"Butter" was probably my favorite harp player. He took those lessons from the black bluesmen and definitely put his own twist on the instrument. I'm only a year older than Rick, but I had good musical training from older brothers who were four and eight years my senior. I can remember listening to the East/West album over and over when I was about 15.

In fairness to Clapton, he was making a name for himself in England about the same time Bloomfield and Bishop were doing their thing in Chicago.

They also had a great keyboard player, Mark Naftalin, who became a "regular" around the Bay Area for many years.

Working in the wholesale horticulture industry as a sales rep for many years, I have run into Elvin Bishop a number of times at his favorite nursery out here in Marin County. If you don't already know, he is a very serious gardener. Trouble is, when this has happened, I want to talk music with him, and he just wants to talk gardening!

A real nice fella.

------------------
Mark

[This message was edited by Mark Eaton on 19 July 2006 at 12:24 PM.]

Have you visited www.Mikebloomfield.com?

It's a good refresher course on why he never became universally recognized like Allman or Clapton. He was adamantly anti-commercial in his approach to music. If things got too hyped up, he would retreat. He had his shot like those other guys, and turned his back on it.

Allman died tragically way too young, but we all know how successful the Allman Brothers Band were while Duane was alive-along with guest shots like Derek and the Dominoes and the first Boz Scaggs album with his playing on "Loan Me A Dime."

And Bloomfield couldn't overcome substance abuse, like Clapton eventually did, and he died from an overdose at age 36. To us middle-agers, that sounds way too young now, but he did have about 15 years as a recording artist, so if he were interested in having a big house on a hill, the opportunities were certainly there. It apparently just wasn't his deal.

I saw him play a couple of low key Bay Area club gigs, with Nick Gravenites on vocals. They were really good, and I vaguely remember thinking: "This is Mike F-ing Bloomfield. What am doing seeing this guy play for a $5 cover charge (or whatever it was)."

------------------
Mark

[This message was edited by Mark Eaton on 20 July 2006 at 02:13 AM.]

quote:

---

Mike and Paul, in particular, were incredibly influential at the time - IMO, much more than any of the English blues players. I also think they had everything to do with bringing the original black electric blues artists to the forefront. They championed those guys, and set the rest of us looking for the great old blues records.

---

Although Mike Bloomfield and Paul Butterfield influenced many young people to listen to modern, post-war, electric blues (me included), I disagree they were MORE influential than the English blues/rock players. Maybe they were AS influential as the English players, but certainly not MORE influential. Not when you consider how many british rock bands were based on this particular blues genre; The Rolling Stones, The Animals, Them, John Mayall and the Bluesbreakers, Long John Baldry, Cyril Davies and The Blues Allstars, The Groundhogs, early Fleetwood Mac, early Savoy Brown, Aynsley Dunbar's Retaliation, The Keef Hartley Band, Chicken Shack.... The list goes on and on.

As far as championing the original black electric blues artists: For Mike Bloomfield and Paul Butterfield it was, likely, the other way around. In Chicago, folks like Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, Willie Dixon, Little Walter Jacobs, George "Harmonica" Smith, "One Arm" John Wrencher, "Hound Dog" Taylor and others gave alot of aspiring, young, white kids from the suburbs a chance to play in the black bars which were "home" to these greats. Without a specific invitation, those kids would have never even gotten in the door, much less had an opportunity to play. However, to Dave M's credit, the benefits to those seminal events were, many times, reciprocated for the black artists.

As with jazz music, the American black blues artists were much more appreciated in Europe than in the US. They also had much more freedom regarding where and what they played, than in the US. As a result, many of the young people in England received a greater exposure to the blues legends than in the US. During the late '50's and into the '60's that had a direct effect on British rock 'n' roll. A comparative situation was not occuring in the US. Most US rock bands were influenced more by country and folk, spawning rockabilly and hootnanny type groups. The "Mike Bloomfields" and "Paul Butterfields" of the day were the exception-to-the-rule. Even into the 1970's there were very few "blues-based" US rock bands.

