Customer Reviews

History of the Blues: The Roots, the Music, the People: From Charley Patton to Robert Cray

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

History of the Blues is criticized for the author's "cynicism," but the author is justified in seeking to modify or correct much of the last century's "blues scholarship." The book is more valuable because Davis doesn't accept the suppositions and theories of earlier writers, and in the first chapters the author establishes that "the blues" are far more complex, socially and musically, than we've been led to believe. He writes with wit and plenty of feeling - but the feeling expressed is one of annoyance with blues and folk "scholars" who have either not researched very thoroughly, or who have deliberately ignored facts that subvert their simplistic theories. What are the blues? Where did they come from? What's happened to the blues since mid-century? Davis examines all of these questions and comes up with some reasonable and provocative answers. The book isn't meant to be a study of individual blues musicians; such works have already been written (by Samuel Charters, Peter Guralnick, Pete Oliver) and they were well-done. The History of the Blues is a very readable account of a century of confusion, best approached with an open and attentive mind.

I wonder if this person even read the same book that I am reading. Some people won't like this book simply because it does not always take a traditionalist view of things. It is much broader and more open minded and tends to look at the blues from a broader region (IOW, there are blues outside of the Delta region) in order to gain a better understanding of it, it's performers, and theories as to it's origins. It challenges common accepted notions, and encourages the reader to challenge them as well. Sure the author injects his own opinions and experiences from time to time, but not only does he back them up, he does not try to pass them off as concrete fact, and you are fully aware that these are his thoughts on a particular matter.

Now as far as some of the listed "inaccuracies" in the book... Tony states:

"he stupidly tries to talk about Bluegrass existing in the 1920s or about the Carter family." Well, what Francis Davis ACTUALLY says is the following:

"the repertoire of the typical black country songster of the 1920's was more or less identical to that of the white rural performers of the same period. [snip a sentence abt Miss. John Hurt] The typical black songster was probably someone like Leslie Riddle, a singer and guitarist from North Carolina who didn't record until the blues revival of the 1960s, and who might be completely forgotten now if not for his early relationship with A.P. Carter, the patriarch of the Carter Family, the legendary white country harmony group...."

The fact is that Leslie Riddle DID meet A.P. Carter in 1928. The two went on trips throughout the south "collecting songs" with A.P. Carter writing down the words to the songs they liked, and Riddle remembering the Music. (google for it)

Tony says that a history would include when the blues began, how it related to other forms of music and discuss different types of regional music. Tony then says "such a discussion would be far beyond Davis's knowledge or concern". In fact, Francis Davis *DOES* discuss these things. Perhaps Tony needs to re-read Chapter *1*! Francis discusses popular beliefs of the origins of the blues including African music, field hollers, and even celtic-derived folk music. He discusses the call and response of African music that is common in the blues, and then talks about how it is not unique to blues, but is also in folk, and gospel music of the time, and even quotes Robert Palmer to back himself up. He talks about the fact that blues did not just begin one day. It evolved over a longer period of time, and from a myriad of influences. The blues did not begin on whatever specific date in 1895 with the first recording, or in 1920 w/ Smith's "Crazy Blues". That's just when we got the first recorded evidence. It developed over decades before. He discusses regional variations. It's one of the rare books that covers the likes of Blind Willie McTell and Barbeque Bob Hicks as well as the Delta blues musicians, and Texas blues musicians, among others.

Re: Minstrelry vs Minstrelsy - well that would typically be the fault of the editor for not catching it, and is a common misspelling, but lets use that as ammo to discredit the author, shall we?

This book does assume that you know at least a little bit about the differetn blues musicians in question. It at least assumes that you recognize their names and have a pretty good idea of the region that they came from. This book is not a bunch of mini biographies for all of the bigger names in blues. If you want that, you need to look elsewhere. If you want something different, something that challenges common notions, and provides a nice overall "survey" of the blues, how it began, and evolved, then this is definitely a book to add to your collection

Finally, an "historian" who doesn't pretend to be an objective, impartial documenter of facts. This is Davis' version of the blues, and he lets you know it. Thankfully, he has the skill of a consummate wordsmith, an encyclopedic knowledge of the subject matter and a fan's love and appreciation for the music. This reads like a conversation with an old, knowledgeable friend and I, for one, find that refreshing. Definitely worth the time for anyone who's interested in something more than simple facts, dates and names

Overall, I liked this book. I came away from it with a greater understanding of the history of the blues, which was my intent going in. Davis is not afraid to challenge the status quo, which I respect, and back up his assertions with reason. He gives a good cross section of the people and places involved, and he seems to care about the subject (I feel that's important in a writer).

The major problem I had with this book is the style of writing. You sometimes have to read around Davis' words to get to the meat of the subject. His style thoroughly expresses his socio-political views, but that's not what I'd expect readers of this sort of book to be looking for. Maybe he misread his audience, or just has (or at least had at the time), a writing style that could not adapt to writing for readers looking to understand history. It's also possible that he purposely wrote it, with sales and marketing in mind, to appeal to an audience that he perceived as being large (i.e., "Clinton democrats"), but I believe a history book needs to transcend sociopolitical whims.

A recent reviewer said that Davis puts down African-Americans, but I simply don't believe that's true. In fact, I felt as though he reveres the black blues performers, both male and female. He does point out some of their individual imperfections, but that may actually be a good thing in this era of revisionist historians who are afraid to even mention the imperfections in the oppressed or the good sides of oppressors. By pointing out some of the personal imperfections, he actually leads us to a greater understanding of the people behind the music. As both a blues guitarist, and history researcher and writer myself, I value that.

In short, you can learn about the history of the blues from this book, and I expect that's why you would buy it. But you'll have to get past the perhaps-overly-personal style, especially early on. It shouldn't be the only book you read on the history of the blues, but it should be one of them.

