Other web Sites
Harmonica Blues  Harmonica Amps
Harmonica Links Harmonica Pages
• Archives Home
• Years
 · 1992
 · 1993
 · 1994
 · 1995
 · 1996
 · 1997 		 · 1998
 · 1999
 · 2000
 · 2001
 · 2002
 · 2003
 
Web HarpL
Ebay Searches:
Amps:
Microphones:
Effects:
Harmonicas and Gear:
Harmonica Music and Instruction:

 

 

Harp-L Archives

[Previous Message] [Next Message]
[Next in Thread]
[Start of Thread] [End of Thread]

From: mwmg~te.net (Scott Gold)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 12:21:54 -0800
Subject: Re: Whammer Jammer (was: Re: Xerox machines), or, why my "head" hurts)

regarding the copying cat and it's associated dangers,
i think we should differentiate
between the head (melody) of the song vs. the solo.

JUKE & WHAMMER JAMMER
the examples given on this string are
juke and whammer jammer.
they are much different from standard blues songs
in that the entire piece is worked out.
yes, it is true that LW recorded differing versions of juke.
but i always wondered why they bothered calling
the alternate track on blues with a feeling: juke.
it really seems to be anopther song entirely.

there are some very nice versions of juke:
george smith (on his tribute to little walter)
billy branch (he loves this song, he's recorded it twice).
these are also worked out before hand,
with no improvizing.

look at billy branch's 2 recorded versions of juke
(on the cd's where's my money and satisfy me, both titled
"son of juke").
these are very beautiful versions, he takes the song
to a new level (actually he modulates up a semi-tone
during the song swithching to a B-harp, his tone on that
really knocks me out. he adds stuffs, keeps stuff, changes stuff,
but make no mistake: this is JUKE, 2 great versions.
(aside question: in billy's first version (1984),
son of juke was credited to LW;
the second version (1995), billy takes the credit!

the problem with changing juke or whammer jammer,
is that they are so long--
usually, the head to a tune is relatively short,
the artist can soon go off and do his thing.
by the time you get to doing the head of these
tunes, it's about tiume for the tune to end.

note also that there are other ways of
reworking a tune besides the improv:
re-arranging it.
changing the chords
changing the rhythm
changing the words

ON XEROXING
do i copy other's solos?
oh, yes, - this is how i learn.
i copy it on the piano, the melodica, the harp.
this is why i have so many harp cd's:
i love to hear what others do,
i want to learn how and what they do.

do i try to play every song note for note on stage?
no, virtually never.
i use this stuff as a RESOURCE,
a learning tool,
in the privacy of my home.


CASE OF GEORGE SMITH
george smith did a great tribute to LW.
i'm not exactly sure,
but if memory serves,
he changed the keys on most of the songs-
for example,
my babe - he used an A-harp instead of a Bb-harp
mellow down easy he went from A (D-harp) to G (C-harp),
on juke he played in F# (B-harp) instead of E (A-harp).

1. all his versions are exciting and he definitely
george smith-er-ized them.

2. take my babe-- he copies LW's lick at the solo's beginning--
(true he does changes the hold at the 2D before he bends it,
but it really is the same lick.)

then he goes off onto his own thing.
(he also does some other minor quoting).

(speaking of quoting,
on juke,
he does the davey crockett break thing as well.)

my band covers my babe, and when my solo comes up, i invariably
start my solo with that first lick
(i don't know, it must be something like 8 - 10 notes).

i treat this as a quote -
it's so melodic and a feel it's part of the song.
sometimes, i'll alter it slightly
(by slightly, i mean like GS did,
so you still know what it is).

but this is where it ends as far as regurgitation.
then i go into improvising, which i can't explain,
because i can't remember what it was i did.
(i only remember the audience's and my bandmate's
smiles or frowns that tell me how i did.
and, because of the smile/frown ratio,
i keep my eyes shut most of the time!).

let's say i did try to present
my babe EXACTLY like LW's record.

1) it's a big assumption that i'd have the ability to actually accomplish this
2) it might be new to the audience, but NOT to me--
the audience might dig it, but i'd be the one to get bored to tears.
i can't even stand to play my own licks and riffs too often....
3) i'd not really be presenting LW's my babe but really RE-presenting it.
4) i think the audience senses when i'm bored or not true.
i try to keep the edge by taking risks.
playing the melody is one thing, playing someone else's
improvized solo is another (whammer jammer has no improvized solo--
it's all tune/melody).
5) all the above would make perfect sense if i was a
quality musician, which i'm not, so my risks often end in failure.
but.....i try. . . .
6) #5 is why my head hurts.


MILD DETOUR: CHARLIE PARKER AND DEXTER GORDON
if you know be-bop at all,
you know that charlie parker (et al.),
often took solos he'd worked out for a
standard, deleted the original tune's head,
retaining only the chordal structure,
then soloed (improvised) on that.

the really tought part of the discussion is:

WHAT IS IMPROVISING?
i remember the incredible facsination
i had when i was reading a jazz mag's
technical corner, where a dexter gordon
solo was analyzed, showing how virtually the entire solo
was comprised of quotes from various sources, all
exquistiely sewn together to fit perfectly within
the framework of the song's chordal structure.
the articvle, if i remember right
(this is like 20 years ago),
did not speculate on whether this solo
was pre-thought out or not.
this issue always comes up:

if you work out your solo at home,
even if it's orgiinal, it can be argued
that it's not "jazz" in the strictest sense
because you are not really "improvising",
just playing something that's previously
"written out".

rhythm (swing) and blues tonal inflection are just not enough
the argument concocludes, to call this work jazz.
nice sounding, but not jazz.

many famous jazzmen are strongly critisized for
always playing safe, taking no risks,
always relying on "what they know"
ie, pre-thought out riffs, runs, licks, quotes.

having said that, i remember a phd dissertation
(i can probably dig this up if anyone's interested)
where the writer analyzed almost all of charlie parker's
recorded solos and claims that he primarily relied on
ONLY 100 mini-strinngs of notes!
i was little when i thumbed through this--
i can't remember how authentic or correct
the hypothesis was, but i remember being
flabergasted at the notion.

ps- if you put on some truly improvised work on yur stereo,
it is very difficult (not pleasant) to listen to.


THOUGHT EXPERIMENT
try playing a solo
and NOT play anyhting you've
previously played,
not reverting to any lick,
any quote, any standard turn around,
any referecnce to the song
you are soloing to (or any other song),
AND have it not sound random.

you will soon see how difficult it is. . . .


ps--
i liked rocket johnny's memo's on this subject:

From: Coolrays
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 14:51:56 -0600
Subject: Re: Xerox machine

i agree that the MLK analogy is flawed
recently he gave set up an analogy
between doug t. and whammer jammer
and sks the question:

>What's the difference? This is a serious inquiry. I'd like to know why one
>is considered legitimate and the other taboo. Do we have to wait until LW
>has been dead 100 years before an excellent cover of "Juke" doesn't bring
>on tears of boredom. Is it OK for harmonica trios to cover "Peg o' My
>Heart" note-for-note?--i think that part of it has to do with
intentions and expectations.
classical music is genreally not improv'ed upon
(yes, pun intended (^_^),
other criteria are considered and expected
of the player and from the audience.

in blues and jazz, improviosation is a big
factor for its playing,
and we judge it so.
the problem is that the examples we have given
(juke and whammer jammer)
leave little to know room for improvising

okay, i have to get back to nursing my jetlag.
(why my head really hurts!)

- -sg
tumon bay, guam