From Seattle writer and consultant Matt Rosenberg...

« Ross Hammered Again on Abortion | Main | Cain's Far-Right Bid Fails in Georgia »

Jimmy Lane Answers a Critic

July 21, 2004

Yes, the Internet is a remarkable thing. I know that because today in my e-mail in-box was a reply from guitarist Jimmy Lane, whose performance at a big-deal February '04 Hendrix tribute concert in Seattle I panned in a review that ran at Rosenblog and ifeminists.com.

Lane played in a segment of the all-star show that also featured longtime Howlin' Wolf guitarist Hubert Sumlin - a legend among blues and rock afficionados. Here's the passage in question:

Then, a train wreck. The great Chicago blues session guitarist Hubert Sumlin was sabotaged, by his pairing with guitarist Jimmy Lane.

Sumlin’s clean, sinewy, fills influenced a whole generation of electric guitarists listening to the classic Howlin’ Wolf tunes recorded in Chicago on Chess Records, such as "Built For Comfort,” “Shake For Me,” “300 Pounds of Joy,” “Louise,” “Goin’ Down Slow,” “Killing Floor,” and “Wang Dang Doodle."

Experience Hendrix had already earned my respect for unearthing rare, early-60s European TV footage of Sumlin live with the great blues songwriter Willie Dixon on acoustic bass and Sunnyland Slim on piano, on the recently released DVD, “The American Folk Blues Festival 1962-1966” (Volume Two).

Such a small, mostly acoustic trio, or modulated quartet is still what suits Sumlin’s understated style best. But his cohort Lane, a beefy, 50-ish guy in a faux Jimi outfit (broad-brimmed hat, suede boots with fringe) was determined to have his White Stratocaster heard all the way to Anchorage. Sumlin got a few licks in, including a delicious staccato-phrased, call-and-response solo that sounded like a woman scolding her lover. He said more in those 45 seconds than Lane did all night.

The tour producers should send Lane packing, right off, and get Mr. Sumlin some simpatico backing. This is a lousy way to treat a real-life legend.

Here is Mr. Lane's reply to me:

Hello Mr. Rosenberg.

Your review of my pairing with Mr. Hubert Sumlin was brought to my attention
by a few people, just recently. You were obviously not informed of some technical issues that went on that night...such as the changing of my amplifier at the last minute.

Mr. Sumlin and I have had a long history together..all of my life..as a matter of fact. I have recorded with him as well as mourned family deaths with him. I respect Hubert as a father and was not trying to blow him off stage. The stage techs set the new amplifier too loud. I was displeased...more than anyone there...with that.

You are indeed entitled to your opinion. But please be informed correctly in the future. Oh...by the way...I'm 39...not 50ish. Thanks and take care.

Mr. Jimmy D. Lane

OK, Mr. Lane. I wish you well in all your endeavors, and you can tell because I didn't put a smart-ass headline on this entry, like "It Was The Stage-Tech's Fault, Really!" But even if you'd had your own amp (and presumably, a more bearable volume level) I felt that your rock-guitar-hero stylings were greatly at odds with Mr. Sumlin's more low-key approach. It just wasn't groovin'. Of course, Buddy Guy had an even worse night.

Posted by Matt Rosenberg at July 21, 2004 10:37 AM


Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.rosenblog.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/441

Comments:

As you know, Hubert, different acts playing on the same stage on the same night - especially blues guitarists from Chicago, or rock or jazz musicians from anywhere - are often compared to each other.

It is all but inevitable. Similarly, walking through the Art Institute in Chicago, or a Mexican art gallery in Pilsen, visitors will have distinct preferences about what pieces and artists they like, versus those that don't appeal to them.

Comparing the performance or output of one artist to another is hardly "ignorant and tasteless," as you assert. It is a basic component of art appreciation; a stepping stone to articulating one's own views on content and quality, and learning from the informed tastes of others.

Like professional journalists, bloggers, novelists or historians, musicians should be happy that people are interested at all, that they are paying attention, and care enough to react.

Look at the tripe that passes for pop music these days, and even some of what passes for blues. Would you rather no one dared to express views on slick modern blues performers like Joe Louis Walker, Keb Mo and Bonnie Raitt versus real-deal players like Howlin Wolf, U.P. Wilson, J.B. Hutto, or Big Mama Thornton?

Sorry, but it's not always "all good." Even J.B. had some albums that were clearly stronger than others ("Slidewinder" was his best, along with his group's timeless cuts on that early 60s Vanguard sampler).

Any Chicago bluesman worth his salt knows there's more than occasionally a huge, and disturbing difference between what the same band does in a (white) North Side Chicago blues club versus a South or West Side club (where discerning patrons don't tolerate the half-assed shtik you get up north at Kingston Mines, or Buddy Guy's Legends, for example).

To reject art/music criticism on its face is decontructionism, where there is no right or wrong, no better or worse.

Sorry, but I judge that to be phonier than the worst Junior Wells/Buddy Guy wank-a-thon foisted on sloppy drunk white suburbanites at the Chicago Blues Festival.

Sir.

Posted by: Matt R. at September 7, 2004 11:47 PM

Wait... let me see if I've got this straight!

The guitarist that Matt pans writes a very thoughtful, gracious note attempting to explain technical issues Matt might not have known. Would that more musicians (especially modern ones) learn some of that diplomacy.

Then, the guy who Matt *praises* for his performance, lets loose with both barrels?

Posted by: Jeff Brazill at September 8, 2004 12:31 PM

Post a comment









Remember personal info?