Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
I guess he thinks people wont eat fried chicken and watermelon. Kinda weird of him I know.In New York, KFC is evidently adding a Fried Chicken with a side of watermelon meal deal, medium or large!!! Im still laughing...........
About what?
Using your ear and the white keys only on a keyboard, play along with a song in G.My point is my irrefutable though unprovable thesis; the Richter-tuned diatonic harmonica is responsible for the advent of blues and subsequently jazz.The blue note didn't exist until the late 1800's. The form is purely European and the call and response is largely credited with field calls.But it's allegedly African, according to the brainwashed here. So they should have had it in Africa long before colonial slavery making slavery moot.
The elements of it certainly were African, some of which were discussed in Asclepias' Jazzedmagazine link including the call-and-response format, and the blue note, as well as the use of melisma and the griot tradition of a single man telling a story.
The guitar itself came from Spain, specifically from the Moors and their lute (from Arabic "al oud"). Of course the Moors came from ----- Africa.
Which also btw gave us the banjo.
The banjo, ironically associated with white Appalachian music, is an African instrument. Just as European instruments, the guitar and Richter-tuned harmonica, are ironically largely associated with black music.
The blue note didn't exist until the late 1800's. The form is purely European
From the jazzedmagazine link linked earlier on the blue note:
>> In Winthrop Sargeant’s book Jazz: Hot and Hybrid, in his chapters on the scalar structure of jazz and the derivation of the blues, he makes the case that the blues scale, with its blue notes (lowered 3rd and 7th of the major scale), are derived primarily from African sources; and, as author Schuller points out, “from the quartal and quintal harmonies of African singing and from the tendency of African melodies to shift around a central tone.” <<
What's your point here?
and the call and response is largely credited with field calls.
The banjo, ironically associated with white Appalachian music, is an African instrument. Just as European instruments, the guitar and Richter-tuned harmonica, are ironically largely associated with black music.
Hohner began distributing these instruments for free as a means of promotion. Black people, being extremely poor at the time, were the perfect clientele.
The flatted seventh is a natural result of cross position mode on a Richter harp. The flatted third is easily achieved in the same position by intentionally redirecting airflow on the third hole from the left. Both physical and unintended consequences of the original tuning and design. Blues origins are rooted to the same era as the advent of that harmonica.
Do you have any basic (and I mean basic) understanding of piano design? I have a perfect, easy-to-see illustration of this theory using a piano keyboard.
Sorry, that's absolutely ridiculous. Neither development of blues OR jazz had squat to do with the freaking harmonica. That's absurd. Nor is the flatted seventh derived from it. The fact that it can be produced on a harmonica in absolutely no way means neither that it was intentionally designed that way, nor that its design invited the musical technique.
The earliest blues, when played solo rather than in a band, most commonly involved either a guitar or a piano (neither of which are cheap compared to a harmonica). The former allows for note-bends and microtones that produce the flatted seventh and its tonal near-neighbors. That doesn't make the guitar the source of the musical innovation either; the musical form precedes the instrument, usually from the most basic instrument, the human voice. This sensibility is then applied to whatever instrument can handle it, but it comes from the soul.
Yes, I have an intimate understanding of the piano keyboard. It's what I learned music on, and to this day when I imagine a key transposition, that's what I visualize, so bring on your illustrations.
What would all this have to do with the topic anyway?
There was not and is not blues and jazz in Africa beyond that which was imported from America. Blues and jazz didn't exist even as nearby as the Caribbean though plenty of Arfrican slave trade existed there. This genre is specifically American. And the circumstances required were not in those other places.So why wasn't it played in Africa for centiueis before?
Because it hadn't been invented (as such) yet. But the elements that comprised it certainly were.
Why is it still not played in Africa?
It is.
What was so special about the late 1800's that made blues have to be exposed then? Did blacks suddenly begin dropping records then as it suddenly became cost effective?
Not sure what "suddenly begin dropping records" means but some of it, especially jazz, has to do with Congo Square, the only place in America where blacks were free to express their heritage, in the 19th century. See that "Hear That Long Snake Moan" link from earlier for more on this.
Why is there not blues and jazz in Africa and why wasn't it there for centuries?
Again, there IS blues and jazz in Africa, and the elements that led to it, and other forms of music, WERE there for centuries.
