Blues and Evil

Rating:
Summary: Blues and Evil is an exploration of a neglected area
Review: Blues and Evil is an exploration of a neglected area, that is, how the nature of AficanAmerican religious belief had an impact on the emerging art of the blues in its early stages when blues could be seen as an authentic expression of a very localizable Southern Black culture. The music of Southern Black folk is contextualized in a refreshing way; not as the antithesis or inversion of a powerful religious culture; but rather as an expression of its depth and breadth. Stereotypical views of both white scholars and somewhat conformist Southern Black Church leaders are challenged by the author, who shows that the blues constituted a cultural space in which the fears and difficulties, the personal and sexual conflicts, and the threatening social conditions of life among Black folk in the south could be worked with as a raw material for the spiritual elevation of the individual in his experience of these in his daily affairs. The blues therefore emerges in the author's hands as a tool with which conflicts are mediated, contemplated, and reintegrated for the participants in its rituals, its celebrations, and its expurgations. Perhaps the most moving revelation is that the extent to which these wonderful and brilliant artists lived as outsiders in an outsider culture has been exaggerated to a degree by romanticizing, though well meaning scholars, and by extension, in the eyes of the public. The book should be regarded as worthwhile both by students of the emergence of the blues, but also those interested in the emergence of a black culture in post-Reconstruction south at the beginning of our century. A very thoughtful book

Rating:
Summary: Flawed but essential reading
Review: This book is essential reading for blues scholars and even for blues fans who want to understand blues mythology and the religious nature of the blues. Spencer writes well and the examples he uses from song lyrics do much to provide an understanding of where the music called the blues comes from, and the influence of religion and religious practice on its development. Spencer advances a few theories that I really found interesting: (1) That as the character of the blues changed from old country or delta to city blues and then to the urban blues of the Chicago blues - the religious nature of the music was "denatured" of explicit references to the blues, and (2)secondly that the blues has a strong tie to gospel spirituals and preaching. Both are interesting and provide unique insight. For that reason, this book should be read and I recommend it to anyone interested in the history of the blues.

The problem with Spencer is two-fold. First, he plays the race card over and over and over. He asserts that white musicologists can never begin to understand or grasp fully what the blues is about because they are not black and cannot understand what it is like to suffer from slavery and overt racism. I think it is a fair point to make that white authors cannot begin to understand racism and slavery - another thing to translate that in toto to blues music as a whole. Spencer repeats this line of analysis again and again and by the middle of the book - just advances it as if previously proven by his own assertion. Secondly, he seems to focus almost entirely on the work of Paul Oliver to discredit white ethnomusicologists - (Robert Palmer, Samuel Charters, David Evans and William Ferris are either ignored completely or lumped into Oliver's Europeanist school.) Oliver certainly deserves far better here. Spencer tirelessly picks apart Oliver and assumes the most sinister and racist intentions from what mostly seems trivial. (I am sure that Spencer would argue that being black gives him special insight but I find that less than appealing.) At one point, he takes Oliver to task for quoting from a specific song lyric to make a general point. However, this is a technique that Spencer relies upon for almost every point he makes. At times the racial polemics become the focus and the music is left behind - which is a shame. Surely we can all love this music without setting up racial litmus tests?

In the end, it is unfortunate but not lethal. His insistence on attacking Oliver ad nausea only weakens what is a very important piece of work. But don't let that distract you. I think Spencer has a good thesis - he supports it well and he provides an insight into African as well as Christian religious influences on the blues - which has not really received this kind of in depth focus.

Rating:
Summary: Flawed but essential reading
Review: This book is essential reading for blues scholars and even for blues fans who want to understand blues mythology and the religious nature of the blues. Spencer writes well and the examples he uses from song lyrics do much to provide an understanding of where the music called the blues comes from, and the influence of religion and religious practice on its development. Spencer advances a few theories that I really found interesting: (1) That as the character of the blues changed from old country or delta to city blues and then to the urban blues of the Chicago blues - the religious nature of the music was "denatured" of explicit references to the blues, and (2)secondly that the blues has a strong tie to gospel spirituals and preaching. Both are interesting and provide unique insight. For that reason, this book should be read and I recommend it to anyone interested in the history of the blues.

The problem with Spencer is two-fold. First, he plays the race card over and over and over. He asserts that white musicologists can never begin to understand or grasp fully what the blues is about because they are not black and cannot understand what it is like to suffer from slavery and overt racism. I think it is a fair point to make that white authors cannot begin to understand racism and slavery - another thing to translate that in toto to blues music as a whole. Spencer repeats this line of analysis again and again and by the middle of the book - just advances it as if previously proven by his own assertion. Secondly, he seems to focus almost entirely on the work of Paul Oliver to discredit white ethnomusicologists - (Robert Palmer, Samuel Charters, David Evans and William Ferris are either ignored completely or lumped into Oliver's Europeanist school.) Oliver certainly deserves far better here. Spencer tirelessly picks apart Oliver and assumes the most sinister and racist intentions from what mostly seems trivial. (I am sure that Spencer would argue that being black gives him special insight but I find that less than appealing.) At one point, he takes Oliver to task for quoting from a specific song lyric to make a general point. However, this is a technique that Spencer relies upon for almost every point he makes. At times the racial polemics become the focus and the music is left behind - which is a shame. Surely we can all love this music without setting up racial litmus tests?

In the end, it is unfortunate but not lethal. His insistence on attacking Oliver ad nausea only weakens what is a very important piece of work. But don't let that distract you. I think Spencer has a good thesis - he supports it well and he provides an insight into African as well as Christian religious influences on the blues - which has not really received this kind of in depth focus.