# Music by Genre > Bluegrass, Newgrass, Country, Gospel Variants >  Bluegrass instruments

## Willie Poole

I guess we could say that when bluegrass first started it was just five instruments: guitar, banjo, fiddle, mandolin and base fiddle, later on it seems that a dobro has been accepted as a bluegrass instrument and in some circles a harmonica.....My question is can anyone think of other acoustic instruments that could be added and still "fit in"?..I also know that some people have different ideas of what bluegrass is and can it be altered to incorporate many different kinds of instruments....I know some have tried electric instruments with wa-wa pedals and fuzz boxes.....My self I love a hammered dulcimer sound but can it be accepted as a bluegrass instrument?

   Your opinions please....Hope this hasn`t been beat to death before, 

   No Mike, I never posted this before....

    Willie

----------


## Phil Goodson

> ....My self I love a hammered dulcimer sound but can it be accepted as a bluegrass instrument?
>    Your opinions please......
>     Willie


Of course not.  You know better than that!   :Disbelief:   :Crying: 

Did you just buy one and now looking for a job? :Laughing:  :Wink:

----------


## CES

You know the answer the BG police will give you on this one!! C'mon, man!!

Skaggs likes to use an arch top acoustic guitar and will occasionally throw in accordion. I would not consider accordion BG at all, but the guy who plays with them can sure make it work!! And, I'll admit to liking good hammered dulcimer, too...

----------


## AlanN

Bluegrass roasting on an open fire
opinions nipping at your nose
Though it's been said
many times, many ways:
TANPON!!

Merry Christmas to one and all!

----------

DataNick, 

non-typical

----------


## JeffD

An instrument that would work, not on a steady diet but on some tunes, would be a sopranino mandolin. Pitched a fourth up from the mandolin and fiddle, it could really accentuate the high lonesome.

And, as has been discussed on other threads, two fiddle unison with an otherwise standard bluegrass ensemble is really really nice.

----------


## Mandoplumb

To me bluegrass is a music with a certain drive or beat, so any instrument could be used if they can drive with the bluegrass beat. Many " bluegrass bands" don't do this even with conventional instruments, although that is not saying I don't like a lot if it it's just not bluegrass. I known someone is thinking speed, people think bluegrass is fast and a lot of it is but it's the drive that makes it bluegrass. Listen to early Country Gentlement or Jimmy Martin, even on slower numbers they just drive thru you, so if you can do that on a hammer dulcimer then that is still bluegrass. I have known a couple that drove a piano I considered bluegrass.

----------


## JeffD

> To me bluegrass is a music with a certain drive or beat, so any instrument could be used if they can drive with the bluegrass beat. Many " bluegrass bands" don't do this even with conventional instruments, although that is not saying I don't like a lot if it it's just not bluegrass. I known someone is thinking speed, people think bluegrass is fast and a lot of it is but it's the drive that makes it bluegrass. Listen to early Country Gentlement or Jimmy Martin, even on slower numbers they just drive thru you, so if you can do that on a hammer dulcimer then that is still bluegrass. I have known a couple that drove a piano I considered bluegrass.


While I agree in general, I have heard some bands incorporate a drum. The most iconic beat driving instrument one could name. And while YMMV, I really don't care for it.

----------


## Mandoplumb

JeffD that's because a mandolin is the "bluegrass drum" and that other drum is stepping on our toes

----------


## Tom Coletti

Bluegrass is a combination of Appalachian, Irish Trad and Blues, right?




So anything associated with Old-Time, Blues or Irish Trad should be fair game by default.

As for other instruments, there are plenty of banjoists that don't play bluegrass, and plenty of saxophonists that do. A creative person and a tactful musician can play anything on anything with anyone.







--Tom

----------

Jeff Budz, 

Jonathan Reinhardt

----------


## allenhopkins

The Country Gentlemen used Mike Seeger's Autoharp on _New Freedom Bell,_ and it fit in well.  There's some Autoharp on the Flatt & Scruggs _Songs Of the Famous Carter Family,_ and Maybelle C played a bit of it on the first _Will The Circle Be Unbroken_ 3-LP set.

Buck White added piano to some of the Down Home Folks gospel numbers, when he wasn't playing mandolin.  You'll hear plenty of piano on Lewis Family albums as well.  Again, has to be tastefully used, not on every style of song/tune, but sometimes it fits.

Jay Round put out a hammered dulcimer LP years ago with bluegrass-style backup.  He's fast enough to do it:



Walt Michael played hammered dulcimer with Bottle Hill back in the '70's, though mostly he was their guitarist.

In the mandolin family, Del McCoury's band uses mandola now and then; Cloud Valley did so in the past.  Allan Shelton combined banjo and Dobro, playing a "five-string Dobro" working with Jim & Jesse.

Crooked Still, sorta quasi-bluegrass, performs with cello.  Ray Edenton played tiple on a couple of Osborne Brothers & Red Allen songs. And, of course, many bands have used electric bass guitar, in the same role as bass fiddle.

Won't go into the number of bluegrass bands that have "gone electric" in order to play on the same shows as electric country-western bands.  Jim & Jesse and the Osborne Brothers are just the best-known of those who've mixed in some electric instruments from time to time.  Flatt & Scruggs, Jimmy Martin, and many others, have recorded with drums (mostly brushed snare).

Doesn't necessarily answer the basic question, though.  Using an "odd" instrument on a few songs or tunes is not the same as accepting it as a part of a "standard" bluegrass band.  Bluegrass band competitions often limit the type of instrument allowed onstage, and usually it's banjo, guitar, mandolin, fiddle, Dobro and bass -- nothing else.

Early pre-bluegrass string bands were not so restrictive, and you can find bands that used tenor banjo, ukulele, reed instruments (both blown and with bellows), hand percussion as well as drums, etc.  Henry Ford's Old-Time Dance Orchestra featured a tuba as well as hammered dulcimer.

What I think it would take to get another instrument generally accepted, would be for an established bluegrass band to add one on a consistent basis.  Ricky Skaggs has brought in lead electric guitar, accordion, Andy Statman's clarinet, Bruce Hornsby's piano, _et. al.,_ but hasn't stuck with one on an every-performance basis.

And, of course, even that wouldn't win everyone over.  A core of bluegrass fans -- whatever their political persuasions -- are very musically conservative, and treat innovation with suspicion if not hostility.  So I'd say change here is not imminent.  Were I to vote for a "next bluegrass instrument," I think Autoharp, harmonica, and hammered dulcimer are all decent candidates.  Just my 2¢.

----------

timv

----------


## Pete Martin

Any instrument can play in any style as long at the musician behind it knows how to fit.  Accordion is not my favorite, but I love the early Bluegrass Boys records with Sally Ann Forrester!

----------

farmerjones

----------


## Tobin

I think there's a strong case for the mandola and octave mandolin, but those aren't much of a stretch.  Tenor banjo and tenor guitar too, but again, they are very similar to what's already there.

I've heard harmonicas and accordions used with bluegrass ensembles, and they sound nice even with bluegrass tunes.  But they drive the feel away from bluegrass.

----------


## Beanzy

I tend to think things have mutated away from bluegrass and become Old Time or Stringband if you move away from the standard instrumentation you list.
Bluegrass is a narrow genre assrmbled to perform in a particular wauy. Whereas OldTime & Stringband are broader and less regimented in that respect. 
The confusion arises as the term bluegrass often gets used as a catch-all term.
It doesn't mean a bluegrass combo couldn't incorporate other set-ups into their act, just that they'll be playing outside their main field when they do.Given how many players are multi-instrumentalists and cross-genre players, it makes a lot of sense that many bluegrass outfits play other styles and non-bluegrass line-upsto spice up their shows. But when they do they are playing an alternative presentation, something closely associated with but outside bluegrass.

----------

Rush Burkhardt

----------


## Jim Taylor

Lil'Roy plays some autoharp in his show. Actually, I like the hammered dulcimer. Fits good in some songs, and could be part of a set. its a mess to keep in tune tho. I saw Bill Monroe play a electric guitar! Is it Bluegrass, or just good music. Hummmmm.

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

Used in the correct way, as a 'harmonising instrument' to the Fiddle,i reckon a Viola could sound pretty good. Ronnie McCoury uses his Mandola in some songs that he & his father's band perform,so why not swing a Viola in there to keep Jason Carter company ?.
I love the sound of the Hammered Dulcimer & also the Autoharp,but both would be out of place in a Bluegrass band 'proper' (IMHO),
                                                                                                                                                                    Ivan

----------


## Ole Joe Clark

Spoons  :Popcorn:

----------

Dave Greenspoon, 

surfercook

----------


## Jack Roberts

> Spoons


+1.  Spoons and clogs.

----------

Dave Greenspoon

----------


## jochemgr

A pink Telecaster should be accepted after watching this!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEb3-RC2DBI

----------


## Willie Poole

So many opinions on what is really bluegrass....Some of those bands you named are not true bluegrass bands although they do perform on bluegrass shows, I do not own a dulcimer and my dad was one of best harmonica players I ever heard but I tried a harmonica on a show once and it clashed with the fiddle, they just didn`t sound right together, Skaggs also played a viola on some recordings with The Bluegrass Band on the tune "Summer Wages" I believe, he doubled with him self on it.... I also saw a band that had a fellow sitting on a wooden box and beating on it like a drum...Now tell me that fits...I have had people from the audience get up and play spoons along with my band and it`s OK as long as they have good timing, they sometimes sit at the bar and bang away and as I say I don`t mind it they are in time....A lot of the instruments you named do fit in with old timey and country music, I have tried an electric guitar (bass) and depending on how it played whether it will fit, most of them want to walk it all of the time...

     Thanks for your opinions.....Willie

----------


## Timbofood

Spoons just annoy me unless, I'm eating chili!

----------


## Tom Coletti

> So many opinions on what is really bluegrass....Some of those bands you named are not true bluegrass bands




You were saying?

--Tom

----------


## fatt-dad

there's this wooden box called a cajon.  I played my mandolin with two boys (ages 8 and 11) - one on cajon, one on fiddle and me on the mandolin. We played dozens of fiddle tunes and the cajon acted like the clogging beat.  Crazy fun with these school boys from Pennsylvania.

f-d

----------

surfercook

----------


## allenhopkins

> ...Bluegrass is a narrow genre assembled to perform in a particular way.bluegrass often gets used as a catch-all term.  It doesn't mean a bluegrass combo couldn't incorporate other set-ups into their act, just that they'll be playing outside their main field when they do...they are playing an alternative presentation, something closely associated with but outside bluegrass.