I'll come back at a later time to post examples, but right now I have a radio show to do.
You're parroting more Afro-centrist arrogant propaganda.
I'm describing musical history that I know. Yes, both blues and jazz originated here. That's obvious. But yes it also exists in Africa (and throughout the world), even if imported as a style. You were trying to tell us it doesn't exist there, but it does.
The original point IIRC was that the musical elements, the sensibilities of spirit that brought it about, were re-membered (put back together) from the collective experience of Africa. Both Asclepias and I linked articles detailing how that worked. The fact that the exact same development didn't take place in the Caribbean is absolutely meaningless. The Caribbean would have had different circumstances around it, especially the French (e.g. Haiti) or Spanish (e.g. Cuba) colonizers that ran the places. These would develop into forms like Merengue and Rara and Charanga and Danzón and myriad others again incorporating African approaches, especially to rhythm.
Or take the example of Brazil, a huge importer of West African slaves, where the wistful Portuguese Fado (which is what's going on in my avatar) was merged with the Semba rhythms of Angola to produce the new form Samba. Or before that, take the same Portuguese melodious structure and introduce the uniquely African sense of syncopation discussed earlier, and you get Chôro --- developed at the same time the same sense of syncopation was developing Ragtime ("ragged time") in this country, and using a markedly similar thematic structure of AA-BB-A-CC-AA:
ALL of these forms depend on vital ingredients from African culture --- without which they could not exist.
That's simple reality.
There was not and is not blues and jazz in Africa beyond that which was imported from America. Blues and jazz didn't exist even as nearby as the Caribbean though plenty of Arfrican slave trade existed there. This genre is specifically American. And the circumstances required were not in those other places.So why wasn't it played in Africa for centiueis before?
Because it hadn't been invented (as such) yet. But the elements that comprised it certainly were.
Why is it still not played in Africa?
It is.
What was so special about the late 1800's that made blues have to be exposed then? Did blacks suddenly begin dropping records then as it suddenly became cost effective?
Not sure what "suddenly begin dropping records" means but some of it, especially jazz, has to do with Congo Square, the only place in America where blacks were free to express their heritage, in the 19th century. See that "Hear That Long Snake Moan" link from earlier for more on this.
Why is there not blues and jazz in Africa and why wasn't it there for centuries?
Again, there IS blues and jazz in Africa, and the elements that led to it, and other forms of music, WERE there for centuries.
I'll come back at a later time to post examples, but right now I have a radio show to do.
You're parroting more Afro-centrist arrogant propaganda.
I'm describing musical history that I know. Yes, both blues and jazz originated here. That's obvious. But yes it also exists in Africa (and throughout the world), even if imported as a style. You were trying to tell us it doesn't exist there, but it does.
The original point IIRC was that the musical elements, the sensibilities of spirit that brought it about, were re-membered (put back together) from the collective experience of Africa. Both Asclepias and I linked articles detailing how that worked. The fact that the exact same development didn't take place in the Caribbean is absolutely meaningless. The Caribbean would have had different circumstances around it, especially the French (e.g. Haiti) or Spanish (e.g. Cuba) colonizers that ran the places. These would develop into forms like Merengue and Rara and Charanga and Danzón and myriad others again incorporating African approaches, especially to rhythm.
Or take the example of Brazil, a huge importer of West African slaves, where the wistful Portuguese Fado (which is what's going on in my avatar) was merged with the Semba rhythms of Angola to produce the new form Samba. Or before that, take the same Portuguese melodious structure and introduce the uniquely African sense of syncopation discussed earlier, and you get Chôro --- developed at the same time the same sense of syncopation was developing Ragtime ("ragged time") in this country, and using a markedly similar thematic structure of AA-BB-A-CC-AA:
ALL of these forms depend on vital ingredients from African culture --- without which they could not exist.
That's simple reality.
You're making my points for me. Those regional styles all involved cultural influences of their respective region which included African and European elements. The factors that created the distinctions are all relative to the region. You don't have samba and Calypso in the US and you don't have blues in Brazil or the Caribbean (I'm talking about origins so don't go petty again about imports).
The Richter-tuned harmonica was the distinctive element that generated the distinctive American sound that is blues.
I guess he thinks people wont eat fried chicken and watermelon. Kinda weird of him I know.In New York, KFC is evidently adding a Fried Chicken with a side of watermelon meal deal, medium or large!!! Im still laughing...........
