I joined the Virginia Folk Music Association and found that it is almost exclusively dedicated to hard core bluegrass with a little bit of country thrown in. I would really dispute the fact that bluegrass falls under the category of "Virginia Folk" music. I would have thought more of the old ballads (like in the Texas Gladden collection) for example. But they don't seem to question the fact that bluegrass is "folk". I do enjoy bluegrass is measured doses but I went to one of their festivals and it was all bluegrass, hardcore (no "Newgrass") and after 8 hours I've had my bluegrass "fix" for the year. I entered one of the vocal contests and did "John Henry" accompanied by an old timey banjo and I think they thought I was some kind of eccentric. I can't imagine how they'd have reacted if I'd sung unnaccompanied like some of the old mountain singers!

I would certainly agree that one of the major differences is that in bluegrass the words are very secondary, whereas in folk the words are the main focus. That stylized bluegrass singing just glosses over the words and the songs seem to lose their meaning. I have a collection where "Rain and Snow" is sung unaccompanied. It is so powerful it sent chills up my spine. In bluegrass you get none of that impact - it's just another song. I do appreciate the instrumental talent that exists in the bluegrass arena but have to say that I think in many cases speed seems to be everything.

Judging from the impression I had of most Bluegrass audiences I don't think most of them would be very amenable to any kind of "protest" song!