Last evening in the Americas Debate Radio Chat forum, two members (whom will identify themselves eventually [okay, I admit I forgot exactly WHO, but who's splitting hairs anyway?]) began an argument about Blues Guitarist B.B. King.

Questions for Debate:

1. Was B.B. King a guitar legend, or was he overrated?

2. What Blues artist would be most appropriate as a Blues Legend?

1. Was B.B. King a guitar legend, or was he overrated?

B. B. King is, not was, by any measure a guitar legend. In addition to being one of the most hard working and prolific artists of the past half-century, King landed 75 hits on Billboard’s R&B charts and 35 on their Hot 100 pop charts.
Information fro Joel Whitburn’s Top R&B Singles: 1942-1999 and Top Pop Singles, 1955-2006.

In addition he brought the blues out of the clubs called the “chittlin circuit” to mainstream venues line the Bass Performance Hall in Fort Worth and into our living rooms through television.


http://www.rockhall.com/inductee/bb-king

BTW: In a well constructed multiple choice exercise, there is only one throw away answer.

I suppose this line:

“banned under the Assault Weapons Ban?” was that distracter.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/distracter

Therefore, I must conclude that you really meant Les Paul a fine guitar player and innovator, "not almost as legendary as Ron Paul."

2. What Blues artist would be most appropriate as a Blues Legend?

Benny Goodman was called the “King of Swing, but the title could just as easily have gone to Duke Ellington or Count Basie, Elvis staked rights to the title “King of Rock and Roll,” even though Chuck Berry wrote most of his songs while Elvis wrote none and practically every rock since has borrowed something from Berry, if not a whole song to be covered.

So, I suppose, if we wanted to down play B. B.’s accomplishments, we could just hand off titles to whatever white clone we want to in the blank ______________ provided and leave B. B. out in the cold. It wouldn’t be fair or accurate, but it would follow history’s established path.

1. Was B.B. King a guitar legend, or was he overrated?

Yeah, he is a legend. He gets criticism about being a one-note wonder, but when confronted with this, he said yeah, but it's MY NOTE! He found it, he played the hell out of it, and there you go. The lick. The sound. Unmistakable. That's what makes a blues legend, identity so strong that you know at first sound who it is.

Seems that people get confused as to what is hard to do in music. Slow timing and coming in just after the beat is very hard for White musicians to pull off. Erick Clapton comes the closest to getting it right, at least thinking just off the top of my head. Good old slow hand. White musicians generally go for fast and either on or just before the beat, and they call it Rock and Roll.

Then you have the jazz musicians with speed and way too many notes. We here call that sheets of sound and don't care for it.

2. What Blues artist would be most appropriate as a Blues Legend?

Think of any distinct blues sound, try to find its origins, and those people are the legends. Or find someone who took the sound farther, like Stevie Ray Vaughan, and they're legends too. I have a special place in my heart for Sonny Terry and Brownie McGhee, but are these guys legends? I think so, but they aren't well known.

Buddy Guy, definately. Junior Wells, right up there. Would I include Rye Cooder? Oh what the hell. How about Leadbelly? Yup. That whole gang from the '20s and '30s, anyone who touched a National steel. That would bring in Taj Mahal as a contemporary. I'm even going to add Hank Williams in this mix, country blues superb, twanged for the White audiences. Then there's Howlin Wolf -- and you wonder if it really is timber wolf blues -- Omar and the Howlers too. That Omar, geez, you see him up close and he's really small. The voice is monster truck roaring.

It's really taste, isn't it. Some blues I find to be unlistenable, too dirty and undefined or too slick and fake. But then there's that sweet spot of just enough grit with just enough mastery, and there you go. Gets you going, whoop it up.

Anyway, it's hard for White boys to slow it down and get behind the beat, but it's possible with enough work. A few good licks are better than a mess of meaningless junk. I know I've left out a lot of great blues players of all races and nations, and areas within those nations. Just how many great musicians are out there is mind boggling. Spend a few years in Memphis and walk Beale Street, and you'll get a sense of it. Or get down to Greenville, MS for the blues festival, and there's the Delta sound.