> ...Some of those bands you named are not true bluegrass bands...A lot of the instruments you named do fit in with old timey and country music [but not bluegrass]...


This is what I mean about bluegrass fans being musically conservative, and treating innovation with suspicion if not hostility.  The question was, "Can anyone think of other instruments that could be added and still fit in?"  If the immediate reaction is *"That's not bluegrass!"*, then, *NO.*

Bill Monroe's Blue Grass Boys weren't the Crook Brothers or Arthur Smith's Dixieliners, either.  Maybe someone (Uncle Dave?) said, "_That's_ not real string band music!" when they heard Monroe with Flatt, Scruggs, Wise _et. al._  If you stick with a narrow definition of bluegrass, then, _by definition,_ you can't broaden it to include, say, a harmonica.

----------


## LongBlackVeil

How about a cello?! Skip to about 2:00 to hear the cello play forked deer, and skip that terrible hammered dulcimer thing .hammered dulcimer is not an instrument I would include in this thread, in fact i would not include it as an instrument  :Smile:

----------


## StuartE

> I guess we could say that when bluegrass first started it was just five instruments: guitar, banjo, fiddle, mandolin and base fiddle, later on it seems that a dobro has been accepted as a bluegrass instrument and in some circles a harmonica.....
>     Willie


We ought to keep in mind that there was a period of experimentation before the big five instruments crystallized when Monroe's BlueGrass Boys included an accordion.  Quite likely, this was to compete with Roy Acuff and Pee Wee King. So historically, the accordion "fits in" bluegrass.

And, it could be speculated that if the Grand Ol' Opry had not been so reactionary, maybe drums would have become on the basic bluegrass instruments.

With the rise of new grass and progressive bluegrass, perhaps there will be another period of experimentation or openness.

Maybe, the question should be reversed.  Which of the big five are most likely to be dropped or become optional?  Banjo, I think.  


Double bass, there seem to be fewer people playing it in general and that must have some affect on bluegrass.  There seems to be lot of interest in acoustic bass guitar, uke bass, and the like. But how about *bajo sexto* or *bajo quinto* from Mexican string bands?

And, how about, the array of string instruments in the tamburitza (or tambrucia) bands of Central and Southern Europe, especially Croatia and Serbia, and those communities in the United States. There are ensembles ranging from mandolin sized double coursed, through guitar like but less than 6 strings, to bass sized instruments (bisernica, brac, bugarija, celo and berde). Some tamburitza groups have been invited to perform at more eclectic bluegrass/folk music gatherings. And, tamburitza groups in the US and Europe have reportedly been influenced by bluegrass.


Here's a clip that sounds bluegrass-ish to me.



I don't think that's a dominant style but it shows the potential of the instruments for bluegrass.

----------


## crisscross

I tried John Hardy once using a flute, a nylon string guitar, a ukulele and an irish tenor banjo. Do I have the right to call this Bluegrass? Guess that's up to you to decide :Wink:

----------

Jackgaryk, 

surfercook

----------


## UsuallyPickin

Well .... I guess it would depend on just what the audience considers Bluegrass s and their expectations. I certainly do not expect to hear a hammered dulcimer in a Bluegrass band, or a drum for that matter. Good music is just that and it can be played on any number and kind of instruments. You can play Wheel Hoss on a Sax but that doesn't make it 'Grass. In my opinion Bluegrass is a string band music with very specific instrumental and vocal requirements.

----------

Rush Burkhardt

----------


## Willie Poole

Usually Picking...My sentiments exactly...spoken from a man that lives in the heart of bluegrass country, Kentucky...Thanks...

   For a long time I have tried to find a good definition of bluegrass and I think you have come up with one that is very close to defining it....It`s not really the songs you play or the instruments that you play it with, and while they are important, it is also the way it is delivered and the story behind the music and words...

    This has gotten off of the subject and I think Allen is right with what we call "TRUE  BLUEGRASS" so the five basic instruments that I named in the original post are it, I guess.....My self I don`t think bluegrass will ever get rid of the banjo, that is the mainstay instrument no matter what Nickel Creek says...Lol

     Willie

----------

allenhopkins

----------


## Mandoplumb

I agree with Willie, Monroe's wasn't what has come to be known as bluegrass until Scruggs. If there is one indispensable instrument for bluegrass it is the banjo. There is no problem with a banjo, just with a lot if banjo pickers.

----------


## farmerjones

I've noticed there's more Bluegrass bands than there are Bluegrass fiddlers to go around.
Harmonica and fiddle fit in the same place. I know from real-life experience. My harp playing buddy can crank out those fiddle tunes, like nobody's business. We'll call and answer. I'll harmonize him, but we never trounce on each other.  

Like Ol Bill, I personally am not a fan of dobro. I don't mind what Jerry Douglas does with Union Station. Union Station sometimes incorporates a wallop box too. Tasteful, for sure. They should call it Softgrass. 

Honestly, I think the piano roll is as good as a banjo, but good luck finding a piano picker that's both able and willing. Sure, Bruce Hornsby, but he's busy, and never comes through my little town.

----------


## lukmanohnz

> I agree with Willie, Monroe's wasn't what has come to be known as bluegrass until Scruggs. If there is one indispensable instrument for bluegrass it is the banjo. There is no problem with a banjo, just with a lot if banjo pickers.


LOVE the banjo, but 'indispensable' seems to imply that Tony Rice's Manzanita was not a bluegrass album.  If so, then I'm not sure where else it should be shelved in the record store.

----------


## LongBlackVeil

And if we're at a BG jam and no banjo players show up, are we at a bluegrass jam still? Or did It become something else?

----------


## farmerjones

> And if we're at a BG jam and no banjo players show up, are we at a bluegrass jam still? Or did It become something else?


No, still BG, but we're sort of thankful we can hear each other.  :Laughing:

----------

LongBlackVeil, 

Tobin

----------


## DataNick

My 2 cents: Mandolin has and is currently used in Classical musical settings: mandolin orchestras, guest solo spots playing concertos, duets, etc. However when I attempted to join our local Chamber Music Orchestra, the conductor refused telling me that there was no place for mandolin in a "regular" orchestral setting. I was "invited" to possibly work up a Vivaldi concerto to do as a one off type, guest spot thing, but no regular membership. I guess though mandolin can be used to "play" Classical music, it is not "accepted" as an orchestral instrument.

Is it possible that one can "play" bluegrass music on just about any instrument, but a "Bluegrass band" is more limited?

Food for thought...

----------


## dwc

Cello was the first instrument that popped into my head.  Crooked Still was not exactly bluegrass, but they certainly had a bluegrass feel with a fiddle, a banjo, a cello and a double bass.  I saw Sarah Jarosz accompanied live by fiddle and cello.  Again, not pure bluegrass, but it still has that sound.  I think cello would make a great addition to a bluegrass jam.  I certainly wouldn't turn one away.  With all the treble instruments in your typical lineup (fiddle, mandolin, banjo) a cello could carve out its own sonic space.

----------


## Tom Coletti

> Cello was the first instrument that popped into my head.


Technically an Old-Time tune rather than 'grass, but cello and nyckelharpa are both great additions to this one. The part between 2:49 and 4:29 is pretty neat:




I'll throw another vote in for hammered dulcimer, too:




--Tom

----------

Amanda Gregg

----------


## Mandoplumb

If I went to a concert and there was no banjo, I wouldn't think I had been to a bluegrass concert. That doesn't mean that every song had to include a banjo but the banjo had to be there most of the time. It also doesn't mean that I wouldn't enjoy what I heard, just that it wasn't bluegrass. I am probably alone in this but I don't think the music in Old Brother Where Art Thou is bluegrass. It is pre bluegrass or what we called hillbilly when I was growing up ( I think I just told my age) just my 2cents worth

----------


## dwc

> If I went to a concert and there was no banjo, I wouldn't think I had been to a bluegrass concert. That doesn't mean that every song had to include a banjo but the banjo had to be there most of the time. It also doesn't mean that I wouldn't enjoy what I heard, just that it wasn't bluegrass. I am probably alone in this but I don't think the music in Old Brother Where Art Thou is bluegrass. It is pre bluegrass or what we called hillbilly when I was growing up ( I think I just told my age) just my 2cents worth


I think Della Mae is unequivocally bluegrass, and they do not have a banjo.  Manzanita by Tony Rice is, I think, clearly a bluegrass record, and it has no banjo.

OTOH, I do agree that the O Brother soundtrack is really more like proto-bluegrass, but to me, it has nothing to do with instrumentation, it is all about the feel.  Bluegrass has a drive that I don't hear on the O Brother soundtrack.

----------


## allenhopkins

*Now* we're spending our time talking about "what is or isn't bluegrass."  Hope we packed lunches…

Let's go back to the original question.  Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a well-known contemporary band -- _e.g._ Del McCoury or Rhonda Vincent -- _is_ bluegrass.  OK?

_Now:_ what if one of the following instruments were _permanently added_ to either band:
1. Hammered dulcimer
2. Autoharp
3. Harmonica
4. Cello
5. Accordion
6. Appalachian dulcimer
7. Drum kit
8. Piano
9. Kazoo (jus' kiddin')

Would you then _not_ have a bluegrass band?  Would the instrument fit in -- could it have a role -- how would the changes made in the band's sound strike you?  Horrible, interesting, welcome?

Willie asked which instrument _could_ be added to the "standard" bluegrass lineup, and still preserve the essential concept of bluegrass, while enhancing a particular band's music.  Feel free to say "none of the above," or to suggest another.

"What is bluegrass" is a well-beaten dead horse; there'll never be total agreement on _that_ question.  Let's focus down on a more manageable issue, OK?

----------

timv

----------


## Ole Joe Clark

Ok, Allen you done hurt my feelings, I'm taking my engraved set of spoons and going home!  :Laughing: 

Joe

----------

allenhopkins

----------


## timv

Allen, I'm probably not answering exactly the question you asked. For one thing, Del and Rhonda are so well along in their careers that I wouldn't expect a big change in sound from either. But looking back over the instruments mentioned thus far:

Mandola and octave are a done deal. Folks like Tim O'Brien, Sarah Jarosz, and Sierra Hull switch over when they need to, especially when they need the extra sustain and bass for playing solo or in a duo. Go to a bluegrass festival these days and you'll hear them.

