# General Mandolin Topics > General Mandolin Discussions >  Classical vs Bluegrass

## mobi

What are the differences among major mandolin styles?

For example, how exactly bluegrass style is different from classical style?

Are there rules that what is bluegrass, what is classical etc?

----------


## Stevo75

Are you asking the difference between bluegrass mandolins and classical mandolins (like how are the mandolins different)? Or are you asking about the difference between bluegrass music and classical music?

----------


## mobi

difference between playing style - not the construction of mandolin  :Smile:

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## allenhopkins

Think he's asking about *styles* of mandolin playing.

Best advice I could give is to *listen* to a fair amount of each, on YouTube or elsewhere.  I'll put in my 2¢, but I'll make some misstatements and over-generalizations, fair game for subsequent snipers.

Bluegrass is a form of folk-based country music; the role of the mandolin in bluegrass was stated by the style's founder, Bill Monroe, although his playing methods don't exhaust the bluegrass mandolin's possibilities.  In bluegrass, the mandolin has a very important rhythmic, chordal role, usually playing multi-string chords on the off-beats -- the so-called "chop," where the fretting fingers are relaxed just after the chord sounds, producing a percussive sound with little sustain.  The normal instrumental structure of bluegrass is for the different instruments to take turns playing a lead role -- a "break" -- and when it's the mandolin's turn, the break will often include improvisations around the melody and chords.  Bluegrass emphasizes quick tempos, though not exclusively, and bluegrass mandolinists usually are capable of playing their breaks quite rapidly.  As a folk-based and somewhat improvisational music, bluegrass seldom relies on strict arrangements; bluegrass bands seldom work from written music, and much of the mandolin's role is learned "by ear" and by emulating established players.

I needn't define classical music, since the development of European-based orchestral and vocal music is well-defined and accepted.  In classical music, the mandolin _generally_ works within a somewhat defined repertoire of works composed for the instrument, although classical mandolinists also adapt works designed for violin and other instruments.  Tempos are more variable, as determined by the composers, although skill at playing rapidly is still desirable.  The mandolin is basically a melody instrument, with a limited chordal role.  There is a strong emphasis on tremolo, and the mandolin has little rhythmic role, since it is generally accompanied by other instruments that establish the rhythmic and chordal structure of each piece.  There is also an emphasis on working from established, written arrangements, with less improvisation and greater adherence to composers' definitions of the repertoire.

With regard to instruments, the template for a bluegrass mandolin is a carved-top, f-hole instrument that produces a strong and percussive "chop," and sufficient solo volume to be heard in an ensemble with banjo, fiddle, guitar and bass.  For classical music, the "standard" is a bowl-back, oval-hole instrument with a clear trebly "voice" and long sustain.  There are exceptions, and no mandolin type is exclusively designed for only one style, but that's what you'll find in most cases.

Hope this helps, and isn't too oversimplified.

----------

Cecily_Mandoliner, 

DataNick, 

DavidKOS, 

Denny Gies, 

dhergert, 

Dick Dery, 

Gypsy, 

Jess L., 

JH Murray, 

Jim Nollman, 

Mark Gunter, 

mobi, 

NewKid, 

Randolph

----------


## Eddie Sheehy

Classical - sheet music reading is a must - sight-reading is encouraged.  Tab is frowned upon but I have seen both methods used at the Mandolin Symposium.
Bluegrass - sheet music reading is 'frowned upon' during sessions but is extremely useful for learning tunes, as is Tab and Ear.  Tab is more the norm than Notation.

----------

DavidKOS, 

Gypsy, 

Jess L.

----------


## Jess L.

_Edited to add: Oops  I just noticed the OP asked about mandolin styles, not general styles, so the rest of my post below might be irrelevant.   Except for that there are probably differences between instrumental mandolin, vs vocal-accompaniment mandolin._
-----------------------------------

Isn't it more common for *bluegrass* to have *singing*? Where the lyrics are important and tell a story of some sort, that the normal everyday listener can (sometimes) identify with. Yeah I know there are also purely instrumental bluegrass tunes, including entire instrumental-only Scruggs etc albums (great stuff, by the way) but - for what it's worth - the majority of the bluegrass I've ever heard (old albums, local musicians, etc), it seems to be really common to feature the voice prominently as an integral part of the music.

I don't get that impression from *classical* music, seems like there are lots more *instrumental* tunes. 

That's my folk-musician perspective anyway.  :Whistling: 

Even when classical music does feature singing, it's... different somehow... not as approachable... well for one thing it's often in a foreign language and I have no idea what they're saying, so I guess I can't comment on what classical musicians are singing *about*,  :Whistling:  as to whether it's common everyday topics that everyone can relate to. Not sure where opera fits in there, is it classical? I've never been able to make out the words in opera, so whatever story they're telling is over my head unless I read it in a written script or something. 

Whereas bluegrass lyrics are more immediately understandable as far as being able to relate to the words. Even if the storyline is sort of dated, it's usually still possible to at least figure out what the story *is*. That's my impression anyway. 

(An aside, I think that's different from oldtime banjo/fiddle tunes (the ones that have lyrics; many don't), where lyrics do *not* necessarily form a complete storyline, but are sometimes just bits and pieces of different stanzas gathered over many decades from different sources, and just kind of jumbled together into the same song.) 

Although: as someone else pointed out in a different thread recently (mandocrucian's post about voice as instrument), one great advantage to listening to songs in a foreign language, is that one can appreciate the voice purely as an instrument without getting derailed/distracted by poetry (lyrics). That can be really nice sometimes. Some of the foreign-language songs that to me are the most beautiful, once I find out what the lyrics *mean*, the song kind of loses its appeal or at least seems to acquire a different vibe.

Of course there are always going to be exceptions to everything, but I'm thinking of just the mainstream trad bluegrass vs mainstream trad classical stuff we hear on the radio etc. Corrections welcome as needed.  :Smile:

----------

Gypsy

----------


## August Watters

> I guess I can't comment on what classical musicians are singing *about*,  as to whether it's common everyday topics that everyone can relate to.