About what?
There was not and is not blues and jazz in Africa beyond that which was imported from America. Blues and jazz didn't exist even as nearby as the Caribbean though plenty of Arfrican slave trade existed there. This genre is specifically American. And the circumstances required were not in those other places.So why wasn't it played in Africa for centiueis before?
Because it hadn't been invented (as such) yet. But the elements that comprised it certainly were.
Why is it still not played in Africa?
It is.
What was so special about the late 1800's that made blues have to be exposed then? Did blacks suddenly begin dropping records then as it suddenly became cost effective?
Not sure what "suddenly begin dropping records" means but some of it, especially jazz, has to do with Congo Square, the only place in America where blacks were free to express their heritage, in the 19th century. See that "Hear That Long Snake Moan" link from earlier for more on this.
Why is there not blues and jazz in Africa and why wasn't it there for centuries?
Again, there IS blues and jazz in Africa, and the elements that led to it, and other forms of music, WERE there for centuries.
I'll come back at a later time to post examples, but right now I have a radio show to do.
You're parroting more Afro-centrist arrogant propaganda.
I'm describing musical history that I know. Yes, both blues and jazz originated here. That's obvious. But yes it also exists in Africa (and throughout the world), even if imported as a style. You were trying to tell us it doesn't exist there, but it does.
The original point IIRC was that the musical elements, the sensibilities of spirit that brought it about, were re-membered (put back together) from the collective experience of Africa. Both Asclepias and I linked articles detailing how that worked. The fact that the exact same development didn't take place in the Caribbean is absolutely meaningless. The Caribbean would have had different circumstances around it, especially the French (e.g. Haiti) or Spanish (e.g. Cuba) colonizers that ran the places. These would develop into forms like Merengue and Rara and Charanga and Danzón and myriad others again incorporating African approaches, especially to rhythm.
Or take the example of Brazil, a huge importer of West African slaves, where the wistful Portuguese Fado (which is what's going on in my avatar) was merged with the Semba rhythms of Angola to produce the new form Samba. Or before that, take the same Portuguese melodious structure and introduce the uniquely African sense of syncopation discussed earlier, and you get Chôro --- developed at the same time the same sense of syncopation was developing Ragtime ("ragged time") in this country, and using a markedly similar thematic structure of AA-BB-A-CC-AA:
ALL of these forms depend on vital ingredients from African culture --- without which they could not exist.
That's simple reality.
You're making my points for me. Those regional styles all involved cultural influences of their respective region which included African and European elements. The factors that created the distinctions are all relative to the region. You don't have samba and Calypso in the US and you don't have blues in Brazil or the Caribbean (I'm talking about origins so don't go petty again about imports).
The Richter-tuned harmonica was the distinctive element that generated the distinctive American sound that is blues.
Again --- bullshit. The harmonica was picked up to play along. So were the trumpet, the violin, the clarinet, the organ, the saxophone, etc etc etc. Doesn't make any of them a "source" for what, by the time any of them were picked up and applied, already existed.
While I'm happy to wax prolific on musical origins I've studied in depth, I'm still at a loss to figure out what the point of this tangent is.
There was not and is not blues and jazz in Africa beyond that which was imported from America. Blues and jazz didn't exist even as nearby as the Caribbean though plenty of Arfrican slave trade existed there. This genre is specifically American. And the circumstances required were not in those other places.Because it hadn't been invented (as such) yet. But the elements that comprised it certainly were.
It is.
Not sure what "suddenly begin dropping records" means but some of it, especially jazz, has to do with Congo Square, the only place in America where blacks were free to express their heritage, in the 19th century. See that "Hear That Long Snake Moan" link from earlier for more on this.
Again, there IS blues and jazz in Africa, and the elements that led to it, and other forms of music, WERE there for centuries.
I'll come back at a later time to post examples, but right now I have a radio show to do.
You're parroting more Afro-centrist arrogant propaganda.
I'm describing musical history that I know. Yes, both blues and jazz originated here. That's obvious. But yes it also exists in Africa (and throughout the world), even if imported as a style. You were trying to tell us it doesn't exist there, but it does.