But I'll vote for accordion. Lots of it in the early Monroe Columbia recordings, and Bill's momma played accordion so it's the primal bluegrass instrument in a way.  :Smile:  And also because the way accordion is used in sympathetic types of music from the British Isles and in Cajun, Zydeco, and Tex-Mex. E.g., Peter Rowan, ex-Blue Grass Boy, must have been one of the first English-language musicians to record with Flaco Jimenez if not the first.

Also clarinet, if only because of Andy Statman; but also because of the connection with Swing, the modal music of the world when bluegrass started, and the two titans, Benny Goodman and Artie Shaw. The dry sound fits right in with string band instruments and there's plenty to rediscover there. (And for sure, Benjamin David Goodman and Arthur Jacob Arshawsky were not unfamiliar with klezmer.)

Would it still be bluegrass? I don't care much myself. Labels come after the music. No one thought that this kind of hillbilly music even needed a name like "bluegrass" until the late 50s or early-to-mid 60s (depending on who you trust on this) and the heavy lifting had mostly been done by then.

----------

allenhopkins

----------


## DataNick

> I think Della Mae is unequivocally bluegrass, and they do not have a banjo...


I both saw and liked Della Mae at Summergrass back in August, and their talent, musicianship, songwriting is top notch. However I must agree with their own self categorization of the genre of music they play. Check their website: they advertise themselves as an "Americana" band, not a Bluegrass band!

Again that's their own (the artist themselves) self-description!

Per their Google description:

Della Mae
http://dellamae.com/
Home page of Della Mae, an americana group from Nashville, TN. A band of goddesses working for peace.

----------


## dwc

> I both saw and liked Della Mae at Summergrass back in August, and their talent, musicianship, songwriting is top notch. However I must agree with their own self categorization of the genre of music they play. Check their website: they advertise themselves as an "Americana" band, not a Bluegrass band!
> 
> Again that's their own (the artist themselves) self-description!
> 
> Per their Google description:
> 
> Della Mae
> http://dellamae.com/
> Home page of Della Mae, an americana group from Nashville, TN. A band of goddesses working for peace.


To be honest, I hesitate to call my own band "bluegrass" simply because I wish to avoid the needless arguments about what is or is not bluegrass.  You can prune the tree of bluegrass until all that remains is Bill Monroe, and sometimes it is just easier to call yourself something else and avoid the acrimony.

To get back to the question at hand, I still think cello is one of the few non-bluegrass instruments with the capacity to add something to a bluegrass band.  My band has bounced around the idea of adding a cello, but the right opportunity and the right musician has not presented itself.  

I am probably in the minority that thinks harmonica can function just fine in a bluegrass band or jam.  The key is that the harmonica player has to embrace a role that is very different than that of a harp player in a blues band.  In blues, the harmonica is a frontline instrument that riffs over the entire progression.  If you try this in a bluegrass jam, you will likely get some dirty looks, and not undeservedly.  

Bluegrass, at its best, is ensemble music in the way that jazz in ensemble music.  The harmonica players that I have heard that fit well in a bluegrass jam understand this and embrace a role similar to a fiddle.  They play breaks and maybe some tasteful fills, but mostly stay out of the way during the vocals and during other musicians' breaks.  It is when they (that is harmonica players) try to play over an entire song/tune that problems develop.  

I have seem similar problems associated with blues guitarists who are accustomed to being the focal point of the entire song; they simply don't know when not to play, and wind up playing pentatonics over the entire song.  It doesn't mean that the guitar doesn't work in a bluegrass band, it simply means the musician must re-evaluate his or her role in the context of the ensemble.

----------

timv

----------


## Astro

I think we may just be in the middle of a transition where the definition of bluegrass is being broadened by the general public. Same thing happened to Rock and I remember people arguing what is and isn't rock but in the end it didn't matter because the common vernacular of the general public will decide what it will be called, not the insiders who grew up with it. The term Rock was of course eventually broadened to include almost everything.

Meanwhile I agree that cello, harmonica, maybe even hand drum or cajon could add to whatever you want to call this modern "old time" type Neo Americana BGey stuff. 

But I bet if it has a banjo, mando, stand up bass, and guitar, 99% of the public are going to call it Bluegrass no matter what any of us think. 

And if you really want to know who will eventually label it, just go to Pandora and plug in your bands name and see what it says.

PS: dwc and Nick--Thanks for introducing me to Della Mae. Here they are playing at the Buhler *BlueGrass* Festival of 2014. I guess someone forgot to remind them they wernt Bluegrass.  :Wink: 

I agree it doesn't sound like Bill Monroe Bluegrass. But Buddy Holly Rock doesnt sound much like Pink Floyd Rock either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oybo1rUoqk

----------

DataNick

----------


## DataNick

> I think we may just be in the middle of a transition where the definition of bluegrass is being broadened by the general public. Same thing happened to Rock and I remember people arguing what is and isn't rock but in the end it didn't matter because the common vernacular of the general public will decide what it will be called, not the insiders who grew up with it. The term Rock was of course eventually broadened to include almost everything.
> 
> Meanwhile I agree that cello, harmonica, maybe even hand drum or cajon could add to whatever you want to call this modern "old time" type Neo Americana BGey stuff. 
> 
> But I bet if it has a banjo, mando, stand up bass, and guitar, 99% of the public are going to call it Bluegrass no matter what any of us think. 
> 
> And if you really want to know who will eventually label it, just go to Pandora and plug in your bands name and see what it says.
> 
> PS: dwc and Nick--Thanks for introducing me to Della Mae. Here they are playing at the Buhler *BlueGrass* Festival of 2014. I guess someone forgot to remind them they wernt Bluegrass. 
> ...


Generally I agree with you, however I will point out that a sub-classification system began to be used in the 70s when it came to at least rock and r&b/jazz. I listened almost exclusively to 2 radio stations in Philly in the 70s. One as a self titled "Progressive-Rock" station and the other "Progressive-Jazz". Buddy Holly was relegated to 50s or "Oldies" rock n roll and would never have been played on the progressive-rock station that played the likes of ELP, Yes, Genesis, Elton John (some of his non-pop stuff), Alman Brothers, CSN&Y, etc. And yet the groups I just named shows a pretty eclectic playlist as well.

As the consumer, genre-labeling helps. If I want to have an evening of "Southern Rock" and I go to a show, I expect bands like The Outlaws, Allman Brothers, Skynard, Molly Hatchett, etc. not McCartney & Wings. Is it all the same "kind" of music; well in a general sense yes, but as consumers we do have a sophisticated sense of taste. What's happening in my view at Bluegrass festivals (continuing your thoughts) is that all sorts of acts are being booked because they play "Acoustic Music", but they're not necessarily "Bluegrass". I've seen Folk, Country, Americana, Blues, and Jam Band acts at so called "Bluegrass" festivals.

So in a sense, I felt like a victim of bait and switch when I was exposed to some of these bands that going in I thought were "Bluegrass" acts.

Just my 2 cents and it's nice to see the discussion remain civil in this thread!

So to bring the discussion back to point, with the variation of groups being called "Bluegrass" invariably instrumentation starts going beyond the traditional 5-piece model, and if anything is "Bluegrass" then I guess any instrument is fair game.

----------

Astro

----------


## Denny Gies

Just as long as we don't accept the spoons, I'm open for anything.

----------

Ole Joe Clark

----------


## Ole Joe Clark

I'm giving up my spoons, (except for chilli), and getting me a tambourine deluxe.

Joe

----------


## JeffD

> Technically an Old-Time tune rather than 'grass, but cello and nyckelharpa are both great additions to this one.


"Technically", is in "it is Old-Time rather than 'grass". 

Doesn't mean it isn't gigantically great. I play that tune, but wow, not as effectively as that.

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

IMHO - Prior to Earl Scruggs joining the Bluegrass Boys,'Bluegrass' hadn't reached it's ultimate,definitive band instrumentation line-up. For that reason,when Scruggs joined,the band became know as the *''Original'*' Bluegrass band,& i believe that the banjo became _the_ 'defining' instrument. Prior to that Bill Monroe's band was simply a 'string band',a good one as anybody would attest - but _not yet_ a Bluegrass band as we know it today. 
    Any band _not_ having a banjo played in Scruggs style or an 'associated' style (think Bill Keith),can't IMHO, be called a Bluegrass band. I have Manzanita & several other 'String Band' recordings ie. 'The Dave Grisman Quintet' - they also are not Bluegrass recordings. In actual fact,the music is such that even if the band did inclued a banjo player,the 'style' of music isn't Bluegrass.To me, it's more akin to Jazz being played on _Bluegrass associated instrumentation_. A term arose several years back, ''New Acoustic Music''. That seems to sum up the style of such recordings as Manzanita & others like it.
   Simply stuffing a banjo into a group's line-up won't make the music suddenly become 'Bluegrass',neither do i think that performing songs from outside the Bluegrass repertoir with Bluegrass instrumentation,make it a 'proper' Bluegrass number,it's simply what it is a non-Bluegras song performed in 'Bluegrass style'. ''Fox On The Run'' the way the Country Gents did it is one of those (IMHO).
We've all seen & heard songs from non-Bluegrass genres perfomed by a Bluegrass band,but that doesn't make them Bluegrass songs. ''Beatle Country'' by Joe Val & The Charles River Valley Boys is one recording that i have that consists of songs entirely from a non-Bluegrass genre. I think of it as Bluegrass 'of a sort',but not a 'true' Bluegrass recording,any more than recording pieces of Classical music in a Bluegrass style would make those pieces Bluegrass music. 
   I know that others have their own equally valid opinions,but,it was the banjo that set fire to the Bluegrass fuse, & off it went like a rocket,& for that reason if no other - no banjo = *not* Bluegrass (for me),
                                                                                                                         Ivan :Wink:

----------

Beanzy

----------


## Willie Poole

Ivan, speaks the truth.....There are some songs that were recorded by Jim and Jesse that get billed as bluegrass but are no where near it and I never considered Doc Watson as a bluegrasser but he played on a lot of bluegrass festivals...I like a lot of different kinds of music but I do know bluegrass when I hear it unlike a lot of you younger folks that weren`t around when us struggling musicians were trying to get bluegrass to catch on, that is not to say you aren`t entiiled to your opinion and you can classify it anyway you want but I know what I like and what it is called....to my way of thinking those five instruments that I mentioned in my original post are what makes up bluegrass and we don`t need any more, playing a viola to me is the same as a fiddle, same with a mandola, same as a mandolin....Skaggs played viola and fiddle on some recordings and I doubt if anyone could tell the difference...I am not against a dobro but it has to be played very smooth and not over bearing for me to classify it as bluegrass....JUST  MY  OPINIONS...

