What do you think?
Rate this book
Urban Blues
Charles Keil examines the expressive role of blues bands and performers and stresses the intense interaction between performer and audience. Profiling bluesmen Bobby Bland and B. B. King, Keil argues that they are symbols for the black community, embodying important attitudes and roles—success, strong egos, and close ties to the community. While writing Urban Blues in the mid-1960s, Keil optimistically saw this cultural expression as contributing to the rising tide of raised political consciousness in Afro-America. His new Afterword examines black music in the context of capitalism and black culture in the context of worldwide trends toward diversification.
"Enlightening. . . . [Keil] has given a provocative indication of the role of the blues singer as a focal point of ghetto community expression."—John S. Wilson, New York Times Book Review
"A terribly valuable book and a powerful one. . . . Keil is an original thinker and . . . has offered us a major breakthrough."—Studs Terkel, Chicago Tribune
"[ Urban Blues ] expresses authentic concern for people who are coming to realize that their past was . . . the source of meaningful cultural values."— Atlantic
"An achievement of the first magnitude. . . . He opens our eyes and introduces a world of amazingly complex musical happening."—Robert Farris Thompson, Ethnomusicology
"[Keil's] vigorous, aggressive scholarship, lucid style and sparkling analysis stimulate the challenge. Valuable insights come from treating urban blues as artistic communication."—James A. Bonar, Boston Herald
"Enlightening. . . . [Keil] has given a provocative indication of the role of the blues singer as a focal point of ghetto community expression."—John S. Wilson, New York Times Book Review
"A terribly valuable book and a powerful one. . . . Keil is an original thinker and . . . has offered us a major breakthrough."—Studs Terkel, Chicago Tribune
"[ Urban Blues ] expresses authentic concern for people who are coming to realize that their past was . . . the source of meaningful cultural values."— Atlantic
"An achievement of the first magnitude. . . . He opens our eyes and introduces a world of amazingly complex musical happening."—Robert Farris Thompson, Ethnomusicology
"[Keil's] vigorous, aggressive scholarship, lucid style and sparkling analysis stimulate the challenge. Valuable insights come from treating urban blues as artistic communication."—James A. Bonar, Boston Herald
244 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1966
8 people are currently reading
98 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
October 18, 2020
Written in 1966, this offers a unique perspective on the R&B circuit and the audience of the time. The chapter about the experience of seeing Bobby Blue Bland perform provides cinematic detail.
June 5, 2012
I have seen Charles Keil’s Urban Blues referenced many times before, most recently while reading B. B. King’s autobiography, but had yet to come across a copy. This was remedied after a trip to a local bookstore and I am happy to say this book has been worth the wait.
Urban Blues is written from an anthropological/ethnomusicological point of view, Keil taking great pains to scientifically analyze blues music. While his study is by no means complete, it is among the finest of the 60’s books on African American music. Keil examines the culture of the people who made and listened to blues, examines the sociological elements and does so to the point that this book is more about people than a kind of music.
Perhaps best of all, Keil is devoid of the then typical “racial” prejudice and speaks of the “blues people,” as LeRoi Jones puts it, without guilt or guile. In the introduction (which, in and of itself, is enough to blow minds), Keil states, “I, for one, would like to see the term “race” abandoned all together and with it the pernicious rhetoric of race relations, racial conflict, race riot, struggle for racial equality ad nauseam. Can a shared gene pool riot? No. Can it relate in any meaningful way to another bunch of genes? No. Nor can races conflict; but cultures can, and in this shrinking world they clash with increasing frequency. Racial equality is an established fact; the struggle is for cultural pluralism.” My excitement grew upon reading this paragraph, because, scientifically, we are all one race and, skin color aside, it is our cultures that mark us as different or other.
An idea that really struck me in reading Urban Blues is that, apparently, it was a widespread belief that African Americans had no cultural history. I was completely unaware of this, as I grew up in a time when African American cultural history was celebrated in education, television, film, books, etc. and African Americans took pride in embracing their cultural history. It’s almost inconceivable to me that anyone could possibly believe that African Americans had no cultural history, but research reveals this is the case. Keil sites The Mark Of Oppression by Kardiner and Ovesey, who stated, “[The African American] had no culture and he was green in his semi-acculturated state in the new one.” Of course, these writers were clearly prejudiced and one could perhaps see where they are coming from but… I just can’t imagine a time when the existence of a rich cultural history of the African American was denied, prejudice or no. It is amazing what people will believe when they are told a lie often enough.