There's the Piedmont Blues, the Chicago Blues, either coast blues, and even a flavor of mountain blues. That heads over to blue grass, which can get bluesy too with new grass, or you just slow it down right like they did for the sound track of O Brother.

It's interesting to note that the blues wasn't always 12-bar progressions with three chords. It was simpler in its roots. Now it's all over the place with differing numbers of bars and lots more chords in the progressions, might call it jazz-blues or rock-blues or just plain good music. I'll give Jimi Hendrix credit for taking the blues up a few thousand notches, yet bringing in the one-chord original blues form.

Nevertheless, BB King found the note. It's his note, and he plays the hell out of it. That is undeniably pure blues, and it's legendary.

1. Was B.B. King a guitar legend, or was he overrated?

Was? Has he retired now?

Of course he is important, in as much as a musician can ever be, but to say he was a legend kind of implies he is dead. I'd say he was a trail blazer. A true pioneer, in that his name stands out amongst his contemporaries and an all around really solid bloke. Whether or not he is musically gifted is undeniable, obviously he is, but in a world over flowing with guitar talent, I'd say his age helped his success more than as his talent.

I'd still be honoured to hear him live though. Modern guitarists just don't seem to have the same sense of style


2. What Blues artist would be most appropriate as a Blues Legend?

Given that he is dead now, and may his soul rest in peace, I'd offer my personal favourite blue's man for consideration; J Lee Hooker.

Thanks for asking that question, Moif.

I established earlier that he is still alive. He is also still active on the tour.

He played Billy Bob's in Fort Worth April 12. Unfortunately, I couldn't go because of a late work schedule at the tax service.

According to his webpage, B. B. King has a full concert season ahead.

http://www.bbking.com/

If King were to die or retire, he would still be a legend.

Blues is, as B. B. once told me, a feeling. I like other blues singers, but B. B. and Lucille bring on that feeling more than anyone else.

BTW: B. B. has been ill for some years with diabetes. I am glad we are discussing him in a thread rather than R.I.P.

It was me, i said it. "B.B. King is the most overrated blues artist in history", actually, was my direct quote.

Overrated. He is not a guitar legend by any stretch of the imagination. He does have a unique sound, no one can deny that. But having said that, he simply cannot play many complicated licks, he can't do a lot of the things that true guitar legends can do. And "The Thrill is Gone" is the most overplayed blues track in music history.

Buddy Guy, Buddy Guy, Buddy Guy. Greatest blues guitarist, ever. Aside from him, R.L Burnside, he did things with the blues that no one else had done before him or since. Junior Wells. Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf. I would throw Eric Clapton in there as well, most of his best stuff is blues rock, if not straight up blues.

CP

Yes. BB King is overrated and he's a guitar legend. This is going to get glaze your eyes over technical but here goes:

BB King is a Legend because his takes on the blues and his own songs added to the canon of a uniquely American music. BB King, like Eric Clapton has probably never played the wrong note in his life. If he did by virtue of his playing it it became the new defacto rigth note play. His phrasing, the moments he chooses to play, the vibrato (wiggle) and the timbre (which Ab he chooses, on which string and which fret (Ab on the 4th fret of the low E is the same note but "feels" different than the same Ab played on the 11th fret of A)) of that note have been for decades his calling card to Guitar God ranking. Like Frank Sinatra's unique delivery, BB King's phrasing is instantly recognizable as his own. It is also very difficult to recreate. His fingers, their pressure on the fret board and string and the choice of plectrum (pick) or finger are part of the sound, of the instrument, the technique that make the sound so uniquely his.

However, unlike other guitar legends: Robert Johnson, Django, Chet Atkins, Chuck Berry, Jimi Hendrix, Jimmy Page, Eric Clapton, Jeff Beck, Tony Iommi, Eddie Van Halen, (to name a few) BB King did little to change the way people played guitar (Hendrix and Van Halen are the leaders in that category) or even really inspire people to pick up the guitar. I think a legend needs to have radically come in and have changed the way the instrument is approached. So while Les Paul is an outstanding guitarist in his own right he did not change the way the guitar was approached as instrument but instead changed what guitarists physically play with the SG and the Les Paul. Randi Rhodes, Steve Vai, George Harrison, Keith Richards, Mark Knopfler, Stevie Ray Vaughn and Kerry King are all outstanding guitarists who did not forward the instrument to any new place or technique but who all certainly inspired people to pick up a guitar an learn to play.

