On Jun 24, 2:28 am, "David Webber" <d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> "LJS" <ljsche...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:fece0666-4337-464d-ba25-288044ea0e5e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > Basin Street Blues is not a blues tune. It takes more than a title.
> > The changes are not even close nor is the form.
>
> A "purist" may say not, but in fact blues was never limited to a 12 bar
> form, nor to the simple I IV V changes of the simplest blues. The
blues
> feel is sometimes less easily defined than that. I feel it as a blues
and
> I am far from alone.
>
> Still, I won't argue, but rather observe, that in trying to think of a
blues
> performance without blue notes, it is possible I was looking for pieces
with
> more complex changes than the simple I IV V, because IV7 automatically
> introduces a blue note, and a I IV V blues would, I would guess, be
rather
> dull without blue notes.
>
> Dave
> --
> David Webber
> Author of 'Mozart the Music Processor'http://www.mozart.co.uk
> For discussion/sup****t
seehttp://www.mozart.co.uk/mozartists/mailinglist.htm
Too late Dave, you have already argued it. You can say observe after
you have argued but you are still saying that a 16 bar A A' melody
that is diatonic except for one augmented 5^ note that is part of a
Secondary dominant that is part of a classical CPP progression of I
III7 VI7 II7 V7 I with a few simple enhancements is a blues, and
maybe YOUR friends will call it a blues, but the only connection to
this tune and the blues is the title.
Further into your argument (oh, I mean "observation") your did not do
what you say that you intended to do ( or what you intended to observe
as that statement doesn't really make sense) as this tune neither has
any blues notes nor is it dull. That dull statement in it self about
blues being dull with out blue notes is I guess "observing" that you
either think that Basin Street is dull, because it doesn't have any
blue notes or maybe you mean because it doesn't have any IV chords
or... Well I have to admit that I really don't know what your are
either arguing or observing. This tune as an example of non blue note
blues tunes is truly a non sequitur. And then that statement about
being dull gives me some problems. Musicians make the music exciting
or dull, not the genre.
I know that some of my post doesn't make full sense, and that is
because I really can't put my finger on what you are trying to claim!
You added BLUES PERFORMANCE in this reply, but in the post that I
responded you said only BLUES and then gave an example of a TUNE and
not a performance.
Is this spinning to ****ft away from your mistake of supplying Basin ST
Blues as a blues tune? or is it misquoting the post to show you in a
more favorable light.
Is the changing of the definition of Arguing to mean Observing suppose
to be anything but a cop out? or what?
Is calling me a "purist" supposed to prove that Basin St is a Blues
tune in any sense?
If your original intention was that you were looking for blues tune
that did not use I IV V (a rather odd approach to show how a blues
tune might be conceived without a blue note, ( did you ever think or
not using the m7th? in the harmony? or of using a maj7 or in some way
or fa****on having SOME connection to the blues with your example?
Basin St has no connection to the blues for purists or anyone else!
Well, if a blues player plays it, he may add blue notes, but then that
is not what you were claiming now is it?
And the dull statement is made to reference to something that you have
not produced, so it is really rather baseless.
All and all, I know this is a different context, but it does say a lot
about your posts in the other thread. Especially about how you simply
quote my posts and respond and how you never spin, misquote or change
the context. I thought that was a particularly funny post. I just have
not had time to "parse" some of your earlier posts where you really
out right change everything! You are truly a piece of work.
LJS
|
