💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › paul-garon-white-blues.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:18:05. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: White Blues Author: Paul Garon Date: 1995 Language: en Topics: white supremacy, Race Traitor, music Source: Retrieved on September 16, 2016 from https://web.archive.org/web/20160916053909fw_/http://racetraitor.org/blues.html Notes: Published in Race Traitor No. 4 — Winter 1995.
Phil Rubio’s article “Crossover Dreams....” (RACE TRAITOR No. 2, Summer
1993) provides an interesting perspective on the confrontation between
white performers and black art forms. In many cases, he writes, white
musicians are motivated by admiration and envy for the black performers
they emulate. And he continues, we are seeing the “use of
African-American culture by whites to find the spirit, and hence the
humanity, they feel they’ve lost.” But I would like to emphasize a
totally different perspective. I will argue that for those interested in
the support and study of African-American culture, blues as purveyed by
whites appears unauthentic and deeply impoverished; further, it too
often represents an appropriation of black culture of a type sadly
familiar. Finally, it can be economically crippling to black artists
through loss of jobs and critical attention.
Whites have been playing black music for decades, and the tail-end of a
constant source of friction — and interchange — should not be seen as
the beginning. But the phenomenon of whites taking up the blues in great
numbers is a fairly modern spectacle, indeed, one that finds its
beginnings in the late 1950s and the early 1960s. We make no attempt to
locate the first white blues imitator, or performer, but one of the
first objections to this phenomenon was raised by Charles Radcliffe
(writing as Ben Covington) in the UK publication ANARCHY 5 in 1965.
(“The Blues in Archway Road,” ANARCHY 5, 1965. pp. 129–133.)
Many publications on the blues soon found themselves compelled to
comment on what was an obviously growing artifact, and I found myself
drawn into the ring in the early 1970s when LIVING BLUES, a magazine I
helped found with Jim O’Neal, Amy van Singel, Bruce Iglauer, Diane
Allmen, André Souffront, and Tim Zorn, was accused of racist policies
for its ignoring of white performers. When jazz columnist Harriet Choice
challenged our policies in the CHICAGO TRIBUNE, I was the one who
hammered out our reply. Our position was articulated in her column and
two LIVING BLUES editorials, as well as in the introduction to the
special section “Surrealism & Blues” in LIVING BLUES No. 25 (Jan/Feb
1976).
When my own BLUES AND THE POETIC SPIRIT was published in 1975, I devoted
a lengthy section of it to “the psychological relevance of the black man
to the white man and what effect this has on the evolution of the
blues.” (p. 53.) I also analyzed the effects of white participants on
black artists and suggested that this usually results in some form of
dilution of the blues. I wrote little about the blues in the next
fifteen years, but the controversy was bubbling along rapidly, hardly
needing my attention, and soon it exploded on the pages of GUITAR PLAYER
magazine (August, 1990) in a guest editorial by Lawrence Hoffman, a
white professor/composer and blues critic, who noted that it was “absurd
to think that the lifeblood of blues could be extended by anyone who, in
essence, could never be anything more than a convincing, expressive
copyist.” (p. 18)
His position — that white players could bring little authenticity to
their blues performances and that they took jobs that should go to
blacks — brought mountains of vituperative abuse from GUITAR PLAYER
readers, most of whom took one of four positions: 1) It’s racist to hold
such positions as Hoffman’s; 2) Suffering is universal and whites
suffer, too; as former GUITAR PLAYER editor Dan Forte wrote, mightn’t
the white Eric Clapton have suffered more than the black Robert Cray?
Others wrote that their grandparents died in concentration camps, or
that they were Native Americans and had therefore fulfilled some sort of
suffering quota; 3) Ability is beyond racial barriers; many whites, like
Stevie Ray Vaughan, are great musicians; 4) History speaks in the form
of white artists, i.e. blues was the expression of black cultural life,
but now it is the expression of white as well as black feeling. This was
expressed especially fervently by one defender of white rights who was
apparently a specialist in reassessing whether blacks had a right to any
heritage of their own, once whites decided to seize it. No doubt he was
thrilled when the nearly all-white Grammy jury singled out white artists
as recipients in both the traditional and modern blues categories.