   Willie

----------


## Tom Coletti

So this whole thread was a ruse, then... it all winds back to the same recurring "you young people don't know real bluegrass, only I know real bluegrass, and that's JUST MY OPINION" rhetoric that hasn't changed in punctuation or syntax in eight years. Why pose the question of broadening the breadth of bluegrass if you're already adamantly against it, anyway?

--Tom

----------

allenhopkins, 

Mark Christensen

----------


## Timbofood

Not quite Tom, we have determined that spoons are not bluegrass instruments but suitable for chili consumption!
One of the best BG bands I ever heard had the distinct advantage of playing at pitch well before the advent of cheap peghead tuners. They had a harmonica player! If you have the opportunity to hear a recording of "You ain't going nowhere" by the Rimfire Ramblers on the Stringbean memorial BG festival album. You will hear the Late Tom Humphreys,harmonica, Peter Humphreys, guitar, Bill Halsey mandolin, Glen Blankenship, bass and Gary Kenyon, banjo.
Tom was a great player, played fiddle tunes with the best of them, I miss him.
I have always said that there is a certain branch of the new breed of pickers who have not listened to any of the old guard nor do they have any idea what THAT sound was. They came along after Doyle put his stamp on the smoother sound(among others). That's not to say that it isn't good, I like "lonesome river band" and "IIIrd Tyme out" and so on but, they know where they came from, they understand the roots of the music. Many young pups just go out and bang away with the idea that grateful dead were the beginning and end of bluegrass. I suppose this will offend some and others will understand my point. 
I hope that this may start the new year giving us all pause to think about those who have gone before and give an idea of who they were to the new breed. Read your history, play to the future with respect to the past.

----------


## Astro

No right or wrong here. Its just fun arguing points for opinions. Mine is that using specific types or numbers of instruments to define a genre seems a bit narrow. To me the genre is the music and the instrument is a tool to get there. But obviously to some the specific instrument is needed to achieve that specific texture to define the genre. To each his own.

Any category is for description, not prohibition. How narrow to interpret is just a matter of personal preference.

There are no lives, legends, or careers at stake here.

Use labels if its helpful. Leave them off if they're beating themselves up with it.

----------

allenhopkins

----------


## Willie Poole

Tom, You know it`s funny that we all call a mandolin an F-5 even thought it wasn`t made by Lloyd Loar but it was his design so now people want to call any music bluegrass just because they have the traditional band instruments...

   I posted this thread because I wanted to see what others thought and it got a little away from the original subject so I just went along with what others were saying...You call it anything what you want and play any instrument that you want in doing it and I`ll play it my way, they way it has been for most of my 79 years.....I played bluegrass with some great pickers in my time, some were drunks and some did their dope and that is one thing that I tried hard to change along with the publics image of what bluegrass is, we all had a bad name in my younger days even though I never did drink while playing...So as I said you play and call it what you like and I hope it makes you happy but when you go to a jam and start playing some of your style of songs and someone says, "That ain`t bluegrass" just don`t get pissed at them...

   Have a good day and a Happy New Year....

    Willie

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

I'm pretty sure that the main reason why Bill Monroe was so PO's when Earl & Lester left his band,was that Earl had taken the 'sound' with him.BM had never in his life ever had audiences like he had when Earl joined him & he coulde see ''the main attraction'' disappearing down the pike !. As it turned out,many banjo players had been copying Earl's style & had become pretty good at it,so fortunately for him,BM was soon employing another 'Scruggs' style picker. The other reason BM became so PO'd with Flatt & Scruggs was that he thought that they were copying his music.Well,i suppose in a general sort of way they were,but,IMHO,it was Earl's banjo playing that was the main ingredient. _Earl never groused about other banjo players copying 'him'_ & i suppose if he'd been that type of person,he could have,& with good reason. Earl was savvy enough to understand that he'd been the big deal in Bill's band,so why shouldn't he put his talents to use for himself ?.In truth,Bill Monroe & Earl Scruggs owed each other a whole lot. Bill owed Earl for giving 'his music' a kick start & for it becoming one of the most popular music genres of the time,& Earl owed Bill Monroe for giving him the chance to show his 'fancy banjo pickin' to the world. One without the other wouldn't have had the impact that the two together had. Truly a situation where the _'whole was immeasurably greater than the sum of it's parts'_, :Grin: 
                                                                      Ivan :Wink:

----------

Timbofood

----------


## DataNick

> ..._Earl never groused about other banjo players copying 'him'_...


Respectfully Ivan, why would he? Earl Scruggs basically "copied" a NC regional style of banjo playing that Snuffy Jenkins had already popularized on the radio, and that Don Reno had been playing as well. BTW, Monroe had already been exposed to that style via Don Reno, and was on the lookout for it, realizing it was the final piece to "his" music. Don Reno would have beaten Earl Scruggs to the punch of being a Bluegrass Boy, if not for WWII and his induction into the war after auditioning/playing for Monroe.

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

Hi Nick - Exactly - why would he ?. Re.Snuffy Jenkins - His style was very similar to that of Earl's & no doubt Earl picked (literally) a lot of his teqhnique up from Snuffy,but there were still big disimilarities between Earl's playing & that of Snuffy. The point that i was hoping to make,was that while Bill Monroe disliked any band 'copying' his style,Earl never did. I've often wondered about what the situation might have been had Don Reno joined up with Bill Monroe. I suppose it's not beyond credibility that Earl,as did Don Reno,would have formed his own band on the back of the (supposed) popularity of the new 'Reno style' banjo craze. IMHO,as good as Don Reno was,& he most *certainly* was,he never had the fluidity of sound that Earl had developed. One of* the* greatest attributes of Earl's playing was his ability to _hold the melody line_ in anything he ever played. I read that it came about when Earl was still learning. He was practicing his playing & a family member asked what tune he was playing. He told them & apparently he was way off the melody of the tune. 'Whoever'. told Earl,that if he couldn't keep to the melody,he might as well give up.That sunk pretty deep & from then on, holding the 'melody line' became the main aim of Earl's playing.
   I've met a lot of the top Bluegrass banjo players,both here in the UK & also in the US on my visits,& almost without exception they'll tell anybody who asks about learning Bluegrass banjo to listen to Earl Scruggs as a foundation for their learning. That's not to say that other great banjo players such as Don Reno are overlooked or forgotten,i think it's because Earl's style was simply the very best in his ability to play smoothly, & to hold the melody. In 50 + years of playing,i've not heard anybody play 'better' Bluegrass banjo. I still listen to the early Flatt & Scruggs recordings & they sound as fresh to my ears as they did 50 years ago,
                                                                                                                                                                     Ivan :Wink:

----------

Timbofood

----------


## DataNick

Hey Ivan, no argument with any of your viewpoints. My only point was that Earl Scruggs undoubtedly wouldn't complain about *"copyists"* because his was a *regional style* descended from vaudeville banjoists of that part of the country that he popularized, and *not a new genre of music*, that's all.

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

Hi Nick - I wasn't disputing your disputing !.  :Grin: You're correct. That style had been bubbling under for a while,but it took an Earl Scruggs to perfect it. In my many conversations with Mike Seeger when he visited the UK on numerous occasions,Mike mentioned several players who had an ''almost Scruggs-like'' picking style,but they never got 'out of the 'woods' so to speak. Realistically,it's possible that if Bill Monroe's fiddle player at the time,Jimmy Shumate,hadn't remembered hearing Earl play & hadn't recommended him to Bill Monroe,that things would have been a whole lot different.At that time,Earl Scruggs was just another unknown 'picker',but it was obvious to Bill Monroe that he was 'something else',& i'm pretty sure that BM himself would have heard more than a few 'backwoods pickers',
                                           Ivan :Wink:

----------

DataNick

----------


## surfercook

"Boats On The River" TIGHT! How about a jaw harp? BOTR instantly made me think of the jaw harp. It woulda fit in perf. Not exactly an up fronter though. 

"Old Joe Clark" by two down home boys doing it for real
http://youtu.be/1vTsqxH5_uE

"Put a Ring On it" by The Pigs- kinda campy/gimicky
http://youtu.be/lf4__-xWq8w

----------


## Mark Christensen

Hey Willie,
               I've been going to jams in my neck of the woods for over twenty years. I've never once had anybody tell me or myself tell anyone that "That ain't Bluegrass" at any jam I've ever been to. People I know are just as happy to play Bill, Doc, Norman, Stanleys to Townes Van Sant, Dawg, Bush etc. etc. etc. with no odd judgements. I agree with Tom Colletti that this is the same old rhetoric from you and I don't see your point with these posts, we all know now how you feel so why don't you give it a rest. In the jams I go to about the only person who would be asked not to come back is you and your condescending opinion.

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

With due respect Mark - Willie's stand on what is or isn't Bluegrass 'proper' is held by maybe more people than you'd imagine. At festivals,nobody comes out & voices their opinions on what's right or wrong,folk just get along. That doesn't mean to say that folk don't _hold_ those opinions,they just don't spout off about 'em. If they did,you might find yourself in the minority.
  My own opinion is that if a band doesn't have a banjo player in it,it can't be called a Bluegrass band in the_ true sense of the meaning_. Bluegrass music as we know it was popularised by Bill Monroe when he had Earl Scruggs playing banjo with im. That *specific* sound was what became Bluegrass as we know it today. Romove the banjo from that sound,& the whole enssemble sound changes. Call it what you will,it's not the proper sound of Bluegrass.
   By the same token,songs & instrumentals played with a full Bluegrass instrumental line-up,but which fall outside the ''accepted Bluegrass genre'' can be taken as 'Newgrass'' or ''New Acoustic Music'' or some other description.
   We can argue forever on this subject,but in the end,we also have a right to voice our opinions - even on here. After all,it's how we discover other folk's opinions on things that we have our own opinion about. Lively discussion,if kept 'civil' is always a good thing (IMHO). Simply telling people to 'give it a rest' isn't - & i mean no disrespect to you as a person in saying that,just that it doesn't help in any healthy discussion. We all have our opinions, & i've read more than a few daffy ones on here,that's fine,i'm always ready for a good laugh - even at my own expense if i get something wrong. That's life !,
                                                                                                                                Ivan :Wink:

----------

DataNick, 

Randolph, 

Timbofood

----------


## ralph johansson

> JeffD that's because a mandolin is the "bluegrass drum" and that other drum is stepping on our toes



No, the mandolin in Bluegrass is not the "Bluegrass drum", it is the mandolin. The chop (which really bears very little resemblance to drumming) is just one of several roles the mando can assume in a Bluegrass group, besides solos, fills and riffs, counter
melodies or long tremoloes  behind the soloist, or twinning with the soloist. There are plenty of examples where a full rhythm section (drums, piano, bass) get along nicely with a stringed instrument used rhythmically.

