pride & Joy" on a guitar vs. or mandolin and tell me it's the same. It's twice the work on a mando.

Just because something appears easy in a certain player, doesn't mean that it is. Maybe it only seems that way, because they have it down to such a degree that it appears no effort is involved? Or to be able to strip things down to only playing the essential notes at precisely the right moment? How many years of playing experience did it take get to that point?

NH

[Seth Rosen]

[QUOTE]What I object to is what seems to be the elevation of fast tempo playing (usually without any rhythmic variation or interest) to be the definition of "superior technique." #As if that's the only technical aspect of playing that really matters. It's a skill, but it's not the only skill.



Amen!

[ira]

this discussion believe it or not (please no flames) reminds me of a t.v. episode of mash that always stuck with me. in the episode maj. winchester has to amputate the arm of a soldier and finds out later that the soldier was a concert level pianist. he tries to help the man see that there are left handed pieces, that he could conduct and compose. when the man scoffs at the notion of himself as a musician when he only had one arm. charles tells him about the many years that he studied music, and says: i can make the notes but i can't make the music"
i know its from a sitcom, but that stuck with me, regarding the certain indescribable "it" that some folks have and some don't in all fields, but especially music. many have it to lesser degrees, and some don't at all, but the "it" is the reason why two people are playing the same tune in the same range in the same way, and one turns you on and one doesn't.