John Mayer is NOT a Bluesman
Bluesman?
I hear this nonsense a lot, it usually goes like this: John Mayer is awesome at guitar (indisputable), John Mayer plays blues songs and they sound good (also somewhat indisputable), therefore, John Mayer is a bluesman!
Errr, no. At the risk of sounding like a “cut off your nose to spite your face” hard assed purist (which I am really not), you can’t be a bluesman when over 90% of your recorded music is bubblegum poppish acoustic/electric mishmash.
Now don’t you take away from this rant that I dislike Mr. Mayer, I really do like a lot of his stuff. Continuum was pretty good. I’ve even listened to Room for Squares and thought generally positive things. But playing blues live on occasion and on a live album, back to back to Your Body Is a Wonderland (which he wrote) does NOT make you a candidate to share the esteemed title of bluesman with B.B. King, Buddy Guy, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Muddy Waters, Lead Belly, and Robert Johnson.
He is a pop-guitarist who can play a mean blues lick and idolizes SRV (you clever bastard!). Well, more power to him. Just expect to see me cringe when you say John Mayer and bluesman in the same sentence (unless there are an odd number of negations in there).
I got free tickets to a John Mayer show and was thoroughly impressed. He rocked the blues with as much feeling and emotion as anyone out there. Not that I disagree with your point though. Maybe he should just release a blues album.
For sure, he can rock the blues. I just have an image of a blues man as one who plays primarily the blues.
Let’s say a guy works in marketing, makes all his money there, but he likes to trade stocks on the side and he gets above average returns. Should people call him the next Warren Buffet or is he just a marketer who can time stocks well?
I think you’re trying a bit too hard to fit people into nice, comfortable, compartments that can easily be identified with a couple of words…like bluesman, country or pop. Look at how the meaning behind these words has changed over time. The Eagles for instance would be considered Country if they released Hotel California today.
I think the truth is that Mayer and other artists evolve. Look at Darius Rucker now moving easily into Country. Plus, an album is just a snapshot in time. There is so much more to these artists beyond what the create commercially.
The fact is, Mayer can play the blues. And as a guitarist, that tells me he loves the blues, because I know the passion and time required to develop that skill.
So I would call him a bluesman, a pop artist, an acoustic artist, a singer, a songwriter…basically a musical artist. Who knows how we will think of him in 20 years? How would you classify Eric Clapton…he fits into so many. And remember, SRV started as strictly blues, but was also criticized for making records that strayed well away from the blues. Would you not consider Vaughn a bluesman? Just some mind vitamins for ya..
Ah, them vitamins are sure good.
But seriously, I totally agree with you. However, Mayer doesn’t fit into my view of a bluesman. Muddy Waters: bluesman. Howlin’ Wolf: bluesman. John Mayer: pop-guitarist.
By the standards set by those that precede us, we are labeled. We are not bound by the labels, but they remain.
You are spot on with this article. A blues man plays the blues and very, very rarely does he play any other genre. An artist that plays R & R and occasionally ventures into the blues field is not a blues man.
The Gatorman
Just to note, I totally agree with Gatorman (surprise!), but that isn’t to take away from John’s abilities. Like him or hate him, he is talented. On that note, do a search on YouTube for guitarists. An incredibly amount of “undiscovered” skill is out there, so take people’s argument about his skill as a redeeming factor with a little salt. All I am sayin’ is, he’s good, but so are other people. He is not a bluesman, be it only a label, its on that the likes of B.B., S.R.V and company have bled for. Pop guitarists, fuck yeah, he’s a damn good one. Probably the best.
To me a bluesman is somebody who suffered/suffers poverty and plays the blues. Other people can play the blues well without being a real bluesman, which doesn’t mean they’re bad or not good.
In my opinion John Mayer wastes his talent, he could be way better. In matter of fact he already is damn good, but he just doesn’t use it. I only like maybe 5 songs of him because they’re kinda soul-ish or they have a good solo. If he likes singing he should make a soul + blues album with some singers in the background. ( like near the end of Gravity).
I’m not saying he’s bad at pop-music or something, but he needs to let that go and let some other dude do it. Of course an artist should do what he wants, but I just think about it this way.
I’m glad that someone wrote this, I have heard enough of rubbish from people who absorb every shit of information that is available on the encyclopedia of misinformation, that is the Internet. Search a John Mayer discography torrent or a Blues torrent search and you’ll get a happy Mr.Mayer popping up in the list; and then a bunch of pseudos will fall from the sky when u tell them that Mayer aint Blues. They all want to live a lie in the world of misinformation and priceless ignorance! No Wonder we have no reason to fight and live happily ever after!
To be a bluesman, you have to suffer poverty? That is bullshit!! I think that considering that in his generation there is no one else who can play the blues better than him, I’d say John Mayer is the bluesman of this generation. If any has heard his trio especially his live album Try which is all blues, you’ll agree. No one else comes close and if he can hold his own on stage with Eric Clapton, B.B. King and Buddy Guy, than I’d have to do the same.