# Can a White Boy Sing the Blues?



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Bear with me for a second, please:

Last night I watched Django Unchained. It was hard to watch it without the sound of Spike Lee's condemnations ringing in my ears. Spike has previous: he criticised The Color Purple for - among many things - getting "some Dutch guy to write the script and Spielberg to direct it: he knows nothing about black people." Complaining about Whoopi Goldberg, he asked: "Is she saying that a white person is the only person who can define our existence?"

Strong stuff. Spike has written Jewish characters into his films, and obviously the same rules apply, whether or not he would acknowledge this himself. But regardless of the rights or wrongs, does there come a point where a "foreigner" can't fully represent either a people or a national culture effectively.

Example in the headline is a classic rhetorical question/put-down: Can a white boy sing the blues?

Example from classical music: Can a German composer write Italian operas? And French operas? We know they have, but do they work the same as the works of Italian (or French) composers? Is it mere imitation, but without a full understanding of the inner workings? Can a nations distinctive and characteristic music be appropriated effectively and successfully by a person from a different land? Or can the characteristics that make Italian opera musically different to German opera simply be reduced to technique?

I'm using German, French and Italians as examples, by the way. I'm sure there are more examples, and better ones...


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I remember in classic interviews singer / songwriter Ian Anderson claimed to have given up the blues because he is the wrong color. However I think it doesn't matter. Where cultures collide and meld is where creativity sometimes resides. Witness the incorporation of jazz-like elements in the opening of Dutilleux's first symphony. 

For me it doesn't matter how accurate or credible is the cross cultural pollination. Something new can arise.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

I suppose a better example might be the Turkish music Mozart composed for The Abduction, and the rondo alla turca, of which I've read, it wasn't actually authentic Turkish music, just music which an Austrian composer thought sounded like Turkish music...


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I know that Beethoven isn't much cop at writing Scottish airs, if that's any help?


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Ingélou said:


> I know that Beethoven isn't much cop at writing Scottish airs, if that's any help?


And why would he be? He probably thought Scotland was somewhere in Dublin. :lol:



Weston said:


> I remember in classic interviews singer / songwriter Ian Anderson claimed to have given up the blues because he is the wrong color. However I think it doesn't matter. Where cultures collide and meld is where creativity sometimes resides. Witness the incorporation of jazz-like elements in the opening of Dutilleux's first symphony.
> 
> For me it doesn't matter how accurate or credible is the cross cultural pollination. Something new can arise.


This is true: it becomes "something new", like Icelandic jazz, which probably sounds a million miles different to the original source. There's also the issue, however, of the "******", the white boy pretending to be black, and looking ridiculous. Mid-Atlantic twangs are a bugbear of mine, all that cultural appropriation: appropriating hip gyrations and false Mississippi drawls. To me, it just sounds so terrible, doesn't matter who it is.

But in the matter of Italian opera, or Hungarian marches, can foreign composers get to the hub of it?


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

In the case of Mozart I think the idea was simply to give the opera some token exoticism to suit both the action and location and perhaps highlight what was seen from a 'European' perspective the more negative aspects of Ottoman culture, especially as regards the portrayal of the unsavoury Osmin character. Had 'real' Turkish music been used within the confines of a _singspiel_-type soundworld it may not have scanned too well anyway, so a halfway-house approximation was probably better, especially as it wouldn't have been easy to reproduce an authentic Turkish sound on Western instruments.

Also, the neighbouring Habsburg and Ottoman empires weren't exactly the best of chums during the 18th century so perhaps there was a subliminal political reason why the parodying of a Turkish musical style seemed more appropriate than attempting anything more realistic.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

To answer the question as posed in the subject line: Yes, a white boy can sing the blues - as long as they are white boy blues.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Berry Gordy, who founded the Motown record label, had many great singers on his roster but there was one who he had a particular fondness for, Chris Clark, a 6ft tall platinum blonde white girl! And regarding the blues, if you look closely at the credits for the movie _Lady Sings the Blues_, the name that you will see for the Oscar nominated script is ... Chris Clark.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Kieran said:


> Example from classical music: Can a German composer write Italian operas? And French operas? We know they have, but do they work the same as the works of Italian (or French) composers? Is it mere imitation, but without a full understanding of the inner workings?


Probably yes (even Gluck's music never became French enough to satisfy Debussy) (though of course one country's misunderstanding of another's music can itself be artistically productive).

But this is different from the case of white and black Americans, who are two castes from the _same_ country, and whose cultural differences, such as they are, may not even be as important as class differences within the same country. e.g. compare working class white early Eminem with middle class black Spike Lee trying to write working class black people.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

No! A blues singer must obviously be BLUE! D'oh!


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Or as the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band once asked so presciently, 'Can Blue Men Sing The Whites?'


----------



## Guest (Feb 22, 2016)

Maybe it hinges on the judgment of how authentic the creation is.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I don't know about "white boys" attempting to sing the blues.

It's bad enough many Hollywood white folk and young white kids in general use black expressions in an attempt to be cool.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

As to moving between countries, Lully was Italian, worked in French and helped develop the French Baroque style. Handel was German but worked in English and Italian and is often described as quintessentially English.

When we lived in Durham, there were a number of people who sang authentic Delta blues despite being white - the Delta in question being that of the Tees.

Interestingly, when journalists in the UK listened to the early promo discs of both Lulu and Dusty Springlfield without reading the bio, they assumed that they were listening to a black singer.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

The 'Blues', at least to me, is any and all music that expresses the pain of human existence. One need not sing or write in the style of Muddy Waters to be a Blues singer.

Latin American Blues...


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Morimur just gave a good direct answer to the literal part of this thread.

Thinking about people from different nationalities or cultural groups who made good works of art in a style that ought to have been foreign to them, one that readily comes to mind is Joseph Conrad, the Polish author of English novels. His command of this language that isn't his native tongue is masterful and he writes about political intrigue in London and English men in the Pacific Islands, among other things. I used to find his style difficult to comprehend at times, partly due to the general flowery standards of late Victorian and Eduardian writing, partly due to his odd command of the English language. Interesting sentence constructions that are not necessarily directly informed by Polish(I would assume, thought I don't know Polish), but definitely are a bit different. I was reading a history of Spain that mentioned a Basque author who had written many Spanish novels, and how his writing was considered superb but strange, owing that difference to his mother tongue.

So, a bit different, but language makes its obvious how it is probably impossible to entirely shed certain cultural aspects of oneself.

When listening to music, it is harder to verify that nationality and language is inescapably influencing the work of a composer. And yet I beleive that it is, even on a deeper level than trends of a country a given composer may feel compelled to conform to. 

You can look at two French composers as historically removed and different as Rameau and Berlioz. They have something to them, a certain sidestepping, ingenious and slippery unprectability that I have come to associate with many French composers. Those adjectives don't quite get St the essence of what I think o perceive, but I feel there is something, even when we get to the polished late Romantic like Bizet or Saint Saens. Berlioz is considered very German in his scope and grandiosity, but he stills has something French about him to my ears.

