# Music by Genre > Bluegrass, Newgrass, Country, Gospel Variants >  Please tell me I've got enough to sound 'bluegrass'

## Cue Zephyr

Howdy folks,

I want to start tracking covers (of non-bluegrass songs mostly) and make them sound stylistically firmly planted in the genre.
I have a guitar (a dread, but it's not a Martin-style voice), a mandolin (not an F5, but it's got F-holes) and a banjo (5-string resonator) on the way. No double bass at my disposal, sadly.
Every time I listen to bluegrass records I go like "dang, I need a fiddle for this and that" or "how can I do this without a dobro?" and so on.

Why I'm so concerned? Because Bill always had a fiddler or two and Flatt & Scruggs had a dobro player and used fiddle here and there too.

Anyhow, this is enough to make it sound like bluegrass, right?  :Disbelief: 

I think I'm obsessed with sounding bluegrass more than I am creative.  :Confused: 

Also, I _will_ add a dobro someday, but not right now.

I just need a little push to get me to play the music I love.  :Smile: 

Thanks!
CZ

----------


## allenhopkins

So track a few songs and post 'em, and then let some of the BG experts chime in.

An accumulation of instrumental sounds ≠ bluegrass.  Has to do with your *approach* to the music, plus singing style, instrumental technique, and type of repertoire.  If you're tracking harmony vocals, exercise some care in the harmony structures.

First "pro" bluegrass bands I saw were the Osborne Brothers and the Greenbriar Boys, both about 50 years ago.  They were working as trios with guitar, banjo and mandolin; no fiddle, bass, Dobro at all.  They definitely sounded "bluegrassy."

Listen to as much music in the genre as you can, and you'll get a feel for what's involved.  Remember that your initial postings described your goal as "bluegrass-_influenced_" music, not strictly hard-core bluegrass.  "Firmly planted in the genre" takes a bit more experience, but your ears and your instrumental development will lead you where you want to go.

And hell, yes, play the music you love.  The more you do it, the better you'll do it.

----------

Cue Zephyr

----------


## TonyP

As usual Allen makes crucial points. When asked to make a bluegrass band out of folks who came from other genre's I decided with one band to do nothing but strictly bluegrass standards. We did a whole set of those as authentic as possible and it worked. Everything after that even though it was not from the bluegrass playbook had the right intention/approach. 

Just like those who want to run or play fast licks, you have to start out slow and get the fundamentals. Without them you'll hit a wall sooner or later and lose your way.

----------

allenhopkins

----------


## Ray Neuman

Play what YOU like, the way YOU like it, and put your soul in it. It will sound JUST fine! 

Oh yeah, use what YOU have to do it! Dont fall into the trap of ..."If I ONLY had _____ I could make music!"

----------

rastamypasta, 

Timbofood

----------


## mandopete

This may be germane (or not).....

With all of the fuss recently over the anniversary of The Beatles appearance on the Ed Sullivan show I've had cause to go back an visit what is my all time favorite bluegrass adaptation project - Beatle Country, by The Charles River Valley Boys.  I think this recording was a study in a great way to approach bluegrass covers of material from another genres (in this case pop music).

What I like about this recording is that it stays close enough to a bluegrass traditional sound with sounding trite in the adaptation of the material.  The instrumentation is classic bluegrass, but the songs are not.

YMMV.

----------

allenhopkins, 

Cue Zephyr, 

dreadhead, 

Kevin Stevens

----------


## allenhopkins

Mandopete, thanx for posting that!  Spent many a wonderful night at Club 47 in the early '60's, listening to the CRVB.  Jim Field, lead singer on _Beatle Country,_ was in my Harvard class (1965), and I've been trying to coax him back to reunions so we could perhaps jam a bit…  Maybe for our 50th, just over a year away.

I concur that _Beatle Country_ is a wonderful adaptation of pop material to bluegrass style.  There have been a bunch of recent attempts to blend these genres, but some of them (_Run C&W, e.g._) really end up as parodies rather than serious music.

Many people who love the sound of bluegrass, and try to extend that sound into pop-bluegrass "crossovers," don't realize that one of the distinctive things about bluegrass is the *repertoire.*  You can't do just any song as bluegrass, but country/folk-ish material can be worked in pretty well.

----------


## 9lbShellhamer

Thile and Daves only use a Mando and Guitar on a bunch of BG standards and they sound great...does it sound like Bluegrass? I don't know.

I always get pretty heated when people call the Avett Brothers bluegrass just because there is a banjo in the group! I like them, but they are rock, pop, or folk, 100% definitely not BG!

Key point here. If there is a guitar, mandolin, bass, and of course banjo the basics are covered and can sound very traditional. Whether or not we want to admit it, banjo's are typically a HUGE aspect of the BG sound.  :Grin: 


Looking forward to hearing some BG covers of non-BG songs! Keep at it. Good luck!

----------


## Cue Zephyr

Fantastic replies, so thank y'all for that!

I think the best thing to do is to just proceed and post something, albeit (highly) experimental.

Experimental? That's just a silly excuse, I don't know what I'm doing.  :Grin: 

You might recognize this one:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...2825-01%29.mp3




> So track a few songs and post 'em, and then let some of the BG experts chime in.
> 
> An accumulation of instrumental sounds ≠ bluegrass.  Has to do with your *approach* to the music, plus singing style, instrumental technique, and type of repertoire.  If you're tracking harmony vocals, exercise some care in the harmony structures.
> 
> First "pro" bluegrass bands I saw were the Osborne Brothers and the Greenbriar Boys, both about 50 years ago.  They were working as trios with guitar, banjo and mandolin; no fiddle, bass, Dobro at all.  They definitely sounded "bluegrassy."
> 
> Listen to as much music in the genre as you can, and you'll get a feel for what's involved.  Remember that your initial postings described your goal as "bluegrass-_influenced_" music, not strictly hard-core bluegrass.  "Firmly planted in the genre" takes a bit more experience, but your ears and your instrumental development will lead you where you want to go.
> 
> And hell, yes, play the music you love.  The more you do it, the better you'll do it.


That's totally true. What I meant to say was that if I could pick them the right way, i.e. using the appropriate technique, I'd achieve that sound and feel that I'm looking for. Singing technique is something I'd have to look into though, good thinking - cheers.

I don't quite listen to as much material as I can, but I do listen as much as I can to the bluegrass material that I enjoy most and want to try to sound like.

I think what I'm trying to achieve is that traditional sound but projecting something modern onto it. That might be an impossible combo, but that's what I think I have in my mind.  :Wink: 




> Play what YOU like, the way YOU like it, and put your soul in it. It will sound JUST fine! 
> 
> Oh yeah, use what YOU have to do it! Dont fall into the trap of ..."If I ONLY had _____ I could make music!"


I love that traditional sound. That sound that doesn't only sorta sound like bluegrass (e.g. due to it's instrumentation or vocal harmonization), but also _feels_ like it, i.e. by the way it's executed through things like playing techniques and certain common 'sounds'.

It's not that I can't make music without any of the instruments I mentioned, I'm more like "if I had ___ I'd have the opportunity to make it sound more convincing," something like that.




> What I like about this recording is that it stays close enough to a bluegrass traditional sound with sounding trite in the adaptation of the material.  The instrumentation is classic bluegrass, but the songs are not.


Nice! Thanks for sharing. That's a great example of the ballpark of my goal.




> Many people who love the sound of bluegrass, and try to extend that sound into pop-bluegrass "crossovers," don't realize that one of the distinctive things about bluegrass is the *repertoire.*  You can't do just any song as bluegrass, but country/folk-ish material can be worked in pretty well.


I think I might be one of those.  :Wink: 




> Key point here. If there is a guitar, mandolin, bass, and of course banjo the basics are covered and can sound very traditional. Whether or not we want to admit it, banjo's are typically a HUGE aspect of the BG sound.


So if I get the banjo pickin' to sound right, I'm well on my way?  :Grin:

----------

allenhopkins

----------


## SincereCorgi

> Thile and Daves only use a Mando and Guitar on a bunch of BG standards and they sound great...does it sound like Bluegrass? I don't know.


Yeah, and the same for Tony Rice and Ricky Skaggs, or even early Monroe brothers, if you want to go way back. Home recording that many instruments in a genre as rhythmically tight as bluegrass is very difficult, so you've got your work cut out for you!

----------


## swampstomper

"Jim Field, lead singer on Beatle Country, was in my Harvard class (1965), and I've been trying to coax him back to reunions so we could perhaps jam a bit… " He lives in Paris (France, not Kentucky), we call him James, and he comes to Netherlands off and on to perform and jam. He has a much more mature voice now than on BC, of course, but a great voice and always a great selection of songs. He mostly plays out with Sue Thompson (another expatriate but from the other side of the USA). So if James won't come to you, how about coming over to us? I am fairly sure he will be at European World of Bluegrass in Voorthuizen (NL) this year 29-31 May.

----------

allenhopkins

----------


## TonyP

What I get from all of this is the OP wants to have an authentic sound. But by his avatar and several threads I would surmise he's more into the modern stuff.

Before I started actually playing an instrument I read my roommate's Guitar Player magazine. Mostly because some of my guitar playing hero's like Eric Clapton and Jerry Garcia were on the cover. What I was struck by was who they emulated, who their hero's were. I discovered all kinds of musicians that changed my musical life like Django, Charlie Christian, Earl Scruggs, Leadbelly etc. 

So just listening to the end product seldom gives you the recipe. You have to listen to the ingredients. Then just like the people you are trying to emulate those hero's music will filter through you and end up being something new.  Listening is just as important as playing. Most of my hero's wore records out because they listened to their hero's all the time.   

More and more these days it's too easy to be fractured in your approach to all things. Just wanting to skim the good stuff without wanting to spend the time and effort to understand it all. It's hard to drop 'er down a gear and just settle into it and let it percolate instead of a hot rush of desire with a timetable. Good stuff takes a while no matter what it is.

----------

Cue Zephyr, 

dreadhead, 

Jay G Miller, 

Mike Bunting

----------


## foldedpath

CZ, just a suggestion... you can cut yourself some slack if you call it "String Band" music instead of Bluegrass.

Calling your music String Band allows more experimentation with instrument combinations and repertoire, compared to the more formalized requirements of Bluegrass. If you do manage to get something that sounds more Bluegrass than anything else, then you start calling it that. It might take some pressure away from needing to sound too "authentic."

I played for a short while in a 4-piece acoustic band, made up of two couples that came from slightly different musical backgrounds. The other couple had a lot of experience playing in Bluegrass and OldTime, while my S.O. and I had more experience in OldTime and Irish (not much Bluegrass at all). So we mixed it all up and called ourselves a String Band. It's a term that can't get you into trouble with the Bluegrass Police, the Irish Trad Police, or the OldTime police. 
 :Wink:

----------

Bill Baldridge

----------


## Cue Zephyr

> So if James won't come to you, how about coming over to us? I am fairly sure he will be at European World of Bluegrass in Voorthuizen (NL) this year 29-31 May.


Funny you mention the EWOB. In the new year's goal/resolution topic, I set 'go to EWOB 2014' as one of my goals.  :Grin: 




> What I get from all of this is the OP wants to have an authentic sound. But by his avatar and several threads I would surmise he's more into the modern stuff.


That's partly true. The modern material is actually what lead me to the more traditional stuff. I probably wouldn't have been open enough to appreciate bluegrass if I didn't start with contemporary country (guess where I started in that genre!), which was totally off-the-wall compared to what I enjoyed before that. I do explore slowly. Right now I'm really excited about the Master of Bluegrass album that recently popped up in a topic in this subforum. And also to prepare myself, I started listening to Foggy Mountain Banjo. I reckon (but please do tell me if I'm wrong) that these are a good start, as well as Manzanita, which is one of my favorite albums. Both have a lot of material I want to learn as well. This is also close to the sound I want to get close to.

But yes, I certainly like modern stuff too, mixed in with more traditional sounds mixed in to varying degrees. I've been a fan of AKUS for a while and currently enjoy Sierra Hull's most recent (2011?) album. I like to call it 'country with bluegrass instrumentation'.

Also, in a bit of a different direction - Telluride Session (Strength in Numbers) has quickly become one of my favorite albums and have listened to it a lot ever since I discovered it.

Or, the more modern stuff that is basically a rockband with some bluegrass/country instruments i.e. mandolin, fiddle, dobro or banjo.

----------


## allenhopkins

> "Jim Field, lead singer on Beatle Country, was in my Harvard class (1965), and I've been trying to coax him back to reunions so we could perhaps jam a bit… " He lives in Paris (France, not Kentucky), we call him James, and he comes to Netherlands off and on to perform and jam. He has a much more mature voice now than on BC, of course, but a great voice and always a great selection of songs. He mostly plays out with Sue Thompson (another expatriate but from the other side of the USA). So if James won't come to you, how about coming over to us? I am fairly sure he will be at European World of Bluegrass in Voorthuizen (NL) this year 29-31 May.


Well, almost certainly won't be going to the Netherlands, *but* --

Offer still stands: c'mon back for the 50th, in 2015, and we'll get a "hootenanny" or somethin' like it going.  I've been leading one for Harvard/Radcliffe '65 for the last five reunions, and we usually get quite a bit of participation.

----------


## TonyP

I know where you are coming from CZ. But Manzanita, and AKUS are firmly in the modern camp. Starting out where we are presently is exactly like discovering a small lump of gold, then looking over and seeing a quartz vein in the rock wall next to it. There's basically 60yrs+ of music history to try and mine out of the past. And it's not always easy to find. But if you look at just the split off's of personnel from all iterations of  Bill Monroe and the Bluegrass Boys(something like 150 people went through that band), the Stanley Brothers and some others , you follow those people like Lester Flatt and Earl Scruggs, Jimmy Martin etc, etc. There's years and years of listening and study. And the most amazing songs that have gotten lost in the dust of time. I had to change my ear and get by the basic recording tech and feel of those recording and really really listen to those songs. 

I'm not really that taken with the whole "Pickin' On" thing. There's still so many obscure songs that those tributary folks did that are completely off the radar that most folks would think are new if you did them now. But I guess that's not always the aim. And it might not be yours as it sounds like you want to do modern familiar tunes in a bluegrass style. And that's fine, to each his/her own. But it's not about the instrumentation, it's about the intention. And having all the instruments to have a bluegrass band, but played by rockers is never going to sound even close to a bluegrass band.

----------

Bill Baldridge, 

Cue Zephyr

----------


## Ken Olmstead

While instrumentation is a big part of the traditional bluegrass sound, it always amazes me how "bluegrass" Bill Monroe sounds just singing and playing his mandolin. Bluegrass has a certain feel and pulse, if you can get that buried in you, then it is likely you can sound somewhat bluegrass. I say somewhat, as it is a pretty narrow genre for me. I prefer to call most music labeled as "bluegrass" accosting string band music or something similar. I can count bands on one hand that I personally refer to as "Bluegrass." Just my opinion, no need for anyone to get too excited about it…

Good luck on the project!!

----------

Bill Baldridge, 

Cue Zephyr

----------


## Cheryl Watson

Since you are doing this for fun, not to be a pro and make a profit (although there is little profit for MOST artists in the bluegrass genre), then I would just make it fun.  If you have the bluegrass style of playing down, then that is more important than not having a fiddle or an upright bass.  I also like the suggestion that someone made to call it "stringband" music because you don't hem yourself in anywhere near as much.  

I personally play "grassy" music but I would never call myself a traditional bluegrass artist; I am more of an acoustic artist with blues, folk, rock, country, Americana and bluegrass influences and I play some pure bluegrass music like Bill Monroe fiddle tunes.  My music far outreaches the strict genre of traditional bluegrass and it sounds like the same might be true for you.  

It has been my experience that if a person wants to play traditional bluegrass music, then they have to be willing to play within the strict rules of the genre.  A fiddle is good to have, but not absolutely necessary. I've played bluegrass festivals without a fiddler because the really good ones are very hard to find. When I had a really good fiddler, it was much better however.  Dobro is definitely not required.  Bass, upright or electric is generally needed, but I've seen bluegrass trios and duos without a bass player and it's still bluegrass.  In my opinion, once you get up to a four-piece, it seems that a bass starts to be expected, some other forum members might disagree from their personal experience.  At a bluegrass festical and on bluegrass records, I think that the fans of bluegrass prefer that thump to round out the frequency span.  That is how a traditional bluegrass band is set up: Bass for the lows and on up to guitar, banjo, mandolin and/or fiddle.

----------

Bill Baldridge, 

Cue Zephyr

----------


## Bill Baldridge

Music, like any form of communication, involves a communicator and a responder.  At the end of the process, it is the responder who determines what it is.  The funniest joke in my head is not funny if the responder does not laugh.  You can call, intent, believe, and insist that your music is bluegrass, ragtime, or whatever, and the listener will still determine what it is to her or him.

The bluegrass sound that you are seeking to produce or keep stylistically firmly planted in the genre can only be the sound that your ear already hears as bluegrass, since none of us can play something we cannot hear.  That is why some are encouraging you to listen to a lot of bluegrass to develop your ear for bluegrass.  That is good advice that leads to the never ending argument on this site as to what is, or is not, bluegrass.  I could share that to my ear Jimmy Martin, alone or with a pipe organ, was incapable of singing anything that didn't sound like bluegrass.  I could also add that to my ear, David Grisman, standing beside Jimmy Martin, couldn't play anything that sounded like bluegrass.  Except to make my point, I don't see how my sharing what I hear as bluegrass will get you one step down the road you want to take.  Others are just as confident in their differing opinions, but even if they present them as written on stone tablets brought down from a mountain, they remain only their opinions.

There is a type of music that you are hearing right now that you identify as bluegrass and that you want to use in your project to start tracking covers (of non-bluegrass songs mostly).  Study that music that you enjoy and identify as bluegrass and use it as you musical ability allows.  You can call it whatever you want as far as I am concerned.

 I just need a little push to get me to play the music I love.  Here you go, push, push, push.

----------

Cue Zephyr, 

Jay G Miller, 

Ken Olmstead, 

TonyP

----------


## swampstomper

“I could also add that to my ear, David Grisman, standing beside Jimmy Martin, couldn't play anything that sounded like bluegrass”

Listen to the young Mr Grisman as a member of Red Allen's Kentuckians, kick off "Have You Come to Say Goodbye" (County LP 710, Rebel CD 1128) and all the material on Acoustic Disc ACD-4 "Bluegrass Reunion". He can play 'grass (to almost everyone's ear) when he wants to.

----------

almeriastrings, 

dreadhead, 

fentonjames, 

Jay G Miller, 

Mike Bunting, 

sgarrity, 

TonyP

----------


## Cue Zephyr

> I know where you are coming from CZ. But Manzanita, and AKUS are firmly in the modern camp.


I was aware of AKUS, but not Manzanita - why is that?

Also, I'll be playing all those instruments and am certainly not a rocker.  :Wink: 




> While instrumentation is a big part of the traditional bluegrass sound, it always amazes me how "bluegrass" Bill Monroe sounds just singing and playing his mandolin.!


Excellent point! Today I was listening to Dan Tyminski performing Man of Constant Sorrow with Ron Block for inspiration, and was amazed how much 'grass' was in their sound with only two guitars. It was their way of harmonizing that did it for me. Needless to say I'm going to study that approach to harmonizing and will try to apply it accordingly.




> Music, like any form of communication, involves a communicator and a responder


I didn't even think of that. However, I've had a couple of conversations to various people talking about genres, which we liked and which we thought fell in those specific genres. There's bound to be some differing opinions.

----------


## Bill Baldridge

> I could also add that to my ear, David Grisman, standing beside Jimmy Martin, couldn't play anything that sounded like bluegrass
> 
> Listen to the young Mr Grisman as a member of Red Allen's Kentuckians, kick off "Have You Come to Say Goodbye" (County LP 710, Rebel CD 1128) and all the material on Acoustic Disc ACD-4 "Bluegrass Reunion". He can play 'grass (to almost everyone's ear) when he wants to.


Thanks for reenforcing my point.  By the way, I think David Grisman is one fantastic musician and mandolin player; but then again, that is just one more opinion.

----------


## allenhopkins

> I was aware of AKUS, but not Manzanita - why is that?


_Manzanita_ is the title cut from a Tony Rice album, a "jazz-grass" (?) instrumental.

Here's a live performance.  It's a bit long

----------


## swampstomper

> Thanks for reenforcing my point.  By the way, I think David Grisman is one fantastic musician and mandolin player; but then again, that is just one more opinion.


?? I thought I was contradicting you!! Are you saying that Grisman's playing behind Red Allen did not sound like bluegrass? Or did you mean "... couldn't play anything that *didn't* sound like bluegrass"?

Anyway since we're on a Red Allen topic here, anything he touches is automatically bluegrass. He was a master at taking country material (especially from Kitty Wells -- listen to "Whose Shoulder Will You Cry On?") and turn it into a**-kicking in your face bluegrass.

----------


## Rex Hart

> _Manzanita_ is the title cut from a Tony Rice album, a "jazz-grass" (?) instrumental.
> 
> Here's a live performance.  It's a bit long…
> 
> ]


Allen,
I think she was probably talking about the album, not the song. Manzanita (the album) sounds traditional to me with Jimmy Martin songs (Hold Whatcha Got,) and others

----------

allenhopkins

----------


## ralph johansson

> Thanks for reenforcing my point.  By the way, I think David Grisman is one fantastic musician and mandolin player; but then again, that is just one more opinion.


Reenforcing? Tastes vary, of course, but it seems to me that your view of Bluegrass is so restricted as to virtually make it a non-genre (it takes some breadth to speak of a genre, not just somebody's style). Just curious, what exactly (in stylistic terms) is so non-Bluegrass about this performance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzA68Ohwke4

or this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HEi6IrFyec

????

Of course, the TS's question is not the one that I would ask.  My own attitude in my Bluegrass period (in the 60's) never was what does it take to really get there, but, rather, what's in it for me, what can I do with it?

----------


## Bill Baldridge

> Others are just as confident in their differing opinions, but even if they present them as written on stone tablets brought down from a mountain, they remain only their opinions.


Hello, swampstomper.  I was talking about this point.  You have your opinion and I have a different one.  So what?  The only "So what?" that makes sense to me is that it would be a dull, monotonous world if we all had the same opinion.  No reference to you, but some people get down right offended when someone doesn't agree with them.  They then launch into some effort to prove their opinion as right and anyone disagreeing as wrong.  Strikes me as rather childish and insecure.

----------


## swampstomper

@Ralph J, thanks for posting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HEi6IrFyec, I had not known about that concert. And I agree with you. If Red Allen is happy to have David Grisman standing beside him along with Jim Buchanan and Herb Peterson... that 'grass enough for me! And tell me exactly what about Grisman's Monroe-tribute break on "I'm on my way to the old home" is not pure bluegrass on the true vine from Monroe.

----------


## Perry Babasin

Dear Que... If the sound clip you posted was you, keep up the good work! I don't care what genre designation you want to call it, it's a very clean and very musical recording. You should sing as well.

Now back to our regularly scheduled Bluegrass discussion...

----------


## TonyP

You know, this is why so many discussions get so balled up. Bill you have so many excellent points, and Swamp has a good point. Besides everybody's opinion on what exactly bluegrass is, there's people like David Grisman and for that matter, Sam Bush who most times are playing their own thing. It's immediately recognizable by tone and licks. And then every once in a while they do something and I listen to it and go, who is that? I have to shake my head. The Dawg is one of these and the reunion album is one of those. He and Sam can do Monroe verbatim even changing their tone to where you can't tell it's them. 

This site has made me very aware if I ever try and make any "written in stone" statements because it always ends up I have to eat a big ol' helpin' of crow before it's a couple of seconds old. But it's also given me some of the best examples of music and folks I never would have found otherwise. So it's all good. 

I hope CZ can make some kind of musical direction out of all this input because I don't feel it's so black and white because the target seems to shape shift and morph  :Smile: 

I do believe it's necessary to try and keep things as narrow as possible somehow because musical genre's have gotten so broad as to almost be useless. One I thought I knew until I started looking into it was Americana. When I look at who were decorated for their past efforts in the genre, it seems more like where old rockers go to die. But once again that's my 2c worth.

----------

Bill Baldridge, 

Perry Babasin, 

swampstomper

----------


## ralph johansson

> Hello, swampstomper.  I was talking about this point.  You have your opinion and I have a different one.  So what?  The only "So what?" that makes sense to me is that it would be a dull, monotonous world if we all had the same opinion.  No reference to you, but some people get down right offended when someone doesn't agree with them.  They then launch into some effort to prove their opinion as right and anyone disagreeing as wrong.  Strikes me as rather childish and insecure.


I asked a *question*, hoping  to understand your point about Grisman. I was obviously not offended, but confused, by this example. I did not express an opinion and I didn't try to prove anyone wrong. Is it childish and insecure to ask a question?  If you know what you're talking about you could easily explain, in musical terms, how the two YouTube cuts show his complete inability to play in the Bluegrass tradition, however you define it. Then we might understand. 

To just about anyone with ears it's very clear that he is restricting himself in various ways to adjust to the situation.
He also says himself that he strives to keep his genres separate.
 That's why I don't pay that much attention to his Bluegrass work.
 His true importance lies in the New Acoustic movement that he and Richard Greene started in the 70's. Movement, not genre.

I just listened to the excerpt the TS posted. To her I can only say, go with what you got, forget about "tradition".

----------

swampstomper

----------


## swampstomper

To return to CZ... I think we've brought out some good points -- especially Grisman or Bush mainly doing their own thing, doing the music the way they hear it (Dawg music, Newgrass) *but* knowing the true vine. So CZ, I hope to be able to jam with you in Voorthuizen this May (EWOB) and hear *your* creative side ... I am not a Taylor Swift fan (seeing your self-description) but let's see how you create music -- that's the most important thing! Meanwhile do take some time to study the masters of any genre -- not only Monroe or McCoury, but also (to name some outstanding stylists) Jerry Byrd, Sonny Rollins, Chet Atkins... 

Above all have fun and keep picking!

----------


## AlanN

Another cafe thread that devolves into the 'what is, isn't bluegrass'. Gotta love it.

Grisman - there's a cool little book called 'David Grisman Recorded Bluegrass Solos 1966-76'. Solos analyses from various things he played on. As the title says, it's all bluegrass, through the Dawg's eyes, ears and hands.

----------


## Bill Baldridge

Communicating through the written word is inherently complex and subjective.  To quote an American president, "It depends on what the meaning of "is" is."  The best I can do is assume good will and good faith as we share our love of music and the mandolin here at the Cafe.  That is how I have entered and leave this particular example.  I wish all of my brothers and sisters the very best.  I assume we will all press on as best we can here on the Cafe, as the alternative is little or no communication at all.

----------


## Cue Zephyr

> Allen,
> the album, not the song. Manzanita (the album) sounds traditional to me


I'm sorry - yes, I was talking about the album. However, I also agree that Manzanita (the song) doesn't sound very traditional besides it's sound.




> @Ralph J, thanks for posting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HEi6IrFyec, I had not known about that concert.


I didn't know it either. I had been watching that other one where Sam talks about his 'dream' and burns Tony in the process. 




> Dear Que... If the sound clip you posted was you, keep up the good work! I don't care what genre designation you want to call it, it's a very clean and very musical recording. You should sing as well.
> 
> Now back to our regularly scheduled Bluegrass discussion...


Thanks! Yep, that was indeed my own playing. As you can tell, I do have a bass, but it's not an upright one. Just yesterday I was watching the video below:




and was amazed by how much like an upright that electric bass sounded. Actually, I didn't even realize it wasn't an upright until I actually saw the bass player.  :Grin: 

I was going to sing to it, but I haven't taken up vocal warm-ups and exercises yet. So there's that.  :Grin: 




> I hope CZ can make some kind of musical direction out of all this input because I don't feel it's so black and white because the target seems to shape shift and morph 
> 
> I do believe it's necessary to try and keep things as narrow as possible somehow because musical genre's have gotten so broad as to almost be useless. One I thought I knew until I started looking into it was Americana. When I look at who were decorated for their past efforts in the genre, it seems more like where old rockers go to die. But once again that's my 2c worth.


I don't know if it's going to be a real direction now. For now, mainly because of this thread, I'm just going to find and listen to things I want to try to replicate or emulate on both a musical and sound level. And yes, there will be a lot of 'grass in there, because I love the musical properties and the sound of it. Most likely, that will bring out my _own_ grasp of the music in my playing and arranging.

I think I'll have to look into Americana music as well.  :Smile: 




> I just listened to the excerpt the TS posted. To her I can only say, go with what you got, forget about "tradition".


I suppose that if I internalize the style enough it _will_ sound plenty traditional, except to the purists. That's enough for me for now.  :Wink: 




> To return to CZ... I think we've brought out some good points -- especially Grisman or Bush mainly doing their own thing, doing the music the way they hear it (Dawg music, Newgrass) *but* knowing the true vine. So CZ, I hope to be able to jam with you in Voorthuizen this May (EWOB) and hear *your* creative side ... I am not a Taylor Swift fan (seeing your self-description) but let's see how you create music -- that's the most important thing! Meanwhile do take some time to study the masters of any genre -- not only Monroe or McCoury, but also (to name some outstanding stylists) Jerry Byrd, Sonny Rollins, Chet Atkins... 
> 
> Above all have fun and keep picking!


Not so fast! I'm fairly new to playing music. I've played guitar for years but without much of a goal or stylistic vein. I think that's cost me a lot of time and progression. It's only now that those goals and styles are starting to establish themselves in my learning and playing. RIght now that is by learning bluegrass standards.

So I don't think you'll get too much jamming fun out of me, even if it's still a couple of months away.  :Grin: 

Taylor Swift's music (mostly her first two albums) is what got me out of my comfort zone. And me being out of that comfort zone has led me to bluegrass. That's not the only sort of odd stuff I enjoy i.e. the stuff I don't expect people here to either know or like.

----------


## ralph johansson

> Mandopete, thanx for posting that!  Spent many a wonderful night at Club 47 in the early '60's, listening to the CRVB.  Jim Field, lead singer on _Beatle Country,_ was in my Harvard class (1965), and I've been trying to coax him back to reunions so we could perhaps jam a bit  Maybe for our 50th, just over a year away.
> 
> I concur that _Beatle Country_ is a wonderful adaptation of pop material to bluegrass style.  There have been a bunch of recent attempts to blend these genres, but some of them (_Run C&W, e.g._) really end up as parodies rather than serious music.
> 
> Many people who love the sound of bluegrass, and try to extend that sound into pop-bluegrass "crossovers," don't realize that one of the distinctive things about bluegrass is the *repertoire.*  You can't do just any song as bluegrass, but country/folk-ish material can be worked in pretty well.



That, I suppose, is a somewhat controversial point. Remember Roger Sprung's Progressive Bluegrass (3 LP's)? His idea was that *any* tune can be done Bluegrass. Personally I don't think he was that successful. I found the heavy beat of the drumming hard to take (I love good drumming in, e.g., jazz), also his tone was lacking.

 But what about the Country Gentlemen? One of the very first Bluegrass LP's that I bought, 51 years ago, was a Starday sampler. Their one contribution to that album was Sunrise, which is really The World Is Waiting for the Sunrise minus the melody
(for copyright reasons?). It stood out in several ways; richer harmony, no Scruggs-type rolls (as I recall), and walking bass. With little or no experience in the genre I assumed that the genre was broad enough to accomodate all that. Today I frankly find their approach a bit corny with very strict observance of bar lines and periods - which is true of a lot of Bluegrass even today (Stuart Duncan and Jerry Douglas are two of the most important counterexamples).

The Gentlemen went on to record tunes like Heartaches, and I suspect they were inspired by the ecclecticism of Chet Atkins (from whom they derived their name, at least indirectly) or possibly Reno&Smiley who recorded a lot of similar material, e.g., Limehouse Blues. Closer to the mainstream there's Flatt&Scruggs who did Farewell Blues (from the New Orleans Rhythm Kings) and You Can't Stop Me from Dreaming.

 In 1970 Monroe recorded Milenburg Joys, another NORK tune, which he learned from the Hoosier Hotshots in Chicago.
There's a live recording with Joe Stuart singing One Sweet Letter from You, with Monroe's band (he sings it surprisingly well).

And then we have Emerson&Waldron in 1969, with If I Were a Carpenter, Fox on the Run, and Proud Mary. I suppose a lot of similar material can be subjected to a BG treatment, it's really the groove that counts.

----------


## drbluegrass

I'm guessing that turning rock, pop, and other genres into BG goes all the way back to Jim and Jesse with their album of Chuck Berry songs. Lots of BG groups in the '70s were doing it.


Tom

----------


## ralph johansson

> Another cafe thread that devolves into the 'what is, isn't bluegrass'. Gotta love it.
> 
> Grisman - there's a cool little book called 'David Grisman Recorded Bluegrass Solos 1966-76'. Solos analyses from various things he played on. As the title says, it's all bluegrass, through the Dawg's eyes, ears and hands.


Actually, the issue rather is what is or is not "stylistically firmly planted in the genre". I was puzzled by Mr. Baldridge's first (hence best?) counterexample being *anything* by David Grisman, e.g., 20:52 into this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL6ngaJV0B4

I had hoped for an explanation, since this example to my ears differs only in very subtle ways from Monroe's style. So what are these subtle points? I asked because I was curious. Maybe someone else has the musical competence to answer my question.
Maybe Monroe himself was not firmly planted in the genre? 

When I watch these three videos I'm surprised, or even shocked, that Grisman takes such a conservative approach to the music. Seems to me that after he hit on, and developed, his beautiful Dawg music, he lost interest in reforming Bluegrass, as he apparently was trying to do on earlier records. His latest (?) BG effort, the Bluegrass Xperience, doesn't appeal to me at all.

Although a lot of BG today sounds very much alike  there were from the very start several different directions - which is what it takes to talk of  a *genre*. Carlton Haney once offered this rough classification: Monroe-bluesgrass; The Stanleys- mountain grass, Reno&Smiley- country grass. Maybe this last label applies to Jimmy Martin as well, although with a different beat. I do doubt that any of these artists could serve as a model for the TS, given the sofistication of her material. I would say that the first act that really in a systematic way introduced material of non-folk, non-country, non-BG origin was the Country Gentlemen, with the Seldom Scene continuing this tradition. I think the TS should give them a listen, although these groups were a bit controversial in conservative circles (Ralph Rinzler et al). Maybe she will like them, maybe she will be inspired to push their direction further.

The most advanced BG group that I can think of was Cadillac Sky, with their virtuosic arrangements and virtuosic treatment of the banjo and fiddle. They were of course *highly* controversial; they were even once run off the stage by a festival promoter. I never cared for their singing or lyrics, but that's not the point here. Whether one likes them or not many of their ideas are worth exploring to anyone with a curious mind.

Perhaps I should add that whenever I state "that ain't Bluegrass" it's usually out of respect for the musicians. E.g., the Telluride Sessions, a truly remarkable project, is in no way Bluegrass. It's really a play with genres, sometimes combining several (as in Lochs of Dread), sometimes caricaturing them. They composed in all possible pairs, hence 10 numbers that seem each to initiate and terminate its own category.

----------


## TonyP

The Country Gentlemen and the Seldom Scene along with Jim and Jesse were some of the greatest converters to 'grass IMHO. I'd never heard Beatles Country until this thread, and I'm not as taken with them as the aforementioned bands. 

It goes back to intention and it's true if you are just covering a bluegrass tune/song or converting over another genre. It's all so nebulous it's hard to quantify. So when CZ asks, "do I have enough to sound bluegrass?" there's going to be a bunch of us who are going to say it's not about quantity of instruments it's about the end product. And when I think about it, it's been true from the beginning. Listening to Monroe pre Flatt and Scruggs and then with them it's clear it's not about solely instrumentation. You add those two musicians and a genre is brought to fruition. Would Flatt and Scruggs have made bluegrass without Monroe? dunno. Sometimes I wish there was way to do historical simulations such as that.  But all those ingredients blend to directly convert any material they absorb into bluegrass.

----------


## Bill Baldridge

I have tried with little to no success to speak to my point, but since we are still trashing this, I will post a final try.  I was speaking to the issue of opinions being subjective.  I used an extreme example to make the point.  If you are saying, "I get your point, but beyond that do I consider Grisman to be playing in a bluegrass style on the video?"; sure he is.  If/when Grisman plays a Monroe break note for note, which he is certainly easily capable of doing and has done many times, is he playing in a bluegrass style?  Sure he is.  Is Grisman's style of bluegrass what I would pay money to hear at a bluegrass festival?  No.

I believe others have made the point that putting a banjo, guitar, mandolin, bass and fiddle in the hands of five people and asking them to play something does not mean by default that what you hear will be bluegrass.  Some may say "yes" and others "no".  There is a recent long and heated discussion on this site as to whether the Country Music artist, Alan Jackson, being backed by some of the best bluegrass musicians playing in a bluegrass style, can sing bluegrass.  I frankly don't care, didn't enter that discussion, and am not sharing one now.  To me that discussion/argument demonstrates how passionately people feel about such things and how limited a format such as this one is.  As I have posted before, it is still worth the effort and much can be learned even in the chaos.

I apologize for not appreciating your question, which I may still be missing.  I also apologize if I seemed dismissive of it.  I wish you the best at whatever you are about.

----------


## TonyP

Bill I don't think you over stepped and most of us realize this is all very subjective. Personally I always wonder what somebody means when their opinion is different. And the way this style of communication goes it's really instructive to get like U2oob examples to let us all know what the other person hears or is thinking. 

I for one didn't mean to bag on your opinion. I had just wondered if you'd heard the Dawg do his Monroe licks. Turns out you have and that's all I was wondering. 

Because of the excellent mods here things stay very civil. So when somebody disagrees with somebody else it can seem pretty shocking.  But it's ok. I don't like things other people like sometimes and I try and not take it personally(even though I often do). 
I hope you stick with it as you've contributed good stuff.  I try to tell myself I'm passionate about this music but it mostly comes off as fanatical  :Smile:

----------


## Bill Baldridge

Thanks, Tony.  Peace and good pickin'.

----------


## Jay G Miller

Cue Zephyr, Im disappointed I didn't find this thread earlier so I could have heard your music. If you get a chance, and feel like it, would you post something again, Id love to listen. Your other link isn't working for some reason.

----------


## Cue Zephyr

The DropBox link you mean?

I just checked it and it works for me. That's weird. :O

Anyhow, to get back to some points I failed to do before...

Telluride Session actually is one of my favorite albums that I've heard and have listened to quite a bit since I discovered it.

I'll give the Country Gentleman a listen. I ran into a video of them somewhere else and really liked what I heard.  :Wink:

----------


## Jay G Miller

Well its working for me now. Sorry about that, must have been something on my end.

I really like the sound you're producing. With making music, I learned a long time ago, never fight what comes naturally. One....how else is anything different and of value born? Two, it is always going to be what we will play the very best. There are always going to be ears that are attracted to what our hearts produce musically, provided its done well and with our heart leading the way. Those ear numbers may vary according to those that connect to your music, but they need served none the less. 

When Newgrass Revival came out, they were widely unaccepted by the followers of bluegrass up to that point. The rock or pop world didn't want them either. But they did and do have their following. IMHO, they peeked too early in the time table and came before their time. Now at present their sound would have been much more popular. Many people are just now dicovering them and love what they did.

If you ever get the chance to get Bela Flecks "Drive" album, you really should,  I think you'd love it. There is a lot of work on it similar to Strength in Numbers with maybe a touch more grass sound integrated in. I'm a big Strength in Numbers fan too and have been for years, which likely came about from my love for Newgrass Revival and especially Sam Bush. im not a huge Bela fan, but i am for his work with NGR and Strength in Numbers.Jerry Douglas has long had my ear anytime his dobro sings too.

----------


## Jay G Miller

Opps....posted twice

----------


## Cue Zephyr

Thanks! I much appreciate your comment and your post.

I don't quite know what my heart's doing. I think it keeps asking for new instruments, find their strengths (or what they are to me) and use them to my advantage. I like that on one side barking through chord chopping and on the other side sweet melody making capabilities of the mandolin, the driving sound of the banjo, the sweeping melodies of a dobro as well as the fiddle (which of course is a little better at sustaining notes!) and the punchy, percussive nature of the double bass (that I can't get out of an electric bass).

I tried listening to NGR once but I didn't get along with it at that time. Right now I'm listening to Drive (yay for Spotify) and I really like what I'm hearing. Thanks for the suggestion! I completely agree that there's a touch more 'grass on it.

Jerry is the main reason I want to learn dobro someday. His playing is so free, he does really make it sing.

Maybe it's the instrumentation itself than anything else that grabs me. I like acoustic music but I think it has more to give than just guitars and cajons as that is how it's commonly done in less obscure circles.

Hving said that, I really like the much more experimental (if that's what it is) work of the Punch Brothers. Somewhere on their latest album (Who's Feeling Young Now), I was swearing they were making rock music with bluegrass instruments. Having said that, I think everything on that album is fantastic.

----------


## Cue Zephyr

As some of you may already know - I have a banjo since last Thursday (March 20).

In other words, I've been playing for less than a week, but I thought I'd entertain y'all with a new version of the clip that I posted earlier.

Wake Me Up (new)

----------


## JeffD

> I'm guessing that turning rock, pop, and other genres into BG goes all the way back to Jim and Jesse with their album of Chuck Berry songs. Lots of BG groups in the '70s were doing it.


Remind me of   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hENekY0u-lA

----------


## CES

Nice work, man! What recording set up are you using?

----------


## Cue Zephyr

> Nice work, man! What recording set up are you using?


Thanks! 

I don't remember which microphone I used on the mandolin and guitar, it either was my Oktava MK-012 (small diaphragm condenser) or my Audio Technica AT3035 (large diaphragm condenser). For the banjo I used the AT3035. Whatever the mic, it's going into my Focusrite Saffire Pro 40 audio interface (with 8 mic pres).

----------


## Denny Gies

You're getting there.  Pretty good for less than a week.

----------


## DataNick

> As some of you may already know - I have a banjo since last Thursday (March 20).
> 
> In other words, I've been playing for less than a week, but I thought I'd entertain y'all with a new version of the clip that I posted earlier.
> 
> Wake Me Up (new)


Now that is certainly some part of somethin'...good job!

----------


## allenhopkins

Nice!

----------


## Cue Zephyr

Thanks!  :Smile: 

Probably has something to do with knowing how fretted instruments work that the banjo didn't take me too long to be off and playing.  :Grin:

----------