A case in point is the introduction of slang into the common vocabulary. While uniquely American slang terms have been invented since the United States was founded, African Americans are responsible for most of the slang that has come into use in this country. Keil remarks on this and, if anything, it is even truer now. With the emergence of hip hop and modern “soul” (nothing could be further removed from the soul music of the 60’s), African American performers, songwriters and entertainers are the main driving force in modern slang, fashion, dance, etc. Indeed, Keils’ statement that “Negro music and dance have become America’s music and dance,” is a thousand times more true today than it was when he wrote it in 1966. All of these cultural influences stem from the vast, complex cultural history of African Americans.
Keil’s open mindedness seems legion but there are a couple interesting things in these pages that may speak to the contrary. Keil states, “Contrary to popular belief, Negroes are the only substantial minority group in America who really have a culture to guard and protect.” A previous owner of this book, probably a student, penciled “Native Amer?” in the margin next to this statement. Does Keil believe Native Americans have no culture worth guarding and protecting, or does he feel that cultural history is nonexistant? Another point: in footnote 32 on page 28, Keil says, “The nature of Negro homosexuality is a problem that needs to be explored in depth. A typology of faggots and Lesbians, coupled with the types of familial organizations that tend to promote deviance, might go far in clearing the haze of illusion and controversy that surrounds Negro sexuality.” What? “Faggots?” Really? One can forgive him his then acceptable use of the term “negro” throughout this book but to use a demeaning term for homosexuals? Keil is a very intelligent, educated individual, but what does this say? I don’t know, but as good as this book is, there is a little bit of ugly nestled in its pages.
Regardless, when I say this book is thought provoking, I mean it. Whether examining ways to discuss or classify music or drawing comparisons as an eye witness between the onstage presence of B.B. King and Martin Luther King delivering his “I have a dream” speech, this book is tailor made to get you thinking. He tackles the age old question of whether or not, if war, strife, poverty, etc. were all eliminated in a utopian society, would the blues go away. Keil confidently states that the war between the sexes will keep the blues alive, even in utopia. Hilarious, Keil; hilarious. I love his comparison of blues musicians compared to classical musicians, the gist of it being that classical musicians spend a lifetime learning to play their instrument correctly, while a blues musician spends a lifetime learning to make the instrument do what he or she wants. I also love his attitude towards what constitutes a “folk” singers and the craze in the 50’s and 60’s of “rediscovering” the “lost” blues singers of yore. It’s not a negative attitude, but it’s disdainful of the ideas that many early blues writers put forth as gospel. Of course, with the emergence of more or less every recording from the dawn of recording to the end of what we think of as “old time” music, we now know that not all “folk blues” (or “country blues,” for that natter) were lone, alcoholic, itinerant womanizers with bottleneck on finger and gravel in their voice, nor were all folk musicians meant or supposed to perform only traditional songs. As Big Bill Broonzy said, “I guess all songs is folks songs.” In the era their recordings were made, these musicians were current, their music of their time and representative of their lives. Many of the scholars in the 50’s and 60’s had irrationally skewed ideas about who these musicians were and what they were all about.
Another interesting concept is kinesics; body movement and non verbal communication, what one does physically to make blues music. This ties in with Keil’s statement that no extensive study has been made of the physical actions and movements that allow people to play blues music. It seems to me to amount to how one moves one’s fingers and hands, how one manipulates voice and vocal inflection to make the sounds that we recognize as blues. Keil believes that this sort of study would better allow us to understand regional stylistic differences as well as the changes, transitions and evolution of blues from pre-recording history to the present day. “How far removed from the older country idioms is B. B. King’s current guitar vocabulary? What innovations did the earliest urban guitarists (e.g. Scrapper Blackwell, Lonnie Johnson) actually contribute? How have basslines shifted through time as this function has moved from the lower strings of the guitar to the left hand of the piano, from string bass to electronic bass?”
And, of course, ever since reading Elijah Wald’s Escaping The Delta, I find it interesting that Robert Johnson is mentioned at all, as he is in Appendix C, Blues Styles: An Annotated Outline. This is his only mention and it is among a list of Country Blues musicians. I find this notable because King Of The Delta Blues Singers, the collection that essentially reminded/informed the world of Robert Johnson’s existence, was released in 1961, just five years prior to the printing of Urban Blues. Had the LP been released much later, it’s possible Keil would have been unaware of Johnson at all.