Needless to say, Hoffman had his supporters (Paul Oliver, Jim O’Neal,
and myself, among others), and several, like Karima Wicks and Michael
Hill, published replies in GUITAR PLAYER, addressing among other
notions, the dreadful lacunae in the background of several
correspondents that led them to believe that the white role in the
evolution of the blues was identical to that of blacks. As it turned
out, some of the newer blues fans had no idea that blacks actually
“started” the blues. Most interesting, however, is the fact that the
tide was about 95% against Hoffman and 5% in favor.
Because it could no longer resist the current without comment, in 1993
LIVING BLUES asked me to re-articulate the magazine’s position in a
Guest Editorial feature that they were inaugurating in the May/June,
1993, issue. There, I seized the opportunity to recall the magazine’s
beginning. Twenty-three years earlier, when LIVING BLUES was first
getting under way, most of the editors had a few things in common
besides their love of blues. One of these common bonds was an
involvement and belief in the civil rights movement and the broader
issues associated with it. Among these concerns was a profound dismay at
the depth of racism in the United States.
It was quite clear to us that the very specific forms of torture,
beating, lynching, slavery, mistreatment and general discrimination that
white Americans had visited upon the blacks had — combined with the
highly innovative black response to this torment — produced the blues.
Indeed, it was the very resistance to this genocidal tendency of white
culture that had brought the blues into existence. That the blues was a
“good time music” par excellence in no way invalidated this thesis: Only
the very specific sociological, cultural, economic, psychological, and
political forces faced by working-class black Americans — forces
permeated with racism at their every turning — produced the blues.
Nothing else did!
For me, and for the current editor of LIVING BLUES, none of this
“material base” for the blues has changed. Racism and discrimination are
still rampant in the U.S. A few things have changed, however. The
audience for the blues began to shift from black to white when the
“blues” revival” began in the early 1960s. At the same time, many white
members of this audience began to take up the guitar, the harmonica,
and, occasionally, the piano, and they began to play the blues
themselves. Some even came from poor working-class families, and many
had known suffering themselves.
Other things have not changed, however, and for those of us for whom an
interest in documenting and fostering black culture is paramount, Living
Blues’ exclusive concern with black artists is consistent with our own
position. Indeed, while anyone can play or sing the blues, it is the
unique engendering nature of black culture that has always been our
prime concern, regardless of the many types of suffering with which the
blues deal in the manifest content of its songs. The fact that white
musicians are now playing the blues is thus immaterial to a focus on
black culture.
From such a perspective, I underscored for LIVING BLUES readers, the
magazine’s covering of R & B artists like Ruth Brown or LaVern Baker was
more natural than its covering of “blues” artists like Stevie Ray
Vaughan. While I thought this supremely clear and natural, a large part
of the readership did not. Once again an avalanche of mail descended,
most of it against the magazine’s policy and my editorial. A few
subscriptions were cancelled. “It’s the music, stupid,” wrote one
long-time reader. We’ll return to this phrase in a moment, but first let
us try, once again, to analyze the issues that make up the controversy.
Perhaps we’ve come far enough to not raise the two false issues of
suffering and ability. Plainly pain and suffering are not directly
transmuted in the blues, and they are not essential to technical
proficiency. Indeed, even non-technical, (metaphysical?) aspects of
performance seem to ultimately resist being inserted into any equation
involving suffering, although for some, it has always been axiomatic
that one had to suffer to play or sing the blues. Our knowledge and
experience of technique, however, suggests otherwise. Some apparently
quite privileged whites have demonstrably played guitar as well as some
less privileged ones, and from the vantage point of the 1990s, this
hardly seems worth disagreement. Further — and suffering aside — it
seems obvious that anyone of any race can, technically speaking, play
the blues. Neither genes nor race-differentiated experience seems to
affect one’s ability to form certain chords or play certain melodies or
passages. (Note that granting that whites can (physically) play the
blues grants the “suffering” issue as part of its argument, or leaves it
in a metaphysical realm.)