I think language is doing this, as well as culture. Another nationality that had a distinct personality are the Czechs. Czechs often virtually assimilated with Germans or Austrians in the 18th century, and there is current of "the germanic" in Dvorak, but they often have an approach to phrasing and melody that is extremely refreshing to me. Even Johann Stamitz, a Czech in reality, seems to have something like this.

As for Italian Symphony of Mendelssohn or Italian operas of Mozart, we are dealing with incredible minds of course, and I definitely feel these are Italian informed works, but.....it's really hard for me to say. The bottom line is, does it matter if it feels "Italian" or "Black" to the core, as long as it is moving?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Morimur said:


> The 'Blues', at least to me, is any music that expresses the pain of human existence. One need not sing or write in the style of Muddy Waters to be a Blues singer.


I agree with this as a general principle. In the largest sense, many genres can thus be considered analogs of The Blues: Fado and Flamenco, for example. But I think experience shows that only those brought up within a specific subculture can sing that subculture's "roots" music with authenticity. In traditional flamenco, for instance, there are no non-Spanish singers who can be considered at a level with those born and bred within the flamenco subculture. An American woman, Moreen Sondra Silver, came close, but still not the real deal. A few non-Spaniards have mastered traditional flamenco guitar, but only a few. And, in my opinion, nobody can sing African-American Blues with the authenticity of voice, theme, manner, mood, affect as the originators of that genre, though Jonny Lang came close in his first two albums, especially _Wander This World_.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

This is a preposterous notion... What one man can do, another can do (no matter the color).


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Johny Cash and Hank Williams Sr. for country blues, Eric Clapton for the main genre. There is others too, but I'm too tired to remember.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

With all the talk of movies and non classical music, does this thread even belong here?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Fugue Meister said:


> With all the talk of movies and non classical music, does this thread even belong here?


If it were _literally_ about the Blues, then no, but it's about cultural appropriation in general, and is thus very strongly related to the Classical tradition.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Fugue Meister said:


> This is a preposterous notion... What one man can do, another can do (no matter the color).


Please specify the preposterous notion such that your post can be properly understood.


----------



## nbergeron (Dec 30, 2015)

Yeah, I'd echo what some have said that it's not possible to exactly replicate art (a part of culture) from a different culture. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as a mix of cultural influences can result in a unique, interesting product, provided the borrowed culture is treated respectfully.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

The blues and the Blues are not the same beastie. It is not necessary to be immersed in poor Southern black culture to have and/or sing the blues. I can attest to the existence of the blues in a poor, northern Appalachian white boy; others in that category have been able to sing about it, even though I couldn't.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Strange Magic said:


> I agree with this as a general principle. In the largest sense, many genres can thus be considered analogs of The Blues: Fado and Flamenco, for example. But I think experience shows that only those brought up within a specific subculture can sing that subculture's "roots" music with authenticity. In traditional flamenco, for instance, there are no non-Spanish singers who can be considered at a level with those born and bred within the flamenco subculture. An American woman, Moreen Sondra Silver, came close, but still not the real deal. A few non-Spaniards have mastered traditional flamenco guitar, but only a few. And, in my opinion, nobody can sing African-American Blues with the authenticity of voice, theme, manner, mood, affect as the originators of that genre, though Jonny Lang came close in his first two albums, especially _Wander This World_.


but this does not have to do with the color of the skin, I guess it has to do with the fact that usually those who are immersed in a culture tend to have a deeper understanding of all the nuances of the music.
Dock Boggs for instance was absolutely white but to me he's one of the greatest blues singers ever






And I think that the italian Rosa Balistreri could have been an exceptional flamenco singer


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> Please specify the preposterous notion such that your post can be properly understood.


I thought the second part of my post would have taken care of that. The notion that a white man can't sing the blues because he's white is preposterous, as much as suggesting a black man can't sing opera or yodel. Anyone who has a heart to do something can learn to do it (I will go as far to say as long as they have a modicum of talent for singing, I suppose if your white or black and tone deaf, no amount of heart will help that cause).


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I'm so glad this topic was brought up here on TalkClassical. It has larger repercussions than can possibly be discussed here alone. What Kieran has brought up is something known as "tribalism" or otherwise known as "nationalism." I believe that this is a fundamentally more evil human condition than racism. Racism splits people of different colored skin apart. Tribalism splits people of_ all _walks of life apart. It is overwhelmingly more disgusting to hear someone say "Because you didn't come from my background, you'll never relate to me." Good question, "Can I white boy sing the blues?" It's as valid a question as "Can a black man play Mozart?" The answer is a resounding _yes_. This isn't to say that one's cultural background has nothing to do with expression. In fact, that's what makes cultural expression so unique and poignant. Nationalist/Tribalist pride_ is _a real thing. But who says that someone from the outside can't eventually gain a similar knowledge and passion as the "indigenous" people have? There are enough cases of this in history to ground this as fact.

Imagine me, then. I'm not Russian. I can't speak Russian. I do know a thing or two of how Russia (USSR) has directly effected my own human existence. I've probably mentioned in the past somewhere on TalkClassical that if Finland lost to the Soviet Union in the Winter War of 1939-1940, and subsequently become a communist satellite country, I would not have existed, plain and simple. My own _relatives _would not have existed, or could have reached untimely deaths, either in Siberia, or through war/exile. Basically that's the only "cultural" influence that Russia actually has on me. Russia almost led to my _nonexistence_. That's enough said on that topic. So then, as non-affiliated with Russia, what is my affiliation as a lover of Russian music? Do I _need _to speak Russian, to visit Russia, to live/study in Russia, to be Russian Orthodox, etc. to gain knowledge of their musical culture? Well, have those things brought me to the place I've reached now? The answer is a resounding _no_. Those things don't _validate _my passion for Russian music, though they _compliment _it. I certainly want to visit Russia, and I certainly want to get a grasp of the Russian language, hopefully to help with my musicological research. Rather, I have made an avenue to the Russian soul by a long history of appreciating their work, namely music and literature, and also a bit of visual art and architecture. This history of appreciation coincides with my musicological research of reading many books, of talking with musicians (Russians and non-Russians), of getting to know the deeper history behind things. Through _thousands _of hours of doing this, does this not add up to something unique, something that may not necessarily give me Russian citizenship, but at least give me reason to say "I think I understand the Russian soul" ? Who's soul is _perfectly _understandable, anyhow? Do I even understand the _Finnish _soul, or the _Finnish American_ soul? That's all arrogance. It doesn't work that way. I love Russian culture, through and through. I know the seedy side, I know the noble side. And I still love it and want to continue loving and getting to know it the rest of my life, however long that is. And I won't let even a _Russian _tell me "You can't know us" or "You could never perform a Russian composition the way a Russian could" when I _may _even know more than some Russians. Tribalism is one of the deepest forms of arrogance, of nationalist "pride" gone haywire. I love Russia as if it were my own country. Is that enough? What more have I to prove?

So I've finished my point.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

@norman bates: Thanks for posting the Rosa Balistreri video! Most excellent, and I agree that, had she been raised within the flamenco subculture, she would have been a most successful _cantaora_.

