Not nice, but ok. And your point is?
New Elvis biopic and black appropriation in music
- Thread starter retseldrib
- Start date
miktec
retired
You claimed to have lost interest in a book based on something you think you read on page 2 ... presumably this time you have read page 3 as well.
- that's progress
Yeah, funny. But I would like to discuss the topic with you.You claimed to have lost interest in a book based on something you think you read on page 2 ... presumably this time you have read page 3 as well.
- that's progress
miktec
retired
In that case I owe you an apology
I interpreted your first post as being very dismissive of the book, for no good reason in my view if you had indeed only read two pages.
On that basis I saw little point in discussing it further ...
(even though I could have written an essay length response arguing that R&B was never really a truly original 'Black' music form in the first place so George's points were mostly moot)
Sorrry miktec, it is me who owes you an apology. I got it now, my sloppily written post caused a big misunderstanding. You must have thought that I only read two pages of George's book, lol. What I wanted to say (without much success) is: I read this book fifteen years or so ago. And I remember that I felt somehow uncomfortable with it. Inspired by your recommendation I took it from the shelf and started to read again. Then I immediately stumbled across this sentence I mentioned. IMO this is revisionism and the agenda is black identity politics. As I said in an earlier post, the term (black or white) appropriation does not make sense when we talk about American music of the 20th century. LeRoi Jones' book is an excellent introduction explaining the mutual influence of African and European musical traditions which brought is all this music that we love.In that case I owe you an apology
I interpreted your first post as being very dismissive of the book, for no good reason in my view if you had indeed only read two pages.
On that basis I saw little point in discussing it further ...
(even though I could have written an essay length response arguing that R&B was never really a truly original 'Black' music form in the first place so George's points were mostly moot)
paulfromcamden
Baffled
Not inherently a bad thing. Our understanding of the past is enhanced by re-examining and reinterpreting what we know. Of course, you're free to disagree with any particular historian's conclusions.
In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of a historical account. It usually involves challenging the orthodox (established, accepted or traditional) views held by professional scholars about a historical event or timespan or phenomenon, introducing contrary evidence, or reinterpreting the motivations and decisions of the people involved. The revision of the historical record can reflect new discoveries of fact, evidence, and interpretation, which then results in revised history. In dramatic cases, revisionism involves a reversal of older moral judgments.
At a basic level, legitimate historical revisionism is a common and not especially controversial process of developing and refining the writing of histories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism
Thanks for that, interesting. Obviously the term revisionism has a different meaning in the German speaking world (where it is usually not a good thing) than in the English speaking world (unbiassed).
Im englischen Sprachraum bedeutet historical revisionism meist wertfrei eine neue Interpretation historischer Ereignisse auf der Basis neuer empirischer Daten.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschichtsrevisionismus
miktec
retired
I think there are a lot of things that the author got 'bang on' and I would sincerely hesitate to use the term 'revisionism' as a negative in this context. I also have absolutely no problem with the concept of 'black identity politics' - there are some problematic aspects but it was very much needed back in the '80s (and still is IMV)
It is a matter of incontrovertible historical record that the US was deeply segregated in the period in question and it is also widely recorded that, as a result of this segregation, black performers were widely excluded from the same distribution networks as their white counterparts - and largely restricted to the Chitlin circuit (discussed at some length in George's book and elsewhere).
Also generally accepted as true was the practice of employing white talent to perform works originating from black performers in order for predominantly white owned and run businesses (particularly record labels) to generate profit from a much wider audience. So the 'renaming' of R&B to R&R (pointed out in the book) gains a lot of credence as fact.
I think there are some fundamental problems in writing any history of cross-continental popular music development ... but in terms of most of what Nelson George wrote in his book, I don't think that was really his aim, or a sound basis for criticism.
A short addition: In the German speaking word it usually means rewriting history motivated by a political agenda (in many cases, but not necessarily always right-wing).
Of course the author has got a lot of things right (and a few others not so much). And of course the historical facts you mention are relevant and cannot be ignored when writing about the history of black music. I would never question that.
I do not critisise George for not having written a history of 'cross continental popular music development'. But I do critisise that he ignores the fact, that this mutual cross continental influence has taken place and shaped the american popular music as we know it. This has never been a one way street.
miktec
retired
Er - it was really - and for quite some time, I think that's the point that George (and others) argue quite forcibly.
When I first heard Rock 'n Roll in the 'fifties as a kid growing up in the UK and then later The Beatles et al in the early 'sixties, I was completely unaware of any connection at all with its Black American origins (or influences, if you prefer).
It was only thanks to my older brother (and those of some friends) much later that I got to hear the originals that were so freely copied ..... and that only because my brother had access to decent sources in Liverpool.
Weekender
pfm Member
Nelson George is no doubt substantially correct.
I have not read the book but have seen him as a Talking Head in documentaries on several occasions and he always makes pointed and interesting contributions.
Although the general UK population may not have been aware of it, there were numbers of very important later movers who were making the connection from Rock to its antecedents*. Not forgetting the UK Jazzers too.**
The "two-way street" was famously opened up by these hipsters via the British Invasion of the early 60s.