The original point IIRC was that the musical elements, the sensibilities of spirit that brought it about, were re-membered (put back together) from the collective experience of Africa. Both Asclepias and I linked articles detailing how that worked. The fact that the exact same development didn't take place in the Caribbean is absolutely meaningless. The Caribbean would have had different circumstances around it, especially the French (e.g. Haiti) or Spanish (e.g. Cuba) colonizers that ran the places. These would develop into forms like Merengue and Rara and Charanga and Danzón and myriad others again incorporating African approaches, especially to rhythm.
Or take the example of Brazil, a huge importer of West African slaves, where the wistful Portuguese Fado (which is what's going on in my avatar) was merged with the Semba rhythms of Angola to produce the new form Samba. Or before that, take the same Portuguese melodious structure and introduce the uniquely African sense of syncopation discussed earlier, and you get Chôro --- developed at the same time the same sense of syncopation was developing Ragtime ("ragged time") in this country, and using a markedly similar thematic structure of AA-BB-A-CC-AA:
ALL of these forms depend on vital ingredients from African culture --- without which they could not exist.
That's simple reality.
You're making my points for me. Those regional styles all involved cultural influences of their respective region which included African and European elements. The factors that created the distinctions are all relative to the region. You don't have samba and Calypso in the US and you don't have blues in Brazil or the Caribbean (I'm talking about origins so don't go petty again about imports).
The Richter-tuned harmonica was the distinctive element that generated the distinctive American sound that is blues.
Again --- bullshit. The harmonica was picked up to play along. So were the trumpet, the violin, the clarinet, the organ, the saxophone, etc etc etc. Doesn't make any of them a "source" for what, by the time any of them were picked up and applied, already existed.
While I'm happy to wax prolific on musical origins I've studied in depth, I'm still at a loss to figure out what the point of this tangent is.
I laid it out with specifics. I even gave you a perfect example of the juxtaposition of instruments to demonstrate the simple but relevant musical math. You can't refute. Parroting propaganda and indoctrination isn't refuting.
I can't prove my theory as there is no record or documentation. But the sequence of events and the evolution of the form and musical voicing is undeniable.
And the relevance of this tangent is that the thread is about origins of unique American culture.
There was not and is not blues and jazz in Africa beyond that which was imported from America. Blues and jazz didn't exist even as nearby as the Caribbean though plenty of Arfrican slave trade existed there. This genre is specifically American. And the circumstances required were not in those other places.
You're parroting more Afro-centrist arrogant propaganda.
I'm describing musical history that I know. Yes, both blues and jazz originated here. That's obvious. But yes it also exists in Africa (and throughout the world), even if imported as a style. You were trying to tell us it doesn't exist there, but it does.
The original point IIRC was that the musical elements, the sensibilities of spirit that brought it about, were re-membered (put back together) from the collective experience of Africa. Both Asclepias and I linked articles detailing how that worked. The fact that the exact same development didn't take place in the Caribbean is absolutely meaningless. The Caribbean would have had different circumstances around it, especially the French (e.g. Haiti) or Spanish (e.g. Cuba) colonizers that ran the places. These would develop into forms like Merengue and Rara and Charanga and Danzón and myriad others again incorporating African approaches, especially to rhythm.
Or take the example of Brazil, a huge importer of West African slaves, where the wistful Portuguese Fado (which is what's going on in my avatar) was merged with the Semba rhythms of Angola to produce the new form Samba. Or before that, take the same Portuguese melodious structure and introduce the uniquely African sense of syncopation discussed earlier, and you get Chôro --- developed at the same time the same sense of syncopation was developing Ragtime ("ragged time") in this country, and using a markedly similar thematic structure of AA-BB-A-CC-AA:
ALL of these forms depend on vital ingredients from African culture --- without which they could not exist.
That's simple reality.
You're making my points for me. Those regional styles all involved cultural influences of their respective region which included African and European elements. The factors that created the distinctions are all relative to the region. You don't have samba and Calypso in the US and you don't have blues in Brazil or the Caribbean (I'm talking about origins so don't go petty again about imports).
The Richter-tuned harmonica was the distinctive element that generated the distinctive American sound that is blues.
Again --- bullshit. The harmonica was picked up to play along. So were the trumpet, the violin, the clarinet, the organ, the saxophone, etc etc etc. Doesn't make any of them a "source" for what, by the time any of them were picked up and applied, already existed.