It is clear to me that everyone's stated positions so far are correct: the potential for anyone to sing with some degree of authenticity the music of anyone else's subculture, is universal. The question then becomes what degree of authenticity does one then require? None of this really has anything to do with skin color.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

The notion that a white man can't sing the blues because he's white is preposterous, as much as suggesting a black man can't sing opera... 

Yes. I somehow doubt most would even think to suggest that Black Americans cannot sing opera... which in theory is wholly outside of their culture. And yet... Jessye Norman, Kathleen Battle, Barbara Hendricks, Leontyne Price, etc...


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> The notion that a white man can't sing the blues because he's white is preposterous, as much as suggesting a black man can't sing opera...
> 
> Yes. I somehow doubt most would even think to suggest that Black Americans cannot sing opera... which in theory is wholly outside of their culture. And yet... Jessye Norman, Kathleen Battle, Barbara Hendricks, Leontyne Price, etc...


That's sort of why I threw yodeling in there...


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I can and sometimes do. I'm white.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> I know that Beethoven isn't much cop at writing Scottish airs, if that's any help?


Wasn't he provided with the tunes?


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Fugue Meister said:


> I thought the second part of my post would have taken care of that. The notion that a white man can't sing the blues because he's white is preposterous, as much as suggesting a black man can't sing opera or yodel. Anyone who has a heart to do something can learn to do it (I will go as far to say as long as they have a modicum of talent for singing, I suppose if your white or black and tone deaf, no amount of heart will help that cause).


Bear in mind again that the thread isn't really about the blues, although this is a handy shortcut for it. A white man sing the blues? It's been a question that's become an accusation, thrown at fellers as diverse as Elvis and Mick Jagger, who have been accused of cultural piracy and blackface in their lampooning/imitation of the black experience. I was in Rome recently and after marching about the eternal city all day, developed a thirst, went into an Irish bar called Scholars. There was a band rigged up with fiddles and banjos, ready to play. And play they did. The Indian barman asked if I was Irish, and after the affirmative, he said I'd enjoy these boys.

The Irish barmaid rolled her eyes.

I enjoyed it, but not because it was good music. It was the worst sort of Hollywood diddly-aye music imaginable. They were playing the parody of Oirishness with straight faces. They thought that this what we play.

Okay, so they were a poor band maybe. Or maybe they just didn't get the Irish, and how much Irishness inhabits that music. Take it back to the purpose of the thread. Elgar composed Hungarian dances. My question is: at that level of musicianship, can he transcend the cultural blindspot (and deaf-spot) and reduce the form to mere technique, then replicate it perfectly? Are musics that are distinctive to a nation or race reducible in that way?

And is it racist to do so? Or is okay and reasonable, and even more so, honourable because it's a form of compliment? And if this is the case, is it a form of reverse racism to insult people who do this (which probably means most composers)?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Not being an Elgar-ite, I don't know what those dances sounded like. Brahms composed some too, eh? and they were sort of Gypsy-like, not Hungarian folk-like. Liszt did that too. The thing is, the Gypsies weren't confined to Hungary, and neither was their music.

The Irish have spread themselves all over North America, the Caribbean and parts south and west. Did they bring Irish music with them? 

Sorry guy, I'm having a problem focusing on your question.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Ukko said:


> Not being an Elgar-ite, I don't know what those dances sounded like. Brahms composed some too, eh? and they were sort of Gypsy-like, not Hungarian folk-like. Liszt did that too. The thing is, the Gypsies weren't confined to Hungary, and neither was their music.
> 
> The Irish have spread themselves all over North America, the Caribbean and parts south and west. Did they bring Irish music with them?
> 
> Sorry guy, I'm having a problem focusing on your question.


No that's okay, that's a good point! My favourite music, by the way, is Don Giovanni, a story about a Spanish aristocrat set to Italian-style music by an Austrian. I'm not in any sense opposed to this, but what I wonder is if the national boundary is ever properly crossed, or just imitated? I've seen so many times Hollywood actors and directors make "Oirish films" and it's embarrassing. Then I watch Meryl Streep run through her worthy dictionaries of accents and I cringe. However, I don't think it's always necessary to have fully lived as a person to understand the person, and some experiences are generic, and some musical forms are merely a matter of techniques. Some aren't, though. I agree with Strange Magic above on vexed topic of "authenticity" too. But also with Clavicorder, and the "incredible minds" of Mozart and Mendelssohn...


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

I find it infuriating when someone suggests aptitude for a particular type of music could have anything whatsoever to do with skin colour.
It's about the music you are exposed to, steeped in, grow up with and are attracted to.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Post deleted.
**********


----------



## Autocrat (Nov 14, 2014)

A couple of years back there was a bit of a furore when Hugh Laurie released a blues album. Not because he was white, but because he was rich. I think there's something to that.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

There is nothing impossible about a person from one culture creating or performing work effectively in a style which originates in another culture.

Alicia de Larrocha was asked if a pianist had to be Spanish to perform Albeniz and Granados authentically. She said she didn't think so. Often I think that people are just imagining things when they detect "authentic style" in musicians' performances of their country's music, and the lack of it in performances of that same music by foreign musicians. Besides, individual musicians, even within a culture, have their own personal styles; does every Czech conductor conduct Dvorak "authentically"? Sibelius praised performances of his music by Karajan and Ormandy, very different conductors and neither of them Finnish. Our ideas of what sounds "Czech" or "Finnish" in music differ. National tradition is an interesting side issue, but all that really matters is whether the music sounds well-executed and well-expressed. _Vive la difference!_


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I've always thought it was remarkable how racially integrated jazz was even from its earliest days. Black musicians who were known to express pretty militant views about race relations in general (e.g. Miles Davis) didn't hesitate to work with white musicians. Music really does transcend some things.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Kieran said:


> Bear with me for a second, please:
> 
> Last night I watched Django Unchained. It was hard to watch it without the sound of Spike Lee's condemnations ringing in my ears. Spike has previous: he criticised The Color Purple for - among many things - getting "some Dutch guy to write the script and Spielberg to direct it: he knows nothing about black people." Complaining about Whoopi Goldberg, he asked: "Is she saying that a white person is the only person who can define our existence?"
> 
> ...


A white boy can sing the blues in the way that "white boys sing the blues". It is "the blues" for "that white boy", and it can be plenty meaningful. Spike Lee and his ilk hide behind petty elements of the human identity instead of *resonating with meaningful elements* of the human identity.

*Authenticity in culture is an illusion*. Identity is not mediated by how someone looks and the people that are associated with them. Culture is *learned human behavior*. Every participant in a culture is a *valid*, *unique* participant. No one fully represents a national culture. They are only capable of representing themselves and participating in society. Many of our sociologically driven ailments are detrimental to us precisely because we prop up participants as representatives. There is much good that has come of the phenomenon, but it also hampers the ability of the human consciousness in general to reason beyond *conflating* participants with true representatives. There are no true representatives.

Spike Lee knows everything and nothing about black people. He knows about the black people that he knows. At the same time, the customs of black people in Papua New Guinea would be entirely foreign to his understanding of how society works. There are far more pervasive ubiquitous elements to culture than the amount of melanin in a person's skin, and people in educated countries today are, as a collective, dismally unaware of that fact.

