I recently watched the Film You See Me Laughin', a documentary about the label Fat Possum Records started by Matthew Johnson, with the most famous artist being R.L. Burnside. The film addresses several issues, most relating to culture and socioeconomic status.
While there are obvious differences portrayed in the film between the musicians and Matthew Johnson, the difference that struck me the most was the different values placed on fame and the importance of circulating music. This delves into a major issue in the art world: creating art for yourself versus creating art for an audience. The musicians in this documentary would be placed in the category where the music that they made was for themselves, because they loved what they did, and not because they wanted any sort of recognition for doing it. However, for some of the musicians, their values and morals were altered once money became an issue. For example, there was a remix done of RL Burnside's songs, which Burnside strongly disliked... that is until the money came rolling in. Even though it seems like Burnside and some of the other musicians may have compromised their values because of money, none of their lifestyles have seemed to really change since they started making money for doing what they love.
The question that this film made me ponder was whether or not it really matters if their music was released as soon as possible, or even at all, if its release didn't really seem to effect the musicians in any way. Johnson was very concerned with getting the artists' records into circulation during their lifetime so that they could get recognized before their deaths. The music of these artists would have been lost without Matthew Johnson, but do we need to know about it? Their art form was a new take on and an imitation of a pre-existing style that was fairly well known. So, would the musical world be very different if their music was never taken out of their hometown, and would they be happier? I guess we'll never know.
Yes we do need to know people are there, we do need to know that there is a shack in Mississippi where people play the Blues because they WANT to play the Blues. Yes this does emphasize the authenticity of Blues culture and even Mississippian culture. And by viewing the documentary students, and Blues fans together can ponder questions about whether or not these musicians are Blues traditionalists and actually arethe last of them, or could there possibly be a neo-Blues culture? What is it that is being created now that is Blues - and does this culture make it so? meaning does it have to be inspired by poverty?
ReplyDeleteThis documentary addresses more than just musicians finally getting paid to play, but the documentary itself raises issues like the habit of recording, why some feel so strongly about it and others could care less, and just let it be lost in the past and never written down, or recorded.
Big fans may feel grateful that so many of the now deceased bluesmen were documented. What is it that makes humans feel compelled to document culture using whatever tools are available and to share that cultural experience?
ReplyDelete