While I'm happy to wax prolific on musical origins I've studied in depth, I'm still at a loss to figure out what the point of this tangent is.
I laid it out with specifics. I even gave you a perfect example of the juxtaposition of instruments to demonstrate the simple but relevant musical math. You can't refute. Parroting propaganda and indoctrination isn't refuting.
I can't prove my theory as there is no record or documentation. But the sequence of events and the evolution of the form and musical voicing is undeniable.
And the relevance of this tangent is that the thread is about origins of unique American culture.
All you did was present "here's an instrument that's capable of playing that scale" and cite a convenient date. That doesn't show or even vaguely indicate a causation. The articles cited, however DO indicate a causation. And they have nothing to do with how a freaking harmonica is designed. They have much more to do with the sensibilities and structures of African culture and spirituality.
Again, that's the reality, cited with background -- not any kind of "propaganda". Sorry but this wacko theory was already refuted before it got here. You can't just rewrite history because you feel like it.
I'm describing musical history that I know. Yes, both blues and jazz originated here. That's obvious. But yes it also exists in Africa (and throughout the world), even if imported as a style. You were trying to tell us it doesn't exist there, but it does.
The original point IIRC was that the musical elements, the sensibilities of spirit that brought it about, were re-membered (put back together) from the collective experience of Africa. Both Asclepias and I linked articles detailing how that worked. The fact that the exact same development didn't take place in the Caribbean is absolutely meaningless. The Caribbean would have had different circumstances around it, especially the French (e.g. Haiti) or Spanish (e.g. Cuba) colonizers that ran the places. These would develop into forms like Merengue and Rara and Charanga and Danzón and myriad others again incorporating African approaches, especially to rhythm.
Or take the example of Brazil, a huge importer of West African slaves, where the wistful Portuguese Fado (which is what's going on in my avatar) was merged with the Semba rhythms of Angola to produce the new form Samba. Or before that, take the same Portuguese melodious structure and introduce the uniquely African sense of syncopation discussed earlier, and you get Chôro --- developed at the same time the same sense of syncopation was developing Ragtime ("ragged time") in this country, and using a markedly similar thematic structure of AA-BB-A-CC-AA:
ALL of these forms depend on vital ingredients from African culture --- without which they could not exist.
That's simple reality.
You're making my points for me. Those regional styles all involved cultural influences of their respective region which included African and European elements. The factors that created the distinctions are all relative to the region. You don't have samba and Calypso in the US and you don't have blues in Brazil or the Caribbean (I'm talking about origins so don't go petty again about imports).
The Richter-tuned harmonica was the distinctive element that generated the distinctive American sound that is blues.
Again --- bullshit. The harmonica was picked up to play along. So were the trumpet, the violin, the clarinet, the organ, the saxophone, etc etc etc. Doesn't make any of them a "source" for what, by the time any of them were picked up and applied, already existed.
While I'm happy to wax prolific on musical origins I've studied in depth, I'm still at a loss to figure out what the point of this tangent is.
I laid it out with specifics. I even gave you a perfect example of the juxtaposition of instruments to demonstrate the simple but relevant musical math. You can't refute. Parroting propaganda and indoctrination isn't refuting.
I can't prove my theory as there is no record or documentation. But the sequence of events and the evolution of the form and musical voicing is undeniable.
And the relevance of this tangent is that the thread is about origins of unique American culture.
All you did was present "here's an instrument that's capable of playing that scale" and cite a convenient date. That doesn't show or even vaguely indicate a causation. The articles cited, however DO indicate a causation. And they have nothing to do with how a freaking harmonica is designed. They have much more to do with the sensibilities and structures of African culture and spirituality.
Again, that's the reality, cited with background -- not any kind of "propaganda". Sorry but this wacko theory was already refuted before it got here. You can't just rewrite history because you feel like it.
It's bullshit propaganda aimed at creating an illusion of sophistication and ingenuity that isn't there. The mere fact that blues wasn't invented until the late 18th century refutes claims that it existed in Africa for centuries and that sub-Saharan-Africans-only own it. It's American and, as with most things American, no one lineage can lay claim.
You're like a blues nazi.
FWIW, most blacks of my generation and younger who play authentic blues were turned onto it third generation mainly by white people. Go to a blues fest and count the blacks in the audience. One hand should do it.