Urban Blues is a satisfyingly thought provoking read, even today, for anyone interested in blues and jazz specifically and in African American culture in general. Keil’s work as an ethnomusicologist continues today and it’s easy to see his great love of music and culture in the pages of this book.
Urban Blues is written from an anthropological/ethnomusicological point of view, Keil taking great pains to scientifically analyze blues music. While his study is by no means complete, it is among the finest of the 60’s books on African American music. Keil examines the culture of the people who made and listened to blues, examines the sociological elements and does so to the point that this book is more about people than a kind of music.
Perhaps best of all, Keil is devoid of the then typical “racial” prejudice and speaks of the “blues people,” as LeRoi Jones puts it, without guilt or guile. In the introduction (which, in and of itself, is enough to blow minds), Keil states, “I, for one, would like to see the term “race” abandoned all together and with it the pernicious rhetoric of race relations, racial conflict, race riot, struggle for racial equality ad nauseam. Can a shared gene pool riot? No. Can it relate in any meaningful way to another bunch of genes? No. Nor can races conflict; but cultures can, and in this shrinking world they clash with increasing frequency. Racial equality is an established fact; the struggle is for cultural pluralism.” My excitement grew upon reading this paragraph, because, scientifically, we are all one race and, skin color aside, it is our cultures that mark us as different or other.
An idea that really struck me in reading Urban Blues is that, apparently, it was a widespread belief that African Americans had no cultural history. I was completely unaware of this, as I grew up in a time when African American cultural history was celebrated in education, television, film, books, etc. and African Americans took pride in embracing their cultural history. It’s almost inconceivable to me that anyone could possibly believe that African Americans had no cultural history, but research reveals this is the case. Keil sites The Mark Of Oppression by Kardiner and Ovesey, who stated, “[The African American] had no culture and he was green in his semi-acculturated state in the new one.” Of course, these writers were clearly prejudiced and one could perhaps see where they are coming from but… I just can’t imagine a time when the existence of a rich cultural history of the African American was denied, prejudice or no. It is amazing what people will believe when they are told a lie often enough.
A case in point is the introduction of slang into the common vocabulary. While uniquely American slang terms have been invented since the United States was founded, African Americans are responsible for most of the slang that has come into use in this country. Keil remarks on this and, if anything, it is even truer now. With the emergence of hip hop and modern “soul” (nothing could be further removed from the soul music of the 60’s), African American performers, songwriters and entertainers are the main driving force in modern slang, fashion, dance, etc. Indeed, Keils’ statement that “Negro music and dance have become America’s music and dance,” is a thousand times more true today than it was when he wrote it in 1966. All of these cultural influences stem from the vast, complex cultural history of African Americans.
Keil’s open mindedness seems legion but there are a couple interesting things in these pages that may speak to the contrary. Keil states, “Contrary to popular belief, Negroes are the only substantial minority group in America who really have a culture to guard and protect.” A previous owner of this book, probably a student, penciled “Native Amer?” in the margin next to this statement. Does Keil believe Native Americans have no culture worth guarding and protecting, or does he feel that cultural history is nonexistant? Another point: in footnote 32 on page 28, Keil says, “The nature of Negro homosexuality is a problem that needs to be explored in depth. A typology of faggots and Lesbians, coupled with the types of familial organizations that tend to promote deviance, might go far in clearing the haze of illusion and controversy that surrounds Negro sexuality.” What? “Faggots?” Really? One can forgive him his then acceptable use of the term “negro” throughout this book but to use a demeaning term for homosexuals? Keil is a very intelligent, educated individual, but what does this say? I don’t know, but as good as this book is, there is a little bit of ugly nestled in its pages.
Regardless, when I say this book is thought provoking, I mean it. Whether examining ways to discuss or classify music or drawing comparisons as an eye witness between the onstage presence of B.B. King and Martin Luther King delivering his “I have a dream” speech, this book is tailor made to get you thinking. He tackles the age old question of whether or not, if war, strife, poverty, etc. were all eliminated in a utopian society, would the blues go away. Keil confidently states that the war between the sexes will keep the blues alive, even in utopia. Hilarious, Keil; hilarious. I love his comparison of blues musicians compared to classical musicians, the gist of it being that classical musicians spend a lifetime learning to play their instrument correctly, while a blues musician spends a lifetime learning to make the instrument do what he or she wants. I also love his attitude towards what constitutes a “folk” singers and the craze in the 50’s and 60’s of “rediscovering” the “lost” blues singers of yore. It’s not a negative attitude, but it’s disdainful of the ideas that many early blues writers put forth as gospel. Of course, with the emergence of more or less every recording from the dawn of recording to the end of what we think of as “old time” music, we now know that not all “folk blues” (or “country blues,” for that natter) were lone, alcoholic, itinerant womanizers with bottleneck on finger and gravel in their voice, nor were all folk musicians meant or supposed to perform only traditional songs. As Big Bill Broonzy said, “I guess all songs is folks songs.” In the era their recordings were made, these musicians were current, their music of their time and representative of their lives. Many of the scholars in the 50’s and 60’s had irrationally skewed ideas about who these musicians were and what they were all about.
