I need some opinions here.........those familiar with prewar blues have read what many writers have proclaimed about Tommy McClennan........his voice and playing were somewhat lacking, to put it kindly. In fact, in terms of technical ability, I don't know that I've heard of another prewar bluesman so taken to task by blues experts. My own opinion is that yes, the guy was rough. No great musician, he, his guitar was sometimes out of tune on recordings, it was indeed played roughly, and his voice is sometimes little more than a toneless growl, but I like the guy's stuff. Blues has never been about technical ability, emotion is at its core, and McClennan gave us that, if little else, so he's all right in my book. I also happen to think he is treated a bit unfairly as a guitar player........he was no great shakes, I know, but neither was Son House (even in his prime), yet House's playing is lauded as "churning," or "propulsive," or "hypnotic." McClennan's, on the other hand, is dismissed as inept. Was he REALLY that bad?