It's bullshit propaganda aimed at creating an illusion of sophistication and ingenuity that isn't there. The mere fact that blues wasn't invented until the late 18th century refutes claims that it existed in Africa for centuries and that sub-Saharan-Africans-only own it.
It's American and, as with most things American, no one lineage can lay claim.
You're like a blues nazi.
FWIW, most blacks of my generation and younger who play authentic blues were turned onto it third generation mainly by white people. Go to a blues fest and count the blacks in the audience. One hand should do it.
There was not and is not blues and jazz in Africa beyond that which was imported from America. Blues and jazz didn't exist even as nearby as the Caribbean though plenty of Arfrican slave trade existed there. This genre is specifically American. And the circumstances required were not in those other places.Because it hadn't been invented (as such) yet. But the elements that comprised it certainly were.
It is.
Not sure what "suddenly begin dropping records" means but some of it, especially jazz, has to do with Congo Square, the only place in America where blacks were free to express their heritage, in the 19th century. See that "Hear That Long Snake Moan" link from earlier for more on this.
Again, there IS blues and jazz in Africa, and the elements that led to it, and other forms of music, WERE there for centuries.
I'll come back at a later time to post examples, but right now I have a radio show to do.
You're parroting more Afro-centrist arrogant propaganda.
I'm describing musical history that I know. Yes, both blues and jazz originated here. That's obvious. But yes it also exists in Africa (and throughout the world), even if imported as a style. You were trying to tell us it doesn't exist there, but it does.
The original point IIRC was that the musical elements, the sensibilities of spirit that brought it about, were re-membered (put back together) from the collective experience of Africa. Both Asclepias and I linked articles detailing how that worked. The fact that the exact same development didn't take place in the Caribbean is absolutely meaningless. The Caribbean would have had different circumstances around it, especially the French (e.g. Haiti) or Spanish (e.g. Cuba) colonizers that ran the places. These would develop into forms like Merengue and Rara and Charanga and Danzón and myriad others again incorporating African approaches, especially to rhythm.
Or take the example of Brazil, a huge importer of West African slaves, where the wistful Portuguese Fado (which is what's going on in my avatar) was merged with the Semba rhythms of Angola to produce the new form Samba. Or before that, take the same Portuguese melodious structure and introduce the uniquely African sense of syncopation discussed earlier, and you get Chôro --- developed at the same time the same sense of syncopation was developing Ragtime ("ragged time") in this country, and using a markedly similar thematic structure of AA-BB-A-CC-AA:
ALL of these forms depend on vital ingredients from African culture --- without which they could not exist.
That's simple reality.
You're making my points for me. Those regional styles all involved cultural influences of their respective region which included African and European elements. The factors that created the distinctions are all relative to the region. You don't have samba and Calypso in the US and you don't have blues in Brazil or the Caribbean (I'm talking about origins so don't go petty again about imports).
The Richter-tuned harmonica was the distinctive element that generated the distinctive American sound that is blues.
Again --- bullshit. The harmonica was picked up to play along. So were the trumpet, the violin, the clarinet, the organ, the saxophone, etc etc etc. Doesn't make any of them a "source" for what, by the time any of them were picked up and applied, already existed.
While I'm happy to wax prolific on musical origins I've studied in depth, I'm still at a loss to figure out what the point of this tangent is.
I laid it out with specifics. I even gave you a perfect example of the juxtaposition of instruments to demonstrate the simple but relevant musical math. You can't refute. Parroting propaganda and indoctrination isn't refuting.
I can't prove my theory as there is no record or documentation. But the sequence of events and the evolution of the form and musical voicing is undeniable.
And the relevance of this tangent is that the thread is about origins of unique American culture.
You would be the ignorant one since your post offers no substance.Stop taking ignorance to a new high....It's bullshit propaganda aimed at creating an illusion of sophistication and ingenuity that isn't there. The mere fact that blues wasn't invented until the late 18th century refutes claims that it existed in Africa for centuries and that sub-Saharan-Africans-only own it. It's American and, as with most things American, no one lineage can lay claim.I laid it out with specifics. I even gave you a perfect example of the juxtaposition of instruments to demonstrate the simple but relevant musical math. You can't refute. Parroting propaganda and indoctrination isn't refuting.You're making my points for me. Those regional styles all involved cultural influences of their respective region which included African and European elements. The factors that created the distinctions are all relative to the region. You don't have samba and Calypso in the US and you don't have blues in Brazil or the Caribbean (I'm talking about origins so don't go petty again about imports).