 In Bluegrass the only problem would be to achieve balance between drum(s)
and acoustic stringed instruments - the rest is listening. Of course most examples of drumming in BG are stiff and mechanic, but not out of necessity. And I'm pretty sure there was no mandolin on some, or even most,  of the F&S numbers with snare.

----------


## Mark Christensen

Ivan,
          I'm responding to Willie's post #54, the last few lines especially, in my opinion that is a very passive/aggressive statement that lends nothing to a healthy debate. I get how he feels about it but I find his attitude to be very condescending and have read it from him before in his over 3000 posts. What's the point? I don't know who you play music with but if someone said that to anybody in a "Jam"(as he states) I was in he wouldn't be asked back and on that point if I'm in the minority I'm happy to be there.

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

Mark - Willie & myself have been e-mail buddies for a long while now, & i'm more than familiar with his stance on ''what is or isn't Bluegrass'' & i myself don't always agree 100% with him. I think that this post has drifted too far from the original shoreline. All Willie was aking in his original post was _''do we think that there might be instruments other than the regular line up that would fit into a Bluegrass band ?''_ Or words to that effect. If we'd all stuck to that question & answered it - [/B]myself included[B],i think we'd have had a better discussion.
   Regarding what instruments are acceptable in Bluegrass - Bill Monroe himself wasn't overkeen on Dobros. He simply thought that the sound didn't fit in, & that's from the 'main man' who'd previously had all sorts of instrument in his pre-Bluegrass 'proper' line-up, including an accordion. When BM got the 'original' Bluegrass band together,that was the Blueprint that all other bands tried to copy,& BM himself didn't want to deviate from it - banjo / mandolin / guitar / fiddle  & bass - that was BM's 'specification' for a Bluegrass band,& can we _honestly_ say that adding other instruments 'really' improves anything,or does it simply just change the sound ?. Some folks hearing an 'augmented' Bluegrass band will like it,others won't. It's a matter of opinion.
    Who have i played (jammed) with ? - over a 50 year period,some of the finest Bluegrass musicians ever,both in this country & in my 5 visits to the US,including a one on one banjo/mandolin  jam with Doyle Lawson at IBMA in 2002. (My band also opened for Bill Monroe when he came to the UK in 1966 & played in Manchester). In situations like that,the thought of questioning an additional instruments or an arrangement or 'whatever', wouldn't enter my head.
    If we step sideways from the OP, & look at bands such as ''Crooked Still'' & other 'string bands' that use a Cello in their line up,i think their sound is tremendous,but,they don't play Bluegrass & what they do play, is carefully arranged for their specific line up. Personally, i don't think a Cello would work well in a Bluegrass band - but i'll shoot myself right in the foot by adding this clip once more on here.


    There's more than a few 'non-Bluegrass' instruments in there,& if i lived in the US, i'd be willing to travel a long,long way to hear that line-up - AWESOME !!!.
*From Willie* - _".....but when you go to a jam and start playing some of your style of songs and someone says, "that ain`t bluegrass" just don`t get pissed at them..."_. 
   I have to say that Willie does have a point (IMHO). I have a very good friend who's a good singer & guitarist. He's buried himself in Bluegrass music for a long time,he knows the music inside out,& has in fact written on the subject  for many years. However,as much as he thinks he's a competent singer of Bluegrass songs - he most certainly isn't. He can sing them,but stylistically,he's all over the place & wouldn't last 5 minutes in a Bluegrass 'proper' jam session.Would anybody actually tell him ?. Possibly not,they'd pack up & move elsewhere & i've seen that done many times. 
    I sometimes think that we can be a bit 'precious' in the way we defend Bluegrass music - but - 
for the majority of us,i feel that if _''it's not done the way Bill did it''_,then it ain't right. I suppose that you could apply the title of a ''Little River Band'' CD from a while ago - "Carrying The Tradition",& especially for those of us who've been in Bluegrass for many years,that's just how it seems - rightly or wrongly,
                                                                                               Ivan :Wink:

----------


## Mark Christensen

Ok Ivan if you want to condone and defend your email buddies attitude that's your prerogative. I'm also an older person and have listened and been involved with this music for a long time. I'm not interested in name dropping or telling people how great of a picker I am but I'll say it again that if your attitude is the Majority (highly unlikely) I've never experienced it in years of Festivals, Jams and workshops.
     So to the original post. If you happened to come along Red Allen and Frank Wakefield playing on the street one day (or inject your favorite players) do you turn up your nose because there isn't a banjo or other traditional instruments or  
they're playing two Ukuleles for that matter. What would you call their music? Hawaiian? Folk? Rockabilly????

----------


## dwc

I have to say, I remain entirely unconvinced that bluegrass must be defined exclusively by the banjo; because, the argument in favor of this position is largely self-referential.  The basic argument seems to be, bluegrass began when Earl Scruggs joined The Bluegrass Boys, and anything else is prima facie not bluegrass.  My ears find this position less than compelling.  Manzanita sounds like bluegrass to me.  Della Mae sounds like bluegrass to me (even if the band labels itself otherwise). On the other hand, The Punch Brothers had a classic "bluegrass lineup" but I wouldn't call it bluegrass, except for select tunes.  Thile has even called it "chamber music for a string ensemble."  Crooked Still has a banjo, but to my ears they are not playing bluegrass.  My ears tell me that not all banjo music is bluegrass and not all bluegrass has a banjo.  The argument that all bluegrass must have a banjo would be analogous to someone saying all jazz must have a saxophone because Sidney Bechet played sax and anything before Bechet is not jazz.

To me, it is more about filling sonic space.  The classic bluegrass lineup of bass, guitar, mandolin, banjo and fiddle each fill a role.  You can use something else to fill that space.  My band lacks a fiddle player and a banjo, but we use a dobro to fill both roles.  The dobro player plays rolls like a banjo and solos like a fiddle.  Of course, I would never call what we do bluegrass.

----------


## DataNick

> ...So to the original post. If you happened to come along Red Allen and Frank Wakefield playing on the street one day (or inject your favorite players) do you turn up your nose because there isn't a banjo or other traditional instruments or they're playing two Ukuleles for that matter. What would you call their music? Hawaiian? Folk? Rockabilly????


I've got Wakefied & Allen's "Kitchen Tapes". I listen to it frequently and I *absolutely love it!*. Frank Wakefied plays Monroe-style mandolin so well that Bill Monroe is reputed to have told him that he (Wakefield) plays Monroe better than anybody!
Again I wanna say that *I absolutely love that sound and that record*. However I would not call it Bluegrass. I would classify it as "Old Time Mountain Music", and I certainly would not turn up my nose at it. In fact I'm trying to cop some of those songs and Wakefield's licks as we speak. But to me (_and here's the crux of the matter: it's my perspective_) Bluegrass has a certain drive, and certain musical parts filled by specific instruments, in a specific style as defined as a template by the Bluegrass Boys of '46-48'. So though Wakefield plays "Bluegrass Breakdown", "Paddy On The Turnpike", and other songs that are included in a typical Bluegrass repetoire, I wouldn't call the pairing of guitar & mandolin a "Bluegrass" band. I'd say they're a mando/guitar duet playing all sorts of different songs (bluegrass, fiddle tunes, gospel songs, etc) in an "Old Time Mountain Music" flavor.

Furthermore, I don't believe this difference of opinion will ever be resolved quite frankly. And when I consider that, it strikes me as strange. Why? Because I believe we could all agree on what makes a Classical Orchestera, or what Cajun music is or that Yes, ELP, & Genesis is Progressive-Techno Rock and not Pop Rock, or that The Eagles have played as a band Country-Rock, Rock N Roll, and R&B or that Blood, Sweat, & Tears played JazzRock, or that Tower Of Power was a fusion of R&B and JazzRock, etc. etc. But the ability to properly categorize the Bluegrass genre with its instrumentation is either lost on a lot of us, or a lot of us feel it has very strict boundaries or no boundaries at all. And I think that those who are not musicians could probably care less; they just like good music!

----------


## allenhopkins

This thread has become terrain fought over so many times, it's become (IMHO) both tiresome and un-resolvable.

Willie's original question was interesting.  And yes, I can think of several instruments -- played in a "bluegrass style" and sticking to bluegrass-type repertoire -- that have been, and could be, used in a bluegrass band without making it "not bluegrass."

But most of us aren't talking about that any more.  We're quibbling over the same old question: since Bill Monroe (sorta) invented bluegrass, and since his "Original Bluegrass Band" c. 1946 included those five instruments, do all subsequent bluegrass bands have to be set up similarly to be called "bluegrass"?

I don't think so, many others do, but we won't resolve this -- and a stimulating line of inquiry, has been led into a familiar swamp and left to sink.

At least that's how I see it.

----------

Timbofood, 

timv

----------


## Willie Poole

Mark, I have been on the road for a few days and also laid up with a bad cold so I haven`t been keeping up with all of your posts...If like you say you have been a long time listener to bluegrass music then you should know to what I am referring to when I say "traditional" bluegrass, to me that is the only kind and I know that will get a lot of arguments....

    I will also add that one weekend I drove over to Dover Delaware to see a  show that was advertised as Bluegrass, when the band came out onto the stage to a sold out crowd they played four songs and someone in the crowd yelled out, "That isn`t anything like bluegrass" and a lot of the crowd got up and left...Now I will tell you who the band was...And I am sure it will get denied by some of their long time fans...It was Ricky Skaggs and Ky Thunder.....They were playing songs that he has recorded on his country label  records (CD`s)...he also did much the same thing at Gettysburg the last time I was there...So I am sure that if he can be told that what he was doing isn`t bluegrass then it could happen to you and a lot of others at a jam session....As I have stated you play what you like and call it what you want but I know bluegrass when I hear it and will stick with my opinion, after all we all have one of those ...Now you or anyone else that wants to can brow beat me and I will not post any more on this thread, I an sure you and a lot of others are tired of me spouting off about what is bluegrass but there some on here that agree with me....I`m done and gone to another subject,,,Have at me...