A strong theme throughout this book is that our knowledge of blues history has been tainted by popularization and hastily drawn conclusions that have been repeated but never challenged. The author sets about telling the history of the blues by examining the "known" information within the historical context of other social events, and critically examines the conclusions that can be drawn. If you don't like hearing that there is no Santa Claus then you may be happier with another book. Since the author is examining blues history within the broader context of social history, it reads like a textbook, and is not a light and easy read. Here, again, some readers may prefer a book with more pictures. Personally, I bought a second copy to give to my brother-in-law for Christmas (he doesn't believe in Santa either).

Davis challenges you virtually from page 1. That's one thing a good book should do. A less thick skinned reader might have been a little upset with his characterisation of one of the main groups who love blues music: overweight 50-something white males. I am one. There was more than a faint suggestion that o50swm's have a faintly condescending attitude to those nice lil' darkies plunking away at their guitars. Rather than slamming the book shut, I re-examined my views. He had a point: it was at university when I discovered this music. At the time, I was in one of my more pretentious periods: faux angry young socialist. But all I can do is thank Mr Davis. I have looked at myself. NOw I am sure. I love this music. I just love it. There is much to learn from this book. I don't agree with Davis' contention that white folks can't play the blues. They can. They do and and they do it very well.

The current consensus regarding the development of the popular music of the last 100 years is almost obsessively concerned with defending a sort of organic, evolutionary view, focused on African and African-American roots. The challenge that Davis' history presents, and provokes such strong reactions against, is that there's more involved than roots, evolution, white transformation, and revival.

In fact, Davis takes nothing away from the worth or significance of Black Artists or music! Both are enormously important in American popular music history, whether you take an artist-centered view of history or critically examine elements of the music itself. What he does is point out is that there's a thread of shared music and musical development in American history and culture, and that the entertainment and recording industry intentionally steered the direction of the Blues as a popular genre along follow-the-money lines (as if that should be a surprise). He argues for Artists - mostly, but far from exclusively Black - purposefully developing Blues in response to popular music tastes of the times, moreoever in cooperation with the industry. He argues for the Blues as a true popular, commercial music genre, where the mainline music historians would box it in as roots music originally (and primarily) and a dead-ended (if revived) precursor to jazz, R&B, and Rock.

Personally, I find Davis' view far more respectful of the talents, aspirations, and business acumen of early 20th century Black artists, as well as more respectful of current Blues artists who know the Blues are a living, breathing genre.

I'm not convinced of everything Davis has to say, but I am firmly convinced on the basis of this book that the Blues reflects a much larger slice of American culture and commerce than is usually credited. If people would pay more attention to what Davis adds to Blues history than what they incorrectly think he's taking away, we would all be better off. Musical scholarship certainly would be.

I have read just about every book worth reading on this subject, and this is the best. Francis Davis is a fabulous writer, and his opinions are worth considering, even when you don't agree with them. Most books that attempt to cover "The Blues" in its entirely can be tedious, and read like textbooks. Davis manages to bring this material to life, placing it a broader social context, while still covering almost everything that needs covering. Bottom line: a great read, as well as a great reference book.

With this book, Davis sets himself the daunting task of chronicling one of America's greatest forms of musical expression. The book is informative, but sometimes you'd wish that he'd dwell more on the bluesmen he writes about who are often dismissed with a 2-3 sentence description or a brief anectode. An interesting aspect of this book is Davis' treatment of Presely whom he considers to be great blues singer. He is definitely right because we do tend to often forget that Elvis was ACTUALLY TALENTED. Muddy Waters & Robert Jonhson get a lot of coverage in this book. All things said, buy this book if you are at home with a writer who can talk abourt 10 bluesmen on 2-3 pages.

This is simply not a history of the Blues. I am sure that is a title tagged on to make suckers buy this book. Frances Davis seems to know a lot about many things, but he seems to know relatively little about the blues and its history, and he knows less about other aspects of traditional American music such as when he stupidly tries to talk about Bluegrass existing in the 1920s or about the Carter family.

In fact, this book seems to assume that the reader already knows a bit to a lot about the Blues otherwise the book would be completely incomprehensible.

A history of the blues would indicate when the Blues Began, how it related to other forms of African American and European American music, and discuss different types of the blues and regional variations. Unfortunately, such a discussion would be far beyond Davis's knowledge or concern.

Davis seems to mainly know a bit about commercial recording of Blues and a bit about the popular song industry and recording industries as industries. When he speaks in connection with those subjects he says things that add value.

Unfortunately, Davis feels the need to take on any subject that suits his fancy whether it is relevant or not, going into digression after digression that gets further away from the subject. Davis is particularly pleased whenever he can put down Black people, particularly assertive Black people of dignity. He denounces the entire Black militance of the civil rights and Black Power years as Minstrelry when the correct term is Minstrelsy.

For someone with an adequate knowledge of the history of the Blues and thus innoculated against Davis's inaccuracies and stupidities and blather, this book can be a useful ride. Davis is witty and is a good writer. Sometimes, he says new things that are of interest and sometimes wrong things that he says are so controversial that they inspire good thought for a knowledgeable blusologist. The pictures collected here are fairly good, although available many other places, often with better graphic presentation.

If you want to know about the Blues look for work like David Evan's Big Road Blues, Palmer's Deep Blues, the works of people like Tony Russel, Paul Oliver, Work, and Sam Charters. AFter that you can take a crack at this book or another fanciful fantasy Alan Lomax's semifictional and inaccurate and plagiaristic _Land Where the Blues Began__

One good thing about this book is the list of music and the bibliography. Had the author read the bibliography he might have even written a history of the blues, if he had bottered