Well, opera is usually about love, lust, betrayal, murder, redemption. . . .no wait, that was bluegrass. . . .  :Smile:

----------

bobby bill, 

bruce.b, 

David L, 

DavidKOS, 

derbex, 

Eddie Sheehy, 

Gypsy, 

Jess L., 

Jordan Ramsey, 

Malin, 

michaelcj, 

RodCH

----------


## Eddie Sheehy

If no-one dies, it ain't Bluegrass...

----------

Gypsy, 

Malin

----------


## AlpineDave

> Well, opera is usually about love, lust, betrayal, murder, redemption. . . .no wait, that was bluegrass. . . .


Beautiful!

----------


## Eddie Sheehy

In Classical music one plays the Violin, in Bluegrass y'all play the fiddle.  A fiddle is a violin with beer-stains...

----------

Gypsy, 

Mark Gunter

----------


## Marc Berman

There are also picking differences between Bluegrass and Classical.
Bluegrass - The most basic rule is down pick on the down beat and up pick on the up beat. It's not set in stone - Bill Monroe did play tunes where everything was a down pick. 
Classical is very defined. Things like a rest stroke where you do a down pick through the strings and rest against the next string. Also an up pick might only hit one of the pair. Here a video by Caterina Lichtenberg describing some of the basics

----------

DataNick, 

Gypsy, 

mobi

----------


## Bill Clements

Bravo, Allen.
August,  :Laughing:

----------

allenhopkins

----------


## JeffD

> Well, opera is usually about love, lust, betrayal, murder, redemption. . . .no wait, that was bluegrass. . . .


 :Laughing:

----------


## DavidKOS

Well, I know my bowlback mandolins and pointy picks are welcome in the classical world. (lol)

----------

Gypsy

----------


## Ausdoerrt

Any reason why pointed picks are preferred for classical? Is it the sound they produce, or just for the extra precision?

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

Are we talking about playing 'style' or playing 'technique' ?. 'Style' could be termed 'genre' ie. Bluegrass is one style (genre),ClassicaL is another style (genre). 
   If *mobi* is refering to 'playing technique',which i think he is,then Marc Berman has given a decent explanation,& there are many YouTube examples of both 'styles' of music & playing techniques to view, which will illustrate the differences.
    For me,Bluegrass picking technique,whilst having it's own rules,is far more freewheeling than Classical style. In Bluegrass,which is very 'improvisatory' in nature,you can pick the strings up or down,depending on the right hand 'picking pattern' that you're using.
 In Classical music,which is mostly written & is 'set' regarding how it should be played technique wise,then a far more rigid picking pattern will be used. In other words,in 2 (or more) performances,the same picking pattern will be used,unlike Bluegrass where it's fairly doubtful that the same picking pattern would be used - unless it's a 'set' instrumental,which requires the same pattern to be used each time. By ''pattern'',i mean whether you pick up or down & also the sequence of notes to be played,
                                                                                                                                                         Ivan :Wink:

----------

Gypsy

----------


## mobi

Here are the reasons I asked this question:


#1 When looking for mandolin teachers, the few (there are not many to start with) I spoke with asked me whether I prefer classical or folk/bluegrass style. This is not something which I even thought before. I was under impression one who plays mandolin can play any style.

#2 I bought a book "Ultimate Mandolin" [ https://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Mand.../dp/1423422414 ] where same song has been provided in multiple style notations. However, what I found lacking in that book is the explanation showing details how the author arrived at different styles of same song.

To me, #1 and #2 seem somewhat contradicting.

That's why I'm looking for a definition (if that exists) explaining the differences between different styles and how you can play a song in a different style.

Hope I managed to explain myself.

----------


## derbex

Looking at the book, there's nothing classical there and without going beyond the 'see inside' it would seem that the songs come from different styles -'The Entertainer' is a ragtime song 'Autumn Leaves' is jazz, etc?

The best advice has been given above, listen to the different styles, there are bluegrass music links all over the site and classical ones on the 'Classical board in fact explore those genre boards and you'll see what classical players are concerned about and what bluegrass or folk players are concerned with.

As a trainee classical and folk player (not bluegrass) I would say that main emphasis for folk is picking up enough technique to play the tunes and then learning lots of tunes and then thinking about embellishing them or not -which is where your book might come in. With classical it seems to be about technique first second and third with performances being a part of that progression, maybe that will back off if I get good enough, but I'm not sure I'll live that long  :Smile: 

BTW classical music isn't always playing the dots exactly as written, there is often room for interpretation.

----------

Gypsy

----------


## August Watters

There is a lot of classical music composed for mandolin that depends for its sound on an established picking pattern -- kind of like the bluegrass instrumentals Ivan mentions above, that are set and thus usually approached the same way each time. OTOH, there's also a lot of music composed for classical mandolin that doesn't depend on a specific pattern, and so the picking choices are not so straightforward. 

Lots of people never get to the native mandolin music, but focus instead on adapting classical music (like Bach) from other instruments to mandolin -- in which case it's a very subjective decision what kind of picking pattern you choose. That's part of what's fun about doing mandolin arrangements of other works, figuring out which techniques will serve your interpretation of the music.

----------

David L, 

DavidKOS, 

Gypsy, 

Jess L.

----------


## August Watters

> BTW classical music isn't always playing the dots exactly as written, there is often room for interpretation.


um, yes. Usually there's not enough information on the page, so we have to interpret. And there's plenty of room for improvisation too.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## foldedpath

> #1 When looking for mandolin teachers, the few (there are not many to start with) I spoke with asked me whether I prefer classical or folk/bluegrass style. This is not something which I even thought before. I was under impression one who plays mandolin can play any style.


You can play any style, but there will be an emphasis on learning different things, depending on the styles you want to dive into.

