did you watch it? did you like it?
I saw episode 1 tonight. I was rather facinated by it. Especially the parts talking about the difference in styles of Son House and Robert Johnson. The part where he showed one of Robert Johnson's band mates one of only 2 photos of him and the look on his face was amusing. The whole African part, tieing traditional african music to Mississippi Blues was interesting also.
The Blues on PBS/reviews
Moderators: Mr Awesomer, JesseMiner, CafeSavoy
Last nights episode was all about the roots of blues in it's very simple yet amazingly emotionally charged early format. Very interesting stuff. There were even a few dance clips of people dancing to mississippi blues in the back woods of mississppi.
The last episode running on Saturday night looks real interesting. Clint Eastwood explores piano blues and there is reported to be allot of archival footage with jay mcshann, count basie, oscar peterson, among others.
The last episode running on Saturday night looks real interesting. Clint Eastwood explores piano blues and there is reported to be allot of archival footage with jay mcshann, count basie, oscar peterson, among others.
-
Lindy Bomb
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 6:27 pm
- Location: Dirty D
I have been INCREDIBLY disappointed so far, and am surprised others have not complained.
Perhaps Ken Burns set the bar too high with his Jazz series (which I thought was brilliant despite its obvious biases and limitations) or set my expectations on a well-edited, well-directed, narrative-driven series that has a common thematic thread throughout. But this series so far seems to be just a hodge-podge of useless and uninsightful anecdotes from losers, hippies, and ooshie-wooshie musicians who strive to minimize the creative genius and source of Blues music through perpetuating those outdated anecdotes.
Part of the problem is the absence of credible scholars or experts on the Blues. I'm REALLY not that interested in hearing what a bunch of loser sycophants, bearded dreadlocked hippies, or no-name losers and their psycho Swedish wives have to say on the matter. In contrast, the Jazz series had, for instance, Wynton Marsalis as a major contributing "scholar." Despite Marsalis's well-documented biases, he at least is a credible expert.
The problem perhaps is worsened by having different directors doing each segment.
Perhaps Ken Burns set the bar too high with his Jazz series (which I thought was brilliant despite its obvious biases and limitations) or set my expectations on a well-edited, well-directed, narrative-driven series that has a common thematic thread throughout. But this series so far seems to be just a hodge-podge of useless and uninsightful anecdotes from losers, hippies, and ooshie-wooshie musicians who strive to minimize the creative genius and source of Blues music through perpetuating those outdated anecdotes.
Part of the problem is the absence of credible scholars or experts on the Blues. I'm REALLY not that interested in hearing what a bunch of loser sycophants, bearded dreadlocked hippies, or no-name losers and their psycho Swedish wives have to say on the matter. In contrast, the Jazz series had, for instance, Wynton Marsalis as a major contributing "scholar." Despite Marsalis's well-documented biases, he at least is a credible expert.
The problem perhaps is worsened by having different directors doing each segment.
You sound like you have a bias against hippies, people with dreadlocks, Swedish wives, and sycophants.Lawrence wrote:I have been INCREDIBLY disappointed so far, and am surprised others have not complained.
Perhaps Ken Burns set the bar too high with his Jazz series (which I thought was brilliant despite its obvious biases and limitations) or set my expectations on a well-edited, well-directed, narrative-driven series that has a common thematic thread throughout. But this series so far seems to be just a hodge-podge of useless and uninsightful anecdotes from losers, hippies, and ooshie-wooshie musicians who strive to minimize the creative genius and source of Blues music through perpetuating those outdated anecdotes.
Part of the problem is the absence of credible scholars or experts on the Blues. I'm REALLY not that interested in hearing what a bunch of loser sycophants, bearded dreadlocked hippies, or no-name losers and their psycho Swedish wives have to say on the matter. In contrast, the Jazz series had, for instance, Wynton Marsalis as a major contributing "scholar." Despite Marsalis's well-documented biases, he at least is a credible expert.
The problem perhaps is worsened by having different directors doing each segment.
So you are saying blues musicians are not the people who should be talking about blues music but instead it should be blues scholars? Interesting.
I have a different take. I have read the scholars, I want to hear what the Blues men themselves have to say, then when they say it to hear a clip of what they are talking about. One of the hippie looking dudes was Taj Mahal. A great bluesman delta bluesman, maybe the best alive today. I find bluesmen talking about the differences between Robert Johnson and Son House interesting. I find all the archival footage which usually talks for itself interesting.
It is not completly out of whack, the first 2 episodes focus more on the roots of the music, coming up is BB king who grew up in mississippi then moved to Memphis and became part of the new style of blues. Also goming up is an episode with a focus on Chicago blues and the english blues revival.
i do believe that after this was made that scorssess should have known that he needed to add 2 more episodes to cover the major stuff that is missed. 1 episode needs to be the women singers of blues, this would cover Bessie Smith, Ma Rainey, Ethel Waters, Alberta Huner, and Etta James who are all not covered or glossed over.