Whether or not one has to have suffered to sing the blues remains a
metaphysical issue, although interestingly enough, it draws supporters
from both sides of the white blues controversy. Many black blues artists
think that suffering is an essential component of blues singing, and
many backers of white blues feel that many whites have suffered
sufficiently to qualify.
While these ideas seem clear, dismissers of white blues performance are
often accused of holding the position that whites “do not have a right”
to play the blues. The right to play and sing the blues is never at
issue. An important factor that is at issue is that white performers
have so much coverage and such high record sales (compared to blacks)
that their notion of being victims of discrimination because LIVING
BLUES doesn’t cover them is quite laughable. As if Bonnie Raitt or
Stevie Ray Vaughan were drowned in obscurity because of LIVING BLUES’
“racist” policies! The real truth is that with white performers, the
opinion of LIVING BLUES is a drop in the bucket compared to the critical
establishment that does care about them, that does cover them, that does
give out Grammy awards, and that does decide whether they make it or not
(insofar as any critical establishment can do these things.)
And it is a matter of the critical establishment, after all. The fact
that this particular critical establishment is white is very important.
Black music critics have bigger fish to fry, preferring to concentrate
on rap and more popular artists. But their positions on these questions
would be worth knowing. We cannot assume that black critics and black
blues musicians feel the same in this matter. Indeed, why black blues
performers don’t object to white performers is far more than a question
of tolerance. For black blues artists, the existence of white performers
often leads them to greater financial success. As Rubio noted, Aretha
Franklin credits her appearance in The Blues Brothers with revitalizing
her career. Of course it recharged her career. We are protesting the
racist conditions that made that possible, not its happening. Likewise,
Bonnie Raitt made John Lee Hooker’s LP such a fantastic seller, and not
vice versa, (although by the time of their joint venture, Hooker was
already incredibly popular for a blues artist.) But the argument over
stars and “coverage” has an interesting dimension.
What many of the critics of magazine coverage are driving at is that
they and their accomplices would like to receive coverage in LIVING
BLUES, principally because it is the pioneering magazine that covers
black artists, i.e. “real” blues artists. They know, however, that they
can’t raise this as an issue without revealing that they, too, believe
that white blues are somehow inferior. In truth, the white artists
receive considerable coverage in BLUES ACCESS, BLUES REVUE QUARTERLY,
and other magazines, but these magazines don’t carry the stamp of
approval that LIVING BLUES does, for strictly racial reasons. It seems
as if those white blues aficionados who profess to be “color-blind” are
quite the opposite. But before discussing this color-blindness, let’s
approach the question from another perspective.
BLUES REVUE QUARTERLY has seized on the phrase, “It’s the music,
stupid.” The editor has written that he’s made it into a poster and has
it on his wall, just to remind him of “what the blues is really about.”
I keep it in mind, too, along with “Hitler will never invade Europe,”
and “you’ll fall off the edge of the earth.” Because just “the music” is
a much more-splendored thing than he acknowledges, something vastly more
complex than mere “sounds.” After all, if “sound” were all there were to
it, no one would ever go to a live performance, concerts and clubs would
be identical, rock fans wouldn’t watch MTV (they’d just listen to it),
performers wouldn’t think about costume or stage acts or presence, etc.
One just prefers to think that “the music is all that counts.”