It's time we caught up with modern science, folks. Physical anthropology and studies into human genetics have made it clear that the idea of a "race" within the human species is *utterly obsolete*. Cultural anthropology has made it clear that *there is no such thing as cultural homogeneity*. Spike Lee, and other people who are relatively more similar to him on a cultural level, are not part of "the same people".

There is just as much meaning to a white boy singing the blues. Maybe, although probably not, we'll be aware enough of the real nature of culture and human variation in general to be beyond such silliness once many of us are out in space (that is, if we're clever and reasonable enough to manage that in the first place).


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> I'm white.


Good lord!


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Petwhac said:


> I find it infuriating when someone suggests aptitude for a particular type of music could have anything whatsoever to do with skin colour.
> It's about the music you are exposed to, steeped in, grow up with and are attracted to.












Dat's right! But my real name is Mac Rebennack. The historical Dr. John was a black man.
Take it from the Night Tripper!


----------



## brucknerian (Dec 27, 2013)

I don't know about cultural or national identity, but I do think that each and every composer has a certain kind of "feel" to them. Their music often has a "personality". People who relate to or love that personality can be drawn to the music because of it. Some of the music I love is actually slightly ugly sounding, but it's an endearing ugliness. The same way that I couldn't fall in love with a woman who had a perfectly beautiful face/body. It wouldn't feel like I was with a real person.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I remember when the Tokyo Quartet became known for its Beethoven cycle. There were comments: How can these Japanese people possibly understand late Beethoven? Evidently they did... :lol:


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

KenOC said:


> I remember when the Tokyo Quartet became known for its Beethoven cycle. There were comments: How can these Japanese people possibly understand late Beethoven? Evidently they did... :lol:


The Japanese - is there anything they can't do?


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

brucknerian said:


> I don't know about cultural or national identity, but I do think that each and every composer has a certain kind of "feel" to them. Their music often has a "personality". People who relate to or love that personality can be drawn to the music because of it. Some of the music I love is actually slightly ugly sounding, but it's an endearing ugliness. The same way that I couldn't fall in love with a woman who had a perfectly beautiful face/body. It wouldn't feel like I was with a real person.


No such thing as physically perfect human being.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Clearly you have absorbed the essence of Japaneseness. I'll bet you play a mean koto.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I remember when the Tokyo Quartet became known for its Beethoven cycle. There were comments: How can these Japanese people possibly understand late Beethoven? Evidently they did... :lol:


More recently I remember the same thing being said of the first few Masaaki Suzuki Bach Cantata discs...until the evidence became overwhelming, even for the most hardened bigot.

Speaking of the Bach cantatas: when Fischer-Dieskau was asked if you need to be a Lutheran to sing/understand Bach he replied "No: just as you don't need to be a Don Giovanni to sing Don Giovanni."


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Any well trained musician can perform classical music. The Bach Collegium Japan is one of the more famous period groups. So of course, any race can perform the Blues.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

At the end of Truck's solo, BB King says " That's about as good as I've ever heard it"


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Lukecash12 said:


> A white boy can sing the blues in the way that "white boys sing the blues". It is "the blues" for "that white boy", and it can be plenty meaningful. Spike Lee and his ilk hide behind petty elements of the human identity instead of *resonating with meaningful elements* of the human identity.
> 
> *Authenticity in culture is an illusion*. Identity is not mediated by how someone looks and the people that are associated with them. Culture is *learned human behavior*. Every participant in a culture is a *valid*, *unique* participant. No one fully represents a national culture. They are only capable of representing themselves and participating in society. Many of our sociologically driven ailments are detrimental to us precisely because we prop up participants as representatives. There is much good that has come of the phenomenon, but it also hampers the ability of the human consciousness in general to reason beyond *conflating* participants with true representatives. There are no true representatives.
> 
> ...


Good post, Luke, and while I wouldn't champion Spike Lee's comments, or agree wholeheartedly with them, I still have to disagree with you on this remark:

"*Authenticity in culture is an illusion.**"*Look at the post above yours, by Autocrat, which mentions Hugh Laurie's blues album. Now, sit and listen to Son House talk about his life, then pick up his guitar and sing about his experience, and there's no change in his voice. He's bearing witness to his life and he's singing in his voice, and his music is informed by growing and living in and being part of a shared culture.

Listen then to Hugh Laurie talk in sonorous Oxbridge plummy tones about his life, then sit and sing the blues, and he changes his whole accent and imitates a style that isn't natural to him.

Can a white boy sing the blues? Of course he can, but it helps if he's lived them. Not to say that Hugh Laurie hasn't lived the privileged white boy variant, but when he picks up a guitar and fakes an accent, then in some sense he's not being authentic. There's a reason blackface is a crime, right? If only culturally. And if somebody has grown up not only surrounded by the culture and absorbed in it, but also shares the vocal inflections and humours and history and rhythms, then they can in a sense be heard as an authentic voice, especially in the various forms of folk music. When somebody from outside the circle walks in and tries, it can take a long time for them to be able to grasp not only the technical aspects, but the history and life stories and expressions behind the culture.

But going back to opera, and this is another aspect I'm interested in: Italian opera. Is there something definite in the music that makes it "Italian opera music", other than the fact that they sing in Italian? And if so, can this be reduced to mere technique, then imitated perfectly? Or is an upbringing surrounded by the wonders and melodies that go into even talking Italian voices, an advantage?


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

A musician doing a version of someone else's composition will bring to it what they think the song or piece calls for. They may not have the same background and life experience, but they can have empathy and understanding, and they can apply their musical skills and knowledge to make the best version of it that they can. Whether they make something close to the original, spin it in a different direction that is still effective, or make something that fails on most levels, this is not dependent on the musician's looks or personal history.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

The example that comes to mind for me is the music of Manuel de Falla: the Suite to the Three Cornered hat. Following the ideas of the OP, would a Spanish conductor conduct this music in the most accurate and REAL way? I feel like it is absolutely possible for a "foreigner" to understand and be authentic, though it is more rare.

I listened to dozens of recordings of this music. The conductor who seemed to really get this music was Guilini, an Italian conductor. I listened to a Spanish orchestra and conductor and found their version was very formal sounding and straight laced. To be honest, it was probably the most authentic but it wasn't the best MUSIC. It didn't have as much soul as Guilini.

(Side note, a German conductor and orchestra had a version that was so far off the mark as to be laughable (like Justin Bieber specking ebonics).

But of course, I am an American judging all of this. So there's that.

I guess my point is that authenticity isn't, for me, the end-all\beat-all. The most important measure is the soulfulness of the music. The *right* white guy can sing the blues with more pathos and grit than most black guys.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

I'm pretty sure we've all come to the conclusion a white boy can sing the blues but just in case there's any doubt...