Anyway, regarding the guitar prowess of Mike Bloomfield, the great album from 1969, " My Labors" by Nick Gravenites has been released to CD. IMHO, some of Mike Bloomfield's best playing is on that album. Check out Killing My Love, Gypsy Good Time, and Moon Tune. Also, three bonus cuts from the 1969 "Live From Bill Graham's Fillmore West" are included on this CD, and all three have stunning guitar pyrotechnics. Find "My Labors" at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005JJ1M/qid= 1153400308/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-1463430-3503868?s=music&v=glance&n=5174

Keep on pickin'!
Glenn

[This message was edited by Glenn Suchan on 20 July 2006 at 08:38 AM.]

But very early on, guys like Bloomfield and Butterfield really helped bring these artists directly to a new audience - many of the black artists have testified to that fact. They also made sure songs were properly credited and artists properly paid, something not always done by some of the English bands.

Further, I argue that the British bands were, for the most part, not really playing blues. They helped develop and push a different form of blues-rock - good stuff, but not the real blues deal the way the Butterfield band was. There were, of course, exceptions like John Mayall and especially the first incarnation of Fleetwood Mac with Peter Green, who were, IMO, heads and shoulders above the other English bands in terms of being a real blues band.

So I guess the influence issue is relative - what kind of influence are we talking about. I'm talking about influence to continue the development of blues. Of course, the English bands were hugely influential in the development of rock. I think that is the reason Bloomfield and Butterfield are largely footnotes for most people these days. They held true to their roots much more than the English musicians.

Of course, all IMHO.

[This message was edited by Dave Mudgett on 20 July 2006 at 07:41 AM.]

quote:

---

I certainly don't argue that the relationship between people like Bloomfield, Butterfield, and the black blues musicians they championed was not reciprocal.

But very early on, guys like Bloomfield and Butterfield really helped bring these artists directly to a new audience - many of the black artists have testified to that fact. They also made sure songs were properly credited and artists properly paid, something not always done by some of the English bands.

Further, I argue that the British bands were, for the most part, not really playing blues. They helped develop and push a different form of blues-rock - good stuff, but not the real blues deal the way the Butterfield band was. There were, of course, exceptions like John Mayall and especially the first incarnation of Fleetwood Mac with Peter Green, who were, IMO, heads and shoulders above the other English bands in terms of being a real blues band.

---

Dave, you must have misread my post. I said the benefits of young musicians being invited to play with the black blues artists WERE reciprocated.

Regarding whether or not credits given and artists properly paid by British bands lagged behind what "guys like Bloomfield and Butterfield" did would be really difficult to prove, one way or another. So, I won't refute your comment, but I suspect it is not accurate. Some of the worst cases of the black musicians not getting proper credit or pay for their efforts was at the hands of the record companies that held their contracts. Specifically, Chess Records was notorious for this sort of activity.

Regarding your remark whether or not "British bands were, for the most part, not really playing blues...."; All the British bands I referenced to were playing, and were directly influenced by, American, modern, post-war, electric blues. Granted, some bands, like Led Zeppelin, may have had an early influence, but quickly changed to a more rock-oriented music. However, these bands hardly constitute a majority of the influenced British bands.

Please understand, my comments are not intended to take anything away from the contributions of Mike Bloomfield or Paul Butterfield. Both were influencial and are among my all-time favorite musicians. However, to diminish the contributions of the British musicians to the growing awareness of the blues by rock audiences, is an inaccurate accessment.

Keep on pickin'!
Glenn

[This message was edited by Glenn Suchan on 20 July 2006 at 08:29 AM.]

quote:

---

As far as championing the original black electric blues artists: For Mike Bloomfield and Paul Butterfield it was, likely, the other way around.

---

I guess it's my use of the word "champion" that is giving us trouble here - I mean it in a sense of promoting to a mainstream audience. I don't think the older blues artists had a mainstream pulpit from which to champion anybody - quite to the contrary, I think it was the other way around. I believe that big-time music industry people were interested in young, white musicians to sell to a mass audience - not older black musicians. The big-time "music business" environment for these older black musicians was not hospitable, and they were frequently taken advantage, as you correctly note. When guys like Bloomfield and Butterfield became big stars, they "championed" the older musicians - I have heard comments from many of them that their first wide mainstream exposure came from this. That is the context of my comment. I didn't see that to the same extent from the English bands, at least early like this. Musicians like Bloomfield were unusual, in that he was as much musicologist as musician, and was a deliberate champion of roots American musical styles.