For example, if you're shopping for a teacher and they ask if you want to focus on Classical or Folk music, this could mean the difference between immediately starting to learn how to read and interpret sheet music (Classical), vs. learning by ear in various "Folk" idioms. 

The degree of improvisation varies too. Some genres like Classical, American OldTime and Irish/Scottish traditional music play the music "straight" with no improvisation until you get into advanced study, where it's more like small variations. Other genres like Bluegrass, Jazz, or Brazilian Choro will have you studying how to improvise much earlier, and as a stronger focus for your learning. 

So, yes you can play any style on mandolin. But the order and intensity of things you'll want to focus on will vary, depending on the style. 

There is also the question of whether you want to dive deep into one style and try to master it, or dabble in many different styles where you might not achieve as much because you're spread thin. There are a few incredibly talented and skilled mandolin players out there like Mike Marshall and Chris Thile who seem to be able to play anything at a master level. But for most of us mortals, after we get through the early stages of learning the basic mechanics on the mandolin, we get further by focusing on one or a few genres at a time.

----------

DataNick, 

Gypsy

----------


## DavidKOS

> Any reason why pointed picks are preferred for classical? Is it the sound they produce, or just for the extra precision?


A pointed pick is needed for proper tone color and for accuracy and precision in picking. I have studied many classical mandolin methods and NONE of them advocate a rounded thick "poker chip" pick.

BTW, August Watters has written one of the best modern classical mandolin methods. 

I suggest getting this book:



http://www.augustwatters.net/products.html

It is an excellent introduction to classical mandolin. Of course I also advocate the Munier, Calace, and other historical methods too!

----------

August Watters, 

Gypsy

----------


## Relio

> If no-one dies, it ain't Bluegrass...


If everyone dies, it's Irish... :-)

----------

Fretless, 

Gypsy, 

Stevo75

----------


## Gypsy

For me it's both !

----------


## Mark Gunter

As Ivan wrote, the difference in technique is probably what the teacher is considering, as well as skill in reading music. There are techniques of the right and left hands that differ between playing folk music vs. classical music on the mandolin. Classical techniques can be employed to great effect in some folk music, but are _essential_ for interpreting classical music. There will always be overlapping of certain techniques employed in different styles of music, but a good teacher will know the difference between where the focus must lie in practicing technique and in the chosen materials for teaching. An accomplished mandolinist in a folk style could play solely or primarily with an alternate picking technique for example; the same is not true for an accomplished interpretation of classical music, as just one example.

----------


## mobi

Is it correct to say that, in general, bluegrass style is more difficult to play than classical style?

----------


## DavidKOS

> Is it correct to say that, in general, bluegrass style is more difficult to play than classical style?


That depends! and I'm not even sure that's a fair question. For all we know it may take just as much (or more) musicianship to rip through "Rawhide" as  to play a virtuoso classical mandolin showpiece.

My highly biased opinion is that a classical player that knows ALL the tricks from the old-school books - all the scales, double-stops, chordal things, duet style, control over picking, dynamics, and the full range of the fingerboard could certainly play anything.

Now, play it well in terms of the style? That's another issue  :Grin:

----------


## foldedpath

> Is it correct to say that, in general, bluegrass style is more difficult to play than classical style?


Here's how I see it (others here may disagree). At the beginner level, it may take longer to learn how to play a decent improvised Bluegrass solo than it will to play a beginner-level Classical piece. Improvisation takes a while to learn. Classical music instruction involves a lot of hand-holding through easy pieces towards harder ones, so the payoff in "being able to play Classical" can come early.

Once you're past those early beginner stages, you become what I call a journeyman musician: someone who can play their chosen style reasonably well, is able to play along with other musicians, but isn't necessarily a pro or a star performer. I think it 's about the same amount of effort to reach this level in Classical or Bluegrass. Or Choro, or Irish/Scottish trad, or Klezmer, or anything else. 

At the very highest level of study and performance, I think Classical is more difficult than Bluegrass simply because the master-level pieces are extremely technique-intensive. I think most people can learn to play a great Bluegrass solo in much less time, compared to reaching this level in Classical music. But most of us aren't aiming for this level of playing, or we wouldn't be posting on forums. We'd be out in the woodshed burning up the hours practicing.

In other words, don't sweat the difficulty.  :Smile:  By the time you reach the journeyman level of average musical performance like most of us, you will have invested roughly the same amount of effort regardless of the style you choose.




> My highly biased opinion is that a classical player that knows ALL the tricks from the old-school books - all the scales, double-stops, chordal things, duet style, control over picking, dynamics, and the full range of the fingerboard could certainly play anything.
> 
> Now, play it well in terms of the style? That's another issue


Yeah, this comes up often in Irish trad circles, where it's not unusual for Classical players to dabble in the style. Sometimes well, and sometimes badly, because they're not listening to what's there in the music, beyond the bare notes on the page. There are some really horrifying examples on YouTube, but I'll spare the forum and avoid posting them.
 :Smile:

----------


## allenhopkins

> ...#1 When looking for mandolin teachers, the few (there are not many to start with) I spoke with asked me whether I prefer classical or folk/bluegrass style. This is not something which I even thought before. I was under impression one who plays mandolin can play any style...


I would guess that the teachers you contacted were interested in how they should approach teaching you; should they get some classical mandolin pieces in standard musical notation, ranked by increasing difficulty, and teach you how to read the mandolin part from music -- playing generally note-for-note as written -- and how to incorporate the techniques generally used in this genre of music?  Or, alternatively, should they teach more "by ear," the chording, "licks," and instrumental styles generally associated with "folk/bluegrass?"  The two styles *are not* mutually exclusive, and yes, you *can* play both, with some techniques that are common to both styles, and others that apply better to one than the other.