BB King is certainly among the great players but a Legend? Sure if we're talking top 100 but 100 legends is immediately stretching things. BB King shouldn't reasonably be in a top 20 Guitarists List but might show up there out of respect for his craft. Let's not forget he has very smartly marketed himself with a catchy name and a signature look. Also let's not discount his vocal chops. With a booming voice he's as definable by that as he is by his guitar work.

I don't even understand this question. The short list needs to include Robert Johnson, Howling Wolf, Muddy Waters, Blind Lemon Jefferson, John Mayall. Certainly it could be expanded to include Eric Clapton, Susan Tedeschi, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Hell, Janis Joplin and Led Zeppelin could make this vague list.

Of course all music is subjective. It's difficult to know when it is happening that you're listening to ground breaking music (Hendrix and Van Halen not withstanding) and to some extent the greatness of one player can be diluted by so many things that they may be overlooked. Whether they were in a band that didn't show everything they had, or so many copycat emerged on the scene that the original technique was lost in the mix. (Eddie Van Halen didn't invent "tapping" (violinists have done this for centuries, Jeff Beck and Ace Frehely used a similar technique with the side of their picks instead of their fingers) or "dive bombing" but his unbelievable playing combined with his ability to throw every trick in the book without over powering the song created an army of wanna-be players that nearly ruined his place among the Rock Guitar Gods. Sort of an "It's all his fault Vito Bratta has a job!" sort of thing.)

Wow. Cynical, are we? I can't speak about anyone but Elvis and the Bluff City, where I grew up, but here is what a number of black entertainers had to say about your "clone":

"On a scale of one to ten, I rate Elvis an eleven." Sammy Davis, Jr.

"A lot of people accused Elvis of stealing the black man's music, when in fact, almost every black solo entertainer copied his stage mannerisms from Elvis." Jackie Wilson

"I remember Elvis as a young man hanging around the Sun Studios. Even then, I knew this kid had a tremendous talent. He was a dynamic young boy. His phraseology, his way of looking at a song, was as unique as Sinatra's. I was a tremendous fan, and had Elvis lived, there would have been no end to his inventiveness." B. B. King.

Describe Elvis Presley? He was the greatest who ever was, is, or will ever be." Chuck Berry

And, perhaps the best quote of all from the late, legendary Rufus Thomas:

"Well, a lot of people say Elvis stole our music. Stole the black man's music. The black man, white man, got no music of their own. Music belongs to the universe."

I guess in a post-racial society, we can just listen to the music and enjoy the entertainment. There is no need---and no truth--in trying to paint Elvis as some sort of racial imposter (or a racist, as some have done, as he hung out with and was friend with lots and lots of blacks over the years), as he was dirt poor, grew up around blacks in the South, hung out on Beale, but--he was as unique as he could be and those who truly know, as shown above, understand that.

Anyway, back to the questions at hand:

1) As a guitar player myself, I think B.B. is best described as a "stylist". He is not a great technical guitar player because his musical range is limited and his chording is, too, but from reading about him he has learned much more music theory than one might suspect, and he has an absolutely unique sound and "style". He is one of those players, like Hendrix, EVH, or Dickey Betts, whom you can identify in a song almost instantly.

As far as being a "legend", well, of course he is. Being the best technical guitar player is not necessary to be a legend. There are lots of incredibly technically skilled studio studs we'll never know and who will never be legends, but I can assure you B.B. King (and Elvis)--regardless of their musical limitations--are indeed legends.

Interestingly, as more and more young blacks have turned their backs on the blues as being "Uncle Tom" and out-of touch, B.B. was adopted by white culture even more than when he and his "big band" used to come to Memphis and play the old ballroom back in the 60s and 70s. Appealing to the broader audience definitely will enhance his "legend".