Blues players like Muddy Waters and B.B. King benefitted in their later careers from being endorsed by the Beatles and The Stones, moving into the college circuit for example, playing to white audiences as the music declined in popularity with younger blacks.
Obviously the foundation was laid in the 50s by Little Richard, Chuck Berry and Fats Domino who had a huge impact on the UK...as did Elvis - he made Lennon and Jagger, and Bowie for that matter, think "we can do this too!".
There was also the rediscovery of Country Blues players like Skip James and Bukka White etc by young white Folkies.
*When Richards reconnected with Jaggar on the train the latter was allegedly clutching long playing albums by Chuck Berry, Little Walter and Muddy Waters.
** Just using The Stones as an example again - the young Charlie Watts was into Charlie Parker! Also the likes of Van Morrison whose "father had what was at the time one of the largest record collections in Northern Ireland (acquired during his time in Detroit, Michigan, in the early 1950s) and the young Morrison grew up listening to artists such as Jelly Roll Morton, Ray Charles, Lead Belly, Sonny Terry and Brownie McGhee and Solomon Burke."
No wonder Chas Chandler decided to launch Jimi Hendrix in London...
I have not read the book but have seen him as a Talking Head in documentaries on several occasions and he always makes pointed and interesting contributions.
Although the general UK population may not have been aware of it, there were numbers of very important later movers who were making the connection from Rock to its antecedents*. Not forgetting the UK Jazzers too.**
The "two-way street" was famously opened up by these hipsters via the British Invasion of the early 60s.
Blues players like Muddy Waters and B.B. King benefitted in their later careers from being endorsed by the Beatles and The Stones, moving into the college circuit for example, playing to white audiences as the music declined in popularity with younger blacks.
Obviously the foundation was laid in the 50s by Little Richard, Chuck Berry and Fats Domino who had a huge impact on the UK...as did Elvis - he made Lennon and Jagger, and Bowie for that matter, think "we can do this too!".
There was also the rediscovery of Country Blues players like Skip James and Bukka White etc by young white Folkies.
*When Richards reconnected with Jaggar on the train the latter was allegedly clutching long playing albums by Chuck Berry, Little Walter and Muddy Waters.
** Just using The Stones as an example again - the young Charlie Watts was into Charlie Parker! Also the likes of Van Morrison whose "father had what was at the time one of the largest record collections in Northern Ireland (acquired during his time in Detroit, Michigan, in the early 1950s) and the young Morrison grew up listening to artists such as Jelly Roll Morton, Ray Charles, Lead Belly, Sonny Terry and Brownie McGhee and Solomon Burke."
No wonder Chas Chandler decided to launch Jimi Hendrix in London...
Last edited:
I am afraid this may be another misunderstanding, probably caused by my English. When I used your term 'cross continental popular music development' I did not mean to talk about musical exchange between the US an the UK. Since my first post in this thread I am referring to the musical exchange between the different ethnic (or what ever we may call them) groups that happened in the US in the 19th and 20th century. I am talking about things like (just a few examples):
- Black Americans used European religious songs and by rhythmic syncopation, polyphony, shifted accents, altered timbral qualities and vibrato effects based on African tradition transformed them into spirituals. These were elements to shape the later New Orleans Jazz.
- The early blues-typs songs utilized the structure of the early english ballad and combined it with African shout/respond, holler and repeated phrases that led to the 'riff'.
- The Black Americans in New Orleans got in touch with European instruments (tubas, clarinets, trombones, trumpets), French based quadrilles, minuets and military bands. Again combined with African based syncopation and all this -> New Orleans Jazz.
- The African banjo became the leading instrument in Bluegrass music.
- Mother Maybelle's famous Carter pick was influenced by a black guitar player, a friend of the Carters.
- Chuck Berry's first single Maybelline was based on the traditional country song Ida Red. Before he was famous club owners, who booked him, thought he was white. He joined the Johnnie Johnson trio as a replacement and soon he became the leader. Johnson was Blues and Jazz based and had to adopt to Berry' different approach, which was influenced by Country music (and sister Rosetta Tharpe of course).
Last edited:
All true of course. (Maybe with the exception that 'Nelson George is substantially correct'.) But the fascinating matter for me is, how all of theses styles the pale UK guys used (or copied as some say) came into existence and developed in history. And from the beginning this has never been a one way street. Never!
BTW Nelson George disses Jimi Hendrix for focussing on guitar playing, which was uncool in the Black community then.
And one more thing: The real revolutionary innovation by Elvis was the B-side of his first single. A sped up country song that created rockabilly-
miktec
retired
All this (and much, much, more that you have omitted) is taken as a given when I mentioned 'cross-continental popular music development' in post #48 and alluded to earlier in #44 ...
- I think we are indeed talking at cross purposes: Nelson George did not write the book you would have liked - I was at the time more than satisfied with the arguments he presented and the narrow ground he covered (much of the rest I was already aware of when I read it)
Perhaps it's best left at that