That can be the rationale behind the Janet Davis book: that an advanced player wants to master multiple styles and techniques, selecting the ones appropriate for the piece he/she is playing at the time.  As noted above, there are virtuosi who seem to be able to play at the highest level in a variety of styles; to mention another instrument (sorry, guys!), Bela Fleck has released an album of classical violin pieces adapted for five-string banjo.  Most of us, however, not only can't do that, but have limited interest in playing *every* style of music on the mandolin.  I'm not researching tablature for hip-hop mandolin stylings, _e.g._




> Is it correct to say that, in general, bluegrass style is more difficult to play than classical style?


Not really.  Bluegrass is generally *simpler* in regard to key signatures, chordal changes, and basic structure.  Since it's folk-based, in its basic origins, and since much of it is either organized around songs, or incorporates instrumentals derived originally from fiddle dance music, there is more repetition (vocal verses, repeated "breaks" built around a common melody).  Bluegrass can be played blindingly *fast,* taxing the skills of a person learning one of the bluegrass instruments, and this aspect tends to intimidate new players.  Classical pieces may incorporate _allegro_ or even _presto_ sections -- fast as hell -- and there are many, many moderate-tempo bluegrass songs and tunes.

Were I giving advice, I'd say to decide what kind of music you like to play, and find a teacher who'll teach you that style.  As you develop, your horizons may expand, and you'll decide to learn new techniques and repertoire.  I wouldn't start out trying to learn everything, which can frustrate a student (and the teacher as well).  And don't get hung up on labels; everybody can't play everything, but starting with one style doesn't exclude learning others.

----------


## catmandu2

> I wouldn't start out trying to learn everything, which can frustrate a student..


Good general advice. However there are those seemingly cursed with an unlimited appetite, you might call it, for 'everything,' and may be unable to limit curiosity and exploration.  Generally, of course by studying widely you dissipate energies that can be concentrated in one idiom, so there are those natural constraints.

All the observations above are great and insightful.  I would only add that many/most folk forms, such as BG, the idioms are highly nuanced, especially rhythmically - necessitating experience (gained from listening, playing, immersion) to assimilate its language.  'Classical,' by contrast, is predominantly harmonic (the notes on the page), where the stylistic and technical subtleties are more diverse, highly formalized, etc.

The solution is to have two teachers (or more) - one each from both schools, in this case.   The new vernacular is increasingly eclectic anyway...the players of tomorrow will have it all under their fingers.

Listen assiduously.  Study technical material, and apply it in musical languages that you become fluent in - through experience.  The technical chops you develop will serve you in any idiom that eventually comes naturally to you -

Edit - that is, two teachers /unless, of course, one that is competent in both or as many styles .. (as someone surely must have mentioned here already - don't want to be redundant..)

----------

allenhopkins

----------


## Nick Royal

If you can, go to a concert by Caterina Lichtenberg and Mike Marshall and you'll hear both kinds of music....and other styles too.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## foldedpath

In discussions like this, I think it's always good to pause now and then, and emphasize that all mandolin music isn't locked into categories like "Classical" or "Bluegrass." There is a lot of genre crossover, and far more World Music styles where mandolins have a place. 

For example, I love this video performance and I have no idea how to categorize it. It's obviously a worked-out performance, but it looks like there are improv lines here and there too. Just great ensemble playing, with a full range of mandolin-family instruments from low to high pitch:

----------

DavidKOS, 

Denman John, 

EdHanrahan, 

Jess L., 

Mark Gunter, 

Randolph

----------


## mandroid

As I see It, Bluegrass is Played in bands that stand Up.  (and Sing)   :Whistling: 

 Classical  music is played Sitting in a Chair and Usually wearing  Black suits and dresses 
(depending on Gender)

----------


## mandroid

> Is it correct to say that, in general, bluegrass style is more difficult to play than classical style?


 Both have their sticklers for   Performance  with in narrow   confines of what is considered  accuracy  to the  Critic.

----------


## T.D.Nydn

In my opinion, classical is harder. I think it is much more difficult to memorize and play a Calace piece than memorize and play, let's say a fiddle tune. But with that said, classical music has room for interpretation, but not any improvisation,and I have had many classical musicians tell me that they think improvising is really harder and they don't understand it...

----------


## sblock

These musical forms are different.  But "different" does not equate to "harder," or "more difficult," and it would be a mistake to claim that classical (or bluegrass) is somehow "harder."  The skill sets demanded are different.  Nor does "different" equate to "better," for that matter.  Furthermore, given the need for technique demanded by some classical pieces (but not all) and the need for improvisational capability demanded by some bluegrass pieces (but not all), this truly becomes a fairly meaningless, apples-and-oranges comparison.

----------

Mark Gunter

----------


## Manfred Hacker

Has the OP told us what kind of music he/she wants to play on the mandolin?
Does he/she have any experience with other instruments?
Or have I overlooked this information?

And, when it comes to mastery there is no easier or harder. All the virtuosos we admire have practiced countless hours, no matter what genre they play.
For a beginner, it is just as difficult to play a fiddle tune slowly and cleanly as is an easy classical melody.

----------

Mark Gunter, 

sblock

----------


## mobi

> Has the OP told us what kind of music he/she wants to play on the mandolin?


This is the bit I don't get. Why I have to choose between classical and bluegrass? I want to play different genres as and when I wish  :Smile:

----------


## Martin Ohrt

> This is the bit I don't get. Why I have to choose between classical and bluegrass? I want to play different genres as and when I wish


In my opinion, you certainly don't have to. I started my musical "career" with five years of classical mandolin lessons, and now I'm mostly a Trad. jazz banois, while also playing the bowl-back mando in a mandolin orchestra and going to bluegrass jams every now and then.

I think, the best way to learn to multiple genres is taking classicla lessons at the beginning. Just as DavidKOS writes in post #27,  there you will learn the most about controlling the mandolin, fretting, dynamics, proper picking technique and so on. Plus, you'll be able to read music and play after sheet music, which is such a useful thing! After this, you'll be provided with all the "tools" you will ever need to learn how to play everthing.