2) No one has mentioned Stevie Ray Vaughn. He did it all in the world of blues/blues rock: He could play Texas and Chicago style blues, psychedelic blues/rock like Hendrix, jazz stylings, and even country-tinged blues/blues rock. He had energy, style, power and skill, along with a great stage presence and showmanship, if you've ever seen him live. And, of course, he died young, which often helps in legend-building. Some may try to diminsh him as a Hendrix clone, but his jazz and country stylings, to me anyway, set him apart. Of course, we all know Hendrix is a legend, too, and Jimi also got the "died young" legend-making bounce.


EDIT--Sorry BA; I guess I was typing while you posted above mentioning SRV. Nice post.

Just to throw this out there [as I did in the chatroom]. Robert Johnson, while certainly a blues legend, is not the 'father of blues'. Charlie Patton is, and therefore should be included on any list of blues legends, I apologize to the Patton estate for forgetting to include him.

BA: BB came to my high school and explained what you explained in your first paragraph...Absolutely incredible and the sound is uniquely his own. That said, I have a unique sound when playing guitar...and it's awful. BB's good and I appreciate what he's done as a blues ambassador, but he isn't in the same world as Buddy Guy, Charlie Patton, Robert Johnson etc.

In addition, I would replace Blind Lemon Jefferson with Son House, but that's just me.

CP

Fair swap BLJ for S. A good case could be made for Elmore James:)

On his tone you can plug a guy like BB King into a japanese plywood guitar and he's going to sound like BB King because most of his tone is in his fingers. At the same time for all that wonderful tone, and the respect he's garnered I have difficult time putting him in the legend category. It's not a notes per second thing or Steve Morse would be king of all guitarist (or Al DiMeola, Edgar Winter, Paul Gilbert, etc) it's to what end did his playing _change_ the way other guitarists play? I think it's negligible.

Whether or not B. B. is the greatest guitar player in history isn't relevant. One can be a legend while not being the highly subjective "best."

The second question asks about "blues legend" not "guitar legend." He certainly meets that test rather easily. To me he owns the equally subjective "King of the Blues" title.

BoF: I was responding more to the first question regarding his status as a 'guitar legend'. To me, a pre-requisite for 'guitar legend' status, is being an great guitarist. B.B. doesn't qualify. The case can be made that he's a 'blues legend' [I may reluctantly agree to that], but he's no guitar legend.

CP

This is interesting to me.

I would suggest to you that using typical musical standards to evaluate a guitar player, jazz players and particularly classical players would slay most, if not all, of our "legends". First, 99% of them read; 99% of them are well-schooled in theory; 99% of them can sit down and play damn near anything, with the best players playing either from the sheets or by trained ear and theory, to a great degree; and they focus on music, more than style, energy or showmanship, which for me is as big a part of being a "legend" as technical skill. Relatively few people will pay to see the best classical guitar player on earth sit with his $50,000.00 gitfiddle with an orchestra and play; millions will still pay to see EVH do his thing. While EVH is a great player, I would not say he's as great--in typical musical standards--as the classical dude.

All I am saying here is being a guitar legend has much more to do with simply technical skill, as much as we admire that skill.

Well there's a few things wrong here.

1) EVH can read and write. He's played classical and flamenco on the albums. His father was a monster jazz clarinet player and had both sons taught classical piano. Fortunately for American rock and roll Eddie heard Cream and abandoned the piano (and swapped his drum set with Alex's guitar)

2) In like 82-83 Guitar Player (I think) did an article or two wherein they brought in some hard core jazzers, studio guys and classical players to talk about EVHs playing and approach. They were all floored by his technique, playing and his musical knowledge/breadth. So deferring to their expertise EVH is no lightweight guitarist playing by the seat of his pants. Much like Jimi Hendrix EVH rarely plays each verse the same often completely changing the chording or scalar points slightly (plays an A open, 5th, 7th - begins his A Pentatonic on A, C#, E) for each. A really good example of this can be found in Hey Joy where Jimi Hendrix plays C, G, D, Am, E with different chordings nearly every time all the while retaining the song and not forcing you to notice his changes.

Now your example can certainly work- we simply need to change guitarists. Richie Sambora of Bon Jovi is actually a very accomplished and technical guitarist whom 50,000 people come out to see often. Compare him to Andreas Segovia or John Williams and let's face it Sambora is a piker.