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Anyone can make music. But who can make the Blues? What is the Blues? It is two things; a historically formed language and a source of expression that has its roots in a shared experience. Problem is, the latter is almost impossible to pinpoint. An artist taps into the source of expression; the resulting music is immediately transformed into a historically formed language. Thus, the white man cannot sing the Blues but neither can the black man, even though he is closer to the shared experience. Only a genius-artist who is in touch with the source can sing the Blues, in a language that conveys the source.

Let's look at Wagner's _Meistersinger._ Who here can sing True German Music? It's not Beckmesser, even though the thoroughly understands the musical language. He cannot tap to the source and the shared experience. His music is True (=understandable, able to be shared) but not German.

Walther, untutored by Sachs, also faces a problem. His music is German but not True. He understands the mythical condition of the people but not the language of the tradition. Since the tradition is not German (=authentic), he rejects it. His problem is that people can only understand his ideas through a common, shared, historical, contingent, non-authentic language.

When Walther is tutored by Sachs he rises to the level of the genius-artist, conveying the message of the German soul in a language that is understandable, making True German Music. The people gain a renewed understanding of themselves, their own culture, when they listen to Walther. It's just that True German Music has now changed. It's different than what it was a while ago. The German Soul remains the same, but its expression in the actual world is now slightly different.

Some conclusions. There can be no tradition without progress. There can be no progress without tradition. Meaningfully participating in a tradition requires a misunderstanding of sort, a mis-appropriation. The letter has to be creatively broken to get to the spirit. Some may be agnostic of that spirit, and I don't blame them. Maybe there is just a shifting and self-refining tradition without teleology. But, if there's anyone who can reveal that spirit, if it exists, it's the genius-artist and no one else.

Further reading: Harold Bloom: _The Anxiety of Influence_. Wagner: _Oper und Drama._ Anything by Hegel.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Kieran said:


> "Authenticity in culture is an illusion."Look at the post above yours, by Autocrat, which mentions Hugh Laurie's blues album. Now, sit and listen to Son House talk about his life, then pick up his guitar and sing about his experience, and there's no change in his voice. He's bearing witness to his life and he's singing in his voice, and his music is informed by growing and living in and being part of a shared culture.
> 
> Listen then to Hugh Laurie talk in sonorous Oxbridge plummy tones about his life, then sit and sing the blues, and he changes his whole accent and imitates a style that isn't natural to him.


Hugh Laurie's expression of culture is less interesting, then? He's not expressing himself culturally? Because what that indicated to me was someone exogenous to a culture observing things about that culture, and I see little reason to put down exogenous expressions of culture as if they are "less authentic" than endogenous expressions.



> Can a white boy sing the blues? Of course he can, but it helps if he's lived them. Not to say that Hugh Laurie hasn't lived the privileged white boy variant, but when he picks up a guitar and fakes an accent, then in some sense he's not being authentic. There's a reason blackface is a crime, right? If only culturally. And if somebody has grown up not only surrounded by the culture and absorbed in it, but also shares the vocal inflections and humours and history and rhythms, then they can in a sense be heard as an authentic voice, especially in the various forms of folk music. When somebody from outside the circle walks in and tries, it can take a long time for them to be able to grasp not only the technical aspects, but the history and life stories and expressions behind the culture.


What is a "white boy" then? It doesn't seem like a terribly appropriate expression to me if what they're really describing instead is someone endogenous/an-insider to the culture. There are other petty assumptions involved in what Spike Lee is trying to say, and I reject those smuggled premises without reservation.



> But going back to opera, and this is another aspect I'm interested in: Italian opera. Is there something definite in the music that makes it "Italian opera music", other than the fact that they sing in Italian? And if so, can this be reduced to mere technique, then imitated perfectly? Or is an upbringing surrounded by the wonders and melodies that go into even talking Italian voices, an advantage?


Do modern day Italians understand long dead Italians, how they lived and what they thought?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

*Mixing Apples and Oranges*

I think we are making a big mistake in discussing musics wherein there are scores and librettos--essentially published blueprints or recipes--that dictate the structure of the piece, alongside musics such as The Blues, traditional cante flamenco, or other such musics rooted deeply in an often-repressed and insular minority culture. This is apples and oranges, squared. Literally anybody, properly trained, can sing any kind of opera; their only concern perhaps the ability to mimic creditably the opera's language. Ditto for any kind of CM. Anyone can sing Lieder, and, hidden behind a curtain, this could be demonstrated to a fare-thee-well. Not so in my opinion with Country Blues--I defy anyone to replicate John Lee Hooker or B. B. King from behind a curtain, let alone in front of it, and it is impossible to conceive of someone not literally steeped in Andalusian flamenco successfully mimicking authentic pueblo flamenco. Interested parties are invited to examine the first _bulerias_, of Bernarda de Utrera and Diego del Gastor, that begins my exploration of cante in the Articles section of the Forum.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Morimur said:


> The Japanese - is there anything they can't do?


Not once it's been invented by another culture, and they can copy it.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Lukecash12 said:


> Hugh Laurie's expression of culture is less interesting, then? He's not expressing himself culturally? Because what that indicated to me was someone exogenous to a culture observing things about that culture, and I see little reason to put down exogenous expressions of culture as if they are "less authentic" than endogenous expressions.


Yes, he's expressing himself culturally, and as you say, he's outside the cultuite looking in, expressing his own interpretation of the culture, which I agree with. He is not, however, expressing the blues in an authentic way, from _inside _the culture. He's an imitator.



Lukecash12 said:


> What is a "white boy" then? It doesn't seem like a terribly appropriate expression to me if what they're really describing instead is someone endogenous/an-insider to the culture. There are other petty assumptions involved in what Spike Lee is trying to say, and I reject those smuggled premises without reservation.


Well, you are aware that I didn't invent the expression - "Can a White Boy Sing the Blues?" You're aware of it as both a rhetorical question and an implied denial that they can, as in, if you have to ask, then you know the answer? Also, I used it as an example to illustrate the real question I asked, which is relating to composers like Mozart and Elgar and Brahms and Beethoven daring to compose a form of music which isn't indigenous to their region. I have no particular criticism of them doing this, because Mozart's Italian operas are among the highest works of art in any civilisation, and I'm sure the others are too. But I had a valid question which was more to do with cultural appropriation, if it was actually possible or not, than anything. And although I tend to disagree with Spike Lee, as an Irishman who's watched Hollywood struggle to rise above stereotypes when portraying the Irish, I have a bit of sympathy with the argument, nonethless.



Lukecash12 said:


> Do modern day Italians understand long dead Italians, how they lived and what they thought?


They may do so better than contemporary Germans did, but I also agree with Clavicorder and their suggestion that those who have "incredible minds" may transcend these obstacles...


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Strange Magic said:


> I think we are making a big mistake in discussing musics wherein there are scores and librettos--essentially published blueprints or recipes--that dictate the structure of the piece, alongside musics such as The Blues, traditional cante flamenco, or other such musics rooted deeply in an often-repressed and insular minority culture. This is apples and oranges, squared. Literally anybody, properly trained, can sing any kind of opera; their only concern perhaps the ability to mimic creditably the opera's language. Ditto for any kind of CM. Anyone can sing Lieder, and, hidden behind a curtain, this could be demonstrated to a fare-thee-well. Not so in my opinion with Country Blues--I defy anyone to replicate John Lee Hooker or B. B. King from behind a curtain, let alone in front of it, and it is impossible to conceive of someone not literally steeped in Andalusian flamenco successfully mimicking authentic pueblo flamenco. Interested parties are invited to examine the first _bulerias_, of Bernarda de Utrera and Diego del Gastor, that begins my exploration of cante in the Articles section of the Forum.