Then, learn about improvisation, and become a fine jazzer. Use the proper classical technique to play some Monroe licks, and it will sound amazing. :D Combine the best of all worlds... Mike Marshall does this in an amazing way, even more since he's with Caterina.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## Ausdoerrt

> In my opinion, classical is harder. I think it is much more difficult to memorize and play a Calace piece than memorize and play, let's say a fiddle tune. But with that said, classical music has room for interpretation, but not any improvisation,and I have had many classical musicians tell me that they think improvising is really harder and they don't understand it...


That does happen with orchestra musicians. Soloists, however, do need to know how to improvise, and I think you'll find that top-tier classical soloists will often write their own cadenza's or even whole pieces. It's just that the skill is not as essential for every classical musician to have and is thus more rare. That said, improvisation is taught at many classical musical schools.




> For example, I love this video performance and I have no idea how to categorize it. It's obviously a worked-out performance, but it looks like there are improv lines here and there too. Just great ensemble playing, with a full range of mandolin-family instruments from low to high pitch:


I'd roughly classify it as Italian folk or something along those lines.

----------


## Frankdolin

I agree with T.D. in that learning a Calase piece,for me by ear, can take days or more.Which is when I wish I could sight read. Yet I can learn most any BG tune in a sitting. Not perform-able but notes and structure. I'm sure my 60 years of music influence out side the classical realm had an major role in this lopsided learning curve.

----------


## sblock

> This is the bit I don't get. Why I have to choose between classical and bluegrass? I want to play different genres as and when I wish


Huh?  Where did ANYONE tell you that you had to choose?!  You don't.

All this "one genre" vs. "another genre" is a false dichotomy.

Some of the best recordings of classical music on the mandolin (in my opinion) have been made by folks who first gained experience in bluegrass, including Mike Marshall, Evan Marshall, and Chris Thile.

----------


## allenhopkins

> This is the bit I don't get. Why I have to choose between classical and bluegrass? I want to play different genres as and when I wish


As I speculated above, I think the question was more aimed at the *teacher* than at you, the *student.*  "What kind of music should I use to teach you, and how should I organize the lessons -- standard music notation _vs._ tablature and "by ear," classical repertoire _vs._ bluegrass songs and tunes, strictly melody playing _vs._ chordal 'chops' and bluegrass/folk 'licks,' etc.?"

If I can advise, what needs to be learned first is *the instrument,* -- where the notes are, how you pick it, how to get the best sound, different scales and keys.  Once you're familiar with getting music out of the mandolin, then you apply your basic techniques to the kind of music you want to play.  You learn new techniques and styles as the music calls for them.  You can play _Mary Had a Little Lamb_ if you like; the benefit you get is familiarity with the instrument, comfort with basic techniques, and a knowledge base you can expand in any direction you want.

I really dislike the _"vs."_ in the thread title.  It's not either-or.  You may decide to specialize, but that's _your_ decision, not one generated by the different genres of music.  You needn't choose, but you may choose to choose, if you know what I mean...

----------

Jess L., 

sblock

----------


## CarlM

> This is the bit I don't get. Why I have to choose between classical and bluegrass? I want to play different genres as and when I wish


How much time do you have?  How good do you wish to be?  Do you know how to play any other instruments?  The players that seem to have mastered any style they wish like David Grisman, Bela Fleck, Mark O'Connor, Chris Thile, etc. are spending all their time doing it, have been doing it for years and are extremely gifted to begin with.  If this is your first instrument, you have average talent and you have to spend time on things like working to make a living or school then it might be wiser to pick a style to focus on and learn first then branch out later.  Once you understand the rules of the game in one style it is easier to adapt to others.

----------


## Randi Gormley

Allen has the right of it -- it doesn't matter what you plan to do with the music, first you have to learn the instrument. The question the teacher asks is for direction on what kind of learning you are thinking of -- melody vs chords, music-reading vs ear-training. Usually a teacher just makes assumptions or teaches their own version and, if that's not your thing, you end up wasting everybody's time, yours and the teacher. Think of it as asking whether you like chocolate or vanilla ice cream better. It's not a judgment on ice cream, it's to determine if you have a preference. When it comes to music, asking 'bluegrass' or 'classical' is also asking if you have any previous musical training. I started as a flutist and drummer, f'rinstance, so when I learned mandolin, I immediately drifted to single-line melody and standard notation. Buddy of mine started with rock-and-roll guitar, so he was more inclined to learn mandolin as chords and breaks. Now we both play traditional Irish -- I play single line melody, and he plays chords. Not breaks, of course, since that's not an ITM thing. fwiw

----------

allenhopkins, 

Jess L., 

sblock

----------


## JeffD

I think the best way to learn a genre is to learn that genre. And while its true that learning anything helps with learning everything, I think that learning classical to some extent makes everything, every other genre easier to learn.

Don't forget there are universes of mandolin playing outside either classical or bluegrass, including but not limited to traditional music such as Irish/Scottish, Scandinavian and Nordic, old time and Southern Appalachian fiddle tunes, so called northern old time (New England and contra-dance repertory), French Canadian, and other types of music like jazz, blues, rock, country, Western Swing, duets with singer songwriters...

There really isn't much the mandolin isn't already doing, and almost nothing it can't do.

----------


## sblock

I am reminded here of the folks who used to defend mandatory instruction in Latin in our high schools.  There were lots of parents who wanted this mandatory instruction to be optional, or at least replaceable by alternative instruction in some living language, like Spanish or French.  The response of the pro-Latin faction was that Latin was the mother of all Romance languages  -- perfectly true! -- and that if you first (struggled hard and) learned Latin, learning Spanish or French became much easier.  But the counter-argument was that if you spent that SAME amount of time learning Spanish or French in the FIRST place, instead of Latin, you'd be be farther along!

And we all know how this struggle over the curriculum eventually played out.  Today, mandatory Latin instruction is -- thankfully! --pretty much dead in most of our schools, whereas mandatory instruction in a living foreign language, like Spanish or French, is very much alive. 

