>
>>
>>It comes out of the hills and fields, and it shares purity
>>and heritage with Appalachian songs, Native American circle
>>music, and Shaker hymns.
>
>If many of the torch bearers of the music did not come from
>the heritage of Apalachia, were not Native American...nor
>did they reside in hills and fields....then it is NOT a
>direct off-shoot of folk music...

1) "It shares a purity and heritage with..."

Not "It came from..."

2) "Blues is a FOLK FORM"

Not "Blues came from folk music."

Blues in its original form IS folk music.

It changed during and after the Great Migration, but that's how it started.

They didn't play blues in church.

Not in dance halls, even village ones.

No one taught it, and not too many people with two good eyes played it in public.

Blues was played on streets and porches. Those streets were dirt, and those porches had a few generations of dead dogs under 'em.

Blues is folk music.

>folk music is an element...but blues and gospel music are
>DIRECTLY birthed from the actualy EXPERIENCES of black
>people in America....and although the elements of their
>oppressor are certainly in the genre....that's NOT where it
>CAME FROM....

You get so tied up and self-righteous.

Blues came from experience...but gospel came from tradition.

No one saw the actual light of Jesus's face every day.

Gospel was a deliberate (though heartfelt) empowering mechanism, one that created community and reinforced tradition. Gospel is an expression of God through the self.

Blues is an expression of the actual self, through song and speech.

Of course it has broader implications, nothing but, and that's where the blues/gospel overlap lies, but I at least see distinct differences of intent, function, and performance.

Forget how much you think I'm a racist cultural cat-burglar for two seconds and have this discussion.

Alek
____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?