That's a great distinction, Strange Magic, and I completely agree with this post, and your previous one...


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Kieran said:


> Yes, he's expressing himself culturally, and as you say, he's outside the cultuite looking in, expressing his own interpretation of the culture, which I agree with. He is not, however, expressing the blues in an authentic way, from inside the culture. He's an imitator.


Is he merely an imitator, or are his exogenous ideas something authentic on their *own* right? Are endogenous ideas any more than an approximation, just a more studied imitation of the others within the culture? From that perspective, it appears that all anyone is capable of, is "the blues" insofar as they are expressing "this is *my* blues"; every listener, then, will look at that and the way they think about it expresses "this is *my* interpretation".



> But I had a valid question which was more to do with cultural appropriation, if it was actually possible or not, than anything. And although I tend to disagree with Spike Lee, as an Irishman who's watched Hollywood struggle to rise above stereotypes when portraying the Irish, I have a bit of sympathy with the argument, nonethless.


I don't think that Lee fully appreciates the reality of how individual differences in "the blues" from person to person who "really knows the blues" are *also* appropriation and parody. People focus too much on their vague concepts of the exclusive intellectual property of groups, instead of appreciating the more meaningful elements of human variation. There needn't be any races, or cultural groups with concrete boundaries, for people to be remarkably unique and have appreciable common identities at the same time.

Cultures are made up of the *persons themselves*. It can be understood on terms very similar to friendship/love. Interpersonal relations are bound up in identity. If someone is your friend/beloved, then in many respects they are part of you and you are part of them. You share a less particular common identity with acquaintances and view them accordingly. Cultural values, then, are mediated through one's levels and methods of identification of the self with the other.



> They may do so better than contemporary Germans did, but I also agree with Clavicorder and their suggestion that those who have "incredible minds" may transcend these obstacles...


How then are we supposed to discern who are these "incredible minds"? Do they somehow possess an ability beyond the rest of the species to cross the incomprehensible gap in theory of mind? I don't think so.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Petwhac said:


> I find it infuriating when someone suggests aptitude for a particular type of music could have anything whatsoever to do with skin colour.
> It's about the music you are exposed to, steeped in, grow up with and are attracted to.


Yes. It's called 'culture', and it is learned or emulated, not acquired genetically. Could Jessye Norman sing Wagner? Could Andre Watts play Rachmaninov? Damn right they could.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Lukecash12 said:


> Is he merely an imitator, or are his exogenous ideas something authentic on their *own* right? Are endogenous ideas any more than an approximation, just a more studied imitation of the others within the culture? From that perspective, it appears that all anyone is capable of, is "the blues" insofar as they are expressing "this is *my* blues"; every listener, then, will look at that and the way they think about it expresses "this is *my* interpretation".


I agree with you, I think, on the level of the blues, that people who are listening in, with great appreciation for what they're listening to, and great knowledge and understanding, are still most likely in the area of approximation and imitation, than being _of _the culture. For example, I bow to few people in my admiration for Bob Dylan, who not only has sung the blues, but has written a lot of blues songs. They're beautiful and he sings them great.

I still don't consider them to be in the same genre fully as stuff that Son House, or Blind Willie Johnson did. For these, the blues was their way of life. For Bob, it's a style of music he's appropriating for his own ends, largely in an imitative sense. With Brits like Jagger, I think of them merely as lampooning something alien to their middle class cricket background.



Lukecash12 said:


> I don't think that Lee fully appreciates the reality of how individual differences in "the blues" from person to person who "really knows the blues" are *also* appropriation and parody.


Spike Lee's argument was to do with white film-makers telling black people's stories. I don't 100% agree with him, but I have sympathy for his argument. I'd have more sympathy if he wasn't so contrary, opportunist and also, guilty as charged of the same offence. He has Jewish characters in his films who are little more than a derogatory racial stereotype.



Lukecash12 said:


> How then are we supposed to discern who are these "incredible minds"?


We listen to Mozart, and we can't help but recognise that incredible mind at work...  :tiphat:


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

Strange Magic, I am not sure what you have in mind when you use the word "replicate" in regards to Hooker and King's music. Does somebody have to sound just like them to deliver a performance that is satisfying and worthwhile? At the Grammys this year, Stapleton, Clark, and Raitt did a great job performing "The Thrill is Gone," and Brad Paisley did a very fun duet with B.B. King on "Let the Good Times Roll" on his guitar-focused album. In both cases, the performers found a way to tailor the source material to their own strengths.

It is good for music lovers that there will be new interpretations and variations on the traditions. Imitating and achieving the sound of the historical or widely acclaimed performance style can be good, as it is one way to show respect for the past and keep that music alive for the current generation. It is not the only valid path to take, though.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I think we may be at a point--I know I am--like the Supreme Court justices who can't precisely define obscenity, but who know it when they see it. My notion of "authenticity" suffers from the same imprecision. But I do think that Lukash12's view of authenticity is so loose--his net has such a coarse weave--that he pretty much vitiates the idea entirely. If everybody is authentic, then who isn't? The ability of people to, chameleon-like, adopt a novel culture that others have been conceived, born, and intimately raised in, and carry it past the point of mere wonder, is vanishingly rare. The emulators and enthusiasts of a culture of the sort we're talking about here are to be congratulated and praised both for their clear love of the art, and for the effort expended, yet it is not, in my view, authentic, sensu stricto.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Strange Magic said:


> I think we may be at a point--I know I am--like the Supreme Court justices who can't precisely define obscenity, but who know it when they see it. My notion of "authenticity" suffers from the same imprecision. But I do think that Lukash12's view of authenticity is so loose--his net has such a coarse weave--that he pretty much vitiates the idea entirely. If everybody is authentic, then who isn't? The ability of people to, chameleon-like, adopt a novel culture that others have been conceived, born, and intimately raised in, and carry it past the point of mere wonder, is vanishingly rare. The emulators and enthusiasts of a culture of the sort we're talking about here are to be congratulated and praised both for their clear love of the art, and for the effort expended, yet it is not, in my view, authentic, sensu stricto.


Are the people *within* a culture authentic to *each other* sensu stricto? Is cultural interrelation and syncretism inauthentic, or to express the issue more clearly "less representative of the learned behaviors of a group"? Culture is not static, and it is not composed of anything over and above people. There are many gradients to observe here *in between* "intimately raised in" and "mere wonder".