Yes, it may be true that first learning classical music on the mandolin may well make learning another genre easier. But then again, first learning bluegrass on the mandolin will also make learning another genre, for example jazz, a lot easier.  Or Irish Traditional.  Or _any other_ genre, because you benefit from knowing a reasonably common skill set (i.e., picking, fretting, scales, keys, chords, knowing the fretboard by ear, etc.) for ANY genre.  So whenever some classically-trained musician advises you to learn classical first because it's easier to transition to something else, it's a bit like saying that you really need to learn Latin first before proceeding to Spanish.  Sure, the Latin might help, but why not just start with Spanish?  That works perfectly well!

Allen Hopkins and others had it right.  _Learn your instrument, above all else._  And pick some genre you like -- any genre! -- and try to find decent instruction in that first.  You can always move on later to another genre, and most of the skills you've developed will transfer over, or at least add to your musical perspective. And remember that no time spent learning your mandolin is wasted time!   :Smile:

----------

allenhopkins, 

Trav'linmando

----------


## DavidKOS

> So whenever some classically-trained musician advises you to learn classical first because it's easier to transition to something else, it's a bit like saying that you really need to learn Latin first before proceeding to Spanish.  Sure, the Latin might help, but why not just start with Spanish?  That works perfectly well!
> 
> Allen Hopkins and others had it right.  _Learn your instrument, above all else._  And pick some genre you like -- any genre! -- and try to find decent instruction in that first.  You can always move on later to another genre, and most of the skills you've developed will transfer over, or at least add to your musical perspective. And remember that no time spent learning your mandolin is wasted time!


If one has no desire to play classical music on mandolin then one may benefit in a practical sense by directly studying the music they want to play. But studying classical mandolin is certainly never a waste of time!

----------

David L, 

sblock

----------


## Ausdoerrt

Well, the one big benefit of learning some classical is learning how to read sheet music, including sight-reading, which is often overlooked for all sorts of folksy styles.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## DavidKOS

> Well, the one big benefit of learning some classical is learning how to read sheet music, including sight-reading, which is often overlooked for all sorts of folksy styles.


Although I advocate being able to read staff notation, certain genres just are based on aural traditions, and learning tunes by ear may be needed. So it may not be overlooked as much as not needed.

----------


## allenhopkins

> ...Today, mandatory Latin instruction is -- thankfully! --pretty much dead in most of our schools...


_Sed lingua Latina mortua non est._

----------

August Watters

----------


## foldedpath

> _Sed lingua Latina mortua non est._


Okay, if we're going to take a side trip into Latin as an analogy to learning music...  :Smile: 

I attended a private secondary school here in the US where everyone was force-fed Latin for two years before you could take another language. It was a requirement to graduate. Never took another language after that because it was optional (and what I really cared about was art and music). 

In my 20's, I did a lot of work in Central and South America where I picked up Spanish at a fairly fluent level, and almost entirely through immersion. Some job assignments were 3 months long, embedded with Spanish-only hosts and not another English speaker around. 

I will say that the Latin background helped in being able to understand some things "on the fly" because I recognized the root word. I'm not sure if I would have done better just studying Spanish in school though, because the reason I got fluent was _immersion_ in the language and the culture with no distractions from English-speakers. That's how Peace Corps teaches language, or at least they used to. After a small amount of initial language instruction, they throw the newbies into a host home for a few months where nobody speaks English. You come of of that speaking the language, because you need to speak to survive.

What does this have to do with music? 

It's simple: once you get the basic mechanics down, get out there and _play with other musicians_, in whatever style you choose. You'll improve at a much faster rate than dry study at home.
 :Wink:

----------

allenhopkins, 

DavidKOS, 

Mark Gunter, 

sblock

----------


## catmandu2

> It's simple: once you get the basic mechanics down, get out there and _play with other musicians_, in whatever style you choose. You'll improve at a much faster rate than dry study at home.


Except, of course, for "classical" (solo instrument)   :Wink:

----------


## sblock

> _Sed lingua Latina mortua non est._


_Latina mortua est verum; in vita mandolin!!_

----------

allenhopkins

----------


## sblock

> Okay, if we're going to take a side trip into Latin as an analogy to learning music... 
> 
> I attended a private secondary school here in the US where everyone was force-fed Latin for two years before you could take another language. It was a requirement to graduate. Never took another language after that because it was optional (and what I really cared about was art and music). 
> 
> In my 20's, I did a lot of work in Central and South America where I picked up Spanish at a fairly fluent level, and almost entirely through immersion. Some job assignments were 3 months long, embedded with Spanish-only hosts and not another English speaker around. 
> 
> I will say that the Latin background helped in being able to understand some things "on the fly" because I recognized the root word. I'm not sure if I would have done better just studying Spanish in school though, because the reason I got fluent was _immersion_ in the language and the culture with no distractions from English-speakers. That's how Peace Corps teaches language, or at least they used to. After a small amount of initial language instruction, they throw the newbies into a host home for a few months where nobody speaks English. You come of of that speaking the language, because you need to speak to survive.
> 
> What does this have to do with music? 
> ...


+1  _YES!!!!!_  The best -- and also the fastest -- way to learn a foreign language is to live and love in a country where it's spoken.  And the best way to get up to speed in folk music (just about any folk genre, including jazz) is to surround yourself with other playing musicians. They provide motivation, inspiration, and the best kind of practice environment for performance.  Some classical musicians may have other ideas about how best to learn, but classical music also benefits from the very same approach.

----------


## catmandu2

> ...but classical music also benefits from the very same approach.


Dependent on genre.  For some, this is completely irrelevant.

There is public performing throughout tuition (for solo instrumental), but zero "playing together" for some instrumental traditions.   And this is an option that exists for an aspiring student/player, I might add.  For some, playing music WITH others isn't a consideration, nor an aspect of tuition.