But it isn’t. Race counts, as well, and if we did start talking about
race and the way we hear the blues, we’d find out that many (white)
people like to hear the blues played by whites more than they like to
hear it played by blacks; many blacks vastly prefer to hear the blues
played by blacks; many, many, people lie and say they don’t care who
plays it; and a very, very few people aren’t lying when they say they
don’t care who plays it. (But don’t worry. You and I aren’t one of
them.)
Who are these people for whom race doesn’t matter? Not the average white
blues artist. In fact, many white blues performers who, we are told,
bring their own “authenticity” to their craft, display a mad craving for
approval from black listeners and black artists, (not to mention
black-oriented blues magazines like Living Blues). Whenever the battle
is enjoined, in person or in the letters and editorial columns of LIVING
BLUES, GUITAR PLAYER, or BLUES REVUE QUARTERLY, a white blues performer
writes a pseudo- palliative “brotherhood” letter and just happens to
mention all the black artists with whom he’s performed, with the plain
intention of proving that he must be acceptable or all of these
obviously authentic artists wouldn’t have welcomed his company. In
itself this attitude embodies the entire contradiction of the existence
of white blues. If white blues is autonomous and self-authenticating,
why is black approval needed? If it is not autonomous and self-
authenticating, and the craving for black approval seems to suggest
this, why is it not the weak and imitative form its detractors claim?
This question remains with us.
One of my points in the book on Memphis Minnie, WOMAN WITH GUITAR, and
in BLUES AND THE POETIC SPIRIT, was to offer new ways to hear the blues,
so that the old songs and their embedded value systems would be
meaningful to modern listeners. There is great resistance to this on the
part of many listeners, however, and this relates to the race
controversy among modern blues fans. Indeed, one reason so many white
listeners prefer white performers of their own age is that their
interest in the values embedded in the blues is nil, whereas they
identify quite easily with other young whites. But are they hearing the
same thing? Is it the same when a black man like Chuck Berry sings that
he went “across Mississippi clean,” as when a white man like Elvis
Presley sings the same lyrics in the same song? Hardly! Getting “across
Mississippi clean” has a whole accumulation of meanings when sung by a
black, meanings that just don’t exist for a white performer. And
listeners of different races must hear it and identify with it
differentially, based on their experience...and based on their
interpretation of the experience of the singer.
It is often forgotten that a large proportion of the (white) blues’
current performers (and their following) was inspired by the popular
white comedians Dan Ackroyd and John Belushi, doing their
characterization of Jake and Elwood Blues, The Blues Brothers. The LP
and the movie ignited a trend — based on a joke, mind you — that went
beyond the wildest dreams of any of the participants. For many new white
performers the notion of the blues’ “black heritage” is indeed a
mystery; the only “heritage” they know is sunglasses, black suits and
fedoras, which have become one of the classic new white blues uniforms.
Combined, they form the logo of one of the new blues clubs. While the
proliferation of white performers who play at these clubs may seem to be
a harmless aberration to some, its ill effects can be quite insidious
and go beyond the economic.
Defenders of white blues are often proponents of “color- blindness” as
the ultimate weapon of anti-racism, but many of these color-blind whites
are really resisting the importance of consciousness of race and race
matters, with all the nagging reminders of racism contained therein.
They believe that by refusing to use race as a criterion for anything,
they are being the ultimate non-racists, but they are actually blinding
themselves to the complexity of racial issues. If we may return to the
event of the Grammy winners, isn’t it clear that what may seem like
color-blindness is simply an event that allows racism to return to the
podium? Whites didn’t win in the blues category because it was open to
all and the best performers won; they won because whites are the vast
majority in a country where racism distorts almost every move. The
Grammy awards were simply more racism, not the exercise in
color-blindness that so many pretend. Color-blindness, in too many
cases, is simply the granting of control to white rule.
How ironic if the white blues performers, who so reputedly respect their
black mentors, are only another instrument aiding and abetting white
rule.
Paul Garon is the author of three books on the blues, and a contributing
editor of LIVING BLUES magazine. He is also an active participant in the
surrealist movement in the U.S.