I don't disagree with that , quick. What I'm saying is that incredible skill is a pre-requisite before we start talking about intangibles. It's simply fact that Eric Clapton can do things with a guitar that B.B. King cannot. It isn't just about skill, but skill, to me, is way to filter out the 'pretenders' before we start talking about intangibles.

CP

I feel really strange arguing about EVH, as I love him, but I have heard, quite to the contrary, that he is self-taught on guitar and "relatively" unschooled, despite a few years of piano lessons. A friend of mine, a drummer, saw EVH jam with Allan Holdsworth some years ago and said Allan wasted him. I know his Dad, Jan Van Halen, is a clarinet player, as he played with the boys on "Big Bad Bill". I am always suspicious of Guitar Player, as practically everyone they profile seems to have been "raised as a classical "____________" and switched to guitar at "___" when his Mom decided to "_____"". PR people are quite good these days.

That said, maybe I did pick the wrong guy--don't really know. I do know, from having heard him say it, that Richie S. is self-taught.

Still, I think my general point is correct, even if I may--may--be wrong about EVH. In any event, EVH is a stud and he is a blast to watch live, while many players from other genres are not.

I'm on board that John Lee Hooker is a blues legend. He's another one who used one-chord grooves in his tunes, the roots form of blues.

Blues is not theory. It's reality. If you need theory to understand it, chances are that you don't have the blues. I remember the painful explanations of blues rhythms in the guitar books of the 1960s. Eh, stop reading, start listening and go dancing. That's how you learn blues rhythm. Syncopation my bee hind. Steam engine trains are syncopated. Gershwin is syncopated. Real blues is more fluid and cannot be explained. More like bird songs if they could stomp their feet. Ever hear a mocking bird jam? That's the blues. It was either in Tennessee or Virginia where I came upon those amazing creatures. My theory is that birds like these inspired the first blues. I have no way of proving it, so I guess that makes it a hypothesis, and that sounds discordant. Then I think, why'd we drop the "h" in "discordant?" I'd better shaddup and play my guitar.

Overthinking is a crying shameful waste of a good lick.

What a fun topic!

Just to hit on the AZ's questions:

1. Was IS B.B. King a guitar legend, or was IS he overrated?

No, BB King is not a guitar legend, although I suppose he's perceived as a legendary figure whose guitar playing is his most notable identifier. Whether or not he's overrated is based on one person's opinion of whether or not another person's opinion (rating) of BB King is accurate.

2. What Blues artist would be most appropriate as a Blues Legend?

This is where semantics come into play. If you define legend as "had a lot of success" or "plays guitar really well" then it's easy to start lists with dozens of names on them. But in terms of truly being a legend in the style of an urban legend, there has to be a difficult-to-believe story behind the legend that likely can't be proven. The only name that comes to mind on this one is Robert Johnson, with the whole crossroads story and whatnot.

So now that that is out of the way...heh.

I've seen a ton of blues acts. When someone asks me who is the most overrated guitarist, I have only one answer: Eric Clapton. I've listened to a lot of his albums. I even saw him last summer at the Crossroads Guitar Festival in Chicago. I was not impressed. As a matter of fact, I used his set as an opportunity to go buy a $7 bottle of water, much to the dismay of the couple next to me who kept yammering on about 'Blackie,' yet left before Buddy Guy took the stage.

I just do not get the whole Clapton fascination. His playing skill is mediocre to good at best. His singing has no emotion. His stage presence is non-existant. His songwriting completely bottomed out years ago. He's just dull in general. Now, I won't knock his accomplishments over the years in terms of bringing together great acts for good causes, but as a guitar player and overall musician, he's as overrated as they come.


Couple more points...


I can confirm this. I have four guitars, and BB King's note was not included on any of them.


Hm. I have to disagree on this one. The most overplayed blues track in all of history is "Sweet Home Chicago." Somebody please, for its own good, put "Sweet Home Chicago" down.



Mike

Blasphemy. Eric Clapton is the greatest guitarist ever. If you want 'stage presence', look elsewhere, if you want singing, look elsewhere [although his voice has gotten better] and if you want meaningful lyrics, look elsewhere. If you want to see someone who can play the guitar better than anyone who has ever lived, Eric Clapton is your man.