The 2nd needed added episode needs to cover major pockets of blues not covered already in other episodes, st.louis blues, west coast blues, etc.
I have a different take. I have read the scholars, I want to hear what the Blues men themselves have to say, then when they say it to hear a clip of what they are talking about. One of the hippie looking dudes was Taj Mahal. A great bluesman delta bluesman, maybe the best alive today. I find bluesmen talking about the differences between Robert Johnson and Son House interesting. I find all the archival footage which usually talks for itself interesting.
It is not completly out of whack, the first 2 episodes focus more on the roots of the music, coming up is BB king who grew up in mississippi then moved to Memphis and became part of the new style of blues. Also goming up is an episode with a focus on Chicago blues and the english blues revival.
i do believe that after this was made that scorssess should have known that he needed to add 2 more episodes to cover the major stuff that is missed. 1 episode needs to be the women singers of blues, this would cover Bessie Smith, Ma Rainey, Ethel Waters, Alberta Huner, and Etta James who are all not covered or glossed over.
The 2nd needed added episode needs to cover major pockets of blues not covered already in other episodes, st.louis blues, west coast blues, etc.
Well, I did not exactly refer to only scholars. Wynton (and Artie Shaw) are the two experts I remember best (and the only I remember by name) from the Jazz series. Compared to that old white guy in a frumpy tank-top with his frumpy psycho wife (the Swedish couple), the Jazz experts were far more insightful and less anecdotal.Roy wrote:So you are saying blues musicians are not the people who should be talking about blues music but instead it should be blues scholars? Interesting.
I have a different take. I have read the scholars, I want to hear what the Blues men themselves have to say, then when they say it to hear a clip of what they are talking about. One of the hippie looking dudes was Taj Mahal. A great bluesman delta bluesman, maybe the best alive today.
I like Taj, and that was a good part, but I would not consider him among the best. (C'mon, my Chicago brother, what about Buddy Guy, KoKo Taylor, Lonnie and Ronnie Brooks, Otis Rush, Sunnyland Slim, et al). Indeed, (and you will know what I mean more than anyone) perhaps most telling about Taj Mahal is that the only time I've seen Taj was at RAVINIA (a good show, but nothing compared to Buddy Guy at Legend's, or Otis Rush at Blues Etc., or Junior Wells at Rosa's). Taj also did not have dreads if I recall correctly. I'm moreso referring to the two heretofore-unknown hippes, one of whom was filmed travelling to Africa.
The old clips are great to watch, but, again, they do not seem to be organized in any sort of story or theme: just a hodge-podge of old Blues clips you could get from a trip to the library. That's not a documentary; that's just a compilation of video clips.
Last edited by Lawrence on Tue Sep 30, 2003 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Except the Swedish wives, you accuse me correctly. It's "psychotic" Swedish wives that I have a bias against. (If you taped it, watch her expressions in the B&W clip of her talking to J.B.; she goes from being expressionless to having a huge smile to looking quizzical and then again to expressionless every second or two: really fucking WEIRD.)Nate Dogg wrote:You sound like you have a bias against hippies, people with dreadlocks, Swedish wives, and sycophants.
-
Toon Town Dave
- Posts: 661
- Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 2:52 pm
- Location: Saskatoon, Canada
Perhaps the first three episodes reset my expectations so much lower that tonight's (Wednesday's) episode came off so much better, but I'm watching it now and actually logged on to note that I found this episode to be by far the best of the series. The storyline of a kid in the 1960s learning about the Blues through his Uncle helped provide some sort of storytelling thread that kept my interest. It also allowed the narrator to tailor the story around a character's interests in the Blues, which made for a far more coherent episode.Toon Town Dave wrote:I caught a half of it tonight **** I thought the pseudo-drama was distracting. There should have been either more drama or more documentary. Jazz (and Baseball) really set the standard for a documentary, in comparison Blues is disappointing.
I completely agree that the entire series falls far short of Ken Burns' Jazz series, even though, again, the Jazz series had its limitations and obvious biases. But Wednesday was the first good episode of The Blues. Each episode is directed by a different director, so it will be different from night to night.
The other part about the docudrama narrative that was great was that it dramatically portrayed the competing Southern influences that existed in the time, allowing us to subtly appreciate that not EVERY Southern Black person was a huge fan of the Blues. (Southern Baptists considered the Blues and Blues joints to be music and the den of the devil.) It also portrayed how the competing forces that led to the "downfall" of the Blues were not entirely external, but also within the Black community.
I also loved how the characters would mention an artist, and the narrator would give an authoritative synopsis of that musician. It sounds like a campy formula, but the director pulled it off.
I also loved how the characters would mention an artist, and the narrator would give an authoritative synopsis of that musician. It sounds like a campy formula, but the director pulled it off.