Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila
Not to get into a city vs. city thing, but you can't leave out Chicago and Detroit as part of the same phenomenon.
|
Yes, without a doubt, Chicago and Detroit both have great music history.
Their recording histories (Motown, Bluebird, Chess etc.) are legendary. Those cities - again - without a doubt - gave rise to many artists with local ties as well as artists and groups from other places who sought recording deals and fame. This cultivation and recording clustering made both cities legendary - rightfully taking their place in music history.
I would be foolish to ignore this history, which is well-documented. So yes, it would be silly to get into a "city vs. city" discussion or debate.
With that said, in earlier periods, Chicago and Detroit were practically non-factors
in the EARLY evolution of the Blues. This is not a dig, but I do realize it could bring out the hounds. LOL. Those cities music scenes - particularly Blues - morphed (or exploded)
later on, which is why America's Music Corridor is considered "the cradle". The cradle consists New Orleans, Memphis, The Deltas (Mississippi and Arkansas) and St. Louis.
For example, many of the Blues musicians that landed in Chicago and eventually made its Blues scene famous were in St. Louis long before they went to Chicago. Little Milton, Albert King, Roosevelt Sykes,
Robert Nighthawk, Pinetop Perkins,
Muddy Waters,
Mel and Tim and countless others etc. etc. all lived in St. Louis before moving on to Chicago. These guys are pretty much Blues royalty. The only one missing off the list is B.B. King.
Albert King lived in St. Louis and scored his first hit on St. Louis' Bobbin Records label. Little Milton was A&R for Bobbin Records.
Even the "Father of the Blues" himself, W.C. Handy, lived and worked in St. Louis for a period of time. Of course, it is also where he wrote the "St Louis Blues", which is the most-recorded blues song ever. These were not guys that simply passed through St. Louis, they grinded in St. Louis.
Obviously, Chicago's recording prowess became a big lure for blues, soul, rock n roll (Rockabilly) and R&B artists. And even Delmark (aka Delmar) Records - a blues label - moved from St. Louis to Chicago during the recording boom in Chicago.
So essentially, the recording industries in Chicago (Chess, Bluebird), Detroit (Motown) and Memphis (Stax, Sun, Hi) hammered St. Louis' - although St. Louis did have some recording company successes - like Bobbin, Delmar, Archway Studio, Arch Records (a Stax subsidiary), etc. etc. But none took off like Motown, Stax, Hi, Chess or Bluebird.
It's safe to say that recording didn't put St. Louis on the map. This is one of the reasons why I feel St. Louis doesn't necessarily get its due. For some people to be complaining about (or "hating" on) St. Louis for landing the National Blues Museum is preposterous. They obviously don't know the history. But St. Louis has every right to have the National Blues Museum.
Keep in mind too that although Chuck Berry recorded for Chess and other labels, St. Louis is the birthplace and current home to the "Father of Rock and Roll". Ike Turner and Kings of Rhythm moved from Memphis to St. Louis and Turner is considered one of the fathers of R&B and RnR.
St. Louis was home to Scott Joplin, "The Father of Ragtime" and St. Louis' ragtime scene was strong with composers like Tom Turpin, who gave Joplin a run for his money. Ragtime and the blues built jazz.
Also, Louis Jordan who once lived in St. Louis is considered to be "The Father of R&B" and "The Godfather of rap". Jordan was notorious for his "jump blues", which was a popular blues genre in St. Louis. Louis Jordan's wife was from St. Louis and Jordan is buried in St. Louis.
Then there are the St. Louis women of the Blues - Josephine Baker and Eva Taylor, who was a contemporary of Bessie Smith. And let's not forget Tina Turner, Ann Peebles ("I Can't Stand The Rain") and Barbara Carr, contemporary Blues artists. All from (or connected) to St. Louis.
I say all of this not to compete, but to educate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila
Sure, Scott Joplin House would be an awesome location. Not a spot literally next to the convention center, where all traces of black history were deliberately wiped off the map decades ago.
|
The Indian (native) mounds were pretty much deliberately wiped off the map there decades ago too, but that doesn't change the fact that St. Louis' early black and native communities existed in what is considered "downtown" St. Louis.
Again, the location of the museum is good. I'm from St. Louis. I'm black. I pretty much know St. Louis' black history backwards and forwards. It's a good fit and the African-American community hasn't complained.
In fact, being next to the convention center will get it more exposure for visitors and tourists. I am not opposed to the "T" word like some. As a visitor and tourist, I have visited many "touristy" sites in Chicago as well as areas off the beaten path.
For the record, my paternal and maternal histories are rooted in the Mississippi and Arkansas deltas and Louisiana (Bogalusa). I still have relatives in West Helena, Ark. I also have extended family in Tennessee (Dyersburg and greater Memphis). In addition to being a music buff, this is why I know a lot about the Blues and St. Louis music history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila
Laclede's Landing is interesting but it's such a weird shell of a neighborhood. If the museum were carefully integrated there I think it would help "complete" the district so it's not chopped up by parking lots.
|
I don't know how long it's been since you've been to LaClede's Landing, but a number projects are proposed for the area (North Riverfront) once the $300-million riverfront project wraps up. Plans for new housing, offices, etc. We'll see.