Agreed, someone needs to put that track out of its misery.

CP

I see we've reached the stage of the debate where it's devolving into a whizzing match of "My guitar god can beat up your guitar god."

Okay, I'm down for that.

For me when I want to hear Eric Clapton (which happens maybe twice a year), I'm going to play "Crossroads" where he absolutely goes nuts.

But when I want to hear the "the greatest guitarist ever" I'm not going anywhere near Clapton. He's not even in the conversation. Besides what the hell does "greatest guitarist ever" mean anyway? Clapton can play the blues and rock out like a mutha, but can he play jazz like Wes Montgomery or John McLaughlin?

As I'm writing this I'm listening to Jeff Beck on "Led Boots" from Wired. Beck can do anything Clapton does (except sing) and if I were starting a band I'd want the most versatile cat out there and Beck has played rock, blues and jazz and been exceptional in all three genres. The same goes for my personal choice of guitar god, Carlos Santana.

ConservPat, you've made it abundantly clear you think B.b. King is an overrated fraud and Clapton is God (as was spray-painted on the walls of clubs in London as rumor has it). But when Clapton and King collaborated on Riding with the King it was clear that Clapton was paying homage to King, not the other way around. From who got top billing to the album cover, Clapton is giving up props to King. For some reason, I trust his evaluation of B.B. King's "legend" status just a wee bit more than I do yours.

It's all kind of silly, really. If we were fussing over who's the best trumpet player we could start with Miles Davis. Who would be his rival? Al Hirt?

Besides arguing about "who's better/who's best" is a game only fans play. Pros already know who's best. The guy they stole their licks from.


Talking about music is like dancing about architecture. ~ Thelonious Monk

Mike:

I guess this serves as a public lesson to re-read your own questions before posting a topic.

BOF:

Shoot! I didn't know that there was only supposed to be one distracter.

As for the Ron Paul option, almost every poll I've seen at always gives an RP radio button, which I thought was a standard answer for any poll. My sincere apologies.

ConservPat:
So you're telling me that the greatest guitarist ever has no stage presence, the inability to write decent lyrics and sings like a strangled cat?

Hmmm. Okay, I can buy that.

But Clapton, like Elton John and people who have written gadzooks of albums over several decades, are definitely losing what they started out with. If in 20 years Bon Jovi can top "You Give Love A Bad Name", or "Livin' on a Prayer", I'll boil my head in public. I don't expect Clapton to get better, the Rolling Stones haven't had a real hit since the 80's, every album Metallica writes sucks worse than the one before it... the point is that as they age and after their prime and success years, they slow down. But since they are a brand name for the record label, they keep writing albums because long-time fans will buy it and their record contract lasted longer than their success. I'm not a bit surprised that any of them aren't doing better than they were doing years prior, when they had energy and were hungry for it. Most bands take 3 years to write their first album. Then they get a contract, and have 3 months to write an album and being recording the followup one. But then, the music industry hasn't been about music for a long time.

I'm shocked that someone failed to mention Joe Satch, Eric Johnson, and the other attendees at the Crossroads show. And for the record, Joe Satriani shouldn't sing either. Thank goodness it was rare in his early days.

Indeed, Eric was paying homage to the 'King'. B.B. King has been blues' ambassador and has seniority, Clapton was paying his respects [that CD was sub-par, in my view]. No one expected Clapton to say 'I'm the best, I'm just giving B.B. a thrill by letting him record with me'.

That said, Clapton has gone on the record and called Buddy Guy the best guitarist alive...I think he's being modest.

Aside: I never called King a fraud, just overrated.

Great Monk quote, btw.

Correct.

CP

Maynard Ferguson. OK, Thad Jones as a backup.


1. Was B.B. King a guitar legend, or was he overrated?
Both, obviously.

2. What Blues artist would be most appropriate as a Blues Legend?
Buddy Guy is my first thought. Secondly, I have to root for the blues guys that are still working in places like Chicago. Sugar Blue is possibly the best living blues harp player and he makes $150 a night (when he shows up).