The Richter-tuned harmonica was the distinctive element that generated the distinctive American sound that is blues.
Again --- bullshit. The harmonica was picked up to play along. So were the trumpet, the violin, the clarinet, the organ, the saxophone, etc etc etc. Doesn't make any of them a "source" for what, by the time any of them were picked up and applied, already existed.
While I'm happy to wax prolific on musical origins I've studied in depth, I'm still at a loss to figure out what the point of this tangent is.
I can't prove my theory as there is no record or documentation. But the sequence of events and the evolution of the form and musical voicing is undeniable.
And the relevance of this tangent is that the thread is about origins of unique American culture.
All you did was present "here's an instrument that's capable of playing that scale" and cite a convenient date. That doesn't show or even vaguely indicate a causation. The articles cited, however DO indicate a causation. And they have nothing to do with how a freaking harmonica is designed. They have much more to do with the sensibilities and structures of African culture and spirituality.
Again, that's the reality, cited with background -- not any kind of "propaganda". Sorry but this wacko theory was already refuted before it got here. You can't just rewrite history because you feel like it.
You're like a blues nazi.
FWIW, most blacks of my generation and younger who play authentic blues were turned onto it third generation mainly by white people. Go to a blues fest and count the blacks in the audience. One hand should do it.
It's bullshit propaganda aimed at creating an illusion of sophistication and ingenuity that isn't there. The mere fact that blues wasn't invented until the late 18th century refutes claims that it existed in Africa for centuries and that sub-Saharan-Africans-only own it.
No, it's ethnomusicology; it's a study in both anthropology and music (both of which I've studied in depth). Along with religion, (which I've also studied informally). It's no different than tracing where Wiener Schnitzel or hamburgers or came from. It's a simple fucking genealogy search, and it's been done in depth well before you or I got here. Your emotional diaper rash about it is irrelevant to that. The roots are already there and the roots have already been traced.
It's American and, as with most things American, no one lineage can lay claim.
You're like a blues nazi.
There's no such thing. What I am besides a folklorist and musician is a radio producer who has literally done documentaries on this stuff; I ain't pulling it out of my ass. They're "American" in that this is the continent where they were generated, and they're "African" in that that is the continent where their elements were conceived, and they're "international" in that they're enjoyed and practiced throughout the world. And you'll notice I've restored the plural, as we're talking of both blues AND jazz, a combination you seem to want to channel down to blues only.
FWIW, most blacks of my generation and younger who play authentic blues were turned onto it third generation mainly by white people. Go to a blues fest and count the blacks in the audience. One hand should do it.
Clearly you've never been to New Orleans then, because that's bullshit. Go treat yourself to JazzFest in a few weeks; you'll need to take a case of extra hands. The white people of our generation got it from the black people who had already invented it, went through it, and in the case of blues largely moved on. At one radio station where I worked there was this multi-disc LP of a blues festival from 1964 --- on that set, peppered around the disc, was at least half of the first Led Zeppelin album, done by the originals. Of course Jimmy Plagiarist and Robber Plant took songwriting credits but it was right there, note for note, lyric for lyric, five years before LZ existed.
Ask Eric Clapton where he got all this. He makes no pretense -- and credits the original artist properly:
This is documented history. You don't get to rewrite that.
You can't wear Levi jeans either. They are for white guys only.No problem. I would never eat fried chicken from a white person. I like my chicken to taste good.
There was not and is not blues and jazz in Africa beyond that which was imported from America. Blues and jazz didn't exist even as nearby as the Caribbean though plenty of Arfrican slave trade existed there. This genre is specifically American. And the circumstances required were not in those other places.
You're parroting more Afro-centrist arrogant propaganda.
I'm describing musical history that I know. Yes, both blues and jazz originated here. That's obvious. But yes it also exists in Africa (and throughout the world), even if imported as a style. You were trying to tell us it doesn't exist there, but it does.
