History of the Blues: The Roots, the Music, the People from Charley Patton to Robert Cray Francis Davis

The current consensus regarding the development of the popular music of the last 100 years is almost obsessively concerned with defending a sort of organic, evolutionary view, focused on African and African-American roots. The challenge that Davis' history presents, and provokes such strong reactions against, is that there's more involved than roots, evolution, white transformation, and revival. In fact, Davis takes nothing away from the worth or significance of Black Artists or music! Both are enormously important in American popular music history, whether you take an artist-centered view of history or critically examine elements of the music itself. What he does is point out is that there's a thread of shared music and musical development in American history and culture, and that the entertainment and recording industry intentionally steered the direction of the Blues as a popular genre along follow-the-money lines (as if that should be a surprise). He argues for Artists - mostly, but far from exclusively Black - purposefully developing Blues in response to popular music tastes of the times, moreoever in cooperation with the industry. He argues for the Blues as a true popular, commercial music genre, where the mainline music historians would box it in as roots music originally (and primarily) and a dead-ended (if revived) precursor to jazz, R & B, and Rock. Personally, I find Davis' view far more respectful of the talents, aspirations, and business acumen of early 20th century Black artists, as well as more respectful of current Blues artists who know the Blues are a living, breathing genre. I'm not convinced of everything Davis has to say, but I am firmly convinced on the basis of this book that the Blues reflects a much larger slice of American culture and commerce than is usually credited. If people would pay more attention to what Davis adds to Blues history than what they incorrectly think he's taking away, we would all be better off. Musical scholarship certainly would be.

I have read just about every book worth reading on this subject, and this is the best. Francis Davis is a fabulous writer, and his opinions are worth considering, even when you don't agree with them. Most books that attempt to cover "The Blues" in its entirely can be tedious, and read like textbooks. Davis manages to bring this material to life, placing it a broader social context, while still covering almost everything that needs covering. Bottom line: a great read, as well as a great reference book.

I wonder if this person even read the same book that I am reading. Some people won't like this book simply because it does not always take a traditionalist view of things. It is much broader and more open minded and tends to look at the blues from a broader region (IOW, there are blues outside of the Delta region) in order to gain a better understanding of it, it's performers, and theories as to it's origins. It challenges common accepted notions, and encourages the reader to challenge them as well. Sure the author injects his own opinions and experiences from time to time, but not only does he back them up, he does not try to pass them off as concrete fact, and you are fully aware that these are his thoughts on a particular matter. Now as far as some of the listed "inaccuracies" in the book... Tony states: "he stupidly tries to talk about Bluegrass existing in the 1920s or about the Carter family." Well, what Francis Davis ACTUALLY says is the following: "the repertoire of the typical black country songster of the 1920's was more or less identical to that of the white rural performers of the same period. [snip a sentence abt Miss. John Hurt] The typical black songster was probably someone like Leslie Riddle, a singer and guitarist from North Carolina who didn't record until the blues revival of the 1960s, and who might be completely forgotten now if not for his early relationship with A.P. Carter, the patriarch of the Carter Family, the legendary white country harmony group...." The fact is that Leslie Riddle DID meet A.P. Carter in 1928. The two went on trips throughout the south "collecting songs" with A.P. Carter writing down the words to the songs they liked, and Riddle remembering the Music. (google for it) Tony says that a history would include when the blues began, how it related to other forms of music and discuss different types of regional music. Tony then says "such a discussion would be far beyond Davis's knowledge or concern". In fact, Francis Davis *DOES* discuss these things. Perhaps Tony needs to re-read Chapter *1*! Francis discusses popular beliefs of the origins of the blues including African music, field hollers, and even celtic-derived folk music. He discusses the call and response of African music that is common in the blues, and then talks about how it is not unique to blues, but is also in folk, and gospel music of the time, and even quotes Robert Palmer to back himself up. He talks about the fact that blues did not just begin one day. It evolved over a longer period of time, and from a myriad of influences. The blues did not begin on whatever specific date in 1895 with the first recording, or in 1920 w/ Smith's "Crazy Blues". That's just when we got the first recorded evidence. It developed over decades before. He discusses regional variations. It's one of the rare books that covers the likes of Blind Willie McTell and Barbeque Bob Hicks as well as the Delta blues musicians, and Texas blues music

History of the Blues is criticized for the author's "cynicism," but the author is justified in seeking to modify or correct much of the last century's "blues scholarship." The book is more valuable because Davis doesn't accept the suppositions and theories of earlier writers, and in the first chapters the author establishes that "the blues" are far more complex, socially and musically, than we've been led to believe. He writes with wit and plenty of feeling - but the feeling expressed is one of annoyance with blues and folk "scholars" who have either not researched very thoroughly, or who have deliberately ignored facts that subvert their simplistic theories. What are the blues? Where did they come from? What's happened to the blues since mid-century? Davis examines all of these questions and comes up with some reasonable and provocative answers. The book isn't meant to be a study of individual blues musicians; such works have already been written (by Samuel Charters, Peter Guralnick, Pete Oliver) and they were well-done. The History of the Blues is a very readable account of a century of confusion, best approached with an open and attentive mind.

Finally, an "historian" who doesn't pretend to be an objective, impartial documenter of facts. This is Davis' version of the blues, and he lets you know it. Thankfully, he has the skill of a consummate wordsmith, an encyclopedic knowledge of the subject matter and a fan's love and appreciation for the music. This reads like a conversation with an old, knowledgeable friend and I, for one, find that refreshing. Definitely worth the time for anyone who's interested in something more than simple facts, dates and names