Anyway, it's not my place to list blues legends. The last time I saw BB King was last summer at the Ravinia Festival. He mailed the gig in. He was weak. His guitar playing was a few steps above mine, and I'm not a guitar player. The opening act, Joan Osborne, was more bluesy and she is not a blues artist.

Last point - Elmore James. Just in case google is looking. Elmore James.

Lots of good You Tube fodder in this thread. I've not heard of half these people! I looked up Buddy Guy and I have to say, he's far more 'entertaining' than Eric Clapton. Eric Clapton may be 'a god', but in my opinon he's the god of mediocrity for I've never felt anything when listening to his music... but thats just my subjective opinion of course. I'd rather listen to Jimi Hendrix any day and as for paying homage, I find Buddy Guy is on You Tube paying homage to Jimi Hendrix.

In fact, thinking about it, I'd put David Gilmour over Eric Clapton to... easily!

I wasn't going to reply to this thread at all, since my knowledge of both blues music and guitar playing techniques is pretty close to zero, but the comments from moif got me to thinking. Those of you who are musicians are certainly able to determine the degree to which someone has technical skills with a guitar; but it seems to me that this is not the only factor involved in making someone a "legend." Many different factors would also be involved, some of them quite subjective.

Which kind of boils down to "I may not know music, but I know what I like."

Yep, and there's where this all comes from. What gets the juice flowing? What attracts you back for more? A musician can be full of theory and technique but still suck. Conversely, the theory can be simple and the technique crude, but there's something about it. Actually, that's usually an illusion where the musician has simplified to the essence of what music is.

If you listen to the early stuff that BB King was recording, it isn't very good in comparison to what he's been playing for the past 30 or so years. At least so I think. The sound is like any other blues guitar yanker. So, I'm back to getting your own personal sound out of the axe or box. Then if other people who know what they like end up liking it, you're in.

I guess that would be in with other people who have found their distinctive styles, or as one might say, in among the legends.

I always thought Slash was a legendary guitar player until I saw them in concert. Here's what it was like. Coming out late, playing the wrong notes, playing guitar drunk.... eesh.

VictoriaSilverwolf:

I agree with that. Hendrix created his own sound, and sealed that with his performances, notably, lighting his guitar on fire.

The Clash, I always thought they had something amazing, and that legendary photo of Joe Strummer smashing the guitar seems to seal the deal.

The Who, whom I don't care for, still gained their legendary status by smashing their equipment to avoid encores.

Iron Maiden, gained legendary status for their insane stage designs and pyrotechnics.

These aren't blues acts by any means, naturally.

/where was I going with that?

Not to take this too far away from B.B. King, but I did want to correct one point, azwhitewolf about The Clash's "London Calling" album. It wasn't Joe Strummer smashing his guitar, but bassist Paul Simonon.

It all starts with a photograph of bassist Paul Simonon smashing his guitar on the stage at The Palladium in New York City, September 21st, 1979 during their U.S. "Clash Takes The Fifth" tour. The band wanted to use it as their album cover. Photographer Pennie Smith, on the other hand, hated it. The technical flaws bothered her. It was blurry and out of focus--mainly because she’d jumped back to avoid catching face splinters. But real fear, that's what makes it so good.

Watch out!

I've always thought The Who was the most overrated band in the history of rock (even more than U2), but I will admit Who's Next is a classic and so is it's cover.

You might have been going with the theatrics becoming more important than the music. Hendrix never required the burning guitar to get his music across powerfully, but then subsequent acts could not get anywhere without destroying something or shooting off fireworks.

So you've got show business and real music, two things that often don't blend well.

I don't care whether it was Jimi Hendrix or Pete Townshend of the Who, one does not become a legend by smashing or burning guitars on stage. What talent does that take? Those who have watched B. B. know there is a bond between he and his instrument.

Hendrix is a legend because of his sound, not destruction of a musical instrument. I'm not sure about the Who. If someone wants to chime in with "BoF doesn't get it," fine. Sorry, but I don't get much out of people destroying things.

BoF you don't get it. For lots of rock and roll anger and destruction aren't parts of the act, they are the act. While Gene Simmons spat fake blood, Wendy O Williams bit her tongue and spit real blood. I could go through another hundred of these but you won't get any of them. Loving your guitar doesn't make you a legend. Hell it doesn't really make you play any better.

