kudzurunner
112 posts
Sep 21, 2008
11:42 PM
|
I was surfing YouTube this morning and came across Billy Branch's version of "Juke" for the first time in a while:
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=5o6JAfV2ghM
I think it's fantastic. He gets pretty much every chorus of the original in there, but he does it all in his distinctive way--swinging very hard, with an amazingly hard-swinging band--and you'd never confuse him with Little Walter. It's Billy Branch all the way.
BB confirmed me in the sense I've long had that there's something fundamentally skewed with the so-called "traditionalist" or "revivalist" mindset. Because what interests me most about BB's version of "Juke" is those places where he DOESN'T replicate the original in a 100% way, but diverges in ways that stamp HIS identity on the thing.
That's the way you honor Little Walter, I think. You make his song your own. You throw YOUR little voicings and stylistic tricks into the mix in a way that makes is YOUR song.
That's what Butterfield did on "God My Mojo Working" and "Blues With a Feeling," by the way.
Bottom line: although I'm impressed with players who can replicate all of LW's phrasing and note-selection (and amping and mic choice and tongue-switching), I'm impressed only the way one would be impressed by a curiosity. One half my brain says, "Wow." But the other half is sad for them--sad for that player's unwittingself-sacrifice, sad for that player's fundamental misunderstanding of what the blues tradition is about. Little Walter, god bless his soul, would never had "honored" his progenitors--John Lee Williamson, for example--by losing himself in a perfect recreation of their style. Or at least he wouldn't have recorded such a sterile exercise and thought it exemplified a solid and mature expression of his artistic gift.
Students imitate verbatim, and do so--if they're wise--only at a certain early period in their development. Artists speak strongly in their own voice, even when--PARTICULARLY when--they take the risk of veering in the direction of another (or earlier) strong player's stylistic approach.
That's my feeling, in any case.
I'm sure others can supply excellent cover versions of "Juke" that simply replicate LW. But what about links to versions, like Billy Branch's, that stamp the song with something new?
Last Edited by on Sep 21, 2008 11:51 PM
|
Gray
25 posts
Sep 22, 2008
4:19 AM
|
Thanx for showing Billy Branch.What a smooth tone and style.Aint know compression pedal there!
I agree with you and man has'nt got something if he hasnt got a version.
|
geordiebluesman
73 posts
Sep 22, 2008
4:38 AM
|
Hey Adam,this is jumpin,it's funkmungously bloostastic!,i love it! PS i totally agree with your little, "Do your own thing diatribe", There is no creativity involved in copying someone else's creativity you have to do it for yourself and even if it's a really primitve effort by a rank beginer it's still something new to the world and that's where the true value of creativity lies
|
Bb
23 posts
Sep 22, 2008
1:59 PM
|
I'm working on a note for note recreation of Billy Branch's version of Juke. ;^)
-Bob
|
Philosofy
48 posts
Sep 22, 2008
7:08 PM
|
I agree. Learning a song note for note is great as a practice and learning tool, but if you're going to record it, you need to add to the song, make it at least slightly different.
Here's a question: how is it that I've never heard Rod Piazza called out on his song "The Bounce" being a rip off of Juke? At least give the original artist credit!
|
New_B
34 posts
Sep 22, 2008
9:28 PM
|
George Smith does a nice up tempo version of Juke, which is entitled "Hamp's Boogie Woogie", on the George Smith & Bacon Fat album.
|
Miles Dewar
16 posts
Sep 23, 2008
7:35 AM
|
Awesome version! That's good stuff.
Thanks for sharin' Adam.
Anyone here ever heard "Taking Out The Time" By Branch?
It's some really good slow stuff. Check it out.
Go Chicago!
Go Bears!
Keep Harpin' and....
------ Be Positive ------
|
