I was once in a Blues-Rock Band

---

As a teenager in the late sixties, I was drawn magnetically to the blues - not the unpolished American acoustic Delta blues but its English, electric blues-rock offspring: Eric Clapton, Peter Green, Paul Kossoff.

As a teen, I practiced on my first acoustic-guitar-with-electric-pickup in my bedroom until my fingers calloused - blasting the house through the valve-radio amp; at university I played lead guitar in a four-piece band with a second-hand Fender Stratocaster, covering Cream, Free, Hendrix, and the standard electric blues repertoire.

We once opened for Free, blew up the university amp, and had to borrow theirs - an act of stunning kindness.

I actively disliked The Rolling Stones (pretentious strutting, I reckoned) and Pink Floyd (just pretentious).

I wanted directness and authenticity - delivered with craft and extreme volume. Unfortunately I wasn't really that good.

Now, in my seventies, I have a renewed appreciation for the virtuosity and diversity of Led Zeppelin and the stage impact of Rory Gallagher; I listen to Walter Trout, and sometimes to Ally Venable, Joe Bonamassa, and the Zac Schulze Gang.

And, as I practise blues fingerstyle, my callouses have come back.

The Walter Trout Band at Warwick Arts Centre

Walter Trout with the guitar on the left

---

The Walter Trout Band at the Warwick Arts Centre

Like Joni Mitchell, Walter Trout has had an eventful life and has honestly and authentically distilled it into his music. It seems he mostly lives to be on the road: at 74 years of age, he freely claims to be 'in the December of my life'.

Tuesday night Clare and I saw the Walter Trout Band at the Warwick Arts Centre. The support act on first was Cam Cole - a one-man band, though he did have an assistant in tow. He played a half-hour set, followed by a short intermission. Then, around half-past eight, Walter Trout and his band took the stage and played for a good ninety minutes, which passed remarkably quickly.

Cam Cole struck me as a very talented performer. His assistant, Alfie - rather androgynous in appearance - added to the visual theatre. Together, they delivered a loud, foot-stomping blues set, marked by ferocious vocals and a raw, unfiltered energy. Both looked like travelling folk, and as it turns out, they are - living a nomadic lifestyle in a converted vehicle. The top hat, the colourful, gypsyish clothing - it’s all part of the aesthetic.

That said, the performance, while undeniably high-energy, suffered slightly from repetition and a less-than-ideal sound system which filtered out all subtlety - a flaw that also affected Trout’s set later on.

Walter Trout’s performance was, once again, loud and atmospheric, though not without its limitations. The song choices were heavily weighted toward the straight-down-the-line electric blues - energetic, yes, but lacking melodic variation. Almost every number was a burner, with little respite. I counted only one slower piece, a tribute to John Mayall - though in Walter Trout's hands the song has done duty as an homage to other departed bluesmen too. That would be: 'Say Goodbye to the Blues'.

It’s a shame, really. Trout has more lyrical material in his back catalogue that might have added texture to the set. But he seemed to be enjoying himself immensely, as did the band - veterans all, with clear camaraderie and mutual respect. Each had a brief moment in the spotlight - a nice touch.

One can see why Walter Trout remains something of a cult figure. He makes no concessions to fashion or commercial polish. On stage (see the picture above) he appeared in old jeans and a caftan-style shirt - shambolic, yes, but with real presence. The focus was entirely on the music, and we, the fans, clearly appreciated that.

In a certain sense, Walter Trout isn't giving a performance, a show, at all. He's just sharing a fun jam-session with his mates.

Here's Clare in the audience as the theatre fills up

The venue was comfortably full - perhaps 450 people, I’d guess (the capacity is 570). The demographic was striking: not unlike a parish gathering, with perhaps 95% of the audience over sixty. One wonders what’s become of the blues.

It flourished in the ’60s and ’70s - clearly when most of the audience came of age - and has since withered into a niche. The traditional electric blues, rooted in the Delta and the Mississippi, seems largely bypassed by the younger crowd. But perhaps, as with so much else, it’s simply waiting for its time to come again.

Joe Bonamassa vs. Walter Trout

Joe Bonamassa and Walter Trout

---

I asked ChatGPT to capture the difference in playing styles between Joe Bonamassa and Walter Trout. I'm a huge fan of both blues-rock guitarists (and their bands) and they seem quite similar in virtuosity and in the authenticity of their performances.

There are plenty of artists playing electric blues-rock but most of them seem to be playing a pastiche of the blues: going through the motions and not expressing themselves at all.

---

ChatGPT

Walter Trout and Joe Bonamassa, while both rooted in the blues-rock tradition, exhibit distinct stylistic identities in their guitar playing, lyrical themes, and vocal delivery. However, they share enough commonalities to create the impression of overlapping influences. Here's a closer analysis:

Guitar Playing

Walter Trout: Trout's style is fiery and deeply emotive, characterized by rapid, intense flurries of notes and a raw, improvisational energy. His solos often channel the urgency and grit of his personal struggles, with a heavy focus on bending and vibrato to convey emotion.

Joe Bonamassa: Bonamassa is the more polished and technically refined player. While also emotive, his approach often incorporates a wider range of influences, from British blues pioneers like Eric Clapton to jazzier phrasing and even classical elements. His tone and phrasing tend to be cleaner and more meticulously crafted.

Lyrical Themes

Both artists write songs that are deeply personal and steeped in blues tradition:

Walter Trout: His lyrics are often confessional, reflecting on redemption, mortality, and personal hardship, especially following his battle with liver disease. There's a sense of raw vulnerability and lived experience in his songwriting.

Joe Bonamassa: Bonamassa's lyrics, while also personal, often adopt a slightly broader or more allegorical tone. Themes of love, loss, and perseverance dominate, but they tend to be less raw and more polished than Trout's.

Singing Style

Walter Trout: Trout’s vocals are gritty, unvarnished, and intensely heartfelt, complementing his raw guitar playing. His singing feels like an extension of his struggles and triumphs.

Joe Bonamassa: Bonamassa's vocals are smoother and more controlled, occasionally leaning toward a rock-oriented aesthetic. While emotive, they don't carry the same rough-edged quality as Trout's.

Shared Influences or Idea Exchange?

The perceived similarities could stem more from shared influences than direct interaction. Both artists draw heavily from the same well of blues tradition, incorporating the styles of legends like B.B. King, Albert King, and John Mayall. However, they each bring their own life experiences and musical nuances to the table. If there's a sense of "bouncing ideas off each other," it’s more likely a case of parallel evolution within a shared musical space rather than explicit collaboration.

---

I would add: if playing in a blues-rock band was a Myers-Briggs Personality Assessment, I'd have Walter Trout as ISFP and Joe Bonamassa as INTP.

There's a kind of brutal honesty and emotional frankness to Trout's ISFP: the introverted feelings (dominant F_i) forcefully expressed (S_e) through the music; Bonamassa's INTP, by contrast, is much more emotionally buttoned-up (inferior F_e), while conscientious and rigorous about technical competence (dominant T_i).

As another indicator, just look at their different choices of stage-dress in the image above!