I was an adult by the time the 60s rolled around. You weren't even born until 1967. I not only understand the anger - I was there - I was part of it! I saw the marches, the sit-ins, the fire hoses. the dogs and the riots at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. I remember the killings at Kent State and Neil Young's angry response - Ohio. I know it's hard BA, but try not to lecture me on things I lived through before you started grade school.

If all Hendrix ever did was burn a guitar he would have been a nobody. If loving your guitar doesn't make you a legend, then burning it sure as hell doesn't. I don't particularly care for the Who - its my least favorite British band.

There is some anger in some of B. B's songs of the period. I think he handled it in a bit more mature fashion than some.

Pay attention the "Why I Sing the Blues."

http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Del...541/blbking.htm

BTW If someone wants to pay to watch Wendy O. Williams spit blood, fine. I suppose that makes her a legend.

When B.B. King comes out to play he doesn't wear face paint like Gene Simmons, swing from a rope wearing a loincloth as Ted Nugent, the drummer's kit doesn't elevate and rotate as Carl Palmer's did in Emerson, Lake & Palmer or Tommy Lee with Motley Crue.

B.B. King sits on a chair and does his set. That's it. Nothing wrong with it. It fits perfectly into the story he's trying to tell in the song.

I can no more imagine King smashing his beloved "Lucille" into a thousand flying splinters at the end of a show than I can imagine David Bowie walking on stage in blue jeans and a flannel shirt and quietly strumming an acoustic guitar.

B.B. King plays the blues and if you're hopping around like a rabbit on crack all over the stage, that's not exactly going to set the mood. Rock n' roll is about power, energy, volume and a LOT of theatrics. Hell, if I'm paying the prices they charge for concerts these days, I'd be good and ticked off if all I got was some jerk standing in a spotlight warbling into a microphone. The worst show I ever saw was the Average White Band. They came out in jeans and flannel shirts and just played their set and dutifully cranked out the hits. They were playing for a predominantly Black audience, but they came out with no energy, no flair and no showmanship. Man, people got up and left. The audience should never be better dressed than the band!


Miles Davis was notorious for turning his back on the audience. Keith Jarrett is known to have people thrown out of his shows for coughing or applauding at the wrong time. You're not going to find too many jazz or blues musicians trashing their instruments. They have to pay for them out of their own pocket.

Stage presence means a lot depending on who the act is. When I saw Peter Gabriel it was as much about what you saw as what you heard, but the act never compromised the music. That's what makes for a perfect show.

Okay, but if you're going to be a blues legend you'd better love the music. If you want to talk rock legends, that's a whole different bag of hammers.

The show did supersede the music. Heh, now you've got people paying big bucks to watch someone lip synch to a CD. Gad, they're being born every microsecond these days.

Seems this all started with carnivals and guys biting the heads off of chickens. They were called geeks, as I remember.

- Merriam-Webster Online -

It's a curiosity but I wouldn't pay good money to see it, nor would I seek out an MP3 of music attached to such an act. You see, I get it . . . these types aren't serious about anything other than money.

It comes out in the music too. It's pretty hard to lie about these things, being as music can't lie. It can be crap though, not that that's bad for the bottom line. So it's whether you want to be a fraud or the real deal, or maybe it's just the way some people make a living, having no other talent than to be a geek. Now if that doesn't give you the blues, I don't know what could.

Oh brother... See BoF you just don't get it. While the Who might have been moderately angry bands like 7 Seconds, Minor Threat, Black Flag, Nirvana, Hell even in their own manufactured way The Sex Pistols were filled with rage and instrument destruction.

How many different ways are we going to argue that BB King is a Legend and overrated?

Translation...oh brother, I don't agree with BA.

If you will notice, this element of the discussion enter with this post by azwhitewolf, the threads originator.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=245987

He specifically mentioned Jimi Hendrix and the Who, about whom I was responding. I never intended, nor am I interested in measuring the anger from band to band and from generation to generation. in terms of what is mild, moderate, severe or profound.

Maybe we need to have a transgenerational "Anger Hall of Fame."