The original point IIRC was that the musical elements, the sensibilities of spirit that brought it about, were re-membered (put back together) from the collective experience of Africa. Both Asclepias and I linked articles detailing how that worked. The fact that the exact same development didn't take place in the Caribbean is absolutely meaningless. The Caribbean would have had different circumstances around it, especially the French (e.g. Haiti) or Spanish (e.g. Cuba) colonizers that ran the places. These would develop into forms like Merengue and Rara and Charanga and Danzón and myriad others again incorporating African approaches, especially to rhythm.
Or take the example of Brazil, a huge importer of West African slaves, where the wistful Portuguese Fado (which is what's going on in my avatar) was merged with the Semba rhythms of Angola to produce the new form Samba. Or before that, take the same Portuguese melodious structure and introduce the uniquely African sense of syncopation discussed earlier, and you get Chôro --- developed at the same time the same sense of syncopation was developing Ragtime ("ragged time") in this country, and using a markedly similar thematic structure of AA-BB-A-CC-AA:
ALL of these forms depend on vital ingredients from African culture --- without which they could not exist.
That's simple reality.
You're making my points for me. Those regional styles all involved cultural influences of their respective region which included African and European elements. The factors that created the distinctions are all relative to the region. You don't have samba and Calypso in the US and you don't have blues in Brazil or the Caribbean (I'm talking about origins so don't go petty again about imports).
The Richter-tuned harmonica was the distinctive element that generated the distinctive American sound that is blues.
Again --- bullshit. The harmonica was picked up to play along. So were the trumpet, the violin, the clarinet, the organ, the saxophone, etc etc etc. Doesn't make any of them a "source" for what, by the time any of them were picked up and applied, already existed.
While I'm happy to wax prolific on musical origins I've studied in depth, I'm still at a loss to figure out what the point of this tangent is.
I laid it out with specifics. I even gave you a perfect example of the juxtaposition of instruments to demonstrate the simple but relevant musical math. You can't refute. Parroting propaganda and indoctrination isn't refuting.
I can't prove my theory as there is no record or documentation. But the sequence of events and the evolution of the form and musical voicing is undeniable.
And the relevance of this tangent is that the thread is about origins of unique American culture.
Stop being an illiterate cave chimp. You cant prove it because its not true. Pogo on the other hand has already proved you wrong numerous times.
She's a Republican. Conservative too.
She's the first one to come to mind when that bogus clip of a black woman protesting a white guy with dreadlocks surfaced.She's a Republican. Conservative too.
Doubling down on stupidityYou would be the ignorant one since your post offers no substance.Stop taking ignorance to a new high....It's bullshit propaganda aimed at creating an illusion of sophistication and ingenuity that isn't there. The mere fact that blues wasn't invented until the late 18th century refutes claims that it existed in Africa for centuries and that sub-Saharan-Africans-only own it. It's American and, as with most things American, no one lineage can lay claim.I laid it out with specifics. I even gave you a perfect example of the juxtaposition of instruments to demonstrate the simple but relevant musical math. You can't refute. Parroting propaganda and indoctrination isn't refuting.Again --- bullshit. The harmonica was picked up to play along. So were the trumpet, the violin, the clarinet, the organ, the saxophone, etc etc etc. Doesn't make any of them a "source" for what, by the time any of them were picked up and applied, already existed.
While I'm happy to wax prolific on musical origins I've studied in depth, I'm still at a loss to figure out what the point of this tangent is.
I can't prove my theory as there is no record or documentation. But the sequence of events and the evolution of the form and musical voicing is undeniable.
And the relevance of this tangent is that the thread is about origins of unique American culture.
All you did was present "here's an instrument that's capable of playing that scale" and cite a convenient date. That doesn't show or even vaguely indicate a causation. The articles cited, however DO indicate a causation. And they have nothing to do with how a freaking harmonica is designed. They have much more to do with the sensibilities and structures of African culture and spirituality.
Again, that's the reality, cited with background -- not any kind of "propaganda". Sorry but this wacko theory was already refuted before it got here. You can't just rewrite history because you feel like it.
You're like a blues nazi.
FWIW, most blacks of my generation and younger who play authentic blues were turned onto it third generation mainly by white people. Go to a blues fest and count the blacks in the audience. One hand should do it.
uh, no, it didn't.No more coffee for white people. It originated in Africa. Sorry.
Sorry cave chimp. You never know what you are talking about so I will educate you.uh, no, it didn't.No more coffee for white people. It originated in Africa. Sorry.
