Mixed Feelings...

[Tom Coletti]

Hello, everyone and all,

I've been on the Cafe forum for a while now, but I haven't made many posts on here because, well, I'm very hesitant to voice certain opinions at the risk of being bombarded by ad hominems and blatant ignorance from both sides. As much as I've seen a lot of great resources and great people, there's always this lingering discomfort every time I log in.

I have seen numerous threads like this one that have been closed due to trolling, bickering, and personal attacks, and I do not wish for this thread to end up like the others.

If you have strong opinions one way or the other, then I am kindly asking for you to pass this thread by, as your views are unlikely to change in the wake of what I have to say. I'd like to keep the discussion here to those in the middle ground and specifically to the topic at hand, not bringing in other topics or points of concern as a means of derailing the thread.

Okay, here's the point...

I have mixed--very mixed--feelings about Bill Monroe's mandolin playing. Not the person, just his playing. I am not trolling, I do not intend to come off as a troll, and I do not wish to be labeled as a troll simply because my preferences may be starkly different to those of many on the forum.

On one hand, Southern Flavor is one of my favorite tunes to play. I play the lead very differently from Monroe's way of playing it, but the melody and chord progression of the B part are always where I can have a blast devising new melodic runs.

On the other, though, I just find most of his playing to be sort of "sloppy choppy," too thin, staccato, and, well, just messy for my own personal tastes. I could continue about how I also feel that his playing was somewhat limited in scope, but I digress. I don't want this to become a derailment where we just make petty comparisons.

Nor am I undermining his role in the kick-starting of a genre, but sometimes I feel like the legend oversteps the performance and people discredit other mandolinists because of the old "That is not how Bill would have done it" mentality.

(Warning: Tangential Analogy; I swear this is not a derailment, but firmly planted on the rails--literally--for the time being. It will hopefully make sense in the end.)

Richard Trevithick invented the steam locomotive in 1804, which was a huge technological advancement over horse-and-carriage, but others improved on the design: made it stronger, faster, more efficient, and by the time Lima Locomotive works was cranking out large Alleghenies and Northerns and Berkshires, the steam engine had evolved into something that nobody could have ever imagined or foreseen. The new engines weren't the same as the old ones, but by no means were they worse: They still had the same timeless, untamed elegance to them, the same breath of fire and soot that captivates the mind, but with better control of that incredible power.

And then there's diesels. The fans of steam will fuss and complain of their lifelessness and too-pristine nature, but a locomotive is a locomotive. Diesels are different, yes, but still another evolution and improvement: even more efficiency and focus, with a sleek, stealthy swiftness, a fearsome subtlety to them, gliding effortlessly when a steam locomotive would require twice as much work and maintenance to keep up. They simply operate by different means, but they accomplish the same task as steam. You can argue that you prefer the earthy aesthetics of steam, but it would be neglectful to claim that a graceful, vividly-painted diesel can't be beautiful as well.

Nobody ever forgets the influence of Trevithick's 1804 engine, but when they compare the technical capabilities of the locomotives from a century or two centuries later, they admit that the new locomotives do provide service that Trevithick's engine could not match. They didn't claim "Trevithick's engine is the ONLY engine design that we will use because it was the first and most influential," when in fact, James Watt's steam technology from decades before laid the foundation for the application in transport, and Robert Stephenson's "Rocket" locomotive of 1829 is what most would consider the actual blueprint of the modern steam locomotive.

Railroading would have stagnated, not evolved, and it would have been lost forever, a dead and decrepit technology that refused to adapt to the world around it. But they didn't completely disregard Trevithick's engine and never mention it again, though; a replica still runs so that those who can appreciate the earlier, unrefined, imperfect-yet-daring contraption can see it in action, standing as a testament to how far we've come since then.

I feel like that's my attitude towards Bill Monroe: a bit antiquated like Trevithick's engine, but someone that can be admired in context. I don't completely disregard him, but I evaluate pros and cons. I still respect him for being one of the early contributors in the long evolutionary process that created the music known as Bluegrass (along with those who came before him in Scottish/Irish/Appalachian/African traditional music and those who came after him), and I am partial to a few tunes, but I acknowledge that it wasn't a one-man accomplishment overnight and his ability left something to be desired; it was something that could be improved upon, a seed that needed to take root and grow, and others had since used a cleaner, more articulate tone and different musical perspectives to take Bluegrass mandolin to new heights and different branches of sound.

Bluegrass is built on innovation and diversity, so let us not limit its scope or association. I am a fan of everything from Irish Reels to Punch Brothers and all in-between. I do have preferences, but I try not to belittle or over-compensate unfairly. Nobody is too small to be praised, and nobody is too big to be criticized, not even Bill.

I have comfort zones, but I seek out something new and foreign to keep the experience fresh and exciting. Everyone has had an equal share in finding their wavelength in the broad spectrum of Bluegrass, and if you limit yourself to only a small range of light, then you may not see it shine.

Cheers,

--Tom

[Ray Neuman]

Well Tom.....congrats on your bravery! As I have often been tempted to post a comment, or opinion, but hesitated due to the tigers in the wings waiting to chew off a leg.

I for one will agree with you, as I find little of the legends playing to be pleasing to me. BUT, as you said, his influence can not be disputed. My personal preference (and yes, my opinion must be held in the depth of regard and consideration that I have NOT influenced....well....anything!) for mandolin playing is substantially different. So, life is good, we are all different, and I am indeed "different". (I even use FENDER picks!!!!!!!)

[dusty miller]

Edit, Nevermind

[Mike Bunting]

You post is just fine to me, everyone has their tastes. And this from a severe Monroe fan! I really like the rough hewn sounds coming from the old guys, whether it's bluegrass, blues or country or whatever.

[mrmando]

If you like your mandolin playing squeaky clean through state-of-the-art ribbon mics with compression, Bill Monroe is not your man.

Where your argument goes off the rails, to use your own analogy, is that you chalk the way Monroe played up to a lack of ability. Pshaw. Monroe had his own style; either you like it or you don't; but to play the way he did requires a tremendous amount of ability. It's just as difficult to master as any other style.

David Grisman and Andy Statman are two mandolinists who have indeed mastered Monroe-style mandolin, but choose to play primarily in other styles. I guess you should ask them whether Monroe style requires any less ability than the other things they do.

[Tobin]

Wow, um, that first post was borderline tl;dr. But assuming I get the gist of it, I agree. The Monroe legacy cannot be disputed. And even though I find myself enjoying listening to his playing, it's often a little too sloppy-choppy for me too. Of course, I fully realize and admit that I'm hearing it from an entirely different perspective than it was heard back then. We have a lot of talented people who built on his legacy and took it to new levels, but it's not quite fair to compare the two. His style and contribution to this genre of music was brilliant for what it was.

It's funny, though, that you bring this up at the same time I've been pondering a similar issue. I think today's generation doesn't really understand music (I'm speaking of "the masses", not those of us who actually play music). They are used to being spoon-fed music from the big recording industry which sanitizes everything and exaggerates it beyond realistic expectations. The average person on the street may hear someone playing live music and think it sounds awful, because all he has to compare it to is what the industry is spoon-feeding him.

The truth is, even great players make mistakes and play a bit sloppy sometimes. Bill Monroe's style was never intended to be a statement of perfection like you'd expect from a classical orchestra performer, or even a modern professional who was trained in mandolin playing from a young age. Bill's journey into this music came from good old home-style picking where the heart and soul of the music was about so much more than just the execution. It's really hard to put into words, but I hope you know what I mean. We as pickers can always strive for perfection in our technique, or focus on the minutia of performing, but to do so may cause us to miss the entire point of playing. Or, perhaps, it causes us to ignore the soul of the music.

Bill's playing wasn't perfect by today's standards. But boy, did it have soul.

[Jesse Harmon]

Well I loved your Tangential Analogy! I have to admit that growing up in the era that saw the diesel overtake the steam engine I had trouble thinking that diesel honk was an improvement over the "lonesome whistle" that came from the awesome beauty of the steam engine. I can't say that the analogy quite works for me but I agree with what you seem to say about these "holy areas" of music that can't be discussed without rancor.

[almeriastrings]

Taste is a funny thing. We all have our preferences. They can often be at polar opposites. That's OK. Would be very boring if we all liked the same thing. I find Monroe's playing exiting, original and hugely creative yet steeped in history and tradition, and incredibly powerful. It touches the soul. It's REAL. I can listen to his stuff for hours on end, and I'm always hearing something new there... not to highlight any specific artists but some you mention there, well... I have a hard time bothering to listen to their stuff more than once and usually turn it off after a few minutes. Leaves me stone cold. Touches absolutely nothing.

[sgarrity]

I'm certainly not in the middle of the road on this topic, so you probably don't want me to comment. But..................Monroe's music is rooted deeply in the blues. It is meant to be felt deep in your soul. It stirs emotion. It was not meant to dazzle people with technical brilliance. He painted the melody with a broad brush. Some people like the style, some people don't. Variety is what makes the world go 'round. But if you think Monroe-style playing and/or his music is limited in scope........I'd suggest you listen more and harder and then try to play some of it. There is a lot of nuance in his playing that is extremely hard if not impossible to duplicate. And his style of playing works in almost any genre of music.

[OldSausage]

In a way, he was punk long before punk. Saying Bill wasn't that great with the mando is like saying Johnny Rotten was a lousy vocalist compared to Celine Dion - it sort of misses the point completely.

[Mike Bunting]

Taste is a funny thing. We all have our preferences. They can often be at polar opposites. That's OK. Would be very boring if we all liked the same thing. I find Monroe's playing exiting, original and hugely creative yet steeped in history and tradition, and incredibly powerful. It touches the soul. It's REAL. I can listen to his stuff for hours on end, and I'm always hearing something new there... not to highlight any specific artists but some you mention there, well... I have a hard time bothering to listen to their stuff more than once and usually turn it off after a few minutes. Leaves me stone cold. Touches absolutely nothing.

I really like how the "true" songs are exactly that, true and real. Letter from my Darlin' e.g. When Bess left him. You can tell from the song just how ripped he was about it.

[shortymack]

Im not very educated on engines but one thing I know, light dont shine at night. If you dont like Monroes style thinking its too sloppy or whatever, thats fine. Theres no "you HAVE to love Bill or play his tunes to call yourself a BG'er" rule of thumb anywhere but one can not take away any of his accomplishments and/or genre creating influences. The man was a pioneer and deserves the accolades and as mentioned, his style is extremely hard to replicate. I personally think his raw style is great as well, not worrying about every note being played perfectly like many top players do today. It was more about the feel and vibe which is what transcended it into the ground breaking area IMO. OS hit in on the head, he was punk before there ever was punk. Music is so much more than a correctly fretted ringing note.

[Mike Bunting]

Just to reiterate, in spite of all of us Monrovians (ites?) jumping in, no one is dissing you for having different tastes.

[stevedenver]

ill play,
and I agree with your feelings some here are .....testy...

And oh, btw, I love trains !!
I also love the present, as rooted in the past, but NOT the past for it's own sake. These are the goodall days!

I agree I think Bill was sloppy was just noticing this yesterday listening to Kentucky mandolin.

And, from my reading, bits and pieces, hearsay, tales from those who knew him, or worked with him, and other information, I also think, I might not have liked him as a person, (which is irrelevant to the music, but can still create a bias). I also don't agree that he alone was solely responsible for the BG genre, yet that seems to be something he has claimed.

What has enticed my love of mandolin, has been Grisman, Bush, Flinner, Thiele, Reischmann. I think while I like bluegrass, I love expansion of the instrument's breadth. In fact, I find I love the mandolin voice especially for jazz and gypsy, pop, and rock, although it seems as of late, mando is trendy or 'hip' like uke. IMHO, we are in a second golden age of music and cross over and experimentation not seen since the sixties.

I put this to you, from my own history, sometimes one changes in taste. I am not hardcore bluegrass, in fact, not at all.
When I first learned to love blues, I needed something more 'evolved' before my ears were able to appreciate raw original forms.
I listen to a lot of BG, new and old, because I'm playing it in my band.

Sloppy now, may later be found to be .....expressive later in your listening life. Perish the comparison, but Jimmy Page is also sloppy, yet, so expressive, to me, over other more polished technicians. So is Son House.

I think, too, that there is a cultural, historical, traditional, sociological, (political ?) almost nostalgic aspect to bluegrass as roots American music, that I currently, don't hold as a priority. I think there is enough of this around to rightfully make you leery in commenting. I have read some scathing posts on youtube about modern versions of bluegrass tunes simply because they are not imitative of the original. Some hold things sacred, and seemingly have no ability to depart from what they believe is 'pure'.

[Frank Farley]

When I first started picking about 30 years ago my Grandfather was a huge fan of Bill.He lived just a few minutes from Beanblossom,and wouldn't miss any of Bill's shows.When we would get together he would mention Bill's picking all the time and I just couldn't understand how anybody could be that crazy about his playing.I didn't fully appreciate how talented he was until I started trying to imitate his licks and tunes( still can't do it).I really like a lot of other pickers as well,but Bill is my personal favorite.

[MikeEdgerton]

Over the years there have been several threads like this, you're not in uncharted territory.

[mrmando]

Over the years there have been several threads like this, you're not in uncharted territory.

Which isn't to say it ain't dangerous.

[Charles E.]

I absolutly love Bills playing on the Bluebird recordings with brother Charlie. It was full of life. I never listened to much of his later stuff as I was more into Old Time and swing but you can't deny he was a pioneer in the country music world. When I heard recordings by Dave Apollon for the first time, I thought "how is this guy not more famous then Bill?"

[little george]

Well, that´s also one of the reasons I´m leaving away the banjo and spending my time with the mando. Mado players are much more gentle and tolerant. Go to banjo hangout, say something similar about Scrugss, and you´ll we crucified a hundred times in the first ten answers...

Anyway, it´s your mando, play as you like it

[belbein]

It's funny, though, that you bring this up at the same time I've been pondering a similar issue. I think today's generation doesn't really understand music (I'm speaking of "the masses", not those of us who actually play music). They are used to being spoon-fed music from the big recording industry which sanitizes everything and exaggerates it beyond realistic expectations. The average person on the street may hear someone playing live music and think it sounds awful, because all he has to compare it to is what the industry is spoon-feeding him.

The truth is, even great players make mistakes and play a bit sloppy sometimes.

About a year ago I posted a very similar thought. Needless to say, I agree with you. However, as I recall, the assembled Café dwellers disagreed, vociferously.

To the OP: your opinion isn't right or wrong. It's an artistic vision. Go with it. (And by the way, I too hate "That's not the way X did it." I don't care what X did, unless I want to play just like X, which I don't [uh, ok, "can't"].)

[Tom Coletti]

"I'd suggest you listen more and harder and then try to play some of it."

Sheesh, Shaun, I'll admit that I'm a pretty godawful player myself, but there's no need to go there. It's not that I haven't listened hard enough; I've sampled many tracks over the last four years... some I like, some I don't, as I've already said. I've already mentioned that I can appreciate him. I'm not obligated to appreciate him more, just as you're not obligated to appreciate him less.

What irks me more is all this talk of "real" and "soul" and "true." There is no "fake" or "false" music, for starts. That's incredibly snobbish to claim that any sub-genre of music that you don't like is somehow illegitimate. I never, ever, ever, said that Bill Monroe's playing wasn't "music" or that he wasn't a "musician." I may not prefer it over others, but it is still music. EVERYTHING is music, or NOTHING is. And "soul?" Chris Thile, Sam Bush, Bill Monroe, Mike Marshall, etc., ALL play with soul. They're passionate about the music that they make, therefore they all play with soul. They all play REAL music. Their music is all TRUE.

Please don't label "technical ability" as a "lack of soul," because that's not what this thread should be arguing and it can't be farther from the truth.

And another thing: being raised in hardship and being kinda bummed out about stuff doesn't make you a good musician. Playing music that people can appreciate makes you a good musician.

--Tom

[OldSausage]

So, what SHOULD this thread be arguing about, because I'm just not getting it.

[stevedenver]

Tom
I read Shaun's post not as "you try it"
in your face,

but rather,
by trying it, as a player,
one might be more aware of technical subtleties in BMs playing, which to me is indeed relevant, not as to sloppiness, but as to something to be aware of via playing and attempting to imitate the style.

I think this is a great observation. By trying to play covers like Gilmour, or Page, Wes Montgomery, etc., on guitar, it is a huge tool to improve ones ear and chops.

It emphasizes attention to detail sometimes I only 'get' after I try to sound just the same. It doesn't change my opinion or lack of opinion for the sound/,music, but only that I might understand it more deeply in some aspect.

Fer 'zample, if I want to try to sound a bit more BMish-i pick harder and closer to the bridge for that percussive attack plink cut sound, pick perpendicular to the strings. So, I think this is one more aspect of analyzing the music, and I think that was the point Shaun was trying to make.

None of this, btw, is meant as a challenge or defense of any thing or to anyone, or to offend .

[AlanN]

We learn from our forebears

[DataNick]

"I'd suggest you listen more and harder and then try to play some of it."

Sheesh, Shaun, I'll admit that I'm a pretty godawful player myself, but there's no need to go there. It's not that I haven't listened hard enough; I've sampled many tracks over the last four years... some I like, some I don't, as I've already said. I've already mentioned that I can appreciate him. I'm not obligated to appreciate him more, just as you're not obligated to appreciate him less.

What irks me more is all this talk of "real" and "soul" and "true." There is no "fake" or "false" music, for starts. That's incredibly snobbish to claim that any sub-genre of music that you don't like is somehow illegitimate. I never, ever, ever, said that Bill Monroe's playing wasn't "music" or that he wasn't a "musician." I may not prefer it over others, but it is still music. EVERYTHING is music, or NOTHING is. And "soul?" Chris Thile, Sam Bush, Bill Monroe, Mike Marshall, etc., ALL play with soul. They're passionate about the music that they make, therefore they all play with soul. They all play REAL music. Their music is all TRUE.

Please don't label "technical ability" as a "lack of soul," because that's not what this thread should be arguing and it can't be farther from the truth.

And another thing: being raised in hardship and being kinda bummed out about stuff doesn't make you a good musician. Playing music that people can appreciate makes you a good musician.

--Tom

Tom,

When I was "older then, I'm younger than that now"; I used to feel somewhat like you that Mr. Monroe's playing was somewhat choppy. Then I started listening/watching YouTube videos from different time eras and I have realized (in my opinion) that the man was as clean as he wanted to be; and he could play extemely "clean" if he wanted to. Also it appears that later in life his playing focused more on selective notes in melodies versus the whole melody. When Bill Monroe played a fiddle tune for example on the mandolin, he didn't play a note for note sheet music rendering; he played more for a particular style/feeling.

I'm inserting a couple of examples: the beginning to "Roanoke" is as fast and "clean" as I'd want to hear/be.



Kentucky Mandolin shows some real top notch playing as well.



No problem with having your own opinion, that's what makes life interesting.

The more of Bill Monroe's playing I hear, the more I appreciate it; and I would say that perhaps he wasn't a Dave Apollon technician in ability, but that's not what he was after either.

Keep communicating Bro!