   Willie

----------


## Mark Christensen

I agree with you Allen but DataNick keeps the can of worms open. Red and Frank are considered Bluegrass musicians and a lot of the record is considered standard bluegrass material. Ralph Stanley considers his music from the mountain tradition but everyone calls the Stanley Brothers Bluegrass. I don't have a problem with whatever you want to call it but I'd rather just call it good music myself and not have an attitude about it or look down on people because it doesn't fit there idea. From my above examples there's always a contradiction.

----------

allenhopkins

----------


## Mark Christensen

From Post #70 I will also add that one weekend I drove over to Dover Delaware to see a show that was advertised as Bluegrass, when the band came out onto the stage to a sold out crowd they played four songs and someone in the crowd yelled out, "That isn`t anything like bluegrass" and a lot of the crowd got up and left...Now I will tell you who the band was...And I am sure it will get denied by some of their long time fans...It was Ricky Skaggs and Ky Thunder.....They were playing songs that he has recorded on his country label records (CD`s)...he 


                           I don't know if this quote even warrants a response but it's so ridiculous. Again Willie what's your point? Now Ricky Skaggs isn't a Bluegrass musician because he chose that night to play some different tunes that you don't consider Bluegrass? Laughable. I'm done.

----------


## Timbofood

So, anybody want to broach the "Greensky Bluegrass" kettle of fish?
I like the guys, played shared shows with them shared stage time. And arguably I don't know if there might be two more diametrically opposed styles of players. We still get along. Why can't more just suck it up and as someone said in an old thread:
"When things go in a direction I don't care for, I go find either the bathroom or a fresh cocktail" just paraphrasing there. That's what I have learned to do. Be nice!

----------


## AlanN

I look at The Kitchen Tapes as a bg band minus the banjo, fiddle, bass. It is very great.

My fave part of that is where Red opines "Aw shucks, guitar".

----------


## DataNick

> I agree with you Allen but DataNick keeps the can of worms open. Red and Frank are considered Bluegrass musicians and a lot of the record is considered standard bluegrass material. Ralph Stanley considers his music from the mountain tradition but everyone calls the Stanley Brothers Bluegrass. I don't have a problem with whatever you want to call it but I'd rather just call it good music myself and not have an attitude about it or look down on people because it doesn't fit there idea. From my above examples there's always a contradiction.


Mark,

If you're going to reference me, then please reference what I said accurately. _I want to say that I'm not angry, have nothing personal against anyone, and all I did was really make an observation and an opinion. To disagree with someone is not to insult them, it's just to disagree._ I never said that "The Kitchen Tapes" wasn't bluegrass. In fact I said that that there was a mix of all types of material. In regards to that record, which I said that I love, *I just said that in my opinion* I wouldn't call a mando/guitar duet a "Bluegrass band" but a duet playing and singing different genes of songs in a "Old Time Mountain Style". Again this is not a dogmatic belief, but just an opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

Please re-read my post *where I conclude by saying this will never be resolved* (before Allen opined the same thing one post later) and that to non-musicians they could probably care less. _And to me the more interesting point of discussion is why is there such a variance in categorizing the genre of Bluegrass as opposed to the examples that I listed in my post._ As I stated we would more than likely agree with the genre classifications that I used as examples, but why is there such nonagreement when it comes to Bluegrass? That is the subject matter that I find more fascinating about this whole subject. _Why is it that we can agree that "Earth, Wind, & Fire" is R&B, or that "Chick Corea & Return To Forever" is "Fusion-Jazz" but we can't agree on Bluegrass genre classifications. I find that phenomena worthy of discussion from a social science perspective, and I have a hard time coming up with a comparable example in another musical genre-form._

Again let me say for the record, *I'm really not interested* in discussing what I consider to be bluegrass or bluegrass instrumentation versus what you believe. 

_I'm interested in discussing why consensus can be reached in genre classification with other musical styles but not bluegrass! That dichotomy is what I find interesting, and again I have no desire to debate my bluegrass list against yours._

Respectfully submitted in the right spirit and just trying to be accurate.

----------


## CES

> How about a cello?! Skip to about 2:00 to hear the cello play forked deer, and skip that terrible hammered dulcimer thing .hammered dulcimer is not an instrument I would include in this thread, in fact i would not include it as an instrument


Had the pleasure of seeing these guys live about 2 years ago, and also got to hang out with them afterwards for a couple of hours. Got to play Josh's Red Diamond (tied for 1st with a Giacomel and a Loar for the best mandos I've played). That hammered dulcimer player is a freak in the best possible way, and would be welcome to take over whatever jam was happening at my campfire. May not be bluegrass, but he's a Hell of a musician...

----------


## Mark Christensen

Hey DataNick, I wasn't offended by your post in the least. I responded to you calling Red Allen and Frank Wakefield's Kitchen tapes Old Time Mtn Music which I disagree with. I think they're straight up Bluegrass practitioners. The rest of my post was in response to people on here that try to force their opinions on others and then are condescending when they're not agreed with and who continually bring up the same themes to make themselves feel important. I doubt I have to actually name them. It's tiring. No offense to you but if you would have read my other posts you probably would have got that. Oh by the way in your last post I didn't read most of it because I saw Bold face type and a lot of italicized words which I don't respond to. I think it's silly to express yourself over the internet angrily that way, we don't know each other so what's the point. Sorry you had to cramp your hand for nothing.

----------


## CES

And, Nat can play Cello-bass with me any time. He actually plays melody with his bow while simultaneously walking a plucked bass line. Son, I see why Sarah plays with him and Alex!! They may not be traditional bluegrass instruments, but, Willie, I would bet you would include them if they came by your campfire...they can play, son!

----------


## Timbofood

Have a fresh cocktail or cup of tea, Mark.
So sorry you have problems with people using reasonable typographically correct expression. 

Willie, you may be a bit too "old school" for a lot here but, we are who we are, right. Pretty dull if all we played was "Old Joe Clark" and "Blue Ridge Mountain Home" too.
Style is one thing, material is something else.
I think I have had enough with this one, good night.

----------


## DataNick

> Hey DataNick, I wasn't offended by your post in the least. I responded to you calling Red Allen and Frank Wakefield's Kitchen tapes Old Time Mtn Music which I disagree with. I think they're straight up Bluegrass practitioners. The rest of my post was in response to people on here that try to force their opinions on others and then are condescending when they're not agreed with and who continually bring up the same themes to make themselves feel important. I doubt I have to actually name them. It's tiring. No offense to you but if you would have read my other posts you probably would have got that. Oh by the way in your last post I didn't read most of it because I saw Bold face type and a lot of italicized words which I don't respond to. I think it's silly to express yourself over the internet angrily that way, we don't know each other so what's the point. Sorry you had to cramp your hand for nothing.


Mark,

No offense on my part. I did not know that boldface and italic font was for usage to convey emotion. I used it for emphasis, or to highlight the content of the post that I considered worth focusing on.

Here's the gist of what I said:

And to me the more interesting point of discussion is why is there such a variance in categorizing the genre of Bluegrass as opposed to the examples that I listed in my post. As I stated we would more than likely agree with the genre classifications that I used as examples, but why is there such nonagreement when it comes to Bluegrass? That is the subject matter that I find more fascinating about this whole subject. Why is it that we can agree that "Earth, Wind, & Fire" is R&B, or that "Chick Corea & Return To Forever" is "Fusion-Jazz" but we can't agree on Bluegrass genre classifications. I find that phenomena worthy of discussion from a social science perspective, and I have a hard time coming up with a comparable example in another musical genre-form.

And I'll close by saying again that discussing my bluegrass band/instrumentation list versus anyone else's is pointless. But why is it that we can agree about other genres but not bluegrass. That to me is a fascinating phenomena!

----------


## dwc

> Mark,
> 
> Again let me say for the record, *I'm really not interested* in discussing what I consider to be bluegrass or bluegrass instrumentation versus what you believe. 
> 
> _I'm interested in discussing why consensus can be reached in genre classification with other musical styles but not bluegrass! That dichotomy is what I find interesting, and again I have no desire to debate my bluegrass list against yours._
> 
> Respectfully submitted in the right spirit and just trying to be accurate.


Sorry to snippet quote you; I hope I am not taking you totally out of context, but I respectfully submit that other musical genres have similar "disagreements" about classifications.  

In jazz there are people who think jazz as a musical genre begins AND ends with Dixieland.  These purists prune the tree of jazz so completely that nothing before, and certainly nothing after, is jazz to them.  There are others within Jazz (including some very famous musicians and writers) that want to freeze the art form circa 1960, after Giant Steps and Kind of Blue, but before Sketches of Spain, and viewing Jazz fusion as an aberrant, abhorrent abomination.  And in Jazz, at least, these "disagreements" play out not on online forums, but in conservatories and at the very highest levels of study and criticism.

Classical music is not without its genre purists, either.  It is a little harder to see perhaps, but technically "classical music" refers to a very specific time period.  What the public thinks of as "classical music" is really more like baroque, classical, romanticism and some modernism.  Western musicologists will parse these "sub-genres" until your head spins, and you just can't care any more (which, I think, is what happens to the majority of the listening public, so it all gets lumped into classical).

Finally we move to rock.  Want to start a bar fight?  Walk into a metal club and start mouthing of about how the NWOBHM (Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, etc) were really just ripping off Deep Purple and The Sex Pistols.

I submit to you that every musical genre struggles mightily with classifications.  I further submit that, when done in a scholarly fashion, this adds, rather than detracts, from the music.  The problem is that there isn't much in the way of "Bluegrass Studies," and there aren't really very many good books devoted to the subject, so all we are really left with are our opinions.

----------

Beanzy, 

DataNick, 

TonyP

----------


## DataNick

Great post dwc!

That is the kind of response I was looking for! I guess that in my mind and amongst my peers, there hasn't been that granularity of disagreement with respect to other genres, at least not in the examples I used; but I see your point.

Thank You, and I agree that this kind of inquiry does add to the music. Have you ever read Robert Cantwell's "Bluegrass Breakdown"?
That is one piece of musicology that I would hold up for Bluegrass; but you're right, I can't think of many.

I also think it's important to realize we're probably (the bluegrass community) never going to reach consensus on these matters in the fashion that other genres at least from my perspective, seem to have more agreement.

So though innocently intended as a matter of discussion as to what instruments make up bluegrass, etc; the resultant discussion is bound to turn into the my list versus your list argument.

----------


## Mark Christensen

I find it hilarious that someone named Timbofood is trying to be condescending towards me on a mandolin forum after everything that's been discussed and yes in my circles when someone uses bold face type that means they're angry. So why should I respond to that? I think my point's been made. DataNick I get what you're saying and your point and thanks for being clear about it.

----------


## DataNick

Mark,

You're Welcome! And it's all good Brotha!

----------


## dwc

To get back to the initial question for a moment (and I fully admit my culpability in pulling this thread of topic; I hope I can make up for that), what about a 12 string guitar?  I have always been fascinated by the sound and the mystique of the 12 string.  Any room at the table for a 12 string?  I admit that I find it difficult to figure out precisely what sonic space it might fill, but I am interested in any experiences, observations or opinions.

----------


## DataNick

> To get back to the initial question for a moment (and I fully admit my culpability in pulling this thread of topic; I hope I can make up for that), what about a 12 string guitar?  I have always been fascinated by the sound and the mystique of the 12 string.  Any room at the table for a 12 string?  I admit that I find it difficult to figure out precisely what sonic space it might fill, but I am interested in any experiences, observations or opinions.


I think if you play the classic Lester Flatt "G-run pick n brush" style that it could work, because there's no heavy strumming with that style. Otherwise it could be too "cluttered" sound waves-wise if a picker does a folk or rock type strum. I'd like to hear somebody actually attempt it (Flatt style) on a 12-string. No reason in my mind as to why it couldn't work...

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

Hi Mark - My posts were much less about 'defending' my e-mail buddies than explaing my own thoughts on the matter. Several years ago,a very well known Bluegrass artist & his band came over to play at one of our main Bluegrass festivals. A lot of the stuff they were playing fell far short of Bluegrass & they were told that if they couldn't play 2 good Bluegrass spots each day,then they might as well leave. I can only speak for myself & make comments regarding what i experience,& what i experience here in the UK, is the fact that we're much less forgiving in our expectations. If an artist / band state that they're''Bluegrass'',then they'd better be. That does _not_ mean to say that non-Bluegrass music at our Bluegrass festivals is off limits,far from it. Laurie Lewis & Tom Rozum came over some years ago on their own. They headlined at one of the best Bluegrass festivals we ever had over here.They did however state from the onset,that much of their songs etc. wouldn't be done with a full Bluegrass band. I was cheeky enough to offer my services on banjo for a few tunes,as i know a lot of Laurie & Tom's songs ,but my offer was politely declined - maybe for the best !. Their music over the full 3 day event was incredibly good. When they finished off their very last spot on the Sunday night with their latest song release - "Who Will Watch The Home Place",there wasn't a dry eye in the marquee.
   From Mark -_ "... when someone uses bold face type that means they're angry. So why should I respond to that ? "_ . That's not the case with all people on here Mark. I use bold / Capital & Italic lettering to accentuate a remark or add stress to a word. If folk ever thought i was being angry in all my posts - i'd be propped up & shooted !, :Grin: 
                                                                                                                          Ivan :Wink:

----------

Timbofood

----------


## Beanzy

> I find that phenomena worthy of discussion from a social science perspective, and I have a hard time coming up with a comparable example in another musical genre-form.
> 
> And I'll close by saying again that discussing my bluegrass band/instrumentation list versus anyone else's is pointless. But why is it that we can agree about other genres but not bluegrass. That to me is a fascinating phenomena!


I think you could look at baroque music for similarly polarised opinions with the whole 'period replica instruments only give the right sound' tiffs that kick off there. But as with the Dixieland example above, BG is only one corner in the great plains of american country music.

I think some of the reluctance to limit BG instruments may be due to the very social inclusiveness that surrounds the whole BG family. There may be a fear that if you want to move outside the genre you'd somehow be rejected from the fold. 

But I think most people enjoy many styles of music and many of those also like to play across musical boundaries. I do a lot (borderline for being across too many styles to maintain the skills), but I really think it is important to be open to allowing people to rest easy in a style, or to limit their focus so they can zoom in and really maximise their enjoyment of playing that music in that way with those instruments. We don't have to force people to broaden their tastes or to allow stuff that's 'no part of nuthin' into their mix. It's not a negative thing to want certainty or to closely define the parameters so know where your working.
There's always another jam, or gig that can be set up to play the variations you like, even if you have to start it for yourself.
I think folks are right to say if you drift too far from the shore but feel the need to pretend it's still bluegrass don't be surprised if people don't always agree. The tide goes in and out at different times, but if you have to ask where the shore is you need a better compass and chart not more fog.

----------


## Mandoplumb

Bluegrass is a very emotional, clean music. By clean I mean uncluttered, not off color.Some even say simplistic which it is in one since of the word. Two many instruments doing too many things change that. The emotional part is even harder to define, that's why there will always be disagreement about what is bluegrass. I like any acoustic string music whatever you call it, but bluegrass is my first love. I know what is bluegrass in my mind as do each of us and that is all that matters. If the "kitchen tapes ain't bluegrass because it ain't got no banjer" it is still good music so why do we argue about it?

----------

Timbofood

----------


## JeffD

I think that the efforts of many people to define bluegrass and to define more clearly what is not bluegrass - I think these efforts are important. Ultimately futile maybe, but I think the distinctions are important to keeping it a genre of its own. Without these efforts its not unlikely that bluegrass would long ago have been absorbed by country-pop as "country music with a banjo" and then "country music with a banjo-guitar" and then country music with banjo shaped objects. 

I also think cool innovation and beauty comes from well defended borders and crisp definitions. You can't push the envelope if there is no envelope that anyone cares about. (As an example I submit today's country music.)

The original question is fascinating because of the border lines. What instruments could be included and yet keep the integrity of the original conception while giving it perhaps a new but not transgressive sound?

----------


## Tom Smart

> ... when the band came out onto the stage to a sold out crowd they played four songs and someone in the crowd yelled out, "That isn`t anything like bluegrass" and a lot of the crowd got up and left...Now I will tell you who the band was...And I am sure it will get denied by some of their long time fans...It was Ricky Skaggs and Ky Thunder.....They were playing songs that he has recorded on his country label records (CD`s)...So I am sure that if he can be told that what he was doing isn`t bluegrass then it could happen to you and a lot of others at a jam session...


I don't know what I'd call Ricky Skaggs and Kentucky Thunder when they're playing "country" songs, but I do know what I'd call the guy in the audience who yelled out, "That isn't anything like like bluegrass."

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

Tom - Read my last post about a 'certain' Bluegrass band !.
   Defining 'the sound' of Bluegrass music is easy_ if we accept one thing_. Back when Earl Scruggs joined Bill Monroe & the whole Bluegrass 'thing' kicked off big time - if we accept the fact that this band became known as the ''Original Bluegrass Band'',& also accept the fact that the whole 'band sound' that they produced came to define ''the sound of Bluegrass'',then we've got it. We must accept also,that the banjo is possibly the 'main ingredient' of that sound, & to remove the banjo creates a lesser sound. Removing any of the other instruments also creates a lesser sound,although if the banjo is still among the ingredients,it can still be called Bluegrass. I'm trying very hard not to be too darned pedantic in this,but,if Earl's arrival in Bill Monroe's band created the ''Original Bluegrass Band'' sound,then what do we call Bill's music before,& also the music of any band that _doesn't have a banjo player ?._ To me,it's not disimilar from any great recipe for a food dish. A recipe becomes a classic usually because the originator created something that has a wide appeal. If that recipe needs 5 ingredients,but somebody decides to add or remove an ingredient,then it's *not* the food dish that it's supposed to be !. Take an American classic (of which i'm rather too fond if i find it in the UK) 'Key Lime Pie' - remove the Lime from it & simply have a neutral filling,or,add bananas & you've now got 'something else' - it certainly isn't a Key Lime Pie. _Adding to,or subtracting from_ the original line-up of instrumentation in a Bluegrass band creates a different sound. That's one reason why Bill Monroe wasn't too keen on the Dobro - it didn't fit in with his idea of the sound of 'his music'. Maybe he regarded it as a non-traditional instrument in a Bluegrass setting. Whatever, he wasn't keen.
   My personal idea of what constitute a Bluegrass band 'proper' is the _original line-up_ of instruments. Differ from that & i'm fine with it - as long as there's a banjo,i'd still think of it as Bluegrass,even with a Dobro added. Remove the banjo & i'm still fine with the music - but don't call it Bluegrass. Purely my personal opinion,    
                                                                                              Ivan :Wink:

----------

DataNick

----------


## jaycat

> I find it hilarious that someone named Timbofood is trying to be condescending towards me on a mandolin forum after everything that's been discussed and yes in my circles when someone uses bold face type that means they're angry. So why should I respond to that? I think my point's been made. DataNick I get what you're saying and your point and thanks for being clear about it.


On a personal note, Tim is my Guild Guitar and Humphrey Bogart buddy and I must rise to his defense (not that he needs it) when I say he hasn't got a condescending bone in his body.

On a more pragmatic note, I worked as a typesetter for 25 years and I can assure you that bold face type is used to convey emphasis. It would be asking an awful lot of a typeface to express anger, love, fear, jealousy, ambition, joy or any other of the limitless gamut of human emotions.

"Was you ever bit by a dead bee?"

----------

Mark Wilson, 

Timbofood

----------


## J.Albert

My thoughts and mine only.

I'm kind of "old skwel" on the subject, as I sense Willie is.

There's a lot of music out there that "sounds like" bluegrass, without actually _being_ bluegrass.
This in itself doesn't mean I dislike such music, only that I recognize it for what it is.

Also...
Seems like I go to bluegrass festivals today, and my thoughts insofar as a lot of the bands are concerned is, "they're ok, but that's not bluegrass."
Again, this should not be construed to mean I didn't like them or their music.

It also seems like (at least in the Northeast) Sunday morning bluegrass gospel shows have all-but disappeared.

I liked the old days better.
But then again, I'm old.

----------

Timbofood

----------


## Mark Christensen

For whatever reason I'm being chastised for expressing my opinion that bold faced type has angry connotations. I was referring to the content of the post I was responding to, not in general terms. I made the mistake of assuming that was obvious.
  I also feel that it was none of Timbofools business to respond to me in that way as he was not part of the conversation I was having. If you want to defend him that's more of a reflection on you as far as I'm concerned. I also hold the opinion that people like Willie start these threads just to be controversial and nothing else as it's obvious he doesn't care about others opinions he just wants to defend his. I originally responded to Tom Colettis post #51 which I still agree with 100% and have the right to do so regardless of what you old schoolers may think.