People with a real interest in other cultures are capable of sharing on some level with those other people in a *genuine* human experience. It is all in whether and how we identify with other people. A small group of friends can be clearly said to constitute a micro-culture, which can't be reasonably replicated by someone exogenous to the group. At the same time the sentiments of that group are not utterly exclusive intellectual property. There are both particular, and more and more common elements, to how people identify with each other through sharing intellectual content.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

When we talk about "gradients" between "mere wonder" and "intimately raised in", we can all agree. I am a big fan of gradients-- see them all the time. The question is where to draw the line, set the boundary, determining what should be the resolving power of our metaphorical optics. Love that quote of Edmund Burke about being unable to draw a sharp line line between day and night, but still finding light and darkness to be "tolerably distinguishable". Let's just say that we will differ from one another when we are presented with someone performing the music of a "tolerably distinguishable" subculture that is not one they have been imbedded in from infancy. My work here is done.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

If this hasn't been mentioned yet, one of the reasons Elvis became so famous (and controversial) was that he imitated black musicians in clothing, singing style, etc.


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

despite its azure name, blues has no color requirement for its affect and presentation of such.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

It depends. Instrumental forms pose no problems. Vocal music presents an immediate perception. When we hear a singer we can identify several things almost immediately, with few exceptions: the sex of the singer, and the age. If words are used, we can identify the language, and the accent. These factors alone are complex and hard to replicate by an "outsider."

When I hear Son House or Sleepy John Estes sing, there is no mistaking the authenticity. "Inner" elements of sincerity, depth of feeling, and artistry aside, this is due to the sound of their voices, mainly.

Jazz, from its very inception, was an assimilating form. It assimilated elements of blues, then acquired the piano, and then became Bossa Nova and TV theme music. Blues was not as friendly to assimilation.

Instrumentalists like Mike Bloomfield and Paul Butterfield were so good at their instruments that they succeeded in a credible assimilation of the blues. Bloomfield is not remembered mainly as a singer, but a guitarist, and Butterfield's voice was passable. Their sincerity was their strongest suit; they intensely believed in themselves and in what they were doing.

Ian Anderson was correct in ousting Mick Abrahams, and eschewing the blues in favor of his Anglo-folk roots, which made his tights and one-legged flute playing much more credible.

Creedence Clearwater Revival were not 'born on the bayou;' they were from Oxnard, California. But they managed to make us believe, by the conviction and quality of the music.

The Band were not present on the "night they drove old Dixie down," but were far north in Canada. But we believed the well-read Robbie Robertson, because he created a masterpiece of a song. Likewise, Bob Dylan was a disenfrachised Jew from Hibbing, Minnesota, but created a persona which was incredibly potent.

Art is artifice.

Perhaps in the end, we must recognize that these people who created themselves, and assimilated forms, were attempting to embody some sort of human essence and identity which was not authentically theirs to begin with, but which they "channeled" from some other realm. They resonated so strongly with this manifestation of human soul that they effectively "became" what they felt they identified with; which is a spiritual essence and identity which is separate in many ways from "outward" surface manifestations.

In the end, we are all 'essences' of spirit in God's eye.

Johnny Winter's credibility was a brilliant coincidence; he was "too white" because he was albino; therefore, his blues was more credible, as it resulted from actual skin color and this bizarre difference gave him "the blues" in a very direct way. Aside from that, he absolutely identified with the blues, and from being a different "outsider." 

Edgar Winter, his brother, recalls that his hit album title came from an incident where he was emerging one evening from a movie into the lobby, and was observed by a man and his staring son: "That's an albino, son. They only come out at night."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Kieran said:


> Yes, he's expressing himself culturally, and as you say, he's outside the cultuite looking in, expressing his own interpretation of the culture, which I agree with. He is not, however, expressing the blues in an authentic way, from _inside _the culture. He's an imitator.


In many ways, I don't think it matters. Son House and Sleepy John Estes are examples of men who lived through the era which created the music, so of course they should be revered as authentic "sages" of blues. Ry Cooder and Dylan hold them in extreme reverence; they recognize this.

In the liner notes of Hugh Laurie's CD, he starts humorously by saying "I was not born in the deep south in 1853" or something like that; he is well aware. But even as a child, he was attracted to this music, in spite of a piano teacher who steered him away from it; he had a spiritual connection.

Hugh Laurie is an excellent pianist, a good singer, and has good taste, and more importantly, he feels a deep connection to this New Orleans blues essence. The artifice works for me.

John Hammond Senior understood this well; his advocacy of Stevie Ray Vaughan was the authentication he needed. Hammond also discovered Bessie Smith, Fletcher Henderson, and Dylan (called "Hammond's Folly" at Columbia). He knew authernticity, and sincerity, and spiritual essence when he heard it, and this was not dependent on specific cultural background or race. Only art.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> In many ways, I don't think it matters.


I absolutely agree; my only interest is whether or not the music--any music--pleases me. We have had an interesting discussion of "authenticity", wherein it is clear that different folks have different ideas as to what constitutes authenticity: where to draw the line. I happen to be strict constructionist on authenticity, holding that it is extraordinarily difficult for someone not born and raised within a subculture, especially that of an often-repressed and isolated minority, to believably replicate a performance of the subculture's music--often very improvisational, often rendered in a strong accent or dialect--so that a knowledgable auditor would not be able to identify the performer as an outsider.

But I assert that this, at least for me, is not important. I like or love Blues sung by Clapton, Vaughan, Cinderella, Jeff Healey, innumerable other outsiders of any color, but I hold such Blues to be immediately, to me, identifiable as being of another category than those of The Masters. My reaction is, or would be, different for those unhappy souls brave enough to attempt to replicate traditional cante flamenco, but virtually no one has even tried.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Authenticity is an illusion. The only question worth asking is 'Is it any good?'


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

Almost all posts look really massive on a smartphone. After many subsequent tldrs, I have decisively come to that conclusion....
Hey. You learn something new every day.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

No, he can't.

But he can dance and play a polka like nobody else!


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

aleazk said:


> No, he can't.
> 
> But he can dance and play a polka like nobody else!


I like this kind of light hearted answers :tiphat:


----------



## Pyotr (Feb 26, 2013)

This topic is way too heavy for me to get involved in, but I’m enjoying reading everyone’s opinion on the subject and the question immediately reminded me of George Carlin’s (RIP) reply to that very same question: “What do white people have to be blue about, they’ve ran out of khakis at the Banana Republic?”


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Morimur said:


> Authenticity is an illusion. The only question worth asking is 'Is it any good?'


No, authenticity is not an illusion; it is real. But that doesn't really matter, unless that is your prime criterion.

Effective, meaningful art can be created out of previous models, such as John Lennon's "Come Together" being based on the model of Chuck Berry's "You Can't Catch Me," or Ry cooder's amped-up version of Sleepy John Estes' "Goin' to Brownsville."

But these example create a new, expanded version. The earlier originals are still valued for their authenticity, as they are conveyed by humans who embodied the 'matrix of being' from which the art first emerged.

Still, 'authenticity' can be created anew: Bob Dylan's "Blowing in the Wind" was described as him "singing the truth" to a black woman who heard it; the expression was so authentic to this woman that it was a direct spiritual connection to her struggle, her "truth."