----------


## Woodrow Wilson

> As I see It, Bluegrass is Played in bands that stand Up.  (and Sing)  
> 
>  Classical  music is played Sitting in a Chair and Usually wearing  Black suits and dresses 
> (depending on Gender)

----------


## Ausdoerrt

> Although I advocate being able to read staff notation, certain genres just are based on aural traditions, and learning tunes by ear may be needed. So it may not be overlooked as much as not needed.


Well, I do consider it an essential skill that is useful for any genre. There are a plenty of tunebooks these days for bluegrass and other "aural" traditions, and it's just so much easier/faster to learn off a music sheet than by ear, even if you're good at both.

Sightreading is also considerably less dependent on natural talent than playing by ear.





> 


The thing with genre hopping is, you have to have intimate knowledge of and be highly proficient in all of the genres you intend to mix to do it well.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## DavidKOS

> Well, I do consider it an essential skill that is useful for any genre. There are a plenty of tunebooks these days for bluegrass and other "aural" traditions, and it's just so much easier/faster to learn off a music sheet than by ear, even if you're good at both.
> 
> Sightreading is also considerably less dependent on natural talent than playing by ear.


Like I said, I advocate reading music. 

But the traditional way to learn Bluegrass and many other music genres is by ear. Yes there are tunebooks, and material in TAB too, but it doesn't change the basic fact that some styles are not originally sheet music dependant.




> The thing with genre hopping is, you have to have intimate knowledge of and be highly proficient in all of the genres you intend to mix to do it well.


Ain't that the truth! Each genre is world unto itself in terms of the musical language and "accent" used. I play a variety of styles and each needs its own mindset.

----------


## sblock

Yes, an ability to sight-read mandolin from standard musical notation is undoubtedly helpful for some genres -- _and darned-near indispensable for playing classical music!_ -- but my opinion is that its value has been overemphasized. There are other playing skills that are _far more important_ when it comes to making music on a mandolin, and these include things like ear training, clean fingering, accurate picking, the ability to form chords, good tone production, appropriate posture/ergonomics, and many other aspects of playing technique. 

The fact is that many of the great performing mandolinists whose names we routinely encounter here on the Mandolin Cafe are not able to sight-read standard notation at all, or, they may be able to read it and play it slowly, but _not at tempo_.  These folks mainly come out of a folk or jazz or pop tradition, and rely almost entirely on their hands and ears. Besides, standard notation is pretty much useless when you're improvising. Some of these same people have also recorded classical music, which they first learned from the notation (slowly) and committed to memory. They don't require the sheet music in front of them to play these pieces. And neither do classical soloists, who always commit the music they perform to memory, and most good orchestral players, who ultimately use sheet music ONLY as a general guide/mnemonic device while performing in ensembles.

And, of course, there are many genres where sheet music is completely unavailable! But there exist, nevertheless, rich repositories of recorded and live music.  The way to learn this music is by ear. 

If you think you'll mostly be playing something other than classical music, then my own advice would be to concentrate on learning mandolin technique, and not sight reading -- at least at first.  Most especially, learn to translate what you hear in your head or ears into the appropriate motions that will produce those same sounds on your instrument -- this is playing "by ear."  That skill is truly indispensable.  Sight reading definitely has its place, but writing for myself, I don't think that place is especially high on the list.

P.S.  I very much like David Brown's analogy between playing a musical genre and speaking a language with an accent.  _Very apt!_  The basic vocabulary and grammar (notes; scales; harmonies) are basically similar, but the pronunciation and choice of words/phrases (note sequences, tempo variations, etc.) can be quite different.  In fact, the analogy might be even _closer to speaking different dialects of a common language_.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## JeffD

> Is it correct to say that, in general, bluegrass style is more difficult to play than classical style?


Hanging with serious classical mandolinists, and learning to play classical mandolin at a serious level, is one of the hardest things I have ever done.

----------

DavidKOS, 

Eddie Sheehy

----------


## Beanzy

No point learning to knit if you're only wanting to run around in bearskins.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## Mandoplumb

If you are going to play music, any genre, how can any thing you learn about music hurt you? I've heard people say you can't play fiddle if you read music, you are playing a violin,and it don't sound right. Hogwash! You do have to listen to the music you want to play to get it, but no knowledge is useless. Ralph Stanley said  Bluegrass music is the hardest music in the world to play because you have to live it to play it. I think that is true of any music. We have all heard a easy rock or a dance band try to play bluegrass or fiddle tunes and sound terrible even though the are playing the right notes. On the other hand I've heard BG bands attempt rock with same results, but in either case it wasn't because they knew too much about music.

----------


## sblock

> No point learning to knit if you're only wanting to run around in bearskins.


That comment comes across as musical snobbery to me. _What a terrible thing to say!_ I hope you don't mean to imply that folks like Sam Bush, Adam Steffey, Ronnie McCoury, John Reischman, Frank Solivan, Larry Rice, Jesse McReynolds, and many other mandolin greats are somehow "running around in bearskins" simply because they don't happen to sight read music off a page. Those folks can pick circles around me -- and probably around you, too!

Reading musical notation is unquestionably a useful skill, but it is _by no means required_ to be a great player in most musical genres  -- outside classical, that is.  But the air of superiority being conveyed by some folks with classical training is palpable.  Moreover, it's as unrealistic as it is unpleasant.  In my opinion, your quest for formalism in all things mandolin has caused you to lose perspective.

----------


## JeffD

> No point learning to knit if you're only wanting to run around in bearskins.


 


> That comment comes across as musical snobbery to me. .


 I don't think that was what is meant. Beanzy can respond accurately, but my interpretation was a general statement that we don't go about learning a genre in order to play it poorly. If you only going to run around in bearskins you don't need to learn to knit. If you are going to go through the effort of learning a new genre, learn to play it well.

 I could be wrong, but that was my takeaway.

Whether learning to "play it well" requires learning to read notation, or whether, though not required there are advantages to learning to read notation, this is an entirely different discussion.