As far as song credits and such, there were several well-publicized occurrences where bands used old blues tunes and credited themselves. This would have been antithetical to guys like Butter and Bloomfield.

As far as exposing younger musicians to the real blues, I again argue Butterfield and company were much more authentic to the real blues tradition, and their blues influence was earlier and stronger for American audiences, certainly where I was, at least, in the Northeastern US. This is emphatically not a criticism of the British bands - of course, a Chicago-based band that grew up in the lap of the home of that style of blues would have a leg up on this.

Of course, I agree that there's no denying the overall influence of the British blues-based bands on rock. But IMO, the Beatles were more important than anybody in this regard, since they opened the valve to the possibility of doing this kind of thing on a wide scale. IMO, the real revolution was not about blues, but freedom for ordinary musicians to just throw it up against the wall and do it.

Yes, Michael, the Flag emphatically was an unbelievably powerful band for a very young me to sit 10 feet in front of at the Boston Tea Party. I agree with your point - Butter and Bloomfield were light years ahead and way deeper than most of the other white blues-oriented musicians I saw or heard at that time, and I saw and heard lots of them, IMO.

I remember when the first Butterfield Blues Band album came out about 1965. I was about fifteen, and I saw this album in the record bin at some department store. I didn't know anything about blues, but the cover photo of these hip, slightly seedy looking characters posing in front of some Chicago storefront, caught my attention.

On the back cover, there was a small paragraph framed by a square, that said "This record should be played at the highest possible volume to fully appreciate the sound of the Butterfield Blues Band". Well, that was enough for me, I had to buy it.

I am honestly not sure Jimi Hendrix would have happened the way he did in this time frame without the ground laid by Butterfield band. Their authentic and interracial approach sowed the seeds for everything that came later.

No, they were not the household names that other people were (later) - but musicians paid close attention to them. It's not about who's popular with the general public - it's influence on musicians that makes for what I consider real influence.

Another example of this is the Flying Burrito Bros. Although not one of the mainstream popular bands of the country-rock era, they were highly influential on other musicians. People keep on asking me "What's the big deal about Gram Parsons?". Influence.

Mainstream or cult level, it's the same: the vocals tend to be the "face" of the music, and the singer/songwriter winds up with the lion's share of the artistic credit. Popular music is mostly song-oriented, so alt-country types and others champion Gram Parsons, while too often instrumental giants like Bloomfield remain, literally and figuratively, "unsung".

--Steve

But what kind of surprises me is that so many guitar players - even white blues guitar players who widely acknowledge their debt to much lesser (IMO) players - are largely indifferent to Bloomfield.

Considering the time period we're talking about, I think Michael was almost too good - he had the real deal blues feel, but incredible precision and fire. I know guitarists who argue that he was too perfect for it to be blues. I hear people say comparable things about Robben Ford or Robert Cray. Obviously, I disagree.

How could you go wrong with Harvey Brooks and Buddy Miles as your Rhythm Section?

[This message was edited by Joey Ace on 23 July 2006 at 06:16 PM.]

The Roy Buchanan analogy holds to some degree, but there is a significant cult of Roy fans - including me Of course, Roy was another seminal, early influence on American roots music.

Hendrix has merit in what he turned his blues/r@B roots into without abandoning them. Not only did Hendrix literally terrify Clapton when he heard him play, he forced all the other British American blues copycats to follow him into the world of Marshall stacks and psychedelia.

I always felt that Bloomfields most important contribution was his bringing the Les Paul guitar from the abandoned obscurity it was in more so than his playing. I remember in the 60s hearing the buzz about Bloomfield playing these old heavy guitars that Gibson used to make that no body wanted anymore and were laying around in pawn shops and music stores through the South where many ended up for some reason. I knew several guitar dealers that started to take buying trips through Alabama, Georgia, Texas and other areas buying these up for a hundred bucks or so and selling them to the new crop of players that Bloomfield influenced.