----------


## ralph johansson

> Not quite Tom, we have determined that spoons are not bluegrass instruments but suitable for chili consumption!
> One of the best BG bands I ever heard had the distinct advantage of playing at pitch well before the advent of cheap peghead tuners. They had a harmonica player!



"Distinct advantage"? Before peghead tuners there were tuning forks. Do you really believe that harmonicas are more reliable?

----------


## Timbofood

Yes Ralph, I sure did back then, I don't know how things go at European festivals but, often when parking lot picking, tuning tends to wander, getting twenty people to use a fork to tune is virtually impossible, so, yes that was indeed a "distinct advantage" in 1976.
Mark, sorry to have cut you so deeply, I apologize.
Now as to your statement about not caring about others opinions, that is a grave falsehood. I appreciate opinions of others, I don't have to agree with them though. And that's Timbofood".
This is a forum so your "conversation" with Nick is public information, if you wanted it to be private, post to him with a PM, don't chew on me for voicing my opinion. 
Willie, looks like the kettle is boiling over this subject for the umpety umpth  time.

----------


## drbluegrass

My preferences in bluegrass lean toward the more traditional and neo-traditional styles in both instrumentation and music. However, I've heard bluegrass songs and artists that have used non-traditional instruments like autoharp, dulcimer, cello, and mandola that I really liked. I also like some of the new groups that bring heavily bluegrass influenced music to the bluegrass genre but they might not be considered a "true" bluegrass band. Balsam Range, Breaking Grass, and Flatt Lonesome are some that come to mind. I like these groups a lot. 

As a traditionalist I love J.D. Crowe and the Osborne Brothers but I still have great difficulty with steel guitar in bluegrass. That's just my idiosyncrasy. I love steel guitar and country music. But I don't like steel guitar in bluegrass music. _My_ main prerequisite for an instrument in bluegrass is it must be acoustic (except when an acoustic bass is not available). That's the main thing that drew me to bluegrass music. I'd played electric instruments (even steel guitar) for over 50 years and I was looking for something different. Don't know if that makes me the "bluegrass police" or not? If it does, then it does, I guess? OTOH, I often see people loosely sling that term around at people who simply disagree with them. Maybe that makes them the "bluegrass police - police"?  :Grin:  

Anyway, bluegrass groups with traditional acoustic instrumentation (guitar, mandolin, banjo, acoustic bass, with or without resonator guitar) are what I like, especially if they don't stray too far from the boundaries of traditional bluegrass. But, as I said, there are new groups that might not be considered straight bluegrass that I still like very much. My 2 cents.


Tom

----------


## allenhopkins

*Re:* the necessity of a banjo in bluegrass --

Monroe and Flatt & Scruggs dropped out the banjo on gospel numbers; Scruggs in particular substituted a very expert finger-style guitar accompaniment.

I would say those songs qualified as "bluegrass" despite the missing banjo.

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

Yes,i'd totally agree Allen - *but* if the band _hadn't had a banjo in the line up at all_,would we have thought of it as Bluegrass then ?. It's definitely a fine line in that context. I think that we can accept a_ 'no banjo included'_ song/tune from a band that does have a banjo in it's line up, because we know that the band is a Bluegrass 'proper' band,but _the same set of tunes_ from a band that doesn't have a banjo might not be perceived to be the same - weird or what ?. It all comes down to our individual perception of what is /isn't Bluegrass. Is a song or instrumental from the Bluegrass genre still Bluegrass if performed outside the context of a Bluegrass band ?. For me,it is - however the band / group (whatever) performing it, wouldn't qualify as a Bluegrass band / group / duo / trio / quartet - they'd simply be a band performing Bluegrass songs in a non-Bluegrass context, which again,_for me_,is fine. As i mentioned in a previous post,Laurie Lewis & Tom Rozum did exactly that at the UK Ironbridge Bluegrass Festival back in 1993, & apart from myself who was itching to get up & play a couple of numbers with them ("The Hills of My Home" was one of them),nobody missed the banjo, :Frown: 
                                                                         Ivan :Wink:

----------

allenhopkins, 

DataNick

----------


## drbluegrass

What Ivan and Allen said.


Tom

----------

allenhopkins, 

Timbofood

----------


## allenhopkins

I lucked into a LP originally issued in the '50's, I believe, called _Sacred Songs of the Virginia Trio._  It was a compilation of singles recorded for sale through a live radio show from Cincinnati, I believe.  The Virginia Trio was Jim and Jesse McReynolds with Larry Roll.  Nothing but guitar and Jesse's astounding cross-picked mandolin, and absolutely stunning harmony singing.

Well, is it bluegrass?  Sounds just like Jim & Jesse & the Virginia Boys, _without_ bass and banjo.  You could link it to "brother duet" singing, like the Blue Sky Boys or the Monroe Brothers; you could link it to "early bluegrass" and the later Jim & Jesse sound.  You could compare it to contemporaneous acts like the very early (pre-1950) Stanley Brothers, or the Osborne Brothers band with Jimmy Martin.

Categories are useful; categorical thinking can be stifling.  I concede that if one attends a performance, buys a recording etc., expecting a particular style, and gets something that's not quite what was expected, one can feel disappointed -- even "swindled," I guess, if one's mind works that way.

I have two broad musical categories: music I like, and music I don't like much.  These categories exist independently of what section of the record store I'm browsing, or what the concert is billed as, or what instruments are on stage.  If I go to a festival expecting music that I'll like, and I _don't_ like what I hear, I feel disappointed, but I generally don't blame that disappointment on the music's being misrepresented as to its category.

Just my idiosyncratic 2¢.

----------


## ralph johansson

> Yes Ralph, I sure did back then, I don't know how things go at European festivals but, often when parking lot picking, tuning tends to wander, getting twenty people to use a fork to tune is virtually impossible, so, yes that was indeed a "distinct advantage" in 1976.



My post was a comment on your post #52 where you talk about a performing professional group having the "distinct advantage"  (over other groups) in using a harmonica instead of a tuning fork. There was no mention of parking lot picking.

On my first and only trip to the USA, in 1969, I did jam at two festivals. In Bean Blossom I walked around with my mandolin looking for small gatherings without mandolin, joining them for the fun of mutual listening and sharing ideas.  In Berryville I jammed mainly with Doug Green and his Detroit area buddies. Doug was then the bass player with Bill Monroe, but his main instrument was the guitar. We had no trouble getting in tune with one another. I never once joined a jam with 20 participants and I don't recall ever hearing or seeing such  musical parody.

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

Allen - It does seem very often to me,that we humans are a really weird species when it come down to our thinking on certain things. For example,how many songs sung/played by 'duos' do we accept as ''Bluegrass'' - lots of them. Take the hugely famous recording of Ricky Skaggs & Tony Rice "Skaggs & Rice". It's performed on Guitar & Mandolin only,not even a hint of another instrument. There's no way on earth that i would *not* consider it to be a Bluegrass recording because the 2 musicians are Bluegrass musicians performing song duets as Bluegrass musicians do. (the other band members usually have a nap during the proceedings). Then consider the same songs done by non-Bluegrass musicians - do we feel the same way about the performance ?. I'd have a hard time considering it a 'Bluegrass' performance simply because the musicians aren't from a Bluegrass background.
Is that even rational ??. Now,supposing,that unknown to me,those performers _were_ part of a Bluegrass band - if i suddenly found that out,i'd bet a $million that my perception of their performance would change. I think that our ''perception genes'' need re-programming,'cos right now they're pretty much off base !!, :Confused: 
                                                                                   Ivan :Wink:

----------

allenhopkins

----------


## Timbofood

My point Ralph, is that they were always at pitch, throughout a set. Many bands used to get "off" through the course of a set back then, and no, I never saw anyone break out a fork to tune on stage. Now with the magic of the tiny electronic tuner, one can go from jam to jam at a festival and be far more close to everyone else. And the ease with touching up tuning during a set is vastly improved. Some variation still happens, capos may tweak things from time to time but, it sure easier than it used to be. 
Sorry for not being as clear as I might have been. 
I have been to several festivals where there have been easily fifteen to twenty folks jamming, almost "bluegrass orchestra". It's  usually a little muddy but, everyone was having a good time, except for the one who just got there as a favorite tune was ending.
You should have seen it!

----------


## Mandoplumb

I don't consider it bluegrass just because a " blue grasser" is preforming it. I don't think a song is not bluegrass because it was first done in another field. Bluegrass is a style of music with a certain beat or drive,yes instruments and singing styles lend themselves to that drive better than others, but the drive (not the speed) is what makes it 'grass. Years ago I heard a contestant on a miss America pageant play a harp with such drive that I remarked that maybe heaven wouldn't be so bad with a bluegrass harp.

----------


## Willie Poole

I said I wouldn`t do this  BUT...The instruments aren`t what makes it bluegrass, neither is it the people that are doing it , It is the way it is played, a nice smooth tempo on the guitar and not being thrashed like a rock and roll guitar, also the message that the words are sending, the way the harmonies are being presented.....All of those things together make it bluegrass....You need certain instruments ( guitar, banjo, mandolin/fiddle and bass) played in a certain way and singing done in a certain way so that the voices blend with the instruments (lead, tenor, baritone & sometimes bass), any variation of those and it will most likely fall into a different category, like new grass, old timey, folk even rock and roll.. The Louvins are one of my favorite groups but they are not bluegrass but a lot of their songs were later performed as bluegrass by other bands, the one missing instrument was a banjo, add that and they would have been bluegrass because they had all of the other qualities that I mentioned....

      This can go on forever and we will not all agree and I know I am most likely just wasting my time, but think about it and be fair in your judgement whether it really is bluegrass or just some music being played....

    Thanks for letting me sound off and I mean no disrespect to anyone or any kind of music that is termed bluegrass....WHAT  EVER   FLOATS  YOUR  BOAT....

     Willie

----------


## PhilUSAFRet

Just came from another list of bluegrass instruments that included lap steel and ukulele/banjo uke.  My group loves my banjo uke, although I am working on an f style mandolin kit and just got a short scale tenor banjo.  You guessed it, I'm a uker that wants to play bluegrass.

----------