So if you wish to say "truth is an illusion," the observation begins to lose its meaning.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Pyotr said:


> This topic is way too heavy for me to get involved in, but I'm enjoying reading everyone's opinion on the subject and the question immediately reminded me of George Carlin's (RIP) reply to that very same question: "What do white people have to be blue about, they've ran out of khakis at the Banana Republic?"


Funny, but all people suffer; that is a constant. Just ask Buddha.

We all struggle and suffer to achieve our identity.

Still, reality can be quite different for people who do not have food or shelter.

As Blind Willie Johnson sang, "Cold was the Night, Hard was the Ground."


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> Still, reality can be quite different for people who do not have food or shelter.
> 
> As Blind Willie Johnson sang, "Cold was the Night, Hard was the Ground."


Well, he wrote that. He sang "aaaaa aaaaa aaaaa."


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

That's "Dark was the night, cold was the ground", and it doesn't have any lyrics.

/that guy

(x-post)


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Weird thing is, when you're being crucified, the coldness of the ground is one problem that _doesn't_ concern you.


----------



## cwarchc (Apr 28, 2012)

Answer to the question - Yes


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Lots of white boys sing the blues, that's how American popular music works: black people from the south invent a tradition, then white people make money performing it. 

Ok, that's a bit of an exaggeration, and it doesn't apply to, oh, yodeling and so on. Lots of exceptions. Lot of classical music in particular. 

I'm not sure that "Italian" is (or has been) really the same kind within Europe of thing that "black" is (or has been) in North America. I believe the main thing that makes a particular work of art "Italian" is that the artist was Italian, that it was originally made in Italy, and that it was in Italian if language was involved. (If all three criteria aren't met, or the first two if language wasn't involved, then it might not count as "Italian.") African-American art can only meet one of those criteria, because they don't have a separate country or a different language than white Americans. 

Of course some technique can develop within a community, and it can be characteristic of that community's art, so we can label it with that community's identity, but any technique can just spread to other communities. So you get Korean kids b-boying, white people playing banjos, Vietnamese gangsters rapping, African-Americans singing opera, Indians writing magic realism novels, just as once upon a time Buddhists adopted Hellenistic statues and Christians started using pointed arches (adopted from Muslims) in their architecture. No technique is actually inherent to any ethnicity or religion or nation or any other social construct with which we divide ourselves from each other.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

The white boy can do anything he applies his intellect and heart to. Literally anything. It is only a question of will and desire. As for blues, the white boys not only can sing it, but they have developed the entire endless variety of rock music of of it.


----------



## Dr Johnson (Jun 26, 2015)

Pyotr said:


> This topic is way too heavy for me to get involved in, but I'm enjoying reading everyone's opinion on the subject and the question immediately reminded me of George Carlin's (RIP) reply to that very same question: *"What do white people have to be blue about, they've ran out of khakis at the Banana Republic?"*


This reminds me of the lines:

"Woke up this morning, both my cars were gone,
I felt so suicidal, I threw my drink across the lawn." _Ukelele Blues, Martin Mull_[SUP]1[/SUP]

[SUP]1[/SUP]I got this from chapter 6 of _Crosstown Traffic, Jimi Hendrix and post-war pop_ by Charles Shaar Murray.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

mstar said:


> If this hasn't been mentioned yet, one of the reasons Elvis became so famous (and controversial) was that he imitated black musicians in clothing, singing style, etc.


Elvis grew up with blues, and to a possibly even greater extent, gospel- along with country and the mainstream pop of the day. Thus, it's probably strictly true to refer to him as 'imitating' black musicians since they were among his influences, but that shouldn't imply inauthenticity, as the music was quite simply in his blood. His flamboyant, un-white taste in clothing is another matter... a greek god in a cerise shirt and zoot suit, what's not to like?


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Speaking of, I'm currently watching Invictus, which presents a bunch of Spike Lee sized conundrums. Firstly, can an American "get" rugby? And is the tale of the fall of apartheid and the rise of Mandela best told by a Hollywood cowboy, directing a script by an American based on a book by Brit?

I'm enjoying it but so far it's all a bit black and white... :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Figleaf said:


> Elvis grew up with blues, and to a possibly even greater extent, gospel- along with country and the mainstream pop of the day. Thus, it's probably strictly true to refer to him as 'imitating' black musicians since they were among his influences, but that shouldn't imply inauthenticity, as the music was quite simply in his blood. His flamboyant, un-white taste in clothing is another matter... a greek god in a cerise shirt and zoot suit, what's not to like?


That's one connection: the deep South, speech inflections (lots of whites talk like blacks down there), geographic similarities, cultural, economic (many whites picked cotton as well); but let's remember, they were not literally slaves, and black blues is still the most authentic form.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> That's one connection: the deep South, speech inflections (lots of whites talk like blacks down there), geographic similarities, cultural, economic (many whites picked cotton as well); but let's remember, they were not literally slaves, and black blues is still the most authentic form.


Vernon Elvis Presley (the singer's father) was an impoverished sharecropper who served time in gaol for stealing from his employer, during the dust bowl years. Sounds pretty authentic to me.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Is "authenticity" the theme of the thread?

I'll agree with the line:



Morimur said:


> Authenticity is an illusion.


Everything is fake on one level or another, usually on many levels at once.


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2016)

science said:


> Is "authenticity" the theme of the thread?
> 
> I'll agree with the line:
> 
> Everything is fake on one level or another, usually on many levels at once.


Authenticity is a very real delusion to me then. It's an appropriate sentiment when referring to Parchman Farm Blues by Bukka White and it's an appropriate sentiment when referring to Another Day in Paradise by Phil Collins. One stinks of it, the other just stinks.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

Maybe this is why people don't react well to those who compose merely in older European styles. 
Somone born today isn't living in the same environment as someone living 300 years ago, and to try
to compose in that style may always need to be voiced a little in a modern way. However, if you
do put in modern touches, some people who have gone to music school, I suppose, will criticize the
pieces because they did not achieve the same technique as the person 300 years ago.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Figleaf said:


> Vernon Elvis Presley (the singer's father) was an impoverished sharecropper who served time in gaol for stealing from his employer, during the dust bowl years. Sounds pretty authentic to me.


The reference to stealing is certainly appropriate.

The impoverished suffering certainly gives Elvis "suffering rights" to sing blues, and more authentically than perhaps a rich man;

...however, blues music emerged from the blacks who were brought over as slaves, and there are definite African influences; vocal inflections, pentatonic, and rhythmic elements, all from Africa.

In this formal sense, blues as a musical form must be seen as connected to African roots. I don't see how these formal elements can be credibly or comfortably separated from the Afro-American musicians who created it.

In this sense, the 'authenticity' of blues is tied to cultural, racial, geographic, historical, and economic factors, and is a real, tangible thing, not just some romantic fantasy.

Of course, it is always possible to ignore all of this history, and see blues as simply another invented form. However, the vocal inflections of early black singers will always be the elephant in the room.

Western classical music has fewer restrictions to be authentic, since European countries were more proximate than Africa is to America. Plus, the classical style was more universal.


----------



## sah (Feb 28, 2012)

White boys can even play funky music:






And Aussie boys as John Williams can play Spanish music. That is the way (42:35):


----------