----------


## JeffD

> Yes, it may be true that first learning classical music on the mandolin may well make learning another genre easier. But then again, first learning bluegrass on the mandolin will also make learning another genre, for example jazz, a lot easier.  Or Irish Traditional.  Or _any other_ genre, because you benefit from knowing a reasonably common skill set (i.e., picking, fretting, scales, keys, chords, knowing the fretboard by ear, etc.) for ANY genre.  So whenever some classically-trained musician advises you to learn classical first because it's easier to transition to something else, it's a bit like saying that you really need to learn Latin first before proceeding to Spanish.  Sure, the Latin might help, but why not just start with Spanish?  That works perfectly well!


I think at the very beginning, learning classical technique gives you more flexibility to move to other genres. What I mean is that if you do not have your heart set on a particular genre, if you are still exploring, my advice would be to start in a classical direction, perhaps something like "classical light". Its true than progress anywhere is progress everywhere, but I think starting with a bit of formalism gives you the least "accent" to unlearn if and when a specific genre pulls at your heart.

There is no perfect front door, and sometimes you have to just jump in and swim out to the edges, and no matter where you start and where ever you go, there will be things you will wish you learned earlier and perhaps things you have learned you struggle to set aside as you learn something else. I just think something like "classic light" is a place to start that can be embraced passionately and serves as an excellent foundation for every genre.

But if one is passionately attracted to bluegrass, or fiddle tunes, or country music, then hey go after it, full throttle.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## Beanzy

Well sblock. If it were your misinterpretation you reveal a lot about yourself by the way you chose to misinterpret it; why not the other way about?. Is dressing in skins inferior to wool?
But because it was neither that's not even relevant anyway.

 If you have a skillset that achieves your aims and does so using resoursces and skills relevant to the environment you choose to inhabit, then why would you spend finite resources like time and effort on something which would not serve your needs nor equip you for the environment ? It is only if you chose to move into a new environment that you might spend the effort adapting your skillset to facilitate that. So the teacher will ask what environment you intend to inhabit and equip you with those skills or pass you on to another who can.

At the outset it is important to get to play music quickly enough to motivate you to continue. I would recommend people look about to see where they can get to play with others in a style you like,then use that as your initial guide and learn those skills. Adaption can come later once you know more about the instrument and what aspects interest you.

----------

Eddie Sheehy

----------


## sblock

> I don't think that was what is meant. Beanzy can respond accurately, but my interpretation was a general statement that we don't go about learning a genre in order to play it poorly. If you only going to run around in bearskins you don't need to learn to knit. If you are going to go through the effort of learning a new genre, learn to play it well.
> 
>  I could be wrong, but that was my takeaway.
> 
> Whether learning to "play it well" requires learning to read notation, or whether, though not required, there are advantages to learning to read notation, this is an entirely different discussion.


Yes, as the saying goes, "anything worth doing is worth doing well."  I suspect we all agree about that.  And I resonate with your comment about learning to play classical mandolin at a serious level being extremely hard.

As for the other part, about "Whether learning to 'play it well' requires learning to read notation, or whether, though not required, there are advantages to learning to read notation" --- a close reading of this thread (and particularly my contributions) will show that _no one, and certainly not me, has ever disputed the suggestion_ that learning to read notation doesn't have its attendant advantages.  So _of course_ it's a useful skill, but not necessarily a required one, unless you're trying to play classical music.

That said, "learning to 'play it well'" very clearly _does not require learning how to read notation_. The truth of this statement is self-evident for most forms of folk, jazz, and other non-classical genres, where the music that gets performed is not even written down in the first place (or just comes as a lead sheet), or where any need for improvisation applies.   

And even most classical musicians will agree that "playing it well" involves first committing the piece (or most of it) to musical and muscle memory, and not just sight-reading it off a page in real time. Yes, the best classical musicians with awesome sight reading skills can manage a decent performance right off the bat, but they do _even better_ when they are so familiar with the piece they they don't need to read it note-for-note.  Soloists performing concertos with orchestras _memorize_; they don't sight read, as I pointed out earlier.

----------


## JeffD

> That said, "learning to 'play it well'" very clearly _does not require learning how to read notation_.


Of course. There are many things specific to a particular genre that are not required in other genres. Four finger bluegrass chop chords are not required in traditional Irish, or classical, as an example. 

Depending on how ridiculous we want to get, what the heck is r_equired._ Steve Earl, Eddie Vedder do real well without a whole lot of mandolinny technique. And with all my mandolinny technique I am not on a world stage.

----------

sblock

----------


## FLATROCK HILL

> Steve Earl, Eddie Vedder do real well without a whole lot of mandolinny technique.


Tactful, diplomatic and so true.  :Smile:

----------

sblock

----------


## DavidKOS

> Steve Earl, Eddie Vedder do real well without a whole lot of mandolinny technique..


Well, that's a matter of taste. 

Although guys like Steve Earl are very popular, more so than I'll ever be, I have *never* been attracted to his music. The fact that he's not a particularly impressive mandolinist doesn't make me like his music any more.

But like I said, that's just my taste, not a musical fact.

----------

FLATROCK HILL

----------


## allenhopkins

> Of course...Depending on how ridiculous we want to get, what the heck is _required._ Steve Earl, Eddie Vedder do real well without a whole lot of mandolinny technique. And with all my mandolinny technique I am not on a world stage.


They're famous musicians, but didn't become so due to their mandolin skills.  This thread is about what's needed to learn (or teach) either bluegrass or "classical" music _on the mandolin._  OP is obviously interested in that subject, hasn't yet expressed interest in becoming a famous performing songwriter, like Earle or Vedder.

We wander far afield, I fear...

----------

sblock

----------


## JeffD

> OP is obviously interested in that subject, hasn't yet expressed interest in becoming a famous performing songwriter, like Earle or Vedder..


Its only relevant to this extent. As extreme examples of what is and what isn't "required" for a particular type of playing. Or, the response to the question "Do I have to...?"

----------

allenhopkins

----------

