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

## Mandolin Mick

I'd like to lobby the Bluegrassers on the Cafe like Willie to use the appellation "Classic Bluegrass". Classic Bluegrass is Bill Monroe, Flatt & Scruggs, Jim & Jesse, Carl Story, the Stanley Bros., etc. I'm getting tired of  people telling us Bluegrassers that like the old music to "broaden your horizons". I'm also tired of being told that Monroe sounds different than Flatt & Scruggs, so there is no such thing as Classic Bluegrass. I got into Bluegrass because of the fathers of the genre. I don't have to broaden my horizons. I've listened to the other stuff at Bluegrass Festivals and on Bluegrass Radio and don't like it. I don't tell people who like the new styles that they have to broaden their horizons. This is a free country, listen to whatever turns you on!!! 

Love & Peace ...  :Smile:

----------


## Willie Poole

Mick,  I was thinking this afternoon that some of the people on here say they want to see bluegrass keep "progressing" and I wonder if they realize the change that has come about in the last fifty years and if it keeps "progressing" farther out pretty soon it will have wah-wah pedals and fuzz boxes and lots of reverberation and then there will be smoke and bright lights flashing and then the musicians will bust their instruments up while on the stage....If that is what they want to see and still call it bluegrass I am glad that I won`t be around when all of that happens....My definition of bluegras is a simple kind of music that tells a story and is played with the instruments backing up the singers, not the other way around, what one would expect to hear if he came upon a cabin in the mountains after dinner and there were people playing music on the porch just killing time and entertaining them selves until time to go to bed, no TV`s, No computers...In other words play it like it was invented....

    Willie

----------


## Mandolin Mick

Exactly!  :Wink:

----------


## allenhopkins

OK: I guess I'm one of the people who's at least interested in listening to the musicians who have bluegrass roots and backgrounds, but sometimes try new things (successfully or unsuccessfully).  From my point of view, you guys can like what you like, dislike what you don't like, and it's no skin off my nose in any case.

What prompts the responses that you obviously don't like, is when someone will bring up a question like, "Is there a place for drums/harmonica/electric guitar/whatever in bluegrass," and the answer is, "No! _That's not bluegrass!_  There's only one way to play bluegrass, and that's the way Bill Monroe (Flatt & Scruggs, Stanley Brothers, Jimmy Martin, Osborne Brothers, Jim & Jesse, Lonesome Pine Fiddlers, Carl Story, etc. etc.) played it in 1956!  Everything else is punk rock, folky-dokey, hippy-dippy nonsense that's 'no part o' nothin'!"

So I pipe up and point out, "Hey, didn't Flatt & Scruggs record with drums and harmonica at times?  Didn't Jimmy Martin use a brushed snare drum with his live band?  Didn't Bill Monroe make an LP with Grady Martin on electric guitar?  What about Wilene Forrester, the 'Blue Grass Girl' with her accordion?"  And then people say I'm trying to tell them they're narrow-minded and *should* like all these non-standard forms of bluegrass.

That's not true.  You don't have to like 'em, and it's pretty clear that you don't.  What I disagree with is the idea that *anyone* can "excommunicate" someone from the "bluegrass congregation" because they *do* practice those forms of heresy.

I enjoy jazz, but I don't particularly like "free jazz" with minimal melody and harmony.  I like classical music, but don't like atonal, dissonant "modern" composers.  I love rock 'n' roll, but '70's bubblegum, not so much. However, I'd never try to say, "That's not jazz!  That's not classical/rock/whatever!"  I'd just say, "That's a form of jazz, classical music, or rock that doesn't appeal to me."

Everyone is free to like/dislike whatever kind of bluegrass, or any other music, he/she chooses.  I would be the last (well, at least the _second-last_) to try to impose my tastes on others.  There are plenty of bands that play "classic" bluegrass, if that's all one wants to listen to.  There are other bands that try some different things, some of which work and some of which don't.  I might find those bands interesting, too.  You guys don't have to.

Remember, when Bill Monroe came out with his brand of music, there were certainly people who thought it was 'way too "far out," as compared to the Skillet Lickers or Charlie Poole.  Think of Frank Proffitt's quote: "I'd like to be able to play banjo like Earl Scruggs -- _and then not do it._"  Yesterday's _avant garde_ is today's "classic," and tomorrow's "old hat."  I like 'em all.

----------


## Mandolin Mick

Allen,

I'm not a Bluegrass only person, i.e., I played bass & keyboards in a Beatles tribute band,
am a classical guitarist, etc. I understand this isn't a religion, just music preference. But, I only like the old Bluegrass style, and didn't appreciate it when the fathers tried drums, harmonica, etc. I'm just an all or nothing kind of guy ...  :Wink:

----------


## allenhopkins

I agree with your first post: it's a free country and we can all like Flatt & Scruggs or Crooked Still or the Austin Lounge Lizards.  I will *never* criticize anyone for preferring the sound of Bill Monroe, to the sound of the Flecktones.  I just don't want to be told what is or isn't "bluegrass."  There have been so many experiments and side-roads tried, starting with the "classic bluegrass" sound, that we have everything from Ralph Stanley singing with no instruments at all, to Ricky Skaggs and his Giant Band, to the Charles River Valley Boys playing _Yellow Submarine,_ to _Berry Pickin' In the Country_ and Run-C&W, squeezed under the big tent.

I like some of it, you like some of it.  I'd guess our tastes are more similar than different.  I just get a bit concerned when people want to use their likes and dislikes, as the definition of the entire bluegrass style.

----------


## mandolirius

> [/B] I just don't want to be told what is or isn't "bluegrass."


How about being told what is or isn't "classic bluegrass".   :Wink:

----------


## Mike Bunting

Wish someone would tell me what blue grass actually is. Everybody voices their opinion on what is or isn't bluegrass but no one has ever defined what it is in musical terms.

----------


## catmandu2

This is the <politics of music>...not meant pejoratively, necessarily--only observing the manifestation.

We have some pretty strong attachments to what amounts to a picture of a <moment>. 

But as pointed out, the political manifestation_ can_ be a tedious and pernicious side affect of these discussions.

----------


## allenhopkins

> How about being told what is or isn't "classic bluegrass".


So: Blue Grass Boys circa 1946?  We all agree on that.  Flatt & Scruggs, well, yeah, when they're doing _Cora Is Gone_...but what if they're doing _Maggie's Farm_ with Charlie McCoy on harmonica and Randy Scruggs on lead guitar?  Jim & Jesse singing _Air Mail Special_ or _Blue-Eyed Darling,_ but what about _Maybelline_?  Country Gentlemen doing _New Freedom Bell_ (hey, wait a minute, is that Mike Seeger on _Autoharp_?  What's that doin' in there?), but perhaps not when imitating Clarence "Frogman" Henry singing _I'm a Lonely Boy._

Did Monroe stop being "classic" when he hired Bill Keith (and called him "Brad")?  Was Sam Bush "classic" with Poor Richard's Almanac or the Bluegrass Alliance, but _not_ with the New Grass Revival?  Were the Dillards "classic" until Doug left for the Dillard & Clark Expedition, and the remaining Dillards recorded _Copperfields_?

There are more or less traditional bands, and more or less experimental/innovative bands, and a bunch of bands that seem to work both sides of the street.  Went to hear Daley and Vincent a few months ago -- wonderful show, but a potpourri of everything from "straight" full-band bluegrass, to "brother duet" singing, to Statler Brothers gospel quartets, to cornpone comedy.  Was it "classic," "prgressive," "eclectic," or just *good* bluegrass?

Labels go on pickle jars, IMHO.  Like Justice Potter Stewart with obscenity, "I know bluegrass when I hear it."

----------


## Fretbear

These arguments are circular and become ridiculous; 
I am only going to make one post about it, as I disagree with some of the things posted.
All the recorded work of "The Bluegrass Album Band" (which includes Dobro-phonic guitar, sometimes twinned fiddles, and lead acoustic guitar) could be said to be an exact modern pure representation and example of the spirit of what the OP is trying to describe. 

It is not a matter of repertoire, evidenced by the inclusion of Jim Croce's "Age", for instance. It is an approach where all the relevant boxes are ticked, and a variety of sonic "options" are not (ever) included.

They are not included not because there is anything wrong with them, but because they simply don't belong there. If they are included, then the music style has changed. 

Which boxes are ticked and which options have no box to tick?

Volume 1 to Volume 6: "The Bluegrass Album Band"

I am reading a book right now by a feminist who makes an argument that feminism had gotten to the point where a normal hetero-woman was no longer allowed to act or express like one for various reasons. 
Too much PC "Everything is all right everywhere" ends up with "Nothing is right anywhere."

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

I'm with *Mick* all the way -but- whatever we say,Bluegrass will keep changing,it's as inevitable as tomorrow will follow today.Whether we like it is our choice. I hear more & more bands drifting away from the 'Trad. style of Bluegrass & playing with a more 'modern' approach ie.The Infamous Stringdusters,Yonder Mt.String Band etc.,personally i like it,but i don't need others to tell me to listen to it to 'broaden my horizons',any more than i needed somebody to tell me to play Bluegrass music in the first place.
   IMHO those persons are well meaning,they enjoy something & they want to pass that enjoyment on - so,_'let it be_'.
*Mike B* - I understand your question & the reasoning behind it.All i can say is that 'for me' if i wish to hear 'definitive' Bluegrass,listen to the original recordings of Bill Monroe & the Boys,when Earl Scruggs was first with him - that's the band sound that 'defined' the music that became generically known as Bluegrass,
                                                                                                                                                           Ivan :Cool:

----------


## Mike Bunting

> ]
> *Mike B* - I understand your question & the reasoning behind it.All i can say is that 'for me' if i wish to hear 'definitive' Bluegrass,listen to the original recordings of Bill Monroe & the Boys,when Earl Scruggs was first with him - that's the band sound that 'defined' the music that became generically known as Bluegrass,


 I am not asking for the names of bands that exemplify bluegrass, I would like a definition of the style.

----------


## allenhopkins

OK, then, Buddy Bolden and Louis Armstrong defined "jazz" before 1910, and those who brought different "sonic options" are playing something else that ain't jazz.  W C Handy defined the blues, and all this other stuff represents some impostor masquerading as "blues."  If we've got Bill Haley, Big Mama Thornton and early Elvis, that's all she wrote about rock 'n' roll.

Applying the "only the originator, and those who play like him/her, are *really* playing the music" criterion to other musical genres, is a _reductio ad absurdum,_ but you see where it leads.  It also denies the evident fact, that early bluegrass musicians also did a lot of experimentation -- for a variety of reasons, including commercial pressures from recording companies -- and produced music that differed significantly from "classic bluegrass."

I can't get away from the viewpoint that when people are talking about "classic" or "definitive" or "true" bluegrass, what they're really talking about is what they *like.*  And putting a Good Housekeeping Seal of authenticity on it.  I like it too, but I'm not going to say it's "the only _real_ bluegrass."

And I really haven't heard anyone say that those who don't like "newgrass" or experimental bluegrass-like acoustic music, *should* start liking it.  Like it, don't like it, hate it -- your choice.

----------


## Mike Bunting

None of you will say what bluegrass is, if you don't know what it is, how can you argue about it?

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

I hope that we're NOT arguing *Mike* -simply trying to get to the crux of the matter. We all know that _Bluegrass music is a_ _form of American Country music that took it's name from the band of musicians that Bill Monroe put together_.When Earl Scruggs joined the band,it gained immense popularity because of the Banjo playing of Scruggs,which was a revolutionary style at that time. 
  Over the passage of time,& according to *Neil Rosenberg*'s book "Bluegrass - A History",the music became known by the generic name "Bluegrass" because that's what the folk sending their requests in to the radio stations called it "Bluegrass" (style).As Rosenberg states,_it was the fans that named the music_.
  The sound of Bill Monroe's band with the inclusion of Earl Scruggs,is for most of us the_ "defining Bluegrass band sound"_ & that sound / style was imitated by many other bands.
  That's the best i can do re.defining the 'sound' of a Bluegrass band. Re.the 'style' - i'd say that Bluegrass music is very akin to some forms of Jazz,where all the instruments play together,each instrument in it's turn will play an 'improvised' solo,while the other instruments provide the 'accompaniment' - please don't ask me to define Jazz, i need to eat !, :Grin: 
                                                                                                                             Ivan :Chicken:

----------


## Mandolin Mick

Mike,

I think that our discussion is going where the Supreme Court was when they tried to define pornography and somebody said something to the effect, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it".  :Wink:

----------


## John McGann

If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance. That's why I carry a solar powered Taser™ in my case  :Mandosmiley:

----------


## Crabgrass

All music is constantly evolving. When do you take a snapshot in time and say, "_That's_ classic (fill in the blank)"? I mean, what we call American bluegrass is generally thought to have originated in the Appalachians. But of course, that music evolved from European forms, celtic, etc. Then it was _popularized_, another important moment. Then more musicians start playing it and inevitably put their own interpretations on it, experimenting with new instruments and forms, and so it goes. Which is the real bluegrass? 

If you try to define a musical genre by the instruments used, well, the modern piano didn't exist when most of what we call "classical" music was composed. But if the modern piano _had_ existed, you can bet your boots Mozart would have composed for it--and the electric guitar too. The folks who first started playing something we'd call bluegrass used whatever instruments they could get or make. Probably not too many f-style mandos in the mix. On the other hand, there might well have been a drum (!), since those are easy to make. 

I think folks are right when they say _they know it when they hear it_. To me, there's a certain feeling evoked by bluegrass, and as long as that's there, I'm happy. I do think there can come a point when you change so much, you lose the soul of the music, so to speak. Then you've got a new genre.  :Smile: 

I'm glad there are purists out there because I think it's important to preserve the original forms; I also salute the experimenters who want to take the music as far as it can go.

----------


## Marty Henrickson

> I am reading a book right now by a feminist who makes an argument that feminism had gotten to the point where a normal hetero-woman was no longer allowed to act or express like one for various reasons. 
> *Too much PC "Everything is all right everywhere" ends up with "Nothing is right anywhere."*


Thanks for this, I agree.




> If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance. That's why I carry a solar powered Taser™ in my case


_"Watch out son, I've got a taser gun...."_
Beck - "Taser Gun", from _Stereopathetic Soulmanure_ (definitely *NOT* bluegrass!)

_"....Any ol' place I hang my hat,
Is home sweet home to me..."_
Bill Monroe - "Brakeman's Blues" (definitely bluegrass!)

----------


## Raymond E.

I wrote this a few years ago when the WIBA thing came up.....still makes sense to me....Loafer...

What Is Bluegrass?


RE: I really don't know what this statement means so I won't try to
understand it. I do know that whatever folklore about the music that
I " subscribe " to suits me. Some of it I got from the recorded
efforts of lots of my heroes, some from stories told me by some of
those same heroes, some of it I was honored to witness first hand. I
also do not have one single problem figuring out what is or is not
Blue Grass music, never have. I have even less problems recognizing
the difference between good Blue Grass and not so good Blue Grass
music. Don't take a lot of credentials to do this. Don't have to have
a degree in a thing to hear the difference.
Blue Grass music has spoken to me in a very distinct language for a
lot of years. It's related to me, thank goodness, it's very heart and
soul many, many times. It's told me the way that it wants to be played
every time I ever tried to play it even when I did not know just how
to play it as I wanted to, this still happens. It's told me to
listen, pay attention, remember this phrase, keep this moment alive,
share it with those who can love it like you do, never forget how
hard it is to play right but also how easy it is when it is played
right. This music has sent me on many journeys in search of itself as
played through others, telling me, see, they know what it is too.
I've learned to understand the language when it speaks to me, and to
heed its advice, simple as that. It's sent me to places where I knew
the playing would be not as good as I would like but there are always
moments of magic you can find if you try, though sometimes it takes
all I've got to stay with it. Still it talks to me when I hear the
good stuff. I find it hard to think I'm the only one who hears it
like this and I'm sure I'm not but if you play this music, hear it
like I'm talking about, you don't need a soul to define what it is or
isn't. Worrying about this assinine question ain't going to help you
hear it or play it any better. If you're not satisfied that you know
what it is, find out what it is.
Blue Grass language is really very easy to understand, just take
heed when it speaks, it'll tell you when you're doing it good and it
will really speak loud to you when you're doing it wrong. Let's all
try to do it as right as we can and see if we can't quit analyzing it
to death.
You want something to analyze, I'll send a specimen------------

---Raymond (in a cup) E. Huffmaster

----------


## allenhopkins

Very heartfelt; bluegrass has obviously been a big part of your life.

Can this be adapted into a general descriptive definition that others could understand?  There are many kinds of music out there that speak to different individuals.  What if it's the blues, or jazz, or Gregorian chanting, that speaks to them the way that bluegrass evidently speaks to you?  

Sometimes I think that we can get so intensely invested in a particular kind of music, that we feel everyone should be able to share our love and understanding of it.  That's also when we start resenting others' suggestions that we "broaden our horizons," accept and love other musical styles, even critique the music that seems such an intimate part of us.

May not be possible to take that step back, to put our beloved music into some kind of perspective, to recognize that what seems so evident to us may be opaque to others.  And -- that we may be so close to the trees, that we have a hard time comprehending the forest.

People who don't share the intensity and immersion of our musical experiences, are not our enemies; they have a different perspective, and may have their own favorite musical places where they go for fulfillment.  We can meet on common ground, and accept the personal validity of viewpoints we do not share.

All of us "hear the good stuff," but it's not the same "good stuff" for each of us.  And immersing ourselves, hoping to "hear it or play it better," can sometimes keep us from hearing all the other "good stuff" that's out there, and that others love.

----------


## dcoventry

I've said it before, but I'll say it again.

The flash bang moment for me was seeing the Seldom Scene in 1991 at the Great American Music Hall in SF. It blew me clean away. That band with Lou Reid at that time was the best BG band in the land....to me. They played all kinda crazy stuff: Dylan, Motown, and a slew of Grateful Dead songs like, Rider, Sitting on Top of the World, Dark Hollow.......ahem, or so I thought! :Laughing: 

Anyway, that was my benchmark for arrangement, instrumentation, and level of skill. Those were my formative moments. THAT is my bluegrass. :Mandosmiley:

----------


## catmandu2

Allen's account speaks to me.  Being devoted myself to forms which elicit from the vast majority of people not mere ambivalence but often extreme aversion, it's rare that I meet people in everyday encounters who share my particular affinities.

I enjoy music of all types--so it's easy for me to find some commonality.  But much of the essence of musical expression that moves me stays hidden--I usually don't even mention my particular musical ambitions in front of people unless I sense they can have some awareness of a "foreign" aesthetic, as it usually is a means of alienation.  

What I find of particular value on forums such as this is the occasional opportunity to have discourse over matters musical that I find are more universal--realms of human experience underlying the creative impulse: it is here--well beneath the surface--where I anticipate that what aesthetic phenomena moves me does so in ways not unlike that for the classic bluegrass afficionado; while there are vast differences in type of medium, there is perhaps little difference in quality of experience.

It takes some getting used to--when 99% of people have intense disdain for the music we love.  But since the gulf of aesthetic preference is vast, I don't bother trying to urge people to understand.  I used to be an active proselytizer of riding bicycles, environmentalism, and many alternative lifestyle issues, and became accustomed to resistance and opposition over these matters.  An affinity for avant garde jazz is even harder to convey.

----------


## ralph johansson

> OK:
> 
>   Didn't Bill Monroe make an LP with Grady Martin on electric guitar?  What about Wilene Forrester, the 'Blue Grass Girl' with her accordion?"  And then people say I'm trying to tell them they're narrow-minded and *should* like all these non-standard forms of bluegrass.


The answer is: he did not. There were three electric sessions over a period of a little more than five weeks. Between the first and second there was a session with the BG Boys.¨

 The electric sessions produced ten songs, four of which were canned. Exactly how these numbers qualify as a "non-standard form of bluegrass" is not at all clear to me.Then you're using the word "bluegrass" so liberally as to render it completely meaningless. There wasn´t the slightest attempt to broaden, develop, or enhance the existing tradition today known as bluegrass, or integrate the electric guitar, organ, or piano
in that genre.

 Bascially one of the founding fathers of a genre was placed in an entirely different,
in fact alien, context, much closer to, say, the country music of Red Foley or Little Jimmie Dickens. Do you consider their music to be non-standard bluegrass as well? And what about Ricky Skaggs who had a much longer and much more successful country music period - do you consider that music to be "non-standard Bluegrass" too?

As for the accordion band (1943-early 1945) people tend to forget that it preceded all of bluegrass chronologically. The use of an accordion was very much in line with contemporary trends in country music. Not until Earl Scruggs joined the group 
in late 1945 can we speak of a genuine, separate tradition/genre - because that's the band others took off from.

There is good reason to use the term Bluegrass very restrictively today. Many musicians resist the label  because of its connotations of purism and parochialism, and we should respect them.  Typical in that respect are  Punch Brothers and The Infamous Stringdusters. And, of course, when people aplly the term to gorups like the DGQ, The Flecktones, or Strength in Numbers, it gets downright ridiculous. Do we need labels at all?

----------


## ralph johansson

> I am not asking for the names of bands that exemplify bluegrass, I would like a definition of the style.



Not a definition, really, but to almost quote Duke Ellington: If it sounds like Bluegrass, it is Bluegrass.

----------


## catmandu2

> Do we need labels at all?


There are only two kinds of music: dance music, and art music (somewhat facetiously)

Nice post ralph, thanks

----------


## John McGann

> Do we need labels at all?


We may not, but the Muggles seem to.

"How do you tell those fiddle tunes apart?"


"by the titles!"

Bless their hearts.

 :Mandosmiley:

----------


## bobby bill

> Do we need labels at all?


No.

A music label does not provide much more information than knowing the name of a stranger to whom you are being introduced.  There is some utility in knowing the name of the stranger, but it doesn't tell you much about him.

----------


## Steve Ostrander

The answer is simple: If Bill would have liked it, then it's Bluegrass. Everything else is no part of nothin'!  :Smile:

----------


## Crabgrass

> An affinity for avant garde jazz is even harder to convey.


Hey, I thought we were talking about _music_ here....  :Smile:   :Smile:   :Smile: 

Seriously, I do think there's value in defining the genre in its purest form. Otherwise, you might be in danger of losing it.

----------


## Scott Tichenor



----------


## Schlegel

> No.
> 
> A music label does not provide much more information than knowing the name of a stranger to whom you are being introduced.  There is some utility in knowing the name of the stranger, but it doesn't tell you much about him.


I'm going to have to disagree.  We do need labels, because there are more musicians working than one person can possibly be familiar with.  Are they too restrictive, or misapplied? Sure, sometimes.  But I need some sorting tool to help find music I like.   What I think is a mistake is to take a label and apply it as a rule.  It's just shorthand.  Music isn't a binary solution.

----------


## catmandu2

A "bluegrass taser" in hot pink oy veh? (in my grandmother's heavy Yiddish accent)

----------


## farmerjones

Bluegrass (to me) can be compared to the Golden Delicious apple. It's genus can be brought back to one singular tree. (in Iowa BTW) Bluegrass, by it's purist definition is music created by Bill Monroe and his Bluegrass Boys. Period, end of an ending. 
Stanley Bros. even claimed similar as "mountain (style) music." as to seperate themselves. What brings me to my point:

While we sit around the festival fires and spit into the embers, and argue/diss_cuss about who played it first, yada yada. The actual professional pickers and players of said music actually try to seperate themself's from the crowd. You can't make real money sounding exactly like somebody else. Not only that, it's dang tuff to even corner them into a discussion about this kind of stuff. It doesn't do them pros any good making one friend over here, and creating a hundred enemies over there. I really try to follow their example, by picking/playing three to four times more than i visit, around the campfire. 
Jussayin'

----------


## John McGann

Lithium! I'm due for an upgrade!!

----------


## farmerjones

:Laughing: 
Can that taser pierce through the bellows of an accordian, that's all i wanna know?
 :Smile:

----------


## catmandu2

Integrated LED light - illuminate _dark environments_

Now THAT is a handy feature...I wonder if this comes also with a hallucinogenic option?

----------


## mculliton123

I think it needs a metronome that cannot be set below 300 BPM.

----------


## mrmando

> My definition of bluegras is a simple kind of music that tells a story and is played with the instruments backing up the singers, not the other way around, what one would expect to hear if he came upon a cabin in the mountains after dinner and there were people playing music on the porch just killing time and entertaining them selves until time to go to bed, no TV`s, No computers...In other words play it like it was invented....


But that's old-time music. That's where bluegrass came from, but that's not what it is, or ever was. 

In bluegrass, a mandolin or a guitar can be just as loud as a banjo or a fiddle -- or even louder. To accomplish that, a band needs to have at least one microphone and understand how to use it. Bluegrass is a technology-dependent form of music developed in concert stages and recording studios. It was created not on front porches in the hills, but in the big cities by farm boys who had moved there in search of work. The '46 Blue Grass Boys sang about wanting to go _back_ to the old place, but in order to develop the right kind of nostalgia they had to _leave_ the old place first.

----------


## mandolino maximus

If that Taser has an "auto," we have a definition.  

If not, we'll just end up producing a lot of convuslive drooling around the campfire.  And that would rob banjo players of their niche.

----------


## allenhopkins

> ...Exactly how these numbers qualify as a "non-standard form of bluegrass" is not at all clear to me.Then you're using the word "bluegrass" so liberally as to render it completely meaningless. There wasn´t the slightest attempt to broaden, develop, or enhance the existing tradition today known as bluegrass, or integrate the electric guitar, organ, or piano
> in that genre...Bascially one of the founding fathers of a genre was placed in an entirely different, in fact alien, context, much closer to, say, the country music of Red Foley or Little Jimmie Dickens. Do you consider their music to be non-standard bluegrass as well? And what about Ricky Skaggs who had a much longer and much more successful country music period - do you consider that music to be "non-standard Bluegrass" too?...There is good reason to use the term Bluegrass very restrictively today. Many musicians resist the label  because of its connotations of purism and parochialism, and we should respect them.  Typical in that respect are  Punch Brothers and The Infamous Stringdusters. And, of course, when people aplly the term to gorups like the DGQ, The Flecktones, or Strength in Numbers, it gets downright ridiculous. Do we need labels at all?


If you put what I said in context, I was making the point that the people who played "classic bluegrass," and whom the bluegrass "purists" hold up as exemplifying the One True Sound, were a bit more eclectic than perhaps their disciples mention.  They strayed from "strict construction" at times, experimenting with different sounds, sometimes at the behest of record companies looking for greater commercial success.  Monroe's recording a few Jimmie Rodgers numbers with an electric guitarist, doesn't mean that he abandoned his basic band structure and musical sound.  But over his recording career, he included instruments from vibraphone (_Christmas Time's A-Coming_), to organ on some gospel numbers, to near-orchestral backup on some _Master of Bluegrass_ cuts.  He recorded duets with Barbara Mandrell, Waylon Jennings, the Gatlin Brothers _et. al._, also.

I don't have a definition for "bluegrass," much less "non-standard bluegrass," though I'd say the latter is probably any departure from the IBGMA-approved lineup and instrumentation, or the presentation of largely non-"country" material.  Just attended a show by the excellent band Nothin' Fancy yesterday, and they were, I guess, pretty "classic bluegrass" in instrumentation, singing and instrumental styles, yet in their show they did songs from Creedence Clearwater, Bob Seger, Bruce Springsteen, Bill Withers, Tom T. Hall, and a variety of other "non-bluegrass" sources.  I guess, from the band's history, that they have the Bluegrass Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, yet they performed material and put on a stage show that wouldn't have suited the Blue Grass Boys very well.

Maybe we ought to recognize that "bluegrass" is becoming a broader label, like "country," "jazz," or "blues," and adopt the "classic bluegrass" sub-genre designation for the most "trad" part of that spectrum.  I don't think that Grady Martin or Wilene "Sally Ann" Forrester -- or DeFord Bailey, also once part of Monroe's show -- "proves" that "anything goes, and you can still call it 'bluegrass.'"  I do think that departures from the "classic form" like this indicate that major bluegrass artists can test the limits of the genre -- or, rather, not recognize that it has such narrow limits.

----------


## Denny Gies

I would rather play "classic bluegrass" than eat, but have to admit i love Sam Bush and David Grisman.  So what does that make me?

----------


## mrmando

> I would rather play "classic bluegrass" than eat, but have to admit i love Sam Bush and David Grisman.  So what does that make me?


Hungry.

----------


## farmerjones

> I would rather play "classic bluegrass" than eat, but have to admit i love Sam Bush and David Grisman.  So what does that make me?


Just like jazz, to faithfully pay homage to the original, you must know where it comes from, to know where you're going. It's all good. 

The flipside being the little dude in the xtrnormal cartoon:
"i've got deep tradeeshawnal roots teuw. I go back to the first Neeckel Creek Album." :Smile: 

i'll bet IBMA officially lists a dobro.  :Crying:  :Disbelief: 

Slippery slope.
Dogs & Cats living together.
TOTAL MAYHEM! ! ! ! !
 :Laughing:

----------


## Mike Bunting

This story may be relevant. A few years ago, I was chatting with Frank Wakefield and Bobby Osborne at the mandocamp when Frank mentioned that he thought that Merle Travis derived his style from Mississippi John Hurt. I thought this was interesting and asked if they listened to much of this sort of music. Bobby responded that they were always listening to all sorts of music, looking for something that they could add to their own music to make it a little different so it would stand out from the rest. It looks to me like change or evolution in the music has been going on since the beginning and is indeed inherent in the music. Music is just the ocean and a particular style is just a wave (to paraphrase Jimmy Dale Gilmore). That being said, I don't think that it is a crime or even narrow minded to prefer to ride one particular wave.

----------


## mandolino maximus

Seriously, the general concept of classical bluegrass works for me / seems logical as in baroque, classical and romantic styles of "classical music."  Huge differences too between Bach, Bach's son P.D.Q., Handel, Vivaldi and Telemann within each era.  They refer to general periods of development over time - eras.  Pretty sure Beethoven didn't care whether he was old Classical or new Romantic when he used an altered concept of the Baroque fugue.  Also pretty sure there were endless discussions over all that too.  In the end, it may be more important to describe the music than the style.

Less seriously, David Grisman ain't no part of Sam Bush.  (Not that I won't be thrilled to see each of them.)

----------


## mrmando

> Seriously, the general concept of classical bluegrass works for me / seems logical as in baroque, classical and romantic styles of "classical music."  Huge differences too between Bach, Bach's son P.D.Q.,...


Um... Should I tell him?

----------


## Mike Bunting

> Um... Should I tell him?


 :Laughing:

----------


## catmandu2

> Um... Should I tell him?


 :Laughing: 

Well if this thread wasn't worthy of being archived in the annals of classic bluegrass discourse, it is NOW!

----------


## Brian Ray

> Bluegrass (to me) can be compared to the Golden Delicious apple. It's genus can be brought back to one singular tree. (in Iowa BTW) Bluegrass, by it's purist definition is music created by Bill Monroe and his Bluegrass Boys. Period, end of an ending.'


IMO, that statement--while almost certainly to be unpopular--is correct... except maybe the apple part.... Delicious irony?

----------


## DrEugeneStrickland

There were stylistic components  heard in Bluegrass music pre 1970 that are uncommon in most music referred to as Bluegrass these days.
Duets pitched in extremely high keys sung by men also trio vocal arrangements were not as common as they are now.
Solo vocal songs pitched high like Monroe's or in a crooning baritone type approach like Flatt,Martin,Smiley,Wiseman.
Bluegrass timing accentuated the down beat on some numbers and then the off beat on others,almost never do you hear a post 1970 band push the 1st beat harder then the 2nd in a song or tune.
Lyrical content often covered emotions other then relationships between men and women.
Instrumental fiddle music was a huge part of the pre 1970's musical landscape
Here in an incomplete list of Bluegrass bands working today( baring folks like Del,Wakefield etc who are left over from the pre 1970's Bluegrass world) who IMHO are playing "Classic Bluegrass" by my definition of it;
Davis Davis
David Peterson
Karl Shiflett
Danny Paisley
I would love to hear other suggestions for this list.

----------


## Mandolin Mick

Hey Dr.!

I think that David Davis is an excellent example of somebody today with that "classic" Bluegrass sound! I saw him and the Warrior River Boys do "In the Pines" so close to Monroe/Martin at Bean Blossom that you couldn't tell the difference!

----------


## Mandolin Mick

Mel Goins' Windy Mountain has the sound, but I understand if somebody would say that Goins is one of the fathers so they wouldn't count. I just like his current band, which except for him, is all younger guys.

----------


## JeffD

> If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance. That's why I carry a solar powered Taser™ in my case



 :Laughing: 
 :Laughing:

----------


## DrEugeneStrickland

It seems that none of the younger bands(20's-40's) are interested in capturing the flavor of the pre 1970's Classic band sounds... unless of course they get a job playing with a Larry Sparks or Melvin Goins or any of the groups I previously listed,this is very sad IMHO

----------


## JeffD

I kind of like the moniker "classic bluegrass". It makes a useful distinction in language that corresponds to a real distinction in music. Not everyone would agree, perhaps, at the borders, but for the most part there is little ambiguity in the phrase.

----------


## DrEugeneStrickland

I think most people know it when they hear it
unless you are listening to Doyle Lawson who's music wears a traditional suit but has little in common with Classic Bluegrass anymore...that said he always has a great band and is a great showman.

----------


## JeffD

> Wish someone would tell me what blue grass actually is. ...no one has ever defined what it is in musical terms.


It gets kind of dicey. We all know what a mandolin is, but for every characteristic of a mandolin we can identify instruments that lack that feature and we would still call them mandolins. 8 strings, except or the ten string ones, double courses, except for the single course ones, tuned in fifths, except for the cross tuned ones, played with a pick, except for the finger picked ones, small, except for the larger ones, etc.

----------


## JeffD

> There are only two kinds of music: dance music, and art music (somewhat facetiously)


body music, and mind music.

----------


## catmandu2

as perfectly exemplified by:

"possum up a gum stump"

 and 

"all the things you could be by now if schlomo's wife was your mother"

----------


## Mandolin Mick

Bluegrass or "it ain't Bluegrass" ...  :Wink:

----------


## JeffD

> It takes some getting used to--when 99% of people have intense disdain for the music we love.  But since the gulf of aesthetic preference is vast, I don't bother trying to urge people to understand.  I used to be an active proselytizer of riding bicycles, environmentalism, and many alternative lifestyle issues, and became accustomed to resistance and opposition over these matters.  An affinity for avant garde jazz is even harder to convey.


The relative acceptance by the general public can be a feature of the music, in a way. There are many things we may like because of their obscurity - or at least their obscurity is one of the attractive features. And I don't mean that it sounds different. I mean that we can sometimes enjoy our minority status as a fan. It can be almost fun to be misunderstood. To use our minority tastes in music and art as a personal defining characteristic.

Perhaps at those moments we seek not to be understood, but to be accepted. Or more strongly, we want a type of acceptance that doesn't require understanding. We want to belong without being compelled to comply.

I need a bourbon.

----------


## catmandu2

Yeah, well...it would have been nice to have a date to go to jazz concerts with...instead of all the time my jazz loving buddies...who mostly had heavy beards...

I'm watching the sun begin to set as I speak...well, write...seems to be going down a few hours early here this evening

----------


## Mandolin Mick

I'm proud to be an aberrational musician!!!

----------


## Crabgrass

Just listened to about 15 different versions of "In the Pines." 

The Sublime
Bill Monroe & His Bluegrass Boys. Just couldn't be more perfect.
Stanley Brothers. Outstanding vocal harmonies.

The Good
David Davis. VERY nice copy of BM's version. But of course, unless you add in something extry, the palm has to go to the original.
Peter Rowan and the Tony Rice Unit. Two mandos, very nice, what can I say.
Lori Lee-Ray. Nice instrumentals but the whole thing felt a bit flat to me.

Country-fried Folk
Louvin Brothers. Another great "sort of traditional" version, but drums and electric kinda ruined it for me.
Marty Stuart and the Fab Superlatives. Good Country Rock version.
Windy Mountain. Maybe it's the stand-up bass, but sounded a little "country" to me.
Joan Baez. If I was _lookin'_ for folk I might have liked this...

The Interesting
Atkinson Family. The strong female lead vocal and lackluster vocal harmonies in the chorus exempt this one from any claim to tradition I guess, but the girl has a voice on her, and the song gave me chills, twice. Plus I'm a sucker for slide guitar.
Leadbelly. Great. Just not bluegrass.

The Ridiculous
Dolly Parton. I love her but thought she phoned this one in.
Pernell Roberts. The "Oklahoma" version. Good for a giggle.
Jerry Reed. The Jazzy version. Oy vey.
Nirvana. I like(d) Nirvana but feel they should be heavily fined for this song.

In addition to it's other perfections, Monroe's rendition was the only one that got my foot tapping. All of the other "traditional" versions of the song sounded "draggy" to me. 

I'm sure a lot of my observations are wrong, but this was interesting for me.

----------


## sgarrity

This just never gets old to some of you, does it?     :Sleepy: 

Time to work on gettin' Blue Grass Breakdown up to Monroe's speed!    :Mandosmiley:

----------


## LastMohican

> This just never gets old to some of you, does it?    
> 
> Time to work on gettin' Blue Grass Breakdown up to Monroe's speed!


I've jumped into a lot of stuff here but this one seems like a classic "non-issue".

There are superb traditional acts doing Monroe and Stanely et al almost as good as Monroe and Stanley did. Audie Blaylock immediately comes to mind. Was listening to his version of "You'll Find Her Name Written There" today and it damn near killed me it was so good. The tradition is safe. The tradition is preserved. Let's all get some sleep.

And then there all the other bands (some who can a rip off a "traditional" set as good as anybody) that use some form of BG instrumentation and we spend hours arguing about what label to apply to their music. Really? 

My other passion is American performance cars and this is just another version of the eternal "GM/Ford/Mopar" argument that has rages now, unabated, for 3 generations.

Somebody wake me up when we get to religion or politics!

By the way: GM!

----------


## Dave Greenspoon

Ahh, the essential question of canon and boundaries is always a fascinating coversation for me.  That's one of the reasons I geek out on ancient writings like Enoch, Jubilees, and other such stuff.  In this context, I offer the following to muddy even further any sense of consensus.  The issues seem to boil down to 1) Terminology (genre, subgenre, etc), and 2) Instruments.

Hillbilly: My childhood was misspent in Jacksonville, FL one of the most redneck parts of the country imaginable.  Back home where sh*t-kicker country was standard, and even the boys in Skynyrd could pick, that "high-lonesome" bluegrass was often referred to as "hillbilly" music.  Yet, when I think of Hillbilly music, I think of Hank Snow on the Opry. Now, listen to old Hank Snow on _The Wreck of the Old 97_.  6 String, fiddle, Pedal steel, and an electric bass.  The first version you'll find on youtube sounds pretty downright bluegrass to me!

Progressive Bluegrass:  Who'se going to argue that John Hartford's _Aero-plain_ didn't cause of whole bunch of folks to shift gears even just a little bit?  Clearly it opened up Sam Bush's ears. And at the same time, no one dares to suggest it wasn't bluegrass.  But wait, there's Randy Scruggs on...ELECTRIC BASS, just like Hank Snow's band had!  And Vassar...on cello!...how many years before Crooked Still?  

And just the other night, I was in the room as my wife was channel surfing, and ran across The Fiddleheads on America's Got Talent.  Fiddle, 6 string, mando, and electric bass (yet again, dammit!!!  :Whistling: ).  They take non-b.g. songs and give 'em the bluegrass treatment. Does that make 'em bluegrass? (And let's not even discuss the entire _Pickin' On_ catalog!) 

At the end of the day, the identity of the Pure Faith of Bluegrass can be informed by the reality of Second Temple Judaism[s]: boundaries will be pushed, purity will be challenged, the genre will continue to evolve, and bluegrass will be whatever bluegrassers (however THAT is defined!) say it is.  

Having muddied the waters even more (I hope), and perhaps confounding a few convenient theories with some inconvenient observations, I think it's time to pull out some Old and In the Way...we miss you Jerry!

BTW:  MOPAR or no car!

----------


## catmandu2

Haha!

Well, you _could_ look at this more from the political angle...if you _want_ to.  On one hand, the OP is the equivalent of the declaration, "I like vanilla ice cream!--the only real ice cream...who's with me?!!"  But OTOH, it's the necessary process of nomenclature by which means we can communicate about things.  Humans identify with things they can comprehend--which is initiated by naming and labeling.  It's interesting the compartmentlaization we undergo on a daily basis, yet can't seem to separate ourselves from our mind's constructions on both matters of profundity but also levels of banality.  Do we imbue music with such power?  And if so, is this warranted?  Certainly, identification with "things" produces strong attachments--and such emotionally evocative things as music elicit powerful defenses.  But in some respects, this is the best discussion to have--especially since the "answer" is nebulous.  Questions without concrete answers tend to generate the most thought, IME.

I think at this point it's going to boil down to Dr Gene's POV that "there is no more" (okay, practically no more); Willie's "it's gong fast and soon will be no more"; and a more "liberal" perspective that trad BG is a recognized, respected, valued idiom practiced by many, and continues to thrive.

I can get a gig here in my town--where there are numerous BG bands--playing music as close to Monroe and Scruggs as I can (been playing FMB as a standard for many years--people love it.) and get paid doing it.  I'm not getting paid improvisng on my horns--there are few venues paying up front for much of this music.  Improvised jazz music is probably rarer then BG, but I'm not worrying about it "dying out."  It was always an outsider music.  Likewise, BG likely won't take over the world, but it will be played.  Living in a college town, I've observed that there are increasing numbers of young people with knowledge of BG--some even trad bluegrass.  Times change, people change.  Yes, they wear sandals...but some play and sing Bill Monroe.  If the future is a bunch of bluegrass hippies airing it out on some jazz standards, a little space-NOLA-funk, and then some OT and trad BG...is this so bleak?  Would you prefer "paparazzi, paparazzi.." all day and night?  In a Western wolrd such as we inhabit, traditional forms and representations reveal "obsolescence" at a torrid pace; no doubt we have concern for our sacred music.  But BG enjoys some degree of popularity at large--because although the social milieu which produced it is marginalized in both spiirt and mind, its cultural artefact remains intact and relevant.

Like any fervant devotion, Nostalgia requires tremendous loyalty to its method to preserve the myths relevant to its survival.  

It's a different game than playing music--this sitting around spitting by the fire.

----------


## catmandu2

On a related note, anyone hear any of this "electronic Cumbia" music?  Recommended.

----------


## Mandolin Mick

Let me put my OP a different way ... 

As a former rocker, I played professionally for many years most notably in a Beatles tribute band that played around the country. I'll make a comparison.

Most rockers accept the musical period in the the rock genre known as Classic Rock. This is the innovative period of the Beatles, Stones, Hendrix, Zeppelin, Moody Blues, Doors, etc. Even metalheads, grunge & indie people call the period from the mid '60's thru the mid '70's Classic Rock. 

It's not a matter of it being "Classic" because I like it best. It's the period that people look to as the "golden age", if you will, of the musical genre.

I believe the same thing applies to Bluegrass and am calling on people to do the same thing with this genre if for no other reason than clarity.

----------


## Fretbear

R & R (or "Rock", if you must) is way too much of a mongrel to try to draw those kind of parallels to bluegrass, and Robert Johnson pretty much invented it by himself back in the thirties anyways....
Jagger and Richards just stole Willie Dixon's songs and put their names on them...

----------


## John McGann

> R & R (or "Rock", if you must) is way too much of a mongrel to try to draw those kind of parallels to bluegrass, and Robert Johnson pretty much invented it by himself back in the thirties anyways....
> Jagger and Richards just stole Willie Dixon's songs and put their names on them...


You are thinking of Led Zeppelin, who stole from Willie and lots of others...I don't recall Jagger/Richards not crediting the original authors (all their publishing money would go to Marshall Chess anyway!)...but I may be wrong....

...but you are totally right about the uselessness of labels in general. "Rock and roll"- is that Buddy Holly, or Slayer? There are 500 subgenres of rock music, and there are plenty of subgenres of "Blue Grass music" in common practice now too. When you get right down to it, the true definition of Blue Grass music is the music of Bill Monroe. Everything that came from that, including Flatt and Scruggs, Stanley Brothers etc. is it's own music IMHO. The actual players and singers in these bands all create something unique, something that is of it's own time, and the core of the music cannot be duplicated by other people. I can enjoy the Bluegrass Album Band, but it is not the same music, even when they are playing the same songs.

Music is music, thank your lucky stars for it, have fun with it, and don't worry about labeling it. This isn't Hades, after all (although some act like it's Purgatory  :Wink:  ) There will always be keepers of the flame, and _like the originator of The Blue Grass Music, Mr. Bill Monroe, there will always be visionaries and innovators._

----------


## JeffD

A retronym is a phrase that re-describes something because time has gone by and the original word encompasses more. "StarTrek Original Series" used to be just "Star Trek". An "accoustic guitar" used to be just a "guitar". "Analog clock" used to be a "clock". A "face to face meeting" used be called a "meeting". "Snail mail" used to be "mail".

So now what we refer to as "classic bluegrass" is what used to be called "bluegrass". 

You would think the old things would keep their name and the new things would get the new name. But it seems its the more powerful ideas, like "bluegrass", that get expanded on till the original needs a retronym. Other names just go away. No retronym for "buggy whip".

----------


## Crabgrass

> BG enjoys some degree of popularity at large--because although the social milieu which produced it is marginalized in both spiirt and mind, its *cultural artefact* remains intact and relevant.


I believe bluegrass touches something in the human spirit that is universal and thus, to some extent, independent of the culture in which it arose. All good music does this. JMO

----------


## DrEugeneStrickland

Jeff you are really on the money now!!!
Very well articulated!

----------


## Big Joe

I might want one of those Tasers, but I have a couple questions.  First, if it is a bluegrass taser, it can't have a lightening bolt on it.  That's too gaudy!  Can I get one that is a real bluegrass version?  Maybe with an electrical cord and a 1000' extension for use in large jam sessions.  Second, is it any more effective than my .40?  If not, why not just use it?  Just like Bill, it is a 1911  :Smile:  .

Bluegrassers can be a bit eccentric at times.  Innovation is hard to bring to any genre where there are groups who insist it can only be done one way.  We see this in every style.  Bluegrass and Old Time are no exception.  Jazz certainly has its share of this same discourse.  Many are very traditional and have no use for fusion.  Country has become the same way.  I love old country music and cannot really recognize the current country from pop music.  Does that make it not country?  No.  It just means I'm an old fuddy duddy.  I guess my country is now called Americana.  That's fine.  

Innovation in the music and the instruments is an ongoing discussion on this and many other threads.  The good news is that the internet allows ideas to be brought forward to an ever growing number of people who have the opportunity to view and see other ideas and thoughts from those they may have only heard in the local jam sessions where they live.  Information and discourse can broaden ones views substantially.  It certainly has mine!  I don't think I am alone.  Yes, I still have my preferences, but I can at least understand the other point of view.  Just because it's my opinion does not make it any better... or any worse ... than anyone else's.  Just my opinion  :Smile:  .

----------


## mrmando

> An "accoustic guitar" used to be just a "guitar".


Yeah, maybe, but before that it was a "Spanish guitar."

----------


## catmandu2

> An "accoustic guitar" used to be just a "guitar". "Analog clock" used to be a "clock". A "face to face meeting" used be called a "meeting". "Snail mail" used to be "mail".


My grandmother, God rest her soul, used to say she disliked what became of the word, "gay."  Good thing she didn't live to see the day Coke brand coca-cola became retronymed.

To say nothing of euphemism, simulacra, and virtual reality...

----------


## mandolino maximus

> Um... Should I tell him?


Thanks for noticing.  I wondered if anybody would.  And no, sewer flute is not a bluegrass instrument - at least in the Bill Monroe/baroque era.

----------


## Mike Bunting

> You are thinking of Led Zeppelin, who stole from Willie and lots of others...I don't recall Jagger/Richards not crediting the original authors (all their publishing money would go to Marshall Chess anyway!)...but I may be wrong.... [/I]


+1. The first song on the first Stones first LP was King Bee and they credited it to Bo Carter. This is one thing that started me heading back in time to search out the music. Conversely, this started my dislike for Led Zeppelin who stole their songs from people who weren't rich enough to fight back. I haven't followed the Stones much since the early days (I have the first 7,8 or 10 albums still) but always respected their integrity in this area. I remember that they brought Howlin' Wolf to some teen rock film, the Tami Show, I think, and had John Lee Hooker open for them on tour in the 90's leading to a nice upsurge in his career.
 Sorry to meander off the topic here.

----------


## Mandolin Mick

John-

You don't recall Jagger/Richards not crediting? Don't tell that to Bill Wyman or Mick Taylor!  :Wink:

----------


## Mike Bunting

> John-
> 
> You don't recall Jagger/Richards not crediting? Don't tell that to Bill Wyman or Mick Taylor!


Actually, now that I think of it, perhaps you could add Gram parsons to that list.

----------


## mandolino maximus

> No retronym for "buggy whip".


I thought it used to just be "whip" until they started selling them in the West Village.  [Sorry, couldn't resist.  Love the words retronym and simulacra.  Can't wait to use them at the next Punkgrass jam.]

----------


## catmandu2

> ...retronym and simulacra.  Can't wait to use them at the next Punkgrass jam.


I think it would be a very nice name for a male/female performing duo...has that "timeless, yet contemporary"...feel.

----------


## John McGann

> John-
> 
> You don't recall Jagger/Richards not crediting? Don't tell that to Bill Wyman or Mick Taylor!


Oh yeah, putting the 'leader's' name on compositions of others in the band...a grand tradition in 'many idioms'...  :Wink:

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

From* John McGann* -_ ".a grand tradition in 'many idioms'... "_. It certainly is (was). Norman Petty,the manager of my all time favourite 'rocker' *Buddy Holly*,insisted that he be given either partial or total credit for songs penned by Buddy himself.The long term effect of this was that Buddy Holly received very little in the way of royalties for his songs,most of the money going to Petty. The ultimate result being that Buddy,strapped for cash,embarked on a winter tour that eventually lead to his untimely death,
                                                                                                                                                                     Ivan :Frown:

----------


## ralph johansson

> If you put what I said in context, I was making the point that the people who played "classic bluegrass," and whom the bluegrass "purists" hold up as exemplifying the One True Sound, were a bit more eclectic than perhaps their disciples mention.  They strayed from "strict construction" at times, experimenting with different sounds, sometimes at the behest of record companies looking for greater commercial success.  Monroe's recording a few Jimmie Rodgers numbers with an electric guitarist, doesn't mean that he abandoned his basic band structure and musical sound.  But over his recording career, he included instruments from vibraphone (_Christmas Time's A-Coming_), to organ on some gospel numbers, to near-orchestral backup on some _Master of Bluegrass_ cuts.  He recorded duets with Barbara Mandrell, Waylon Jennings, the Gatlin Brothers _et. al._, also.


Not sure what you mean by the third sentence. The elctric sessions were a complete departure from Monroe's idiom; he didn't push boundaries but crossed them into
something else. And it was the producer's idea.
. As for the vibraphone and organ examples, and the overdubs on "Last Days on Earth" 
these too were the producer's idea, although Monroe approved. If you want  examples of Monroe pushing boundaries you could start with the recording of a rockabilly tune, Sally Jo, because it was Monroe's own idea to use  the song and its composer 
on one of the Knee Deep sessions. And the significant thing about Last Days is the not the strings and chorus, but the song itself. Obviously Monroe thought of it as something very distinct from his usual repertoire since he used only guitar and bass in live performance.

One interesting change in Monroe's music is his interest in minor flavored pieces in later years. Before 1964 to the best of my knowledge  there is not a single recorded example in a minor key apart from the bridge to Cheyenne. Even Wayfaring Stranger was done in a major key in 1958, A flat to be exact. In 1964 he performed Kentucky Mandolin with Doc Watson, in g minor (or possibly dorian). HE also did Moonlight Waltz which progresses from d minor to F major. After that there are lots of tunes in minor keys, Land of Lincoln, Crossing the Cumberlands, Jerusalem Ridge, etc. The One I Love Is Gone is again very different from any Monroe tune before 1964, which in fact may be part of the reason he never recorded it. It has been hinted that Monroe had a lot of stuff that he was declined to perform  or record for fear of alienating his fans.

----------


## farmerjones

My favorite Big Mon story; he was telling somebody he had an idea of another innovative style of music in his mind, "completely different from Bluegrass" he never revealed to anyone to my knowledge.  What could it have been? Speculation for the ages.  


BTW - Mick, im on the trolley with you.

----------


## catmandu2

> What could it have been?


I have a strong suspicion that it was electronic cumbia.

----------


## Mandolin Mick

For some reason, I thought it involved a trombone ... seriously!  :Smile:

----------


## mandolino maximus

> My favorite Big Mon story; he was telling somebody he had an idea of another innovative style of music in his mind, "completely different from Bluegrass" he never revealed to anyone to my knowledge.  What could it have been? Speculation for the ages.  
> 
> 
> BTW - Mick, im on the trolley with you.


That would be an excellent queston to pose to Bill's forotten and ignored illegitimate son, PDQ Monroe.  ( IF I were clever, I could make a pretty good XtraNormal video of a musicological interview of such a mythical and important figure.  Might even solve many of the definitional issues for all time.)

----------


## allenhopkins

> ...And it was the producer's idea. As for the vibraphone and organ examples, and the overdubs on "Last Days on Earth" these too were the producer's idea, although Monroe approved...


Recording Monroe in 1951 without the Blue Grass Boys, and backing him with Nashville session musicians including drums and electric guitar, was apparently the idea of producer Paul Cohen; the sessions were generally considered unsuccessful, although several of the songs were issued by Decca as singles and later on LP.

My point, however, was not that Monroe came up with the idea for "non-bluegrass" recording, but that he *did* it.  Regardless of the source of the idea, and regardless of whether it turned out to be a good idea or not, Monroe (and other "founding fathers" of the bluegrass style) took some side roads, tried some different sounds, in a "trial and error" effort to improve their music, either esthetically or commercially.  Sometimes -- as when Monroe hired Earl Scruggs and Chubby Wise on banjo and fiddle -- they hit the jackpot.  Sometimes they missed the mark.

What I'm trying to undermine, is the view of bluegrass as a perfectly designed monolith of music, any departure from which is *by definition* a worsening.  And the reason I talk about Monroe's (and Scruggs', and Jim & Jesse's, and others') departures from the strict bluegrass canon, is to show that in many ways the disciples can be more dogmatic than those they follow.

----------


## Mike Bunting

> For some reason, I thought it involved a trombone ... seriously!


 I had read somewhere that he'd written something for Danny Davis and the Nashville Brass, so it very likely involved a trombone.

----------


## catmandu2

> ...disciples can be more dogmatic than those they follow.


When I was younger and followed bands, I remember being VERY disappointed when the new release of my favorites was a departure from the preceding recording.  Apparently, the bands had evolved or taken a new approach since their last offering, and it was always rather a shock upon first hearing.  I felt like Pete Seeger with his axe at Newport.  So often, we hear the indignant cries--"so and so doesn't even sound like so and so anymore!"  I remember John Lennon's cutting remarks to the media--you just want love me do, or I wanna hold your hand

It took a while for me to understand why bands were doing this; why was the band messing with "perfection"?  Artists often experiment with their approach--even if we don't understand why, or what it is they're doing.  It's a latitute we must afford to creative people.  The artist is usually ahead of his audience..

----------


## Willie Poole

Just look at some the new "Country artists"  They break onto the scene with a pure classical country song and then the promoters get a hold of them and produce things that have smoke, lights and what all...George Strait stayed country for a long time before he gave in, same for Allen Jackson...I have heard it said that is why Randy Travis, Garth Brooks and  some others retired at an early age because they didn`t want to give in to new tradition, if there is such a thing...Barry Barrier and Charlie Waller wanted to try the country scene and they didn`t approve of the contracts they would have to sign in order to get any noterity....The men with the money get their way most of the time....

   You can play it anyway you like but its the way it is presented that makes it bluegrass, playing scales and melodic banjo and drums just isn`t my idea of bluegrass...I will admit that there are a lot of Monroes songs that I can`t stand but there are more of them that I do like, the good ones out weigh the bad ones by far...

   There will never be an answer as to "What exactly is bluegrass?" as long as you are looking for a real definition....so lets archive this subject...Play and listen to what you like and call it bluegrass if it makes you feel batter....I know it when I hear it and I know when it ain`t when I hear it....Songs don`t get played on a country radio stations now days because they are "Too country"...Hows that? Just shows where the music is heading, one for all, and all for one kind of music I guess, just call everything music....

     Willie

----------


## JeffD

Willie don't despair. The real music has its own integrity and real heart. And music with integrity and heart lasts, no matter what the fashions and fads, and no matter what other contraptions they give the good names to. If the music itself has integrity and heart it will win out in the long run.

----------


## catmandu2

That is absolutely correct.  Of all the things in this world over which to experience angst and consternation, music isn't it.  Somwhere, there is someone playing music as close to Bill Monroe's sound as possible--experiencing joy.  We should be joyful from this, Willie!

----------


## John McGann

I think Bill Monroe himself felt pretty positive about melodic banjo, he seemed to really enjoy 'Brad' Keith...I think he liked hearing something other than the Scruggs approach once they split up...Rudy Lyle isn't very Scruggs style either...I love how within traditional (or classic) bluegrass, there seems to be enough room for personality, unless it's a band leader who wants everything 'just like the record', forcing the musicians to play copies of the original breaks, maybe on songs recorded long before the current players were in the band...well, it's their band so they can call the shots...I really like hearing JD Crowe playing JD Crowe since no one plays JD Crowe as well as JD Crowe. Jimmy Martin had no problem letting people know (i.e. in interviews) how much he preferred some of his older bands...it's a very interesting world   :Wink:

----------


## Big Joe

I thought he was going to start a "Cow Bell" orchestra  :Smile:  .

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

Bill Monroe did indeed enjoy Bill Keith's approach to Banjo. He'd actually found a Banjo player who was as different to Earl Scruggs (in much of his playing)as Earl was to his predecessor,Dave Akeman - "Stringbean(s)". I think that BM thought he'd got one over on his 'rivals' (copiers).
 Quote From *John McGann* - _"...play copies of the original breaks..."_. Many of those 'original' breaks became as famous in their own right as the actual song they were in. I could never imagine playing _"I'll Never Shed Another Tear"_,without playing Earl's 'classic' break. *Rudy Lyle*'s Banjo break in "Rawhide" is (to me at least) a 'classic' but apart from myself,i've never heard anybody play it exactly like Rudy Lyle & it's just NOT the same.  
   I don't know what your opinion is John,but i like to hear the 'classics' played like they were recorded. For me,it's not slavishly copying,more of a 're-creation' of the original. I've heard too many 'classic' Bluegrass tunes,dismembered & put together in an almost Frankensteinish way,that the tune ceases to be 'what it's supposed to be',& personally,i just don't like it - purely my feelings on the matter,
                   Ivan

----------


## ralph johansson

> Recording Monroe in 1951 without the Blue Grass Boys, and backing him with Nashville session musicians including drums and electric guitar, was apparently the idea of producer Paul Cohen; the sessions were generally considered unsuccessful, although several of the songs were issued by Decca as singles and later on LP.
> 
> My point, however, was not that Monroe came up with the idea for "non-bluegrass" recording, but that he *did* it.  Regardless of the source of the idea, and regardless of whether it turned out to be a good idea or not, Monroe (and other "founding fathers" of the bluegrass style) took some side roads, tried some different sounds, in a "trial and error" effort to improve their music, either esthetically or commercially.  Sometimes -- as when Monroe hired Earl Scruggs and Chubby Wise on banjo and fiddle -- they hit the jackpot.  Sometimes they missed the mark.
> 
> What I'm trying to undermine, is the view of bluegrass as a perfectly designed monolith of music, any departure from which is *by definition* a worsening.  And the reason I talk about Monroe's (and Scruggs', and Jim & Jesse's, and others') departures from the strict bluegrass canon, is to show that in many ways the disciples can be more dogmatic than those they follow.


I agree with you point in the third paragraph, but you chose the wrong examples. When Monroe hired Wise and, later, Flatt and Scruggs he was in control. He knew what these musicians were capable of and how they fitted in his group concept.
 As for the electric sessions he was unhappy with the arrangement from the very beginning. The historic significance of this experiment is that it was not repeated - unlike, e.g., Jim Eanes, also a Decca artist, Monroe was not persuaded to switch from grass to country altogether. And, surprisingly, he was not dropped from the label.

 Cohen and Bradley finally understood that Monroe was just not a singer playing a toy instrument but a band leader.

But again, I do believe that Monroe was trapped by his image and the mindless idolatry from some of his fans, and that his music suffered.

----------


## ralph johansson

> Quote From *John McGann* - _"...play copies of the original breaks..."_. Many of those 'original' breaks became as famous in their own right as the actual song they were in. I could never imagine playing _"I'll Never Shed Another Tear"_,without playing Earl's 'classic' break. *Rudy Lyle*'s Banjo break in "Rawhide" is (to me at least) a 'classic' but apart from myself,i've never heard anybody play it exactly like Rudy Lyle & it's just NOT the same.  
>         Ivan



That's something I will never understand. If I play a BG standard - I rarely do - it's only for what I can do with it. What other reason could there be?

----------


## John McGann

I think both Ivan and Ralph's points of view are totally valid, with positives and negatives to each, just my opinion:

• Recreating classic breaks: I think this is something well worth doing (crucial, actually) as a musician wanting to develop roots in a style, to get in there and really try and nail something the way it was originally played. This helps a player develop authentic vocabulary, and besides, once you are past the initial frustration (it doesn't 'just happen', it's a hard earned skill requiring real stick-to-it-iveness) it is just plain fun! It is also the tried-and-true path followed by musicians in every idiom from jazz to rock to you name it.

The downside of everyone in a band playing everything 'just like the record' creates a cover band, the spiritual twin of the kind cranking out the top 40 (when there WAS a top 40) in every bar and pub (where there isn't a DJ)...there's nothing wrong with 'tribute bands' playing everything 'just like the record', but it's not for me. 

Play along with a fast Flatt and Scruggs recording, and dang if it isn't "faster than it sounds"...those 'classic' bluegrass bands played a LOT, many of them several hours a day, radio shows in the AM and gigs at night, and it made them rhythmically tight and well acclimated to Blue Grass Fast Tempo™. To imitate that level of development ain't a drive-by or casual experience...




> This ain't no ***** hobby!


It _sounds_ easy because they found ways of _making it_ easy. That only comes with lots of time well spent.

• On the other hand, people improvising on classic bluegrass repertoire without a reference point of vocabulary beyond 'pentatonic scales' are rarely going to transcend generic noodling. Folks without a grounding in the style who can play decent rock, blues, country etc. coming in thinking "three chords, how hard could it be? Let's jam!" usually get a rude awakening if they have any awareness outside of their own wonderfulness  :Wink: 

I think there is a big Middle Way, where a player does their woodshedding, learns classic solos, absorbs the language and vocabulary and 


> stylistic doo-dads


  and then finds their own personality within the music, whether that is playing note-for-note classic solos, or creating their own solos that are rooted in the language of the music as played by the masters of the style.

I advocate 'worked out breaks' as a bridge to actual improvisation, since the 'worked out' part happens off the clock, and 'improv' is in real time. Getting off the clock lets a developing player put in the kind of thought and care into a break that can give it real resonance. It also shows a kind of respect to the music, that it is about more than being a vehicle for facile lick spewage (and I don't mean only classic bluegrass).

Again, YMMV and it's just my opinion(s) and $.02

----------


## Dan Johnson

The idea that bluegrass comes from one tree is just nuts! It's grass, not a tree.  :Smile:

----------


## Big Joe

Even Earl does not play Earl's breaks the same way every time.  Most artists don't.  Those who have great success with a song often complain about having to do it so often that they are sick of it.  However, the fans won't let them not play it.  That is why they come.  However, they can make it more fun by making subtle or not so subtle changes to the song as they perform it. 

I don't want to sound like Bill.  Only Bill ever sounded like Bill.  There are those that try so hard to replicate Bill, but even if you play the same notes you are not going to sound like Bill.  You can sound like you trying to sound like Bill, or you can lose your personality in the continued efforts to be what you are not.  That does not mean we should not have an understanding of those who have gone before, but it is far better to play like you at the best you can than to worry about being a clone of someone else.  Bill made music and Earl made music.  If we only try to clone them we do not make music.  We just play notes.  It is as much what was inside them as what notes they selected that made it music.  

I feel the same about forcing certain rules to a particular style of music.  Music flows and happens.  Forcing it to be something else does nothing for the musicians or the music.  Yes, we can have our preferences and love our musical heros and wish we could emulate them or be them, however reality has to set in sooner or later and we have to decide to be the best us if we wish to really enjoy the music.  That does not detract from the music, the original artist, or the genre.

A good example is the recent release of Dailey and Vincent's Cracker Barrel release of Statler Brothers songs.  When I first heard about it I was very disappointed.  These guys are too talented to be a cover band.  Most often trying to do what has already been done right will yield poor results.  Unless you can bring something new to the table it is just cover music.  Well, they did bring it on.  It was an incredible album.  They did do the Statler Brothers songs, but they did it their way and did it right.  It paid proper homage to the originals so it did not lose its historic place, but also added to what the originals had done in a positive way.  It was clearly the music of the Statler Brothers, but it was also clearly the heart and soul of Dailey and Vincent.

Keeping a close watch on the past while exploring new territory is what Bill always did.  He never tried to be anyone else, and he would encourage others to be what they were and not clones of him.  He did and was willing to show what he did, but his hope was that they would find their own voice.  Doing it "My Way" as Frank sang does not mean doing it wrong but transferring a performance from cloning to making music.  When that is done one rarely thinks about the actual notes played and how it was played before.  Just my opinion.

----------


## AlanN

On the bus one time (of many) with Dempsey Young, we were talking about music presentation, mandolin, tunes played, etc., he said:

We play what the fans want to hear, which is mostly our recorded output. When I play my breaks, I do it the way I recorded it - runs, licks, the whole bag.

Have seen the band through the years with him, he told the truth. His solos were note-for-note what he recorded - Wild Mountain Flowers, Love Of The Mountains, Left Over Biscuits, etc. And he was such a great stylist, he could have played anything and made it sound good. He chose to do it the original way, every time. And you knew what he was going to play before he played it.

So, it works both ways.

----------


## JeffD

Studiously re-creating something that was originally created spontaneously is hard! Spontaneity is hard to simulate.

For you literary types, there is a marvelous short story by Jorge Luis Borges about a man trying to re-write Don Quixote, without reference to the original. To re-compose it from his own impetus, his own knowledge, ideas, experiences and creative resources, and have it come out identical to the Cervantes original.

And there is a story from Don Peti (old timey dulcimer genius) about how he had a dream one night in which he wrote a great tune, and he awoke in the middle of the night and wrote it out to preserve this musical creation from his subconscious and went back to sleep. The next morning he found he had written out Cotton Eyed Joe.

----------


## farmerjones

Help me out: Did Don Peti pen Cotton Eyed Joe, or had it been penned years prior?

----------


## John McGann

Many/most of the great players in any style have cut their teeth learning from past players, and building on what they did- including the classic bluegrass people, they weren't hatched fully formed. Most individual stylists within "bluegrass mandolin" have spent some time with the Monroe style, for example Grisman, Statman, Wakefield, Bush, Compton who absorbed everything and created their own original and distinctive styles.

Of course, there's also Jesse McReynolds and Bobby Osborne, who had a great quote "you can't beat a man at his own game"- neither is a "Monroe clone", but you couldn't accuse any of the other Monroe-rooted players of being that, either...there is always room for individualism. Nobody 'has to play' like anybody else, that would be some serious Music Policing...my advice to my students always includes "get roots"...to which some wag added "...and fifths!"  :Mandosmiley:

----------


## Willie Poole

I had an audition with a band about ten years ago and when we went to practice I found that they tried to do a song exactly as it was recorded, we tried some Seldom Scene songs and the band leader told me , "Willie, you are not playing the break like John Duffey is doing it on the CD"....Every song they wanted to play had to be exactly like the recorded version, I packed up my mandolin and told them goodbye, Not many people can play a break lik Duffey did...These fellows were darn good pickers but never got many raves or bookings because they didn`t play their own style and the more they tried to copy other bands the more mistakes they made and didn`t sound much like any thing....A few years later I did have two of them over to my house and we recorded some songs and did them our way and it turned out great and they said they really enjoyed it that way and now those two have formed their own band and do things in their own style....and they are having a ball doing it this way....

   BTW,,, Allen, I play every song the same way each time I play it myself, I am too stupid to play any other way, I just keep it simple and never vary from the way I first played it unless we do some in a different key, then I might vary a bit...

----------


## Willie Poole

John, That part about adding fifths....The wrong kind of "fifth" makes my hands tremble and my eyes blur and I end up with a hangover the next day....Jim Beam never did play very well....

   Just trying to be funny like a lot of others on here....Willie

----------


## DrEugeneStrickland

I would love to hear more musicians who have studied the techniques and styles of the first big bang of Bluegrass musicians and create new and original music.
We have had 20 plus years of Bluegrass goes "Jazz" Bluegrass goes "Easy listening/Singer/songwriter.
The Acoustic Country Blues and Scots Irish flavors seemed to be totally devoid from the vocabulary of most of what is called Bluegrass,it is particularly noticeable in bands who's  members average age is 40 and under.
There is more Rock N Roll in Monroe's "Bluegrass Special" then in any piece of music recorded by Mountain Heart or The Punch Brothers IMHO.

----------


## Mandolin Mick

> The idea that bluegrass comes from one tree is just nuts! It's grass, not a tree.


Dan, that is *so* profound ...  :Wink:

----------


## allenhopkins

Quote attributed to Monroe, re: "cloning" his mandolin style:

_Bill Monroe to Frank Wakefield: “Well, you can pick as good as me — or nearly as good — so now you’ve got to go out and get your own sound.” (Luray, Virginia, 7-4-1961)_

And regarding Monroe's recorded departures from the "classic bluegrass" style: no one has ever, to my knowledge, contended that Monroe was a "puppet" of his producers or the Decca executives.  If he recorded some non-bluegrass material, it's because he acceded to their suggestion that a departure from his usual style might be (1) interesting, (2) commercially viable.  It was neither, and he went back to doing what he did best, with his record company's approval.

And, what about Earl Scruggs?  I think the Earl Scruggs Revue (which I saw live twice) was an uncomfortable joining of bluegrass and 1960's folk-rock, despite the fact that it often included top-flight musicians (the lineup I saw had Vassar Clements and "Josh" Graves, as well as Earl, his sons, and Jody Maphis).  But it was Earl, Randy and Gary's attempt to extend elements of bluegrass into other areas, and it apparently was commercially successful for years.  I imagine "classic bluegrass" fans were greatly disappointed by the direction Earl took, but, like other "founding" bluegrass musicians, he was willing to try something different, and see if it worked.

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

As much as i personally like to 're-create' ie. play 'classic' Banjo (& now Mandolin) breaks,there's no way on earth that i'd ever wish to play _'everything as per any recording'_. That certainly isn't my way. There are Bluegrass songs that we all know to be absolute 'carved in stone Bluegrass classics' - those are the ones which became 'classics' because folk enjoyed them _played like that_ in the first place.Those are the ones i love to play 'as they were'. All other tunes are up for grabs re.how i'd play an intro.or a solo, providing that they at least sound like the original tune & are well played. Even then i'd try not to stray_ too_ far away from the recording because some folk want to hear exactly that.
   In the genre of Classical Music,if you go to listen to a performance of any of the great symphonies,say Beethoven's 5th Symphony,that's exactly what you want to hear _'every time'_. OK,the tempo may vary at the whim of the orchestral conductor,but the notes are always the same. Why shouldn't it be so for _'classic'_ tunes in any other musical genre ?. OK,i know that some folk will say that there's a huge difference in the musical genres,but music is music & there are 'classic' pieces in every genre. Personally i think that they should be respected for being exactly that,& again personally,that's what i want to hear.
   There's a YouTube clip on here of Jesse Brock & another Mandolin player playing "Goldrush". I watched it yesterday & honestly,if i'd not been told what the tune was,i'd hardly have recognised _some_ of it. It's not that the playing wasn't good (Oy vey ist mir !! - i should ever play as well), but it was just too far from the shore for me. "Goldrush" was the first 'real' Bill Monroe Mandolin piece i learned & i'll stick with the way that 'Bill Played it',that way i'm sure everybody will recognise it. 
   I am categorically NOT against doing one's own thing,i do it all the time in back up,but respect the 'classics'. It's often seemed to me that folk who _don't play the 'classics' the way they were_,simply can't be bothered to. I know that within each of us there's the urge to be 'different' in our musical approach,but may the good Lord forbid any _Classical_ musician should take it into his / her head to re-vamp any of the Classic Concertos - i would however, love to read a review of such a performance, :Laughing: 
                                                                                                                                                                    Ivan :Chicken:

----------


## Joe Mendel

In the late 80s I attended a week long flatpicking guitar class in Oregon taught by Dan Crary. I was a little too green into bluegrass to know that Dan didn't fit the bluegrass mold exactly. I hadn't realized that guitar breaks were a somewhat new development in bluegrass. Dan knew the history of the music, but wasn't bound up by "the rules." After a week of listening to and learning how Dan flatpicked, his last advice was to not to try to play like him or anyone else. He said" Now don't go home and learn to play Black Monutain Rag just like Doc Watson, as soon as you start playing it, everyone will know it's not Doc Watson." Knowing the roots of any music is the key to being able to be play that style without be a clone (impossible, anyway) of what went before. We all have our own ingredients that only we can bring  and we all lack ingredients others bring. That's what keeps it interesting, if we all agreed on a defintition and all did it the same way, bluegrass would die a quick boring death. What a loss it would have been if Clarence White & Tony Rice had known and lived by the "bluegrass rules."

----------


## John McGann

Can someone edumicate me on what the heck 'bluegrass rules' are, who made them up, and what the legal penalties are for first offense, second offense, etc. so I can start saving some bail money? I have a bluegrass gig on Tuesday playing lots of classic material, and I'd like to avoid the truncheon, taser and water cannon if possible...

----------


## catmandu2

I believe there is no trombone, nor cowbell allowed.

----------


## Joe Mendel

John,
 As far as I've been able to determine, to know the "official bluegrass rules" one must possess the "one true" definition of bluegrass music. Once one has the definition, knowledge of the "rules" is automatic. I haven't been able to gain access to that club, but I do know that I am not a member of it.
Non-members are ever in danger from those in the know.

----------


## John McGann

Thanks Joe, it must be 'if you have to ask, you'll never know'.  My gig rider will now include two (2) armed escorts.  :Mandosmiley:

----------


## JeffD

> Help me out: Did Don Peti pen Cotton Eyed Joe, or had it been penned years prior?


 Many many years prior.

----------


## JeffD

> Can someone edumicate me on what the heck 'bluegrass rules' are, who made them up, and what the legal penalties are for first offense, second offense, etc. so I can start saving some bail money? I have a bluegrass gig on Tuesday playing lots of classic material, and I'd like to avoid the truncheon, taser and water cannon if possible...


Just stay away from these guys.

----------


## JeffD

> I believe there is no trombone, nor cowbell allowed.


And the double belled euphoneum, while perhaps tolerated in Reformed, is quite unacceptable in Orthodox.

----------


## Rex Hart

I've been through Blue Grass , Iowa. I didn't hear any bluegrass though :Smile:

----------


## Willie Poole

Ivan, you hit the nail on the head, the reason most all classical music sounds like the original is because it is played by using sheet music, bluegrass is mostly played by ear and after a picker learns a tune he likes to add his little bit of "extras" in there..

    I`m glad you brought up about Jesse Brock and Gold Rush, I litened to about 1/3rd of it and hit the delete button, I also try and play it like Bill wrote/played it...I had a fiddle player come by last year and I started Gold Rush and he stopped and said thats not the way it goes, let me show you, and he proceded to play exactly what I was playing, the rest of the pickers said they didn`t see any difference, I didn`t hire that fiddle player either.....I hear a lot of mandolin pickers that play five notes to my one and I hear people say "Boy, He sure can play good",  If playing a lot of notes and getting away from the melody means you are good then I will never be a good mandolin player....Hell I don`t even know what the term "Triplets" means, anyone explain it to me?  I probably do them and don`t even know it by that term....

   Willie

----------


## catmandu2

> And the double belled euphoneum, while perhaps tolerated in Reformed, is quite unacceptable in Orthodox.


An astute observation--and one that is perhaps easily overlooked.

Incidentally, trombone, cowbell, AND mandolin _may_ be deployed in cumbia fusion.  So, we can't be sure that Bill wasn't going in this direction on the bases of these alone.  No really.

----------


## allenhopkins

> Can someone edumicate me on what the heck 'bluegrass rules' are, who made them up, and what the legal penalties are for first offense, second offense, etc. so I can start saving some bail money?...


John, I know you're tongue's planted in your cheek (which is a violation of Rule #117, by the way -- _No sarcasm or satire permitted, unless performed by a bass player in a funny hat_), but a good place to start is *the SPBGMA band contest rules,* which specify which instruments are permitted, how many non-instrumentalists can participate, etc. etc.  So your harmonica player's got to go, and the guy who sits in on percussion, and I wouldn't bring that 10-string mandola, either.

There are a lot of other "rules" that aren't written down, but seem to be discussed, and to some extent "enforced" by acceptance or non-acceptance by more "traditional" bluegrass audiences.  There's a bit of a dress code, with the jeans-and-tee-shirt look being frowned upon.  There's a disapproval of anything "free-form," extended-jam (I always wonder how the traditional fans liked the Seldom Scene's version of _Rider_), or "hippie-dippy."  Vocal stylings tend to be tightly arranged, with the lead/tenor/baritone model being the most common.  As to repertoire, I used to think that "trad" fans favored the "my sweetheart run off, leaving me in the cabin with my dying mother and dad" model, but really, I think they accept songs from a wide variety of sources: rock 'n' roll (_Fox On the Run_), Nashville country, country-folk, generic pop -- as long as they're done "bluegrass style."

There are other taboos that are really fading away.  When I got into the music, there was a lot of resistance to women singing and playing bluegrass, but that's pretty much gone now.  "Keith style" chromatic banjo was viewed with alarm, but you don't hear that opinion much any more.  Lead guitar, once a rarity, is widespread.  Some still complain about electric bass, but a lot of "trad"-accepted bands use it or have used it.  Instrument pickups were also frowned upon, but with the improvement in microphone technology and the trend toward using a smaller number of mics, it seems to be less of an issue.

My contention right along, has been that the arguments over "what is bluegrass?" or "what is _traditional_ bluegrass?", are more about people's individual preferences as to sound, than they are over any consensual definitions of the genre.  I love traditional bluegrass: Monroe, Stanley Brothers, Hylo Brown, Osborne Brothers with Red Allen, etc.  But I can't make a case for taking my likes and dislikes, and turning them into some kind of overall definition of a broad, varied, evolving style of music like bluegrass.  Just my 2¢.

----------


## catmandu2

Well, after that good bit of clarity...only one thing can really be said:

Can I get that taser in custom tie-dye finish?

----------


## bobby bill

> the reason most all classical music sounds like the original is because it is played by using sheet music, bluegrass is mostly played by ear and after a picker learns a tune he likes to add his little bit of "extras" in there..


Not entirely so.  In most cases we can only surmise what the original classical music sounded like because we have no recordings.  And I assume you are using "classical' in the generic sense meaning long hair music going back several hundred years.  In the Baroque period, there were continuo parts for harpsichord, which simply showed the bass note and the chord, while the keyboard player was supposed to improvise upon this information.  Bach, in many cases, did not write down instrumentation (see Art of the Fugue), ornamentation, or tempos.  During the Romantic period, we would have piano and violin concertors with extended cadenzas - some written, some not.  And much of the instrumentation is entirely different.  The first time I heard Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata on a period instrument, at the first note, the whole audience leaned forward in unison to hear.  You could see the pianists hands moving but could barely hear the piano.  And the style of playing changed quite a bit.  It is my understanding that the heavy vibrato used on string instruments only became standard when people started recording.

Maybe we should have a category called classic classical.

----------


## AlanN

I do see fewer electric basses on stage in the past few years. Maybe more guitar-type basses, but the days of the Fender bass in the back are pretty much kaput. I love Doyle's first record as a leader, but the bass makes it tough to listen to. 3TO dropped the electric bass some years ago.

----------


## doc holiday

Allen, I love Hylo Brown's singing as well, although I'm sure the Bluegrass Police would have written a major ticket for the felony of using do-wop girls in "I've Waited as Long As I Can"........and any jury would have upheld the charge... ;-)

----------


## farmerjones

We can prolly get to page 14 if we discuss 1 mike vs. everybody miked.
Where did that come from? The Opry had more than one mike. Must've come from tent shows?
But truely, that's as much a part of "Classic Bluegrass" as the drivin' 5.

----------


## Mandolin Mick

Bluegrass Rules? How about  ... you cannot play chop chords with open strings ...  :Wink:

----------


## allenhopkins

> Allen, I love Hylo Brown's singing as well, although I'm sure the Bluegrass Police would have written a major ticket for the felony of using do-wop girls in "I've Waited as Long As I Can"........and any jury would have upheld the charge... ;-)


Yeah, but the man who wrote the _Grand Ole Opry Song_ --  a bluegrass immortal:
_There'll be git-tars, and fiddles, and banjo pickin' too,
Bill Monroe singin' out them ole Kentucky blues;
Ernest Tubb's number,_ Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right,_
On the Grand Ole Opry every Saturday night._

Gotta love a song that celebrates Bradley Kincaid!

----------


## Big Joe

Hey John... The Bluegrass Rules are a top secret commodity known only to the enforcers.  They could tell you what they are but then they would have to kill you  :Smile:  .  My earliest memory of how to play was simple.  There are no rules.  If there were, they should be broken.  That may be why I work on guitars rather than "work" with guitars  :Smile:  .

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

From *John McGann* -_ "and what the legal penalties are for first offense, second offense...."_. You get forced to listen to a  band dismembering  every Bluegrass 'classic' ever written.
  From *farmerjones* - _"We can prolly get to page 14 if we discuss 1 mike vs. everybody miked."_. That point's been discussed in another thread quite recently,but,let's go fo it - _One mic. is my vote_. Last year i attended a Bluegrass festival over here in the UK where one band actually had 12 mics. on board for their sets. The band that everybody cheered for however,was the band lead by the great Italian Bluegrass Mandolin player,Massimo Gatti, _"Bluegrass Stuff"_  - they used one mic.to perfection - awesome to watch, & everybody could hear everything !.
    From *bobby bill* - [I]"meaning long hair music going back several hundred years...".[I] The only 'long hair music' i'm familiar with is the Hippy period in the late '60'2 early '70's,exemplified for me at the time in 'Folk' music by James Taylor & in Bluegrass by the original 'New Grass Revival' in the '70's.
*  Allen* - I'm a dyed in the wool,100%, 24 carat 'trad' Bluegrass fan,but songs such as "Rider" by the Seldom Scene & "I Just Saw a Face", the Beatles song done so well by many bands are terrific. They're not 'trad' songs,but_ modern songs_ performed with 'trad.' instruments in a way that suits the song - i'll go for that every time.My beef, (a very small one), is with the  'trad.' bands who don't / can't perform 'classic' Bluegrass tunes in a way that's identifiable - half a bar into a 'classic' tune, & you don't know what the h**l it is  - & we've all heard 'em,
                                                                 Ivan :Disbelief:

----------


## John McGann



----------


## catmandu2

That reminds me John...be sure not to gyrate your hips.  I believe if you do this even the least bit perceptibly you will cross the threshold into somagrass.

Tapping your foot is okay.  

Hmm...here's an effort at defining the levels of animation:  One (1) being SPBGMA allowable, to ten (10) being no part a nuthin..


1. Complete stoicism (foot tapping okay)
2. Foot tapping with rotating ankle
3. knee articulation
4. alternating or bliateral knee articulation
5. slightly perceptible head bob (not more than one per measure)
6. head bob (frequent, up to one per beat)
7. head bob on every beat (with or without facial contortion of ecstasy or near-ecstasy)
8. head bob with facial and cervical rotation
9. any three from above with cervical rotation and flip-flops
10. hip gyration OR buttocks contraction

I think once you get up to around 4 or 5, you're cruisin for a tasin

----------


## Schlegel

> 1. Complete stoicism (foot tapping okay)
> 2. Foot tapping with rotating ankle
> 3. knee articulation
> 4. alternating or bliateral knee articulation
> 5. slightly perceptible head bob (not more than one per measure)
> 6. head bob (frequent, up to one per beat)
> 7. head bob on every beat (with or without facial contortion of ecstasy or near-ecstasy)
> 8. head bob with facial and cervical rotation
> 9. any three from above with cervical rotation and flip-flops
> ...


Remember, for accuracy you should annually recalibrate your scale using Tony Rice and Sam Bush.

----------


## catmandu2

BTW, it's okay for the bass player to do ANY of these, and any other antics they may conceive...even playing "jazz"...as long as we play the I/V on the downbeat...you guys don't know WHAT we're doing in between...   :Wink:   My bandmates have no idea how often I'm working out my chakra behind them.   :Cool:

----------


## Crabgrass

Hate to ask what the fine would be for using a slide or a bow on a mando....  :Smile:

----------


## Willie Poole

Ivan, we seem to think alike...I`d like to meet you but I can`t come to England to do it...SO....Do you live there permently or are you there in the Armed Forces or business?

    Willie

----------


## Mike Bunting

> That reminds me John...be sure not to gyrate your hips.  I believe if you do this even the least bit perceptibly you will cross the threshold into somagrass.
> 
> Tapping your foot is okay.  
> 
> Hmm...here's an effort at defining the levels of animation:  One (1) being SPBGMA allowable, to ten (10) being no part a nuthin..
> 
> 
> 1. Complete stoicism (foot tapping okay)
> 2. Foot tapping with rotating ankle
> ...


 This one is all theway up to ten!
http://youtu.be/9hmQsSRcPrQ

----------


## Mike Bunting

Failed attempt to embed the video

----------


## Mike Bunting

It may not qualify as real classic grass, but he sure is breaking some of catmandu2's rules!  :Smile:

----------


## catmandu2

Please bear in mind--these are not necessarily advocated by me personally; I'm merely trying to devise a tenable system, based upon data I've gathered here.

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

Hi *Willie* - I'm afraid i'm a permanent fixture - UK born & bred, although my father from Pittsburgh,PA, was a soldier in the US Armed Forces Signals Corps. He unfortunately didn't survive WWII. His best army buddy,Earl Beulah,who married my mother's best friend,did survive & returned to the US to live in Witchita,Kansas.After Earl's death,Gwen,his wife, eventually re-married & now lives in St Louis,Missouri.
   My 'original' 'Cafe name was *Saska*,That was my father's surname - he was Polish American. After my father's passing,my name was changed to my mother's family name (under duress from my Grandfather).So,my given name at my christening was Ivan Saska. I've often thought about changing it back,but at 66 years old,what's the point ?,
                                                                                                                      Ivan

----------


## Mandolin Mick

Ivan,

I had to read that several times to digest all of that ... very interesting!  :Smile:

----------


## Marty Henrickson

> Hi *Willie* - I'm afraid i'm a permanent fixture - UK born & bred, although my father from Pittsburgh,PA, was a soldier in the US Armed Forces Signals Corps. He unfortunately didn't survive WWII. His best army buddy,Earl Beulah,who married my mother's best friend,did survive & returned to the US to live in Witchita,Kansas.After Earl's death,Gwen,his wife, eventually re-married & now lives in St Louis,Missouri.
>    My 'original' 'Cafe name was *Saska*,That was my father's surname - he was Polish American. After my father's passing,my name was changed to my mother's family name (under duress from my Grandfather).So,my given name at my christening was Ivan Saska. I've often thought about changing it back,but at 66 years old,what's the point ?,
>                                                                                                                       Ivan


Very interesting story, Ivan.  I think there's a song in there somewhere.

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

From *Marty H*. -_ "I think there's a song in there somewhere."_  Oh Lord ! - how depressing !!!, :Frown: 
                                                                                                                                            Ivan :Popcorn:

----------


## Marty Henrickson

> From *Marty H*. -_ "I think there's a song in there somewhere."_  Oh Lord ! - how depressing !!!,
>                                                                                                                                             Ivan


Well, we ARE talking about bluegrass, right?  Think about it.

----------