Another interesting concept is kinesics; body movement and non verbal communication, what one does physically to make blues music. This ties in with Keil’s statement that no extensive study has been made of the physical actions and movements that allow people to play blues music. It seems to me to amount to how one moves one’s fingers and hands, how one manipulates voice and vocal inflection to make the sounds that we recognize as blues. Keil believes that this sort of study would better allow us to understand regional stylistic differences as well as the changes, transitions and evolution of blues from pre-recording history to the present day. “How far removed from the older country idioms is B. B. King’s current guitar vocabulary? What innovations did the earliest urban guitarists (e.g. Scrapper Blackwell, Lonnie Johnson) actually contribute? How have basslines shifted through time as this function has moved from the lower strings of the guitar to the left hand of the piano, from string bass to electronic bass?”
And, of course, ever since reading Elijah Wald’s Escaping The Delta, I find it interesting that Robert Johnson is mentioned at all, as he is in Appendix C, Blues Styles: An Annotated Outline. This is his only mention and it is among a list of Country Blues musicians. I find this notable because King Of The Delta Blues Singers, the collection that essentially reminded/informed the world of Robert Johnson’s existence, was released in 1961, just five years prior to the printing of Urban Blues. Had the LP been released much later, it’s possible Keil would have been unaware of Johnson at all.
Urban Blues is a satisfyingly thought provoking read, even today, for anyone interested in blues and jazz specifically and in African American culture in general. Keil’s work as an ethnomusicologist continues today and it’s easy to see his great love of music and culture in the pages of this book.
June 25, 2024
Great crossover anthropological/ethnomusicological/folkloric/afro-american study of blues culture from the mid-1960s. The author's predictions about the arc of sub-cultural, black music are largely accurate, even if he had no inkling of the hip hop future to come.
January 27, 2015
Written with a heavy tilt towards a sociological study of what Keil calls "urban blues." What's basically electrified blues/soul music from the early to mid 60s. The two examples he returns to time and again are B.B. King and Bobby "Blue" Bland.
The first half of the book is very interesting but after a while and especially in his appendixes, Keil starts to make outlandish statements that belittle the likes of James Brown as just a crier. He disregards the work of Bo Diddley and Chuck Berry as novelty songs, and refers to Motown as mere teenager music. Even in later comments included in this particular edition, written in the 90s no less! Keil destroys Marvin Gaye and all of his work, including the album What's Going On. He paints Gaye as a non artist, basically totally helpless and pathetic man with a good voice. As very big Marvin Gaye fan, it's a good thing these kinds of statements came at the very end of the book or I might have just put it down for good.
The other glaring hole in the work is how little is made of the business side of the music? Next to a book like Peter Guralnick's Sweet Soul Music, Keil's book feels as if it's trying to convince you that a musician's choices about his or her music, and the evolution of the music itself over time, exists apart from and is above the business of selling music and making money.
The first half of the book is very interesting but after a while and especially in his appendixes, Keil starts to make outlandish statements that belittle the likes of James Brown as just a crier. He disregards the work of Bo Diddley and Chuck Berry as novelty songs, and refers to Motown as mere teenager music. Even in later comments included in this particular edition, written in the 90s no less! Keil destroys Marvin Gaye and all of his work, including the album What's Going On. He paints Gaye as a non artist, basically totally helpless and pathetic man with a good voice. As very big Marvin Gaye fan, it's a good thing these kinds of statements came at the very end of the book or I might have just put it down for good.
The other glaring hole in the work is how little is made of the business side of the music? Next to a book like Peter Guralnick's Sweet Soul Music, Keil's book feels as if it's trying to convince you that a musician's choices about his or her music, and the evolution of the music itself over time, exists apart from and is above the business of selling music and making money.
Currently reading
September 29, 2008Just picked it up, the introduction is deep.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews