Chris Pandolfi on the State of Bluegrass

[BradKlein]

Well, I went back and read the material that Scott linked to in post #16. There are some folks giving some hard thought to all this marketing stuff -- and it's far beyond me to predict if it leads to anything or not. I have gone out and listened to a few more of the bands that have some distant connection to bluegrass but that I had never heard, and that's always worthwhile.

[mandolirius]

What I get from this lengthy blog post is that Pandolfi and his mates resist being labeled as "Bluegrass" - their audience is elsewhere.
This seems to be a trend among younger players with BG backgrounds, and I wholly sympathize. An even more obvious case is the Punch Brothers. "We're not a Bluegrass band". They're not a jazz band, nor a choro ensemble, nor a klezmer band, nor a mariachi band -
lots o things they aren't, but the one thing they really don't play is Bluegrass.

The reason I resist the current much too liberal use of the label "bluegrass" is not purism but respect for the musicians, their creativity and open minds. Louise Scruggs: "Bluegrass is a very limiting word". I would like to see BG as only one narrow segment of the broader genre of Contemporary American String Band Music. And I would like to see more interaction between its various segments.

Well that's another reason for adopting the label "Traditional Bluegrass". That way there wouldn't be as much need to preserve or protect the label "Bluegrass" and it could expand to include some of its offshoots.

[Mike Bunting]

Why don't all the young'uns just make up a new name, I don't know, something like Newgrass.

[Markus]

Well that's another reason for adopting the label "Traditional Bluegrass". That way there wouldn't be as much need to preserve or protect the label "Bluegrass" and it could expand to include some of its offshoots.

That's an IBMA I might look into being a part of.

I really like the term `traditional bluegrass'.

Either it's like Bill or Lester and Earl or the others ... or it's not traditional bluegrass, it's the larger `bluegrass' genre which can range pretty far and still be under the same tent.

As far as I've encountered going to shows here, I've seen IBMA Bluegrass winners here that ranged from all gospel tunes [I like a little Saturday night with my Sunday morning at very least] to soft country to pretty full-on country ... none of which I am a fan of. While top-flight musicians, it's hard not to feel cheated and I've learned to be wary on going to `bluegrass' shows I didn't know. [Skaggs all-gospel tunes, AKUS, Jim Lauderdale right after winning IBMA award for the first examples that come to mind]

There's also Del, I saw JD Crowe a couple summers ago ... what I would call traditional bluegrass and would go to see an unknown band play without hesitation. Yet, I've been burned thinking IBMA association or awards meant a thing - if it was `traditional bluegrass' I would attend a whole lot more shows. I'm a parent of a young child, finances are tight ... when I was in my 20's/30's I could waste time/money on non-guaranteed shows. Now, I'm more likely to see a friend's BG band than take the chance and spend the dollar on top-flight but unknown bluegrass as that term is watered too thin already to my ear. I miss some great shows ... but the IBMA bluegrass association is mostly useless without research IME.

IMO - IBMA : A stamp of quality, but unknown product.

I would actually like accidentally running into the Stringdusters. I went to a random `bluegrass' show at a small bar that had nightly music about 10 years ago and accidentally chanced upon the Avett Brothers on their first time through this part of the country - maybe 30 people. No IBMA association but the term bluegrass ... I've had good random shows by going to `random bluegrass' shows, but over my 16 years of going to local bluegrass shows have come to be skeptical at the IBMA label [great great talent, but what kind of music?].

Just my opinion, I'm no expert. I came to bluegrass in my 20's [after living overseas for a while] and while I've seen a lot of shows I haven't road-tripped for it.

This is a great discussion, as we are the people carrying the tradition on as artists influenced by the originators. Then again, while my ear loves traditional bluegrass I probably play big-tent bluegrass

[Dan Johnson]

"shoemaker, stick to thy last..."

also...

"If a Newgrass band plays 'Rawhide' in the woods, and there's no one there to criticize it, is it still Newgrass?"

[mandolirius]

Why don't all the young'uns just make up a new name, I don't know, something like Newgrass.

The problem with any label with "new" in it is, at some point, it no longer is.

[lmartnla]

Numerous posters mentioned the advanced age of many in the traditional bluegrass audience. It is true. I'm sorry I am old. Despite it's many benefits, I'd enjoy being a bit younger again. But some of you seem to resent us overmuch. Rejection of labels or wanting to broaden labels is somewhat counterproductive. Labels have a function. They tell us that what we are likely to hear may be like something we have enjoyed in the past and want more of, or something new we may want to experience. Change within the label too much and you end up with inclusion of things your audience would prefer to avoid. Bluegrass is roots music and should remain as such. It embraces those who are learning their roots and those who seek to return to their roots. Most roots music genres struggle with the same issues dealt with in this thread. Blues, traditional jazz, cajun, zydeco, old time, bluegrass, traditional country. They don't get the radio play, sell out large venues, or hold young audiences. But they still influence new musicians who absolutely must explore their roots because they absorbed this in the womb and their formative years. It is the soul and pleasure in the music and the starting point for their journey, the reference point for their anchorage. God forbid you should destroy them. You can't anyway. Music is a journey. Audiences and musicians migrate continually through genres throughout their lives as they expand their knowledge and horizons. Some of my transitions have been Nursery rhymes, cowboy, symphonic, country, rock and roll, pop, folk, bluegrass, rock, disco, blues. All contain some element of each other, the roots. We encounter them at different times depending on our families and regions. We appreciate them according to our companions and temperament. Full time Musicians must find a paying audience via a label, a venue, a medium, a message, whatever. It jolts us when they change drastically seeking that payday and when they change drastically seeking new creative directions. A fan may follow a performer no matter what music they present or may get turned off, or may themselves change and seek a new sound. There may be no satisfactory answer, but I am happy to have my roots.

[Mike Bunting]

The problem with any label with "new" in it is, at some point, it no longer is.

Well, it used to be! That's why "Traditional" is the best, it never gets obsolete. "New" was good enough for Sam though, or is he too old now too? I suppose he plays Tradnewgrass now.

[allenhopkins]

...some of you seem to resent us overmuch. Rejection of labels or wanting to broaden labels is somewhat counterproductive. Labels have a function. They tell us that what we are likely to hear may be like something we have enjoyed in the past and want more of, or something new we may want to experience. Change within the label too much and you end up with inclusion of things your audience would prefer to avoid. Bluegrass is roots music and should remain as such...Most roots music genres struggle with the same issues dealt with in this thread. Blues, traditional jazz, cajun, zydeco, old time, bluegrass, traditional country. They don't get the radio play, sell out large venues, or hold young audiences...God forbid you should destroy them...I am happy to have my roots.

No one that I've heard "resents" bluegrass fans for being older. As a fairly eclectic musician and fan, closing in on age 70, I'd be on shaky ground doing that! And no one is trying to "destroy" any traditional music style. But just as Bennie Goodman fans may have said of Charlie Parker, "That ain't jazz!" and yet we now see bebop as a vital part of the jazz idiom, we have old-line bluegrass fans saying of the more experimental bands, "That ain't bluegrass!" Not that it's a kind of bluegrass that they don't happen to like, or that it's avant-garde bluegrass and they're traditionalists, but that it's somehow outside the range of acceptability. Comparatively, a definition of "blues" that can include Keb' Mo', B B King, Stevie Ray Vaughn and John Mayall is positively "big tent" and inclusive. "Jazz" apparently can include King Oliver and Sun Ra, Bix Biederbecke and Archie Shepp, without public prosecution for heresy.

What I think some of the old-line bluegrass fans don't realize, is that orthodoxy and exclusivity have the effects of chasing some of the more creative musicians away -- musicians who might bring some energy to the genre, broaden its audience, enlarge its niche. The discussions Pandolfi talks about among the Stringdusters are probably echoed in other "edge" bluegrass bands: "Do we want to continue to be a 'bluegrass' band, accepting the limitations of that label, or do we want to become an 'acoustic-roots-Americana-jam-eclectic' band, or whatever, and get to play some new places and win some new fans?" Because it's hard when the label "bluegrass band" actually restricts a band's options, rather than offering additional possibilities.

Defining a musical genre restrictively, may result in defining it out of existence. Any musical style needs continual transfusions of talent, creativity and fan base. As a long-time folkie, I look around at my peers' gray locks, and wonder where the next generation of folkies will come from. Ditto bluegrassers. The last remnants of the "first generation" are passing from the scene. So, "teach your children well," and let them flourish.

[Mandolin Mick]

I like the term "Traditional Bluegrass". "Classic Rock" seems to work for the rockers.

[Mike Bunting]

It seems to me that it is a fairly pointless discussion to have when no one has actually defined what blue grass is in musical terms. I watched a YouTube of Yonder Mountain doing their tune Angel which seemed to be pretty much a riff based tune which for me would put in the blues and rock area. Are you all defining blue grass by the instruments in a typically bg band? What about the basic rhythms of BG?. We're just having the old discussion of what is bluegrass without coming out and asking the question. How can one say that a band such as the aforementioned YMSB is bluegrass without ever saying what bluegrass is. It seems to be an assumption that we all know what it is and I don't believe that we all have the same assumption about it at all.

[Charlieshafer]

It seems to me that it is a fairly pointless discussion to have when no one has actually defined what blue grass is in musical terms.

That's pretty true! Which makes it all the more interesting as to why the die-hard traditionalists in any genre are so hard-core in their beliefs. What exactly are they defending? Certain instruments? Certain rhythms? Performers of a certain age? Alan was right to say age has nothing to do with music attracting listeners. 50-70 year-old folks are still digging rock more than other genres, as indicated by attendance numbers and demographic studies done by larger venues.

It was suggested above that all the genres have a dying traditional core, but i don't see that in old-time, where many new artists are exploring. Cajun is also undergoing quite the revival.

In all, the most fascinating thing about this discussion (and it is a good one) is how so many people can be so passionate about something so vague.

[ralph johansson]

I like the term "Traditional Bluegrass". "Classic Rock" seems to work for the rockers.

"Traditional Bluegrass" sounds like a pleonasm to me. If the word "Bluegrass" is to mean anything it denotes a tradition, starting with Monroe's band of late 1945. It became a tradition when others modeled themselves on that band adding their own touches. A tradition can only survive by change, and it has, in spite of the sad shape of the genre in the 70's. There's a clear historic line connecting Bill Monroe with Cadillac Sky, hence the music of the latter group (which is downright archaic in places!)
is just as "traditional" as that of any other BG group.

[250sc]

"That's why "Traditional" is the best, it never gets obsolete. "

This comment fails the logic test. "Traditional" tries to stop change and revert to the past. Change is the only constant you can count on. Nothing stays the same for very long (relitive term) and you can't go back, though you can pretend.

[Mike Bunting]

"That's why "Traditional" is the best, it never gets obsolete. "

This comment fails the logic test. "Traditional" tries to stop change and revert to the past. Change is the only constant you can count on. Nothing stays the same for very long (relitive term) and you can't go back, though you can pretend.

It was a joke.

[AlanN]

Saying what bluegrass is ain't no joke, never has been. Just ask some of the characters on this here board

[mandocrucian]

It's hard to blame music politics when older and more conservative bluegrass fans (of which there are quite a lot) just don't feel comfortable at shows dominated by hippies and frat-boys dancing around, talking throughout the show, and doing lots of drugs and booze...not that there's any thing wrong with that IMO mind you

It's all politics (on a much wider level).... just another aspect of the "culture war". Sonic output is secondary to cultural signals (i.e. material, worldview, dress, stage attitude, visual cues, regional speech dialect/accent........)

"Wrote a song about it, wanna hear it? here it go" (Blind Lemon Chitlin'):
"Mama don't 'low no hippies/(or fill in your dislikes)/_______/ picking round here....."

[250sc]

Sorry, without emoticons and not being prefaced with "Three guys walk into a bar and ......." I had no way of recognizing it as humor. Please carry on. :-)

[AKmusic]

removed...

I'll try again tomorrow.

[Willie Poole]

Just try and name one "New Bluegrass" song that has made a great impression and is still being played on a regular basis like "Cabin Home on The Hill", "BlueMoon Of Kentucky" etc...Just like country music songs don`t stay around more than six weeks, I remember when the #1 country song " Slowly" by Webb Pierce, stayed on the hit parade for over a year...Not any more....

As far as defining bluegrass it is what I would expect to hear being played if I just happened to come across a cabin in the mountains after dinner and the family was sitting around entertaining them selves with their music, sort of like The Stanley Bros did when they were living back in the hills....I know it when I hear ir and this new stuff ain`t it...Thats my opinion and it won`t change as long as I`m alive, a die hard? You betcha....

Come on in 300 Win, I need some help....

Willie

[huckfinnigan]

The younger fans share different perspective than older fans. Younger fans hear different tonality because of the influence of the world they live in. Older fans hear trad sounds because of the world their from. Truegrass, newgrass, tradgrass, oldtime.....its all relative....

Realize though that the music was started as a fusion and continues to be so. From "Cant you here me callin", the music was started as a fusion from uncle's pens furious gypsy fiddling and schultz's finger pickin blues.

Although some wish to not facilitate change, it was evolution that produced the "trad" style in the first place. Therefore, in the spirit of Chris, it would be a hinderance to the development of the sound to resist or differentiate between the facets. All for one, one for all!

[Mike Bunting]

Just try and name one "New Bluegrass" song that has made a great impression and is still being played on a regular basis like "Cabin Home on The Hill", "BlueMoon Of Kentucky" etc...Just like country music songs don`t stay around more than six weeks, I remember when the #1 country song " Slowly" by Webb Pierce, stayed on the hit parade for over a year...Not any more....

As far as defining bluegrass it is what I would expect to hear being played if I just happened to come across a cabin in the mountains after dinner and the family was sitting around entertaining them selves with their music, sort of like The Stanley Bros did when they were living back in the hills....I know it when I hear ir and this new stuff ain`t it...Thats my opinion and it won`t change as long as I`m alive, a die hard? You betcha....

Come on in 300 Win, I need some help....

Willie

As far as what you prefer to hear,....me too. But that's not a definition. I don't know why I'm posting, just to amuse myself I guess. As I said before, this is a pointless discussion to me, people can call stuff whatever they want, I just listen to whatever music interests me. Of course, I only listen to good music. (250sc, that's a joke).

[250sc]

:-)

[draino]

Just try and name one "New Bluegrass" song that has made a great impression and is still being played on a regular basis like "Cabin Home on The Hill", "BlueMoon Of Kentucky" etc...Just like country music songs don`t stay around more than six weeks, I remember when the #1 country song " Slowly" by Webb Pierce, stayed on the hit parade for over a year...Not any more....

This is kind of a meaningless measure, though. Back in the 40s and 50s the number of recorded tunes released each year in ALL genres was less than the recorded tunes in any single genre today in a month.

[Mike Bunting]

This is kind of a meaningless measure, though. Back in the 40s and 50s the number of recorded tunes released each year in ALL genres was less than the recorded tunes in any single genre today in a month.

And of course it wasn't subject to the musical corporate machine lowering everything to the lowest common